Shopping for First Airplane Cherokee vs Arrow vs Mooney
Darrell or Larissa
I'm a low time (~65 Hrs, increasing weekly) private pilot looking for my
first airplane. I need a plane that will carry 2 adults and 1 child, plus
we're planning a 2nd child. IFR certified so I can work on that rating.
Most family flying will be short trips of 150 - 300 miles plus some practice
and recreational flying on my part. I trained first in a 172 then changed
instructors and finished in a Warrior. I prefer the Warrior, but want a
slightly bigger, faster airplane. I was looking at Cherokee 180's, and
planning to spend arraign $40K. Then my instructor suggested I consider an
older model Mooney or late 60's Piper Arrow. Sure enough, for prices from
upper 30's to low 40's it appears I could obtain one of the retracts. My
major concern is not getting into too much airplane, which my former
instructor suggests shouldn't be a problem for me with the 180-200 hp Arrow
or Mooney. He helped another student of his find a 66 Mooney C, gave him
about 15 hours instruction, and that pilot reports feeling comfortable, and
loves the speed. I like the idea of a faster plane, but would like some
feedback. What do you think?
Michael Hardy
Here is the article from the Houston Chronicle about the "crash" at Boeing
Field.
((http://www.chron.com/cgi-bin/auth/story.mpl/content/chronicle/nation/98/04/10/plane.html
Pilot's commute to Seattle job was hanging by a wheel, 60 feet up
By GEORGE TIBBITS
Associated Press
SEATTLE -- Mike Warren got hung up on
his way to work Thursday.
Warren, who commutes to work by air,
got his small plane tangled in
power lines and dangled upside-down
by one wheel, 60 feet above a
highway, for nearly four hours before
firefighters in a cherry-picker
brought him down.
"I thought that somebody was looking
after me. I wasn't going to look a
gift horse in the mouth," said
Warren, who added that there was no sense
fretting because "you've got two
options -- it's going to hang here or it's
not going to hang here."
Warren, 47, was whisked away for
hospital tests and released hours later
with only bruises across his lap from
hanging in his seat belt.
Warren, a crane operator, got stuck
while trying to land at Boeing Field
just south of Seattle after his
commute across Puget Sound from Apex
Airport near his home of Silverdale.
The aircraft hung there like a model
airplane in a dogfight position from
the ceiling of a boy's bedroom.
Crane operators retrieved Warren's
Cessna 150L shortly after his rescue,
setting the 1,300-pound plane down on
its landing gear.
"He was more concerned about his
airplane than he was about himself,"
Tukwila Fire Lt. Dave Ewing said,
adding that the rescue "was a fun one
to do."
The National Transportation Safety
Board said it was investigating the
accident.
Warren said he was about 20 feet off
the runway during a routine landing
when his two-seat plane was suddenly
tossed to the left by a violent
pocket of turbulent air left behind
by a departing aircraft.
Warren said he gave the plane full
power and tried to fly out of the
danger, but his turning radius was
limited because of the nearby control
tower and he struck the power lines.
Sparks flew and the plane flipped,
but the impact was actually light and
springy, Warren said. He was worried
for about 30 seconds, but then
realized the plane wasn't going to
tumble.
Warren said he radioed the tower,
saying, "I think I have a situation here.
The lady called back and said, `Yeah,
you're hanging by one wheel.' "
Warren, who has been flying since
1981, said he talked to the tower and
tried not to move during the rescue.
Power to the lines was turned off,
leaving about 2,500 homes and
businesses without electricity for an
hour or two.
Foam was sprayed on the road as a
precaution. Rescuers placed two
cranes underneath the aircraft and
attached straps to stabilize the plane. A
fire truck then maneuvered the
cherry-picker close to the cockpit.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
BY THE WAY,
Can anyone recommend a nice/preferred VFR route to fly to Boeing
Field from Corvallis, Oregon (CVO) or Portland, OR (PDX) and the preferred
altitudes. I am thinking about <KCVO CVO V495 UBG OLM BFI> AT 8500 OR
6500. I think it would be easier to get into Boeing Field from the west
side instead of following the highways to the east, and staying clear from
SEA-TAC. Thanks in advance
Scott Hardy
OSU Flying Club
Ignacio Romero
I own an Arrow and I wouldn't think it will be a problem for anybody to fly,
it flies just as the Warrior but heavier. Very nice to fly.
I'm not so sure about the Mooneys however, they are great planes but they
tend to be a little more nervous than the Arrow.
BUT I'm not really familiar with them so you might as well get some opinions
on the Mooneys from people who fly them.
Darrell or Larissa wrote in message <6gk2gb$4mo$1...@viper.america.net>...
Harry Shin
It occurred to me that Mr. Warren (the C-150 pilot) may be a candidate for
aircraft carrier operations. As near as I could tell from the newspaper
photos, he was successful in hooking the third wire. He also demonstrated
the "right stuff" by showing more concern for his aircraft than his own
personal safety. It is my understanding that Navy pilots must go through
many hours of training before they even try an arrested landing and Mr.
Warren nails it on the first try!
Harry Shin
Citabria N5064K, Sonerai I 'a building
Brad Benson
"Darrell or Larissa" <las...@accucomm.net> wrote:
] I'm a low time (~65 Hrs, increasing weekly) private pilot looking for my
] first airplane. I need a plane that will carry 2 adults and 1 child, plus
] we're planning a 2nd child. IFR certified so I can work on that rating.
] Most family flying will be short trips of 150 - 300 miles plus some practice
] and recreational flying on my part. I trained first in a 172 then changed
] instructors and finished in a Warrior. I prefer the Warrior, but want a
] slightly bigger, faster airplane. I was looking at Cherokee 180's, and
] planning to spend arraign $40K. Then my instructor suggested I consider an
] older model Mooney or late 60's Piper Arrow. Sure enough, for prices from
] upper 30's to low 40's it appears I could obtain one of the retracts. My
] major concern is not getting into too much airplane, which my former
] instructor suggests shouldn't be a problem for me with the 180-200 hp Arrow
] or Mooney. He helped another student of his find a 66 Mooney C, gave him
] about 15 hours instruction, and that pilot reports feeling comfortable, and
] loves the speed. I like the idea of a faster plane, but would like some
] feedback. What do you think?
I looked for the same kinds of things and ended up looking at '68 and
later Cherokee 180's. Although the Arrows weren't a whole lot more
up front, they seemed to cost a lot more in maintenence and insurance
because of the retracts. I know a guy who finished his private in an
M20C, so it definately can be done.
I then stumbled upon a flying club and it became a no-brainer decision
for me to do that instead.
Cheers,
Brad
replace "spamtrap" with "benson" in my reply address
George Barbarow
I started in A cherokee 160 and then owned several 180s - The arrow is not
much faster and the additional cost at annual time for constant speed prop
and retractable
gear is accompanied by higher insurance costs. Stay with the fixed gear and
fixed pitch prop for the trips you are planning the extra time is hardly
noticeable.
George in NW NJ
Brad Benson wrote in message <352e2fbb...@news.cds-inc.com>...
Rod Madsen
Darrell or Larissa wrote:
>
> I'm a low time (~65 Hrs, increasing weekly) private pilot looking for my
> first airplane. I need a plane that will carry 2 adults and 1 child, plus
> we're planning a 2nd child. IFR certified so I can work on that rating.
> Most family flying will be short trips of 150 - 300 miles plus some practice
> and recreational flying on my part. I trained first in a 172 then changed
> instructors and finished in a Warrior. I prefer the Warrior, but want a
> slightly bigger, faster airplane. I was looking at Cherokee 180's, and
> planning to spend arraign $40K. Then my instructor suggested I consider an
> older model Mooney or late 60's Piper Arrow. Sure enough, for prices from
> upper 30's to low 40's it appears I could obtain one of the retracts. My
> major concern is not getting into too much airplane, which my former
> instructor suggests shouldn't be a problem for me with the 180-200 hp Arrow
> or Mooney. He helped another student of his find a 66 Mooney C, gave him
> about 15 hours instruction, and that pilot reports feeling comfortable, and
> loves the speed. I like the idea of a faster plane, but would like some
> feedback. What do you think?
You're making me cry reciting those prices. I sold a 1969 Arrow for
$18,000 in 1975! I was moving from Pennsylvania to Los Angeles and
didn't think flying would be that much fun in the congetion. Plus, in
those days we thought the end of the flying world was coming with
dramatically increasing cost and regulations. I shoulda' kept it.
I think the Arrow is a fine choice for a family of twom addults and two
children, which was my situation. However, I was enamoured of a plane
with retractable gear, constant speed prop., and lots of IFR goodies.
I'm not sure it is the most economic decision. The 180 is not that much
slower and eliminates a LOT of sophistication and complication. I never
had any problems, but figure I was lucky.
Bottom line: Buy the Arrow/Moony if you will enjoy it. Don't feel like
you lost much if you go for the 180. We don't own airplanes because
they're economic. We own them because we WANT to.
Rod
TALLMAN
Darrell or Larissa wrote:
>
> I'm a low time (~65 Hrs, increasing weekly) private pilot looking for > my first airplane. I need a plane that will carry 2 adults and 1 > child, plus we're planning a 2nd child. IFR certified so I can work > on that rating.
I flew the M2OJ about six years ago while earning my Inst. and Comm.
The best was when I was assigned the newest one of the litter, with
only 40 hours on the Hobbs.
The Mooney is the only plane I've been in that feels like
I'm sitting in a race car. Not much room side-to-side. Plenty of leg
room up front. Larger passengers will hate the back seat, especially
when the weather calls for hot and sticky. I recall that soft-field
landings were a little difficult, but mostly when doing them on an
actual "soft" field. It takes a lot of back pressure and way too
much goofing around with the trim. The trim, by the way, seems to be
located right next to everbody's butt.
Landings were awesome. I never could understand how an aircraft with
such a stumpy undercarriage could land so smoothly. Someone wrote
that handling is squirrely. I disagree, but some are used to the
truck-like characteristics of the small Pipers, I guess.
I thought the useful load was the best at over 1000# for that
particular plane. Range was 680NM plus, useable fuel 422#, and
normal cruise at just over 170 KTAS.
The older Mooneys seem to be a little more boxey, and I'm not
sure when they introduced the laminar flow wing. Something about
corrosion at the aileron hinges attaching to the spar. I don't
remember who had a problem with what. And the landing gear was electric
with a jackscrew and actuating motor. I hear it can take a lot of abuse
compared to hydraulic systems.
I know one guy who bought his own plane to get his training in.
If I had known better, I would have done the same in a minute.
Paul Lawrence Hamilton
Why do you call it a "crash" ? More like a "sproing"!
Paul Lawrence Hamilton, WWW.METROFLIGHT.W1.COM
Samis & Hamilton
Airport and Aviation Consultants
(301) 299-3573
Mark Mallory
: The National Transportation Safety Board said it was investigating the
: routine landing when his two-seat plane was suddenly tossed to the left
: by a violent pocket of turbulent air left behind by a departing aircraft.
Sounds scary. Anyone have any info on the "departing aircraft"; what
type was it (assume an airliner), how long before the accident did it take
off, ect?
There was also a mention in another thread that the '152 had travelled
6000 feet down the runway without landing before the accident happened.
Wonder if that's really correct? (It would certainly put him in harm's
way of the wake from a just-departed large aircraft.)
Bill
>"Darrell or Larissa" <las...@accucomm.net> wrote:
>
>] I'm a low time (~65 Hrs, increasing weekly) private pilot looking for my
>] first airplane. I need a plane that will carry 2 adults and 1 child, plus
>] we're planning a 2nd child.
>
Owning a '69 Cherokee 140/160 and having had 2 adults and 2 young
children in it, I'd recommend the 180 instead. If you can afford it,
the ones from '73 on had a few inches more leg room for the
backseaters. The retract is neat, but costs more in insurance and
maintenance. Feel free to e-mail me.
Business Bst Technology Dept
: : The National Transportation Safety Board said it was investigating the
: : routine landing when his two-seat plane was suddenly tossed to the left
: : by a violent pocket of turbulent air left behind by a departing aircraft.
Mark Mallory (mmal...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Sounds scary. Anyone have any info on the "departing aircraft"; what
: type was it (assume an airliner), how long before the accident did it take
: off, ect?....
It was a 19 pax commuter..sorry, don't recall the
specifics on the a/c. I don't remember if they
mentioned time lag between the two planes. None-
theless, this low-time VFR pilot would ask: wouldn't
the pilot of the Cessna see fit to exercise due
caution and land behind the point of rotation?
ray-
rd...@spl.org << direct personal email to <<<
47* 34'N 122* 18'W
C. Marin Faure
In article <352f9...@news.wln.com>, b...@rs6a.wln.com (Business Bst
Technology Dept) wrote:
According to the paper, which doesn't mean it's correct, the twin-engine
Beechcraft, if that's what it really was, departed BFI about 10 minutes
prior to the arrival of the Cessna 150.
C. Marin Faure
author, Flying A Floatplane
Darren Eccles
I saw on the news that the only two aircraft to land in front of the 150
was a Beech CB-8 or something like that, it looked like an Electra from
Casablanca. Also a Beech 1900 landed in front of him. I don't if these
A/C can create the wake turb bad enough to cause a 150 to vear off course
that much. I do know that there is a hill about 3/4 mi. to the east and
about 200' above the airport. I fly into this airport quiet allot but
unless there was a pretty good wind from the east I don't see that cause it
either. But trub is funny, just today I flew through a minnie wind shear
while turning base, next thing I knew I was level with about a 1000' foot
sink rate, a real eye opener.
Darren
C. Marin Faure <fau...@halcyon.com> wrote in article
<faurecm-1104...@blv-pm102-ip11.halcyon.com>...
C. Marin Faure
In article <mmalloryE...@netcom.com>, mmal...@netcom.com (Mark
Mallory) wrote:
> : The National Transportation Safety Board said it was investigating the
> : accident. Warren said he was about 20 feet off the runway during a
> : routine landing when his two-seat plane was suddenly tossed to the left
> : by a violent pocket of turbulent air left behind by a departing aircraft.
>
> Sounds scary. Anyone have any info on the "departing aircraft"; what
> type was it (assume an airliner), how long before the accident did it take
> off, ect?
The only airplanes in motion at BFI were a couple of twins, a 19 passenger
something and possibly a Twin Beech. There was a fair amount of time- 5
to 10 minutes- between the arrival or departure of the twins and the
arrival of the Cessna 150. No heavy, or even not-so-heavy jets were in
operation before the arrival of the Cessna.
Tom G.
Check out my web page. I just added a small section with a few photographs from
this accident.
Tom
http://www.wolfenet.com/~tegwilym
nightjar
C. Marin Faure <fau...@halcyon.com> wrote in article
<faurecm-1204...@blv-pm101-ip8.halcyon.com>...
> .... There was a fair amount of time- 5
> to 10 minutes- between the arrival or departure of the twins and the
> arrival of the Cessna 150. No heavy, or even not-so-heavy jets were in
> operation before the arrival of the Cessna.
>
In a recent accident in the UK an Antonov AN-2 created enough wake
turbulence to flip a Robin DR220A over. Both are catagorised as Light but
the AN-2 is about 7 times heavier than the Robin. In this case though, the
Robin started its take-off roll only very shortly after the Antonov took
off and lifted off further down the runway.
Colin Bignell
Jerry Kurata
If you are not going to fly a lot, then maybe the Cherokee with fixed gear
and prop is a better choice. One factor I had not considered when I got my
plan ast year was that insurance companies do not want to insure low time
retract pilots. I had about 250 hours and 30 hours in retracts (exact same
make and model as the plane I bought), and only 2 of the 5 companies would
even consider ginving me insurance. AOPA service would not touch me because
I had less than 100 hours of retract. Others did not state a reason, but
declined to send in a bid.
Personally, I like the Cherokee over the Mooney. Cherokee is nice and
simple and bigger inside, especially in the back seat. As long as you fly
150 miles or so, the spped difference is probably not going to matter.
Longer than that and the Monney's speed will be a factor. 300 miles in a
Cherokee is a big trip.
Jerry
tsi...@us.ibm.com.remove-me
In <352E5C...@ix.netcom.com>, Rod Madsen <RMA...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> I'm a low time (~65 Hrs, increasing weekly) private pilot looking for my
>> first airplane. I need a plane that will carry 2 adults and 1 child, plus
>> and recreational flying on my part. I trained first in a 172 then changed
>> instructors and finished in a Warrior. I prefer the Warrior, but want a
>> slightly bigger, faster airplane. I was looking at Cherokee 180's, and
>> planning to spend arraign $40K. Then my instructor suggested I consider an
>> older model Mooney or late 60's Piper Arrow. Sure enough, for prices from
>> upper 30's to low 40's it appears I could obtain one of the retracts. My
>> major concern is not getting into too much airplane, which my former
>> instructor suggests shouldn't be a problem for me with the 180-200 hp Arrow
>> or Mooney. He helped another student of his find a 66 Mooney C, gave him
>> about 15 hours instruction, and that pilot reports feeling comfortable, and
>> loves the speed. I like the idea of a faster plane, but would like some
>> feedback. What do you think?
>you lost much if you go for the 180. We don't own airplanes because
>they're economic. We own them because we WANT to.
I agree -- very good advice. For trips of 150 to 300 miles the difference
between an Arrow and a Cherokee 180/Archer is not going to be that dramatic.
Yes, you'll get there a little faster, but there's a pretty big leap up in
terms of complexity, maintenance cost, insurance, etc.
By the way, I'd add the Sundowner (or Sierra, if you're thinking
retractible/constant speed propeller) to your short list. Nice family plane.
Lots of doors, really nice views, very stable, loads of baggage capacity.
Another "sleeper" which you might look at is the Cessna Cardinal, probably
the fixed gear version. Avoid the 1968 model, though.
Don't forget that kids grow up, by the way, so plan accordingly (in terms of
useful load).
-----
Timothy F. Sipples
IBM Network Computing Software (Chicago)
Internet: tsi...@us.ibm.com.REMOVE-ME
WWW: http://www.secant.com/sipples
Beech Sundowner N6546R
Wes Grady
Forget the Mooney, useful load and space is at a premium and will not
suit a growing family.
Consider an older Cherokee 235 or Cherokee 6-260. Lots of room, useful
load and simple to maintain and fly.
With your hours and experience I would stay away from the retracts
unless you have an uncle in the insurance business.
Wes
Louis A. Ramsay
In <01bd66cc$5c278fa0$5183f2c2@default> "nightjar"
Along these same lines, I was following an Aeronca (cant't
remember the designation - tandem seating) in a PA-28 on a morning
similar to the C-152 incident - only I had virtually clear skies and
winds were flat calm. The Aeronca was doing touch-and-gos as was I.
He had just cleared the end of the runway when I lifted off and the
plane started a SERIOUS roll. Full opposite wheel didn't stop the roll
until I was at a very precarious angle and then the recovery was slow.
I would say, given the proper circumstances, vortices from ANY
departing aircraft can pose serious problems.
Lou.
Darrell or Larissa
I just wanted to thank everyone for the feedback. Many useful points were
made.
Now its up to me to weigh in the info, go shopping and for a few demo rides.
Then make a decision. Ease of flight and decreased cost vs. increased cost
and complexity, but more speed. When I finally buy, I'll post to let
everyone know.
The main thing on my mind right now is that any airplane will be better than
no airplane. Darrell
John Clarke
In article <6gu8cp$f...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
Louis A. Ramsay <l.a...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>He had just cleared the end of the runway when I lifted off and the
>plane started a SERIOUS roll. Full opposite wheel didn't stop the roll
>until I was at a very precarious angle and then the recovery was slow.
What do we know about picking up a wing at slow speed? Is aileron
the way to do it?
John
jcl...@nortel.ca
Wes Grady
Could we not refer to this as a "Crash"....
Wes
Dylan Smith
Wes Grady wrote:
>
> Could we not refer to this as a "Crash"....
>
> Wes
That would be good. From the photos, it looked more like a
'twang' than a 'crash'...
--
Email: dy...@vnet.IBM.COM
Dylan Smith 1810 Space Park Drive, Houston, TX 77573
Standard disclaimer applies.
Anti-spam - Change 'r' to raleigh, 'i' to ibm and 'c' to com.
Will Simmons
: What do we know about picking up a wing at slow speed? Is aileron
: the way to do it?
An excellent point, John. A lot of students and low-timers forget this.
The rudder is always the most effective surface at low speed. This is
why it is so critical in a spin as well. Using aileron at really low
speeds and in a spin/stall can get you killed. For instance, in a spin
if you try using aileron opposite to the rotation you are WORSENING the
spin. The reason is the inside wing of a spin is stalled MORE than the
outside. By using opposite aileron you increase the angle of attack of
the inner wing, worsening stall by interrupting the airflow more. Even
worse, the drag created by it is similar to applying rudder into the
direction of the spin, exactly what you do not want to do.
So, what to do. Use RUDDER on takeoff to stay lined up, as you pick up
enough speed and are comfortably climbing at Vy, you may begin to use
more aileron.
In a spin, NEUTRALIZE ailerons (yes this feels very unnatural at first,
but if flying were intuitive we wouldn't need CFIs). Push the yoke/stick
forward to lessen the angle of attack, lessening drag, increasing speed
(aka airflow over the wing). Apply FULL opposite RUDDER to stop the
rotation. Once the rotation stops, begin to pull up. APPLY Full power.
There are slightly differing recovery methods for certain aircraft,
mostly in the timing of these movements. I have found that in most
trainers you can do them all at once. The key is to act quickly and
properly, lest you become a test pilot. With improper technique and aft
CG loads it is very easy to get in a flat, irrecoverable spin or one that
prevents recovery before meeting terra firma.
Will Simmons
: John
: jcl...@nortel.ca
--
******************************************************************************
Will Simmons
simm...@futures.wharton.upenn.edu
http://futures.wharton.upenn.edu/~simmon15 ..few graphics, lots o' web info.
The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania
"Diversification is protection against ignorance. It is of little
value to those who know what they are doing." -Warren Buffet
******************************************************************************
Barney Lum
In article <35339F...@mailzone.com>, Wes Grady <w...@mailzone.com> wrote:
>Could we not refer to this as a "Crash"....
I guess it's more of a snag.
Barney
bishoff
Or having a real hang-up
Tom G.
I once got into the edge of a 757 wake at Boeing Field in a Cessna 182RG.
Scared the crap out of me! I don't
remember any rolling, but we just started bouncing and shaking all over the
place. I shoved the throttle in quickly
to go around and did it a bit too fast, causing the engine to sputter and
hesitate for a few moments before coming
up to full power. Yep, made me respect the invisible death much more! :-)
Tom
http://www.wolfenet.com/~tegwilym
John Clarke wrote:
> In article <6gu8cp$f...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
> Louis A. Ramsay <l.a...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >He had just cleared the end of the runway when I lifted off and the
> >plane started a SERIOUS roll. Full opposite wheel didn't stop the roll
> >until I was at a very precarious angle and then the recovery was slow.
>
> What do we know about picking up a wing at slow speed? Is aileron
> the way to do it?
>
> John
> jcl...@nortel.ca
Chris Durrant
Will Simmons wrote:
>
> So, what to do. Use RUDDER on takeoff to stay lined up, as you pick up
> enough speed and are comfortably climbing at Vy, you may begin to use
> more aileron.
This could produce a wing drop and incipient spin on some aircraft. The
aircraft
should always be flown in balance at low airspeeds ie coordinated
aileron and
rudder - this is what some pilots forget, tending to use ailerons only.
>
> In a spin, NEUTRALIZE ailerons (yes this feels very unnatural at first,
> but if flying were intuitive we wouldn't need CFIs). Push the yoke/stick
> forward to lessen the angle of attack, lessening drag, increasing speed
> (aka airflow over the wing). Apply FULL opposite RUDDER to stop the
> rotation. Once the rotation stops, begin to pull up. APPLY Full power.
Almost - opposite rudder first then forward stick to unstall the wing.
When the
spin stops be quick to centralise the rudder or the spin will reverse.
Please
don't apply full power or you will bust red line for sure. A C150 will
be doing
around 100kts plus in a prompt recovery as well as being steeply nose
down. Power
can wait until the nose is above the horizon and speed back near normal
cruise.
>
Chris
UK CPL and QFI (US=CFII)
Greg Boston
Wes,
Great advise. I just recently talked to a fellow after he pulled up and
tied down his Cherokee-6. Turns out he was selling it, and was there for
the mechanic to do a pre-buy. He was asking high 40's for it. A nice
looking bird. The flight school that I rent planes from had a 235 until
recently. You sure are right about the useful load stuff. I couldn't
believe the 235 had over 800lbs. useful load with a full 80 gallons of
fuel. The Cherokee-6 owner said he could carry 'anything you can get the
doors to close on'.
regards,
-gb-