Upgrading from a Dakota

DesertNomad

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
2,442
Location
Northern NV
Display Name

Display name:
DesertNomad
In the next year or two, I am considering upgrading to something a bit faster and perhaps more capable than my current aircraft.

A bit about my plane and I:

I am in my late 40s, based in Northern Nevada at 4500' MSL, have about 620 hours, and am instrument rated. About 420 of my hours are in my 1979 Piper Dakota and I fly about 110 hours per year. I don't want to go backwards, so for reference, my Dakota's panel consists of: GTN750, GNC255, FlightStream 210, GTX330ES (for 1090 Out), GDL88 (for 978 Out and 1090/978 In), GMA350c, Dual G5s (no vacuum system), JPI830 with fuel flow, STEC-30 with Altitude hold, GPSMAP 496, LED lights including wing wig-wag. New paint, interior and glass in 2010 and a mid-time (900 Hrs) O-540 engine.

My flights include the typical 1-hour, $100 hamburger run at 11-12K MSL, a few longer trips like Reno-Seattle or Reno-Tucson, as well as at least one trip across the USA each year between Reno and Michigan and points beyond. 2016: Bahamas/Cuba, 2017: Michigan, 2018: Florida/Guatemala, and in September we are planning to go to New England. I don't fly at night and I rarely have more than my wife and I on board. Thus, I don't need 6 seats, but I want to be able to easily fill 4 on a hot day at 4500' with full fuel like I can in my Dakota.

The longer trips are a big reason we have the plane. I think if it were faster, I'd do two trips to Michigan each year. My wife has family there and we always seem to turn those trips into much larger trips. We also have family in the Atlanta and Dallas areas so we often end up there on the same trip. We are typically traveling for 4-5 weeks on these trips.

Overall, I average about 142kts ground speed at 11-12K on 12gph which is ok, but I'd like to get somewhere closer to 160-180kts. The shortest runways I routinely fly into are 2300' at sea level and 4000' at about 4000' MSL. I have an 1150-pound useful load (720 left over after full fuel) and 5-hours fuel with 1-hour reserve. I always top off the tanks when I get fuel.

One other issue are the Piper seats. You sit fairly low in a Dakota and the way Piper seats are designed, the back is often pitched back too far with no good way to adjust them. The A36/G36 and Cirrus I have been in, prop you much more upright. This would be much better for my wife's back since she ends up with extra pillows under her and behind her to get the Piper seat into a better position.

Built-in oxygen would be a plus. On the Dakota, the trim wheel and Johnson bar flaps prevent putting anything between the seats... on my first flight using oxygen I managed to place the two tanks carefully on either side of the trim wheel but they blocked the flaps which I discovered coming into the pattern at U42 (just south of Salt Lake). Good learning experience.

With the Dakota, our tips to Michigan have been via I-80 though Wyoming, south via Santa Fe or north via Sandpoint Idaho and Bozeman. Something with built-in O2 and turbo would open up some additional route options, though in a single I don't think I'd be going direct over the Rockies without serious regard for the terrain.

So I am thinking of a Bonanza, Mooney or SR22, probably in that order. Obviously I have my high-performance endorsement, but I don't have a complex endorsement, though I have about 8 hours in complex aircraft, it was not always with a CFI. I have a couple hours each in an A36 and G36 and I've ridden in the back of an F33.

I am happy with my plane, just looking for a way to keep the nice avionics and add 30 or so knots to the speed with a bit more comfort. The one door is fine - but two would be nice of course... not really a deal breaker there. My budget could be as much as $400K, but if I could find something nice for a lot less, all the better.

I am looking for advice to help me narrow down makes, models, years and options to look for or avoid. For example, in the G36 I flew, the air conditioner was under the pilot seat and it left very little room to maneuver one's feet around. All the circuit breakers on the left side don't help. I am 5'10" and 160lbs, but I have long legs. I think I'd want tip tanks for destinations where fuel might not be available (such as we found in Cuba and Guatemala).

I don't think I want a V-Tail as I have read about the issues with magnesium and the ruddervators, so would likely be leaning towards an A36 or G36 (though I am not sold on the G1000.. either in the G36 or Cirrus). My wife thinks I should get my twin rating so we can get a Baron for more comfortable over-water trips in the Caribbean. That might be a bit too costly to own and stay proficient in, so I would probably lean towards a standard single.

Any thoughts, suggestions etc are greatly appreciated.

Also looking for real world ground speeds (or TAS) altitudes and fuel burn.
 
Can I have your panel? You can keep the rest of the airframe. :)

But more seriously, have you ruled out the Comanche?
 
Can I have your panel? You can keep the rest of the airframe. :)

But more seriously, have you ruled out the Comanche?

I have flown a Comanche 260TT, but the lack of parts in many cases makes me want to look elsewhere. I seem to recall the low seating position is similar to my Dakota, but they are indeed fast. I love my panel, and have spent about 1/3 of my original purchase price on upgrades. I am in no hurry to sell.
 
Honestly, if you can afford to spend upwards of $400k, I'd get a $200-250k Baron and use the remaining funds to cover the operating delta between a single and a twin. It's really not THAT much more to run. There's some more maintenance exposure, but on a day-to-day basis when all is going right, it won't be THAT much more. That second engine gives a lot of comfort (and options) for flights over unforgiving terrain or water, adds some redundancy on the electrical side and can make things like air conditioning easier to manager (more electrical power available, etc.).

I'd also be considering something like an Aerostar if I had that budget.
 
Honestly, if you can afford to spend upwards of $400k, I'd get a $200-250k Baron and use the remaining funds to cover the operating delta between a single and a twin. It's really not THAT much more to run. There's some more maintenance exposure, but on a day-to-day basis when all is going right, it won't be THAT much more. That second engine gives a lot of comfort (and options) for flights over unforgiving terrain or water, adds some redundancy on the electrical side and can make things like air conditioning easier to manager (more electrical power available, etc.).

I'd also be considering something like an Aerostar if I had that budget.

$400K is an upper limit since that would be my max spend without first selling my Dakota. The sale of the Dakota would have to reimburse me for the initial outlay. It seems like most decent A36 or Cirrus models are going to be in the $400K range. As you suggested, I'd like to be able to get something for near $200K-$250K. An Aerostar might be a bit much airplane for someone who doesn't fly professionally.
 
I second your sentiments on the comanche and the V-tails going forward. Staying in the Piper lane I would go with the Saratoga. Since you seem to tap into the O2 capability with semi-decent regularity, why not, go turbo toga. I would suggest turbo lance as a cheaper alternative for an equivalent capability (and better useful).

Thing is, you don't need the useful load, nor the volume. Honestly, I think you're in SR-22 or F33A land. I'm not impressed with the Bos seating ergonomics as a significant upgrade from a PA-28 and similar class 4-seater airplane, so my vote is for the Cirrus.

Your budget could swing an older twin. Again, you don't need the useful, and they will nickle and dime you to the degree you'd start missing your Dakota on that front. In the end, with your budget, you don't have the problem most of us have, aka CAPEX.

Good luck. 1st world problems.
 
You've got the best; get comfortable with it and enjoy it forever. The grass is always greener..., and the fishing's always better on the other side.... Seriously, what you'd give up for a slightly faster plane is staggering: you know what you have, how it's been taken care of, and what it needs. In terms of versatility, it is only rivaled by the 182...so, maybe look at some up-grades that are suitable for your mission(s), and good-enough is good-enough.
 
I am a new F33a owner. Mine is a 1974 model with tip tanks and an IO-550 upgrade, I have a GTN750 in it and it has the KFC200 autopilot. The KFC200 is an old autopilot but works pretty danm well for its age. If you can find one with an empty weight CG of 80 or less you wont have any problem putting weight in the back. I can do full fuel and 4 standard FAA adults and still be under weight. There is a MGTOW increase with the IO-550 upgrade and some of the tip tanks. I get about 165KTAS burning about 13.5GPH LOP. I think the cabin is a bit more comfortable than the PA28 line (moved up from an Archer) but the Bonanza cabin is definitely no Saratoga or Cirrus cabin. I paid 155k and mine has 3700 AFTT, 0SMOH IO-550, Paint and Interior 7/10. So far I love it! I think the Cirrus would have been the best airplane for me and looked very hard at them but the ones I wanted were out of my price range. The other nice thing about the Bo over the Cirrus is just about every GA A&P can work on a Bonanza... The Cirrus is more of a speciality aircraft and most owners go to Cirrus service centers which while you are getting great service, is very expensive.
 

Attachments

  • 20190608_112336.jpg
    20190608_112336.jpg
    193.1 KB · Views: 37
As you probably recall I moved up from a Dakota last year so you know which one of those you're considering I'd recommend but I'm biased.... Have absolutely loved the move. Dream to fly, speed is a awesome for travel, very comfortable/roomy. Very fuel efficient too. For example if I'm just doing scenic flight I fly in economy mode at 55% HP LOP burning 10GPH with 135KTAS and if I'm traveling I'll fly at 65% HP LOP burning 13.5GPH and 165-170 KTAS. If I wanted to go faster 170-180 KTAS I could fly at 75% HP or ROP but I sort of baby the engine so 65% HP is my norm. Mine is 2006 GTS, normally aspirated with A/C, TKS, semi-portable O2 system, XM weather/radio, stormscope, TAWS and new avionics (750/650, fs510, gtx345r, gma35c, dfc90) as well as a complete interior/exterior makeover & upgrades and it can be done for a lot less than $400K. The one downside to all that is the useful load vs Dakota... about 200 lbs less.

20190424-20190424_172932846_iOS.jpg


20190424-20190424_170725182_iOS.jpg


In the next year or two, I am considering upgrading to something a bit faster and perhaps more capable than my current aircraft.
 
If you’re interested in the Turbo Lance at all you are welcome to come visit me in Susanville.

Space and comfort can’t be beat.

But honestly, I think you’re looking for more speed.
 
If you’re interested in the Turbo Lance at all you are welcome to come visit me in Susanville.

Space and comfort can’t be beat.

But honestly, I think you’re looking for more speed.

A Turbo Lance, esp the T-Tail uses more runway than I want. I have some time in one.
 
^ Why I said T-Toga in my first response. Gives you what you want without the T-Tail.

I took note of your initial requirement for shorter runways and higher density altitudes.
 
As you probably recall I moved up from a Dakota last year so you know which one of those you're considering I'd recommend but I'm biased.... Have absolutely loved the move. Dream to fly, speed is a awesome for travel, very comfortable/roomy. Very fuel efficient too. For example if I'm just doing scenic flight I fly in economy mode at 55% HP LOP burning 10GPH with 135KTAS and if I'm traveling I'll fly at 65% HP LOP burning 13.5GPH and 165-170 KTAS. If I wanted to go faster 170-180 KTAS I could fly at 75% HP or ROP but I sort of baby the engine so 65% HP is my norm. Mine is 2006 GTS, normally aspirated with A/C, TKS, semi-portable O2 system, XM weather/radio, stormscope, TAWS and new avionics (750/650, fs510, gtx345r, gma35c, dfc90) as well as a complete interior/exterior makeover & upgrades and it can be done for a lot less than $400K. The one downside to all that is the useful load vs Dakota... about 200 lbs less.

View attachment 75440


View attachment 75441

Beautiful plane. Love the exterior colors.
 
Your budget allows for a Duke. Or, more practical but not nearly as awesome, 58TC or 58P.
 
Bonanza, Cirrus. I believe that a twin sounds good, you might fly less with it. Something to be said for simpler planes. I am sure the spouse will like the chute and interior of the Cirrus, but the 36 Bo is pretty nice. I dont think you can get tip tanks on the Cirrus though.
 
+1 on the Turbo Toga.

To make the rationalization process even more miserable, you can fly a Baron at Bonanza speeds, and you'll pay about 4gph extra for the second mill. CSOBeech is a website filled with such ideas. Then, once self-deluded, and the purchase made, you can toss the cheapassery out and fly it at full rental power anyway. :D
 
Turbo Saratoga or Mooney Acclaim. Also, don't rule out a Mooney Ovation. FL200, excellent hot and high performance, despite no turbo. 12.2 gph for 176 kts or 14.5 for 190+, and at like 10k feet.

You can get a G1000 WAAS model of Ovation or Acclaim and still have 100k in your budget.
 
The funniest thing about all the recommendations in this thread is that they pretty much define our club ...

We have a Dakota, an F33 Bonanza and a Saratoga ...
 
They are also quite expensive to maintain and run.
well, I think you have to consider the cost of capital for the alternatives.

Let's say you buy this for around 150K
fly it 100 hours year at 34 gph (at 180kts)
= 3400*$5 = $17,000 in fuel

Vs, say a 400k SR22 (a very nice plane)
- 18 GPH*100hrs*5 = $9,000 in fuel
cost of that 250K in money is between 15 and 20k/year
Cirrus will depreciate about $30k/year vs a fully depreciated older plane

Cirrus:
9,000 fuel
30K cost of money
30K depreciation
insurance @ 1% hull value = 4,000
hangar (say $200*12) = 2,400
so before MX = $75K/year

TBone
Cost of money 10,000
17,000 fuel
0 depreciation
$1,500 insurance
5,000 hangar (bigger)
So before MX = $33k/yr

I don't think you'll see 40k more MX on the Twin bonanza every year. it gets down to what you want to fly.

Vs the Dakota, for sure, both will cost a lot more, especially with depreciation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BPM
I can respect the value of the difference in price, but you also have to consider paying for 2x engines, probably greater price of insurance due to being a twin and not having the chute/CSIP, and where the hell are you getting such cheap hangar prices?
 
I can respect the value of the difference in price, but you also have to consider paying for 2x engines, probably greater price of insurance due to being a twin and not having the chute/CSIP, and where the hell are you getting such cheap hangar prices?
Hi,

I was accounting for the engines in the 40k/year gap between them. As I stated, the 40k gap is before MX, but I don't think MX will be even a fraction of that. that's either 2/3 of an engine overhaul each year that you'd have room for (if you go to Central Cylinder) or it's like 2-3 spare surplus engines. On the hangar, believe me brother, we're in the same camp. hangars are unobtanium where I live, but they're $500 for a run down little one and big ones don't truly exist.

That said, Nomad is in Reno, and I think has a more reasonable. they don't post prices but do have 53' wide hangars. he'd also have to measure and see if he could squeeze into one of the 45'9" hangars (plane is 45'3" wide) https://www.renoairport.com/general-aviation/hangars-and-tenants/hangars
 
That said, Nomad is in Reno, and I think has a more reasonable. they don't post prices but do have 53' wide hangars. he'd also have to measure and see if he could squeeze into one of the 45'9" hangars (plane is 45'3" wide) https://www.renoairport.com/general-aviation/hangars-and-tenants/hangars

$200 for a hangar?! Dream on.

I have a 53' hangar right now (there are two of them... roughly 1800sqft... on the west side that don't show up correctly in the list you linked to) and the price is about $620/mo.

They screwed up measuring my hangar when I leased it, and I have a 5-year lease with one year remaining so am only paying $495/mo. I am considering moving to the other side of the field to a 41' hangar for $445/mo. This is mostly because I am on the West side and the airport wants to tear those hangars down. It is rather unclear if new ones will replace them before we are forced to vacate in the future. They are talking about a community hangar and I'd prefer to stay in a T-hangar.

All the hangars at Reno are in terrible condition - built in the 1970s and nothing much has been done to maintain them. My concrete floor is turning to gravel in a few spots.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, consider a cherry Twin Bonanza (a supercharged model). Great for short field/high DA, great travel airplane. https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=163264&p=2324103&hilit=twin+bonanza#p2324103

Um... haha? lol?

I like TBones and have some hours in a D50A, however... advising anyone to invest in a pair of GSO-480s and an antique airframe attached is just not very nice. :D At least whoever advised a Duke was presumably tongue in cheek. (I hope...? god do I hope :D ) Especially moving up from something as trouble-free and enjoyable as a Skylane-class plane.

I mean, may as well recommend this person invest in a restaurant or a car wash, get a mistress and a venereal complaint, and start up a 2-pack daily smoking habit.

"You'll get 3nmpg, no Basic Med eligibility, and if you ever let the props drive the motors, you'll get to hear part numbers coming out of those cool Lycoming collectors. Also, land at 100kts and haul on the brakes so you preserve those gearboxes made out of spun glass. Also never ever train to any sort of multi-engine proficiency, just do fake engine-outs and call it close enough. In return, you get a couch, possibly an airstair, the fuel economy of an oil fire, no reasonable STC support, there is only one shop left that will even touch these motors for overhaul, and you can enjoy the speed of a basic Mooney M20F"

...they DO sound cool though. I almost bought Chris Roan's resurrectee from him. But gawd, I don't want to care for two GSO lycomings at any price. Even free.

(IMHO Only. They're great for whoever has the need/desire to care for one... but hardly what I'd suggest as an easy next step from a Dakota :D )
 
Any thoughts, suggestions etc are greatly appreciated.

A36-TN, A36TC, B36TC or SR22T. All will be a major step up in annual ownership cost, but they would offer the performance boost you are looking for. It sounds like you have your Dakota all dialed in, any replacement would have to provide a substantial step up in capability.
Now for those long hauls to MI and GA, a Malibu would be the ticket. You just can't be afraid of paying Malibu sized bills. Not much of a $300 hamburger' type of plane either and it may be snug with the 2300ft strip.
 
get an older speed demon! As someone mentioned above, The Meyers 200 or possibly a Comanche 260 or 400! No parts supply problems with Meyers or the Comanche (well maybe the gear conduits but someone makes a batch every year). The 400 can be had for less than $150K, 1400lb useful, non turbo and climbs faster than any other Single. You are already used to the fuel burn, 142kts @ 12gph is 11.8mpg vs the 400's 185kts @ 18gph 10.2mpg.
 
get an older speed demon! As someone mentioned above, The Meyers 200 or possibly a Comanche 260 or 400! No parts supply problems with Meyers or the Comanche (well maybe the gear conduits but someone makes a batch every year). The 400 can be had for less than $150K, 1400lb useful, non turbo and climbs faster than any other Single. You are already used to the fuel burn, 142kts @ 12gph is 11.8mpg vs the 400's 185kts @ 18gph 10.2mpg.
there are a few 260 TC's out there too, but i'd go 400...
 
Just btw, with that kind of an acquisition budget, I presume you are liquid and upstanding. Play this to your (mutual) advantage by seeking-out your dream plane languishing as a hangar-queen that begs to be flown. Your goal, simply, is to identify such a situation and present yourself as the solution. Don't be shy and don't be cheap...I'm certain there is a situation that requires your skillful solution. And, once you're done with that, you'll be saying the Dakota was better; more than enough. Be blessed
 
Back
Top