182 v. Cherokee 6 or Dakota/235 ( Rating system)

gprellwitz said:
My understanding is that the 5 sumps per wing in the later 172's and 182's is because the ribs in the integral (wet) wings could trap water which could make it to the engine after turbulence. Suddenly, it doesn't seem so useless, does it? (Not that it isn't still a hassle, but at least it isn't a pointless hassle! :))
Click to expand...

I never said it was useless... In fact, somewhere out on the interwebs there's a guy who says that 13 isn't nearly enough - He's got a new 172 with the top of the wing open, pours water into the fuel, sumps from all 13 until they're clean, and then shows you all the water still remaining in the tanks. :hairraise:

Of course, even with the bladders I think you're supposed to grab a wingtip and rock it up and down a bit to dislodge any that might be trapped in a wrinkle or something.
 
Two doors, a rain cover over your head, a sun shade over your head.

182. No hesitation.
 
I fly a Pa32-301 and a 182Q regularly. Two different birds, with different pluses and minuses. First, I find the PA32 more roomy, with way more shoulder room. Getting in and out not as nice as the cessna for front seaters, but that back door is just awesome. The left side door is great in the 182, wish piper had done one.

For 4 people total, the PA32 has WAY more room, especially with club seating and two empty backward facing seats. While the PA32 handles like a truck, it also handles turbulence like a truck. VERY stable ILS approach vehicle. But it eats about 2 more GPH in cruise than the 182.

The 182 feels lighter and more 'sprightly' to me. It has more handling, but still takes the bumps fairly well. Going into grass, I'd rather take the 182, I can keep the nose off much better than the PA32.

Neither is a barn burner for speed, both seem to true around 135-140. Not great but better than the trainers that they represent a step up from.

I can and do fly either. I like the avionics in my PA32 better than in the C182, but that's not indicative of the airframe...

Jim G
 
Very interesting reading. I am in the market for my first plane and have been trying to decide between the six and the 182. I have equal time in Piper and Cessna and like both. I also understand the price/maintenance differnces. But... my wife is extremely closter phobic, and insists that she is far more comfortable in the low wing six - not sure why the low wing helps but it's not my place to argue. I hope to haul my family of four around the super southeast and perhaps beyond. I would also like to take three buddies and their sticks (golf clubs) and go for that $500 round of golf.

As I said, very interesting reading with great points for both planes - is there anything else I should consider before making the purchase? (aside from the fact that "if mamma aint happy, aint nobody happy)

Thanks
Hoping to get my wings soon - David
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dapitts said:
But... my wife is extremely closter phobic, and insists that she is far more comfortable in the low wing six - not sure why the low wing helps but it's not my place to argue.
Click to expand...

Very interesting - Assuming you mean "claustrophobic," you might remind her that the 182 has TWO full-size doors and would thus be easier to escape in an emergency. I think most of the people who like the low wing instead of the high wing either like the feeling of being on top of something and/or having some of the scary straight-down view blocked, or they feel like it's safer because most airliners are low wing aircraft.
 
Kent the wing on top can actually give you a more closed in feel even if the plane is bigger. It may just be an optical illusion but it can feel that way.
 
Yes, I did mean "claustrophobic" (I knew that didn't look right but it didn't like the first way I tried it either). Funny enough, she is not afraid of heights - just closed in spaces. Adam hit the nail on the head, she said the high wings make her feel closed in. Guess there's no explaining phobia's. She really likes the "club seating" but I think I have finally convinced her that the traditional, forward facing seats will work just fine. Now all I have to do is find a nice Six!
 
dapitts said:
...is there anything else I should consider before making the purchase?
Click to expand...

Yes: Check the empty weight of each plane you look at during your screening. The PA32's came out of the factory with lots of different option packages. Some are so loaded down with options they can hardly get out of their own way. Others are terrific load haulers. If you want to carry three buddies and clubs you'll be wanting one of the latter.

(Max gross on all Sixes is 3,400 lbs. Lances and all Saratogas can carry 3,600 lbs but use the difference to carry additional structure.)
 
David, check out the Feb 2010 issue of Flying, good article on the pa-32's from six to saratoga.

The six 300 makes more sense to me than the 182 because of the cost. There can be a difference, but it looks to me that they are close enough in cost that I'd rather have an "SUV" than a car. Plus, ya just gotta love that ugly wing.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top