bnt83
Final Approach
You can burn 87 octane autogas in many 182s.
182 vs Dakota
- Thread starter DesertNomad
- Start date
p model and older isn't it?
I never bothered, mogas is 3.80 and 100LL is $4.00.
mogas requires a stop before my home airport.
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
Regardless of price, you'll be doing your engine a favor by burning about 2/3 MoGas to 1/3 100LL. (or 75/25)
And, yes, I think it's "P" and older that qualify for a MoGas STC. IIRC the "Q" model went to the O-470U which is higher compression.
bnt83
Final Approach
It fluctuates. The mogas I buy is currently about $2.80. 100LL with all my discounts is about $5.20. 100LL for transients is $5.69.
I do enjoy being able to fly around for 5 hours then fill up on <$3 gas
Until it vapor locks at high altitude. Living in the west it's a gamble I never wanted to take. I can afford the additional 4 dollars.
http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/187232-1.html
bnt83
Final Approach
I know a Cherokee and a C172 driver that flew out of
bnt83
Final Approach
Appears the OP is in northern Nevada, I'd be looking for a turbo with the budget given.
It has recently come to my attention that they made a turbo Dakota.
Despite the name, it's essentially a Turbo Arrow with the gear welded which means it's down 35hp and 100lbs gross.
JoseCuervo
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,868
- Display Name
Display name:
JoseCuervo
So far in the 182 vs Dakota question we have answers for:
Bonanzas
Maules
207's
185's
...................
smdh
Bonanzas
Maules
207's
185's
...................
smdh
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
I regularly went to 14...15,000 in my 182 when I was still working with no issues whatsoever.
But I didn't run 100% MoGas when doing so. I think the blend makes a huge difference but don't have any data to back up that opinion...only the knowlege that I never had issues.
One can be a lot more cavalier about burning it with no fear of vapor lock when they have 12,000' or more between them and the ground though! :wink2: If I was regularly flying in the mountains my confidence might not be as high.
Last edited:
Lol!.
I hear they're no speed demon but obviously there's a point where the na Dakota loses enough hp that the turbo surpasses it.
So I assume it's a tsio360gb type of affair then? I didn't know that
Not sure why I would even want the 1/3 100LL...
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Fly both with your wife, and buy the one she likes best. The alternative is looking in the Yellow Pages under "Attorneys - Family Practice".
DesertNomad
Pattern Altitude
We flew the Dakota today with me in the right seat and her in back. I was a lot hotter than in a 182 and the control pressures were about the same as a 182. The Dakota is placard end for 72kts approach or landing... Can't recall
The landing seemed much faster than a 182.
The landing seemed much faster than a 182.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
But what did your wife think?
JHW
En-Route
+1
if your vision is to have her in the back with a kid, make sure you try the 182. It's much more back-seat friendly
when our 1st daughter was born we had a PA28, my wife rode in the back on the right, baby seat on the left, and we removed the right front seat so she could stretch out. It worked well as long as we only needed 3 seats.
DesertNomad
Pattern Altitude
She would be in the right seat, but today the aircraft owner was left seat so I was in the right. She thought it was comfy in flight, but awkward to get in/out and less air circulation than the 182 (which we have flown a lot). Still undecided.
Paul Hamilton
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2013
- Messages
- 163
- Display Name
Display name:
Paul H
I've got a few hundred hours in both.The Dakota has better load hauling capability, but the 182 makes me smile.
ChemGuy
Cleared for Takeoff
I really love my Dakota but I happily found the partnership I am in. I didn't set out to buy a Dakota. I do curse sometimes when hauling stuff in and out of the cockpit though.
She flys beautifully and the visibility out is better than a 182, IMO.
It isn't as big inside as a 182 but it can fit 4 adults and bags.
Either one is a good aircraft and good luck on our purchase.
She flys beautifully and the visibility out is better than a 182, IMO.
It isn't as big inside as a 182 but it can fit 4 adults and bags.
Either one is a good aircraft and good luck on our purchase.
Vso on a 182 is 48 and a Dakota is 56 so 1.2 Vso 58 vs 68kts on short final. So basically 10 kts faster into the round out. Note, these speeds are at gross and are reduced for reduced weights. You're being taught a bit too fast.
Pilawt
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,485
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
1973 was the first long-body PA-28-235. That year only it was called "Cherokee Charger"; 1974 version was renamed "Cherokee Pathfinder" with only minor cosmetic changes. (Similarly, the '73 PA-28-180 was called "Cherokee Challenger", becoming "Cherokee Archer" the next year. I've heard that the quick name changes came about because Chrysler took umbrage at Piper's use of the names of its muscle cars.)
TSIO-360-FB in the fixed-gear "Turbo Dakota".
DesertNomad
Pattern Altitude
Your math might be 68kts, but the Dakota I was in today was placarded to state "72kts approach speed with full flaps"
netsurfr
Pre-takeoff checklist
Its vs0 (56) x 1.3 so yes 72knts but that's for max gross (3000). Under gross would be a lower final approach speed. Regardless the 182 does have a lower vs0 so can land slower but in the overall scheme of things that should not tip you towards one plane vs the other.
One other factor for me was visibility of low wing. I like to see the runway during my base/final or circle to land turns and above. I do like seeing straight down with the cessnas on scenic flights too. I. The end it will be what you and your wife prefer. We both liked the feel, finish and looks of the Dakota and fell in love with it over the 182 so we went with it. That plus I found a Dakota that was basically like new inside and out with a ton of upgrades and awesome avionics. Its a bit like a car. Mini vans are very practical and comfortable BUT not everyone chooses to be practical! So buy the plane that you guys love and that you will love/enjoy to fly and realize there's no bad choice with either one.
One other factor for me was visibility of low wing. I like to see the runway during my base/final or circle to land turns and above. I do like seeing straight down with the cessnas on scenic flights too. I. The end it will be what you and your wife prefer. We both liked the feel, finish and looks of the Dakota and fell in love with it over the 182 so we went with it. That plus I found a Dakota that was basically like new inside and out with a ton of upgrades and awesome avionics. Its a bit like a car. Mini vans are very practical and comfortable BUT not everyone chooses to be practical! So buy the plane that you guys love and that you will love/enjoy to fly and realize there's no bad choice with either one.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
When we were in the market for a family hauler, back in 2002, we were faced with the same choice between the 182 and the Pathfinder/Dakota.
The decision was made when my wife got in the left seat of the 182 and couldn't see over the unusually tall glareshield. She flew it, but hated it, especially when the world disappeared turning base to final.
We bought our Pathfinder, and flew our family everywhere in it for 12 years. It never let us down, and could be loaded without regard to either CG or gross weight. More than once I flew with four 200 pound guys, and 84 gallons of fuel -- no problem at all.
We took it into grass strips, short strips, high altitude strips, and never had a problem. That 6 cylinder engine pulls like a tractor, and a previous owner had put all available speed mods on it, so we flight planned 140 knots -- quick, for an SUV airplane!
Oh, and I ran 12,000 gallons of 87 octane mogas through that bulletproof Lycoming O-540, saving enough money to pay for the engine overhaul. It was great.
But I agree with the advice to buy what your wife likes best. I did, and enjoyed a great airplane experience for many years.
The decision was made when my wife got in the left seat of the 182 and couldn't see over the unusually tall glareshield. She flew it, but hated it, especially when the world disappeared turning base to final.
We bought our Pathfinder, and flew our family everywhere in it for 12 years. It never let us down, and could be loaded without regard to either CG or gross weight. More than once I flew with four 200 pound guys, and 84 gallons of fuel -- no problem at all.
We took it into grass strips, short strips, high altitude strips, and never had a problem. That 6 cylinder engine pulls like a tractor, and a previous owner had put all available speed mods on it, so we flight planned 140 knots -- quick, for an SUV airplane!
Oh, and I ran 12,000 gallons of 87 octane mogas through that bulletproof Lycoming O-540, saving enough money to pay for the engine overhaul. It was great.
But I agree with the advice to buy what your wife likes best. I did, and enjoyed a great airplane experience for many years.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Mine holds 80 and it's useless. If I'm properly hydrated I'm not going to make it that long anyway, and I fly for fun, not for peeing in Gatorade bottles so I can make a schedule and get a paycheck. Most will land and and fuel up and offload the liquid waste in a urinal every few hours. I think my longest leg was 4 and my teeth were floating when I unbuckled.
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
Henning's numbers for the Dakota are pretty close. Light, the stall is a little over 50 kts.
Flying Final at 72 kts is fine, I use 75. Short final, it needs to be slowed down to about 65 depending on gust factor. Round it out and bleed the rest of the speed off and it will land about 500' or so from where the round-out was started - that's assuming full flaps, no wind, and power at idle.
You don't want to get too slow, too soon as it will develop a pretty high sink rate. Go play with it at altitude to see how fast it will come down when slow. The Dakota has a larger stabilator than most earlier PA-28s and that extra pitch authority is nice to have - it's easy to keep the nose up.
kgruber
Final Approach
That's 1.3Vso, up at top of final. You should be 1.2 by round out and Vso at touch down. The true speeds to use varies with weight. All placard and book speeds are at Gross unless otherwise stated. One drill I do checking myself out in a plane is go get the numbers at the weights I'll typically be landing at, solo, empty, and 1/4 fuel. I'll get my actual stall numbers (which are significantly below the bottom of the white arc) and into the IAS-CAS chart and work the real numbers for 1.2, 1.3, & 1.5Vso.
Most people have trouble landing planes because of carrying too much energy, and this comes from "flying numbers" that are incorrect for their situation, and not trimming for short final speed.
DesertNomad
Pattern Altitude
Here is another source for that number:
http://www.leadingedgeflyingclub.com/aircraft/dakota-quick-reference/
Vappr is 72kts.
netsurfr
Pre-takeoff checklist
Yes that's in the POH BUT (like most performance figures) it's based on max gross weight of 3000 lbs. If you're not flying at 3000 then the numbers can be lower but it doesn't matter. Flying approach at 72 knots is fine. The Dakota can be slowed down & stopped quickly. A little extra speed on final/short final also means more control authority especially with gusty conditions.
Like I said, that number is good for one weight, and it is about 10kts higher than the 182. I was mostly commenting to show you the real comparative numbers since you said "It seems like the Dakota lands faster." I was just clearing up the seems part. I was also pointing out that you were being taught (and are reinforcing that learning by arguing the point) poor procedure to use V speeds uncorrected for weight.
Last edited:
Bonchie
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,505
- Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
That's another consideration that gets overlooked.
I'm 5'9" and didn't like the towering panel in the 182. This is exaggerated because a 182 is more nose high on the ground as well. I find the panel and control layout (flaps, trim, etc.) much more comfortable in a PA-28.
yep, different planes fit different people more optimally, that,s why we have so many planes types in nearly identical performance brackets. The physical limitations are basically dictated by how much horsepower. The ergonomics are only limited by the designer.
kgruber
Final Approach
That is not a Piper document. Nor is the "placard."
DesertNomad
Pattern Altitude
http://www.leadingedgeflyingclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Piper Dakota PA28-236 POH.pdf
Page 4-23 of the Piper manual says 72kts.
kgruber
Final Approach
You said it was "placarded."
Page 2-5 through 2-8 shows the Piper placards. 72Kts/ final is NOT on the list.
DesertNomad
Pattern Altitude
It is placarded on his plane but seems to not be required