Dakota vs Skylane (First Impressions)

I'm not so sure you can get older 182s pretty cheap.

FTFY ;)

Good luck finding value in the 182 market today. You may find a one-off private barn-find deal somewhere, but 182 prices have been among the fast rising (along with 180s & 172s) in the past couple of years.

Our 16-plane Club sold our sole, well worn 182 about 5 years ago when it came up for yet another engine overhaul. Big mistake. We've been looking for a replacement since last fall, and the budget is going to have to increase quite a bit.

Among other things, the dearth of good 180s and 185s is causing float plane conversions to key more and more on good used 182s.
 
Last edited:
We went through this "182 vs Dakota" exercise back in 2002, when our kids outgrew our 150 HP Warrior.

I fully expected to buy a 182. When we test flew them, however, it quickly became apparent that my 5' tall wife could not fly it. The panel was too tall for her to see over, even with the seat set up all the way, and her sitting on a cushion.

Worse, when she moved the seat forward to reach the rudders, she could not pull the yoke back far enough to flare.

The Dakota (actually, in our case, the Pathfinder -- the Dakota's immediate predecessor -- was the answer. With its lower panel, and fully adjustable seat, we could both fly it with ease. Better yet, a previous owner had put every speed mod available on it, which made it into an honest 142 knot airplane. This was fast enough to walk away from an Arrow (although we were burning a ton of mogas doing it!), and even some early Moooneys.

We flew our family everywhere in that plane for 12 years. It's just a great plane, with a 1400+ pound useful load!
 
We went through this "182 vs Dakota" exercise back in 2002, when our kids outgrew our 150 HP Warrior.

I fully expected to buy a 182. When we test flew them, however, it quickly became apparent that my 5' tall wife could not fly it. The panel was too tall for her to see over, even with the seat set up all the way, and her sitting on a cushion.

Worse, when she moved the seat forward to reach the rudders, she could not pull the yoke back far enough to flare.

The Dakota (actually, in our case, the Pathfinder -- the Dakota's immediate predecessor -- was the answer. With its lower panel, and fully adjustable seat, we could both fly it with ease. Better yet, a previous owner had put every speed mod available on it, which made it into an honest 142 knot airplane. This was fast enough to walk away from an Arrow (although we were burning a ton of mogas doing it!), and even some early Moooneys.

We flew our family everywhere in that plane for 12 years. It's just a great plane, with a 1400+ pound useful load!
Wow, 1400lb+ useful...I want to challenge that as a typo but what the hell do I know. That beats most 182's by 200lbs. Same goes for the 142kts vs something closer to 136kts or so.

Now here is where I will agree 10000% …. the skylane panel height. It is especially unforgiving for kids and short people. My daughter (now 11) should be much better at straight and level flight given the number of times she's rode co-pilot. But all she can really do is look out the side for a horizon reference. And she won't be reaching the pedals for another 3 or 4 years. Often she will say she wishes we still had the Chief as she could see out way better. Plus the 182 passenger window doesn't open so she misses that about the Aeronca too.

I bet if Cessna would have made a 230HP (or a 250HP), Fixed Gear, Strutless 182 with a cabin about halfway along the lines of a Cardinal and a bit lower panel it would have been really hard to not consider it. I'm almost describing a 210...but not. Being tall, I kinda like the tall panel... especially when its really hazy and puts our panel mounted ipad in perfect view...a future navigator will go there one day...after this is a necro thread :)
 
Wow, 1400lb+ useful...I want to challenge that as a typo but what the hell do I know.

Nope, that's realistic, give or take depending on what equipment changes have been done and how much dirt has accumulated in all the nooks. My POH lists 1450. I had mine weighed a bit over a year ago, and its useful load was down to 1264 --- which was about 100 lbs less than I had it calculated at before. If you haven't had a plane weighed in a long time, it's worth doing. I don't know where exactly mine went, but at some point one of the previous owners had redone a lot of the interior; it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of it was there.
 
I bet if Cessna would have made a 230HP (or a 250HP), Fixed Gear, Strutless 182 with a cabin about halfway along the lines of a Cardinal and a bit lower panel it would have been really hard to not consider it. I'm almost describing a 210...but not.
You are describing the experimental Model 187, which first flew in April 1968 powered by a 230 hp Continental O-470-R. It looked a lot like a C-177 Cardinal, but slightly larger and beefier. It was flight tested both with a Cardinal-style low-set stabilator and with a T-tail. According to one source, it "offered no significant improvements over the 182/Skylane series and was canceled."

Just as the C-177 was designed to replace the C-172, the C-187 was intended to replace the C-182. While a fair number of Cardinals were built over eleven years (and IMO they are very nice airplanes), the C-172 ultimately prevailed; and the C-187 never reached production.

In 1967 Cessna flight-tested the experimental Model 182M, a conventional '67 C-182K airframe with C-210G-style cantilever wings. It was more expensive to build and offered no real performance increase over the traditional strutted design, so it too was canned.
 
Last edited:
Wow, 1400lb+ useful...I want to challenge that as a typo but what the hell do I know. That beats most 182's by 200lbs. Same goes for the 142kts vs something closer to 136kts or so...

The early Pipers were a LOT lighter empty than later models. My 1961 Cherokee had a 980 lb useful load (calculated after weighing it). With 160 hp. And it would do it too. Two 2400 nm round trips to OSH with tents and beer for the week proved it (well the beer didn't make it anything close to the week). ;)

The early 235s had useful loads that were equal to, or greater than their empty weight. 1400 to 1450 was typical. The '73 Charger/'74 Pathfinder, with the 5-inch fuselage stretch were also the first true 4-place Cherokees, in terms of size, useful load and climb rate, imo.
 
Wow, 1400lb+ useful...I want to challenge that as a typo but what the hell do I know. That beats most 182's by 200lbs. Same goes for the 142kts vs something closer to 136kts or so.

I once (legally!) flew Atlas, our Pathfinder, on a hot Iowa summer day with four 200 pound guys, 150 pounds of luggage, and full tanks (84 gallons!).

The takeoff roll was a bit longer but, once airborne, the weight was a non-issue. That 235 horsepower O-540 just pulled us up like a tractor ripping a stump out of the ground.

Like I said, the Pathfinder is just a great plane. If you can find a good one, you'd be crazy not to buy it.
 
I looked at 182s before buying my Dakota and decided that the low wing was a better option for the windy conditions in Reno and it just feels more solid. After about 450 hours flying it over the last 4 years, I know I made the right choice. I'm now considering an upgrade to an SR22T or A36.
 
I looked at 182s before buying my Dakota and decided that the low wing was a better option for the windy conditions in Reno and it just feels more solid. After about 450 hours flying it over the last 4 years, I know I made the right choice. I'm now considering an upgrade to an SR22T or A36.
Would you mind elaborating a bit. I've only flown a high wing.
 
Would you mind elaborating a bit. I've only flown a high wing.

The theory is that a wind gust with a swirling motion or coming up a slope from the side of a runway can “get underneath” a high wing and have a little more leverage to try to flip it over, so to speak.

Really it’s more of a problem with narrow gear and it happens to both types, but the gear is a bit wider on many low wings due to being placed further outboard under the wing and not needing to be attached to legs going to the main fuselage. Much harder to get leverage against the opposite wheel to go over it.

Some famous home built low wings that have narrow gear in the fuselage have lots of accidents on rollout in gusty crosswinds as much as high wings do. Especially fast landing ones with long transitions from flying speed to walking speed.

For the average pilot the improper placement of controls and follow through after landing contributes heavily to the loss of control problem on the ground and increasing numbers of runway excisions seen lately. Tricycle gear tends to make one lazy about getting the controls over to the stops and holding them there as the aircraft slows after landing. And in placing them correctly for taxi.

Whether it’s that laziness or something else, all instructors I’ve talked with lately are seeing folks who do not lock those controls over at slower speeds. No follow through and something in primary training is being missed.

I’ve had the Skylane out a handful of times in TAXI conditions I probably should have waited out. Especially with a STOL kit. Ha. 35 knots with gusts. It will rock mightily and make you nervous but if the controls are held properly to keep it planted, it’ll make it to the runway. Just don’t put the flaps down! Ha. Being that mine will fly at 42 indicated with 30 flap, I’m bumping up against it wanting to lift off with flaps down into the wind.

The standard “climb into the wind, dive away from the wind” ground control placement will get my nosewheel really light and want to weathervane it with flaps down and the wing is producing a lot of lift even though we aren’t intending to fly yet.

Compare this with a typical piper and it just doesn’t want to lift the nose. Especially any piper T-tail. That silly thing won’t do much of anything right up to liftoff speed. Then it’ll rotate quickly. :)

One of the other things the low wing pipers will do is if you have those controls locked over in say, a quartering headwind, the aileron will have enough authority in high winds to actually compress that oleo strut under the wing a bit and actually bank the whole wing toward the upwind side. It definitely feels more “planted” when it’s that windy. And it’ll lean toward the up aileron.

Getting the Cessnas to bank like that, they’ll usually start bouncing a bit and rocking back and forth rather than hold the lean.

Also helps with both to be very full heavy. Fuel in the wings dampens this rocking and rolling to an extent in both. Fuselage weight doesn’t seem to make much difference on either one from my experience.
 
Thanks Nate. I know your health might have you down but you're still my "other" CFI :)

So it sounds to be two parts to this. While down near the ground the high wing is more likely to be subject all the dynamic wind ****. Then once the gear are planted the more widely spaced gear and low wing much lower to the ground will be more friendly when it comes to wind getting under that wing.

I always find it so interesting that so many of the fabric tail draggers are high wings. You would think they would want low wings because medium to strong winds, especially right at touchdown and taxi are like their nemesis. Of course the tail dragger pilots need to see down real good and don't want to climb over a wing so not as practical.
 
Thanks Nate. I know your health might have you down but you're still my "other" CFI :)

So it sounds to be two parts to this. While down near the ground the high wing is more likely to be subject all the dynamic wind ****. Then once the gear are planted the more widely spaced gear and low wing much lower to the ground will be more friendly when it comes to wind getting under that wing.

I always find it so interesting that so many of the fabric tail draggers are high wings. You would think they would want low wings because medium to strong winds, especially right at touchdown and taxi are like their nemesis. Of course the tail dragger pilots need to see down real good and don't want to climb over a wing so not as practical.

In my little fabric taildragger if the winds are strong/gusty I'm always looking for landing strips/runways more into the wind than not. If they are really gusty the plane doesn't come out of the hangar.
Much, much less of an issue in the other airplane.
 
Back
Top