Piper Dakota 201T? Any reason not to consider buying one?

Unit74

Unit74

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
6,992
Display Name
Display name:
Unit74
I am looking at buying a Dakota 201T. Is there any reason why I should avoid buying this plane?

I have been looking at 182's but just not finding what I want. I have always been a low wing guy but the 182 is such a well rounded aircraft it's hard to look past it. But, I have been eye balling the Dakotas real hard and this 201T all but fell in my lap.

What say the group?
 
This is a sorta odd duck - the Turbo Dakota, which is NOT a turbocharged Dakota. It is really more like a fixed-gear turbo Arrow. The engine a a turboed IO360.

I'd rather have a normally-aspirated Dakota with the Lycoming IO540 engine - much more robust, IMHO.
 
182 will be easier to get into and out off. Depending on how spry you (and potential passengers) are, might be a consideration.
 
You really can't really compare a 200HP PA28T to a 230-235HP C-182, even if the Piper is turbocharged. If you want to compare a Piper to the C-182, you compare the regular PA28-235/236 to a normally aspirated C-182. There is nothing in the Piper line which is appropriate to compare to a Turbo 182, and there is nothing in the Cessna line which really compares to a Turbo Dakota -- the closest would be a Turbo 172XP, but Cessna never built one.
 
SCCutler said:
This is a sorta odd duck - the Turbo Dakota, which is NOT a turbocharged Dakota. It is really more like a fixed-gear turbo Arrow. The engine a a turboed IO360.

I'd rather have a normally-aspirated Dakota with the Lycoming IO540 engine - much more robust, IMHO.
Click to expand...

really? sounds like the Ford F-150 with the big V8 or the ecoboost V6.

I may sound ignorant, but I think I would also lean toward the larger normally aspirated motor. Even though you have 6 cylinders vs 4, I would think the turbo would be more expensive to repair. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
 
I think the turbo I0360 is pretty expensive to overhaul, even compared to larger non-turbo engines. :eek:

rbridges said:
really? sounds like the Ford F-150 with the big V8 or the ecoboost V6.

I may sound ignorant, but I think I would also lean toward the larger normally aspirated motor. Even though you have 6 cylinders vs 4, I would think the turbo would be more expensive to repair. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
 
rbridges said:
really? sounds like the Ford F-150 with the big V8 or the ecoboost V6.

I may sound ignorant, but I think I would also lean toward the larger normally aspirated motor. Even though you have 6 cylinders vs 4, I would think the turbo would be more expensive to repair. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the Turbo Dakota is an Archer fitted with the Continential TSIO 360 which is a six cylinder. But yes those are expensive to maintain. You normally go through two turbos at over five grand a pop to one engine overhaul.
 
"Paging Clark! Would Frankenkota please pick up a white paging telephone?"

BTW, I fly a normally aspirated Dakota PA28-236. (see link below)

A couple of weeks ago a friend and I flew to Texas together - he in his 182 and me in the Dakota. I had to keep throttling back to not run away from him, to the point where I was thinking "flaps?" :)
 
Last edited:
The turbo Dakota is not a popular aircraft. Would worry about re sale. Always liked the two doors and room of the 182. Also the extra horsepower doesn't hurt.
 
I own and fly a 201T - what are your questions?

Turbos at $5K each, nope, easy to get a good rebuild for half that.
More expensive to maintain than larger displacement engines, no.

Lot's of bad info and assumptions out there.

The airframe is the same as the 236. Check part numbers and you'll see that I'm correct. The engine weight is the same as the 236. The engine power is 35 hp less at sea level.

The aircraft performs well at sea level and up to about 8K feet. Cooling does become an issue at higher altitudes. Yes the aircraft can go to 20K.

It is not an engine for the ham fisted or neglectful pilot. Gotta be careful, always.

Pricing has settled out and there shouldn't be future worries unless you overpay now.

I like mine - I fly it in the mountains and enjoy the performance that is tolerant (not immune) to density altitude. I can fly on high-hot days but still need to be a little bit careful - just not as careful as other folks.
 
I have two Dakotas that are side by side the same price. Both closely equipped.

The higher cruise on the 201T sounds awfully appealing! But to be honest, I doubt I will ever be up over 10k much.

The 236 has a 3 blade, other than that, really close as far as equipment. I'm just not sure at this point.
 
Unit74 said:
I have two Dakotas that are side by side the same price. Both closely equipped.

The higher cruise on the 201T sounds awfully appealing! But to be honest, I doubt I will ever be up over 10k much.

The 236 has a 3 blade, other than that, really close as far as equipment. I'm just not sure at this point.
Click to expand...

The higher cruise on the 201T is not a reality unless you go up to 18K. Otherwise it is a 130 to 135 kt aircraft. The 201T will do 150 kts up high but if you aren't planning to go there then it does not matter. The 236 is an excellent aircraft.
 
is there any reason TO consider one ?

It makes no sense if the wheels don't fold up. If pipers and turbos are you thing, consider a turbo comanche 250/260. Far more comfortable than the tiny PA28 tube.
 
JHW said:
is there any reason TO consider one ?

It makes no sense if the wheels don't fold up. If pipers and turbos are you thing, consider a turbo comanche 250/260. Far more comfortable than the tiny PA28 tube.
Click to expand...

Your insurance cost would be reduced with the fixed gear. When I was buying, I was looking at 182's and arrows. The 182's (fixed gear) had a significant savings on insurance. Personally, I would have looked at Dakotas if there had been an example that I was interested in at my price range. Turbo, not so much.
 
Arrow115 said:
Your insurance cost would be reduced with the fixed gear. When I was buying, I was looking at 182's and arrows. The 182's (fixed gear) had a significant savings on insurance. Personally, I would have looked at Dakotas if there had been an example that I was interested in at my price range. Turbo, not so much.
Click to expand...

Likewise, your insurance would be reduced if you had bought a 150 instead of your 182. If someone wants a blower to go high and fast then insurance will be for high and fast.
 
JHW said:
Likewise, your insurance would be reduced if you had bought a 150 instead of your 182. If someone wants a blower to go high and fast then insurance will be for high and fast.
Click to expand...

Insurance for a turbo Dakota and a Dakota will be about equal for equal hull value and equal pilots.
 
Gas bill?

In the ever popular juxtaposition of cap ex and op ex, it looks like op ex would be the ball buster here. Even if the turbo repl is only $2500, that's money that a comparable Comanche doesn't take. Of course, you have to do a gear swing every annual, and some basic mx but I doubt it rises to the level of a turbo. Meh - I could be wrong. But the Comanche will absolutely scoot compared to the turbo Dak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top