Piper Dakota Question

P

PA31T2

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jun 8, 2022
Messages
4
Display Name
Display name:
PA31T2
New member here after years of reading posts. I have a question that I have been curious about.
Does anybody know why Piper never made a retract version of the Dakota PA-28-235/236. Cessna obviously made a retract version of their comparable 182 and was curious why piper never offered one.
One other question would be why Piper never brought back the 236 as I would think there is a market for a good payload airplane and since it is so similar in production to the other trainers they still produce it cannot be that much of an increase in production costs.

Thanks
 
According to Piper historian Roger Peperell, the idea had crossed Piper's corporate mind a couple of times.

In 1978 Piper's affiliate in Argentina built a prototype PA-A-28R-260T two-seat military trainer with a sliding canopy. But the military wasn't interested, so the lovely prototype was converted back to a plain ol' Turbo Arrow III and sold to a civilian customer.



Around the same time back home at Vero Beach pencils were dancing on napkins with the idea of a PA-28RT-310T with a Continental TSIO-520 and T-tail. The napkins were as far as it got.

In the mid-'80s an updated, upgraded PA-28R-221T "Arrow V" (aka "Monterey") prototype was built, with a 220 hp Continental TSIO-360. Peperell says it was canceled "as a casualty of Lear Siegler's lack of money for Piper."

Most interesting was the 1992 idea for a PA-28R-250 "Dakota SP" with a 250 HP Lycoming IO-540. Per Peperell, "Lack of money prevented it being anything more than a marketing proposal."

I'd like to get my hands on a PA-28R-300, the clipped-wing, tandem-seat military trainer using Saratoga, Dakota and Arrow components. Piper built 122 of them as kits to be assembled in Chile and Spain, for the military of those countries, plus those of Panama and Paraguay.

 
Yup, @Pilawt writeup pretty much covers the fly-bys. It was a wasted opportunity, which left a gap in the lineup and left us with the tired ol' strawman about the arrow being a "dog" when unnecessarily compared to airplanes of 50-85hp delta, as if that wasn't already stipulated by the very power loading differences.

The 182 benefits from a lot more STC engine options, so I would favor the 182 in that regard. I'd love a IO540 powered 182, but the prices are stupid. Though it goes against my religion, I wouldn't be opposed to flying an IO550 in a pre-restart 182. That would be a sweet ride, and I'd be ok with paying the extra gas in order to avoid the orphan retract woes going forward.
 
That was a big part of the gap Piper created when they ended the Comanche line in favor of the Cherokee/Arrow line. The 250/260 hp Comanches are a great travel machine, the 200 hp Arrow not so much. A 235-250 hp Arrow might have been at least a little closer. Too bad no one has attempted an STC upgrade, but it's also possible the Cherokee/Arrow line just aren't meant to be a 150-160kt machine. Like a boat, there is something of a hull speed, a point of diminishing returns, where more HP just results in more noise and fuel burn with little speed increase.
 
the flood probably had a great deal to do with the end of the Comanche line
 
Bob Noel said:
the flood probably had a great deal to do with the end of the Comanche line
Click to expand...

It was a good excuse for a management team trying to market their newer, cheaper, and easier to build design. The laminar flow, flush riveted, Comanche wing required a much more involved construction process and was more expensive. They didn't want the 180 Comanche competing with their new airframe.
 
I think its interesting that the Dakota has a 520 or 540 or whatever engine and de-rates to 235hp while the Skylane has the 470 for 230hp. The Dakota's are nice, being cramped is only real shortcoming. But slightly higher useful than a 182 and much longer TBO.
 
I've often wondered why nobody has tried to get an stc for the io390 for the arrow. I believe somebody did it for Mooney. I guess the extra 15 HP just doesn't make the juice worth the squeeze
 
Pilawt said:
According to Piper historian Roger Peperell, the idea had crossed Piper's corporate mind a couple of times.

In 1978 Piper's affiliate in Argentina built a prototype PA-A-28R-260T two-seat military trainer with a sliding canopy. But the military wasn't interested, so the lovely prototype was converted back to a plain ol' Turbo Arrow III and sold to a civilian customer.



Around the same time back home at Vero Beach pencils were dancing on napkins with the idea of a PA-28RT-310T with a Continental TSIO-520 and T-tail. The napkins were as far as it got.

In the mid-'80s an updated, upgraded PA-28R-221T "Arrow V" (aka "Monterey") prototype was built, with a 220 hp Continental TSIO-360. Peperell says it was canceled "as a casualty of Lear Siegler's lack of money for Piper."

Most interesting was the 1992 idea for a PA-28R-250 "Dakota SP" with a 250 HP Lycoming IO-540. Per Peperell, "Lack of money prevented it being anything more than a marketing proposal."

I'd like to get my hands on a PA-28R-300, the clipped-wing, tandem-seat military trainer using Saratoga, Dakota and Arrow components. Piper built 122 of them as kits to be assembled in Chile and Spain, for the military of those countries, plus those of Panama and Paraguay.

Click to expand...
Is that a wing walk on the left wing of the Pillan? Every pa28/32 owner is envious!

I think Piper would have a market selling kits of products they no longer make. A shame they don't even have the tooling for the Comanche anymore.
 
Sinistar said:
I think its interesting that the Dakota has a 520 or 540 or whatever engine and de-rates to 235hp while the Skylane has the 470 for 230hp. The Dakota's are nice, being cramped is only real shortcoming. But slightly higher useful than a 182 and much longer TBO.
Click to expand...
Another advantage of the Dakota is that it's easier to push back than a 182 - a significant factor for us old guys!
 
Palmpilot said:
Another advantage of the Dakota is that it's easier to push back than a 182 - a significant factor for us old guys!
Click to expand...

A 182 sure is easier to tie down, get in and out, sump the fuel and not get soaked when it’s raining. The only thing easier on a Dakota is fueling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top