Cessna 182 competitors?
Cessna 182 competitors?
Agree, PA28-236 Dakota. I was always a Cessna man, but started flying / training in a Dakota and now prefer them to a 182. Fly them by the book and they'll equal or better 182 performance (all phases of flight). As a bonus the Lycoming 540 rated at 235HP is bullet proof.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and, when they made "GOLDFINGER" (james bond movie), if you look real close, the cherokees of the flying circus are 235s
Two of my favorite planes are in James Bond Movies. "Goldfinger" and the Cherokee, and "Moonraker" and the HP Jetstream. (while I didn't fly it in the movie, I flew the very one in line operations)
so, go with piper, fly it, you'll like it.
Two of my favorite planes are in James Bond Movies. "Goldfinger" and the Cherokee, and "Moonraker" and the HP Jetstream. (while I didn't fly it in the movie, I flew the very one in line operations)
so, go with piper, fly it, you'll like it.
Depends what you're going to use it for. I find the 182 preferable to the PA-28-235. The 182 has a wider and taller cabin and two doors. It's easier to ingress and egress. Those are personal preferences, but I also liked the Dakota too!
I didn't much appreciate the performance of the turbo Dakota though. (PA-28-200T) Long flat climbs with higher than I like cyl temps plague this model as they did the turbo Arrow and Mooney 231. It's TSIO-360 Connie just isn't up to the task as installed in this airframe. (much better in the turbo Senecas) The Lyc O-540 is much better suited and does exceptionally well in the 182RG as well as the straight Dakota. I haven't flown the newer straight 182 with the injected Lyc, but I'll bet it's a beauty too.
So yes the Dakota is about as close to parity with the later model 182 as you'll get in an aluminum semi monocoque constructed airplane. If one is willing to consider steel tube and fabric construction then look into the Maule airplanes with 235 hp Lycs too.
westhawk
I didn't much appreciate the performance of the turbo Dakota though. (PA-28-200T) Long flat climbs with higher than I like cyl temps plague this model as they did the turbo Arrow and Mooney 231. It's TSIO-360 Connie just isn't up to the task as installed in this airframe. (much better in the turbo Senecas) The Lyc O-540 is much better suited and does exceptionally well in the 182RG as well as the straight Dakota. I haven't flown the newer straight 182 with the injected Lyc, but I'll bet it's a beauty too.
So yes the Dakota is about as close to parity with the later model 182 as you'll get in an aluminum semi monocoque constructed airplane. If one is willing to consider steel tube and fabric construction then look into the Maule airplanes with 235 hp Lycs too.
westhawk
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've found the TB20 a pretty much go anywhere, do anything machine. Ok, it won't do 4 adults and full fuel. However - 1000 miles on full tanks, or French Alps to the UK Midlands with 3 adults and a pile of tools is pretty good going.
Cessna 182 competitors?
The Maule just doesn't have the finish, room or load carrying capability of either the Cessna or Piper. I've used all three types for various roles, including private ops, charter, flight training, glider towing and banner towing. As a personal A to B aircraft I'd go for the PA28-236.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all depends on where you go. If you are bushflying, there may be a runner upper with the Maule, while the Dakota definitely burns last. If you are the typical well hugged civilized european armchair flyer, then the Dakota is coming closest. There are TB's also, but only for the second case.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skylane Versus Dakota
A deciding factor could be that new C182's have been available since 1995. Is this also the case with the Dakota?
The fuel injected Lycoming in the newer Cessnas is much more economical than the previous models.
D.O.
A deciding factor could be that new C182's have been available since 1995. Is this also the case with the Dakota?
The fuel injected Lycoming in the newer Cessnas is much more economical than the previous models.
D.O.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Though I entirely like to fly the legacy Piper Cherokees, I prefer to own a legacy Cessna rather than Cherokee.
Many primary structure parts for Cherokees are getting impossible to locate. I have dealt directly with Piper Tech Support in respect of a late '70's Piper, and was directly told that Piper would not support that aircraft [or others of that era], as Piper did not "want them flying any more". Piper seems to want attrition to ground them. This would be very worrying if I owned one. This is coupled with the fact that Piper is very poor to describe "negligible damage" (damage not requiring repair), so even the smallest dent in most Pipers (like hail damage) can require parts replacement - and the parts may not be available at all.
I was asked to assist with a one half square inch spot of corrosion on a 1969 Piper Arrow wing spar, right in the mainwheel bay. There was no repair or rework possible, and no spar available. The plane sold for scrap for $7000 (the engine value - no value assigned to the airframe). I was asked to assist with a hail damage repair (allowance of the damage) on a PA-28-161. Only very diligent research by the (then frantic) new owner got us through, in finding a little known Piper Service Letter for another model, and it still cost him about $10,000 to get it flying again with that letter. Without it would have written off the plane.
In both those cases, were it to have been a Cessna, all the information to return the plane to service was right in the maintenance manual, and no Cessna parts would have been required.
Know the whole picture before you take on the operational responsibility for legacy aircraft.
Many primary structure parts for Cherokees are getting impossible to locate. I have dealt directly with Piper Tech Support in respect of a late '70's Piper, and was directly told that Piper would not support that aircraft [or others of that era], as Piper did not "want them flying any more". Piper seems to want attrition to ground them. This would be very worrying if I owned one. This is coupled with the fact that Piper is very poor to describe "negligible damage" (damage not requiring repair), so even the smallest dent in most Pipers (like hail damage) can require parts replacement - and the parts may not be available at all.
I was asked to assist with a one half square inch spot of corrosion on a 1969 Piper Arrow wing spar, right in the mainwheel bay. There was no repair or rework possible, and no spar available. The plane sold for scrap for $7000 (the engine value - no value assigned to the airframe). I was asked to assist with a hail damage repair (allowance of the damage) on a PA-28-161. Only very diligent research by the (then frantic) new owner got us through, in finding a little known Piper Service Letter for another model, and it still cost him about $10,000 to get it flying again with that letter. Without it would have written off the plane.
In both those cases, were it to have been a Cessna, all the information to return the plane to service was right in the maintenance manual, and no Cessna parts would have been required.
Know the whole picture before you take on the operational responsibility for legacy aircraft.
Steep Turn
Your comments regarding the repairability of Pipers does not reflect my experience. I know they have recently made parts for out of production 50 year old models.
So far as parts go Piper still make these airframes so there should be no problems with parts. One thing Piper do well is make parts that are used on a variety of aircraft. The 161 181 236 models use the same basic airframe. The Cherokee 6 and Seneca fuselages are basically the same, a Seminole is a Twin Arrow IV etc.
Your comments regarding the repairability of Pipers does not reflect my experience. I know they have recently made parts for out of production 50 year old models.
So far as parts go Piper still make these airframes so there should be no problems with parts. One thing Piper do well is make parts that are used on a variety of aircraft. The 161 181 236 models use the same basic airframe. The Cherokee 6 and Seneca fuselages are basically the same, a Seminole is a Twin Arrow IV etc.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably the best thing for a prospective legacy Piper Cherokee (and derivatives) purchaser to do would be to contact Piper, and ask for a list of parts available - in stock - for that model. The PA-28R-180, 28-161, and Seneca II have each been a real problem for my experience. The only thing that got the Seneca back in the air is that Piper did provide the information on the material that the spar carry through was made of, so "made parts" could be fabricated as replacements. This cost more than $10,000 by the time it was approved.
It's just a buyer beware situation. If the Cherokee series is being supported, I could not be happier, they're great planes, as long as you can keep them flying!
It's just a buyer beware situation. If the Cherokee series is being supported, I could not be happier, they're great planes, as long as you can keep them flying!
Steep Turn
One should adopt a similar policy with legacy Cessnas so far as the SIDS programme goes. Before purchase, the prospective owner should research the cost of the SIDS programme.
I know in the US, and possibly Canada, SIDS are not mandatory for private or Part 91 ops however in many parts of the world SIDS are mandatory for private ops. As a result there are a good few legacy Cessnas that have been permanently grounded due to the cost of complying with the SIDS.
One should adopt a similar policy with legacy Cessnas so far as the SIDS programme goes. Before purchase, the prospective owner should research the cost of the SIDS programme.
I know in the US, and possibly Canada, SIDS are not mandatory for private or Part 91 ops however in many parts of the world SIDS are mandatory for private ops. As a result there are a good few legacy Cessnas that have been permanently grounded due to the cost of complying with the SIDS.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Middle England
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consider the Commanche.
The Piper Commanche (o540 powered 260hp version ) would probably be worth considering. It has a fast cruise speed (150 knots or more and over 1000lb useful load. It's a bit quicker than the fastest 182 (the TR182) at low altitudes and a bit slower when the TR182's turbonormaliser makes an impact above 10,000ft.
I've seen the Commanche landed by experienced pilots on short fields (e.g. LDA 310m), though the TR182 can be driven down at a slower approach speed (58 knots in no wind) and land shorter. I've landed the TR182 on 261m of grass with 4 up and 40 gallons of fuel on board though there was a stiff headwind.
I think both aircraft are real thoroughbreds, though I plumped for the TR182 and I didn't regret it.
I've seen the Commanche landed by experienced pilots on short fields (e.g. LDA 310m), though the TR182 can be driven down at a slower approach speed (58 knots in no wind) and land shorter. I've landed the TR182 on 261m of grass with 4 up and 40 gallons of fuel on board though there was a stiff headwind.
I think both aircraft are real thoroughbreds, though I plumped for the TR182 and I didn't regret it.
Code:
Quote: Cirrus SR22 (non-turbo) is quite comparable. Yes, but how does it handle the shorter grass strips, say 700 metres/2100' long with 4 POB?
