182 vs Dakota

DesertNomad

DesertNomad

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
2,464
Location
Northern NV
Display Name
Display name:
DesertNomad
I am looking for either a 182 or a Dakota with a budget of $125K.

Most of my training was in 172s and I have maybe 60 hours in a 182 and only 5 or so in Pipers. It seems easier to find nicely outfitted Dakotas for this price, but most of the 182s I find are 1979 to 1981 (which is fine) but they tend to have very dated interiors and avionics.

My wife (and me to some extent) like the two doors of the 182, but several friends and my CFI insist that the stability on the ground and in crosswinds will be nicer int he Dakota.

Thoughts?
 
The problem with the dakota is that it has the same tiny fuselage as all PA28's. yes it's a load hauler but there just aren't anough cubic feet of volume available to really take advantage of it. If you're ready for a dakota, I'd suggest getting a PA32 instead. Purchase price, maintenance, insurance, airspeed will be virtually identical but there is much, much more space to play with for a cost of ~2gph more fuel burn.

IMO for the PA28, 180hp is optimal. It's just too small an airplane to take advantage of more power.

Given the choice between dakota and 182, I'd go 182 hands-down. The 182 gives you more room to pack stuff for the weight it will carry.
 
Later model fixed gear PA32.
 
Id probably go 182 over Dakota, too. The p and q model 182s have decent take off load, and the two doors would be great.
 
For <125K you can pick up a really nice P or Q model. Don't worry about the fuel bladders, they are a straightforward fix for a known prices.

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...-SKYLANE/1977-CESSNA-182Q-SKYLANE/1375621.htm

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...-SKYLANE/1975-CESSNA-182P-SKYLANE/1375163.htm

Redoing an interior is pretty straightforward - DIY for ~5K or less to custom work for $15K, pick your poison. Seats and fabric panels can be done in a week or two by a good shop.

Remember, you're only going to find one with 2 or 3 of these items good:
Paint
Interior
Engine
Avionics

The other 1 or 2 you'll need to pay to do yourself. Truly turn-key used airplanes are rare.
 
One consideration...possibly...with 182s is that (IIRC) starting with the Q (1977) model, a MoGas STC is no longer available. That was the first year for the O-470 U, which is higher compression and (again IIRC) not approved for MoGS.
 
But guys, the Dakota is cooler! Okay, well maybe not...
 
Clark1961 said:
But guys, the Dakota is cooler! Okay, well maybe not...
Click to expand...
none of them are "cool", they are utility machines. The fixed-gear PA32 is probably the most "un-cool" airplane you can think of but it will carry more stuff and in more comfort for a lower $$ investment that just about anything else.
 
If you got that kind of change, get a A185F, haul more, go faster, land anywhere, way cooler, manual flaps, etc.

If you want more fun, swap the 8.5 tires (and some speed) for big tundra tires,

live up north? Get some penetration skis

Want to really have fun, spend a few more bucks and get floats or amphibs.


For 125k you can get a good example on wheels.

I don't think I could get 125k worth of value out of any 182 or PA28/32.

4611E.jpg


This guy has more then a few for sale
http://www.skywagons.com/aircraft_for_sale.html#.VXY1NGK9KSM
 
I trained in Archers. Owned a T182T for several years and loved it. Also flew one in the ID backcountry, to Alaska, and all over the West. Most of my time is in low-wings, but if I were making this choice it would be 182, hands down, for me. The Dakota and 182 are both durable, easily-maintained, relatively simple. Vanilla vs Chocolate.
 
that's all well and good, but scope creep usually leads to paralysis and no purchase at all.

It's hard to go wrong with just about any 182. If that fits your needs then run with it.
 
Hmmm... don't know but there's something about those Dakotas that I really like! :D

attachment.php



attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 2015-06-05 13.59.21 PIPER LOGO Small.jpg
    2015-06-05 13.59.21 PIPER LOGO Small.jpg
    354.2 KB · Views: 818
  • 2015-06-04 10.08.49 Small.jpg
    2015-06-04 10.08.49 Small.jpg
    418.9 KB · Views: 824
DesertNomad said:
I am looking for either a 182 or a Dakota with a budget of $125K.

Most of my training was in 172s and I have maybe 60 hours in a 182 and only 5 or so in Pipers. It seems easier to find nicely outfitted Dakotas for this price, but most of the 182s I find are 1979 to 1981 (which is fine) but they tend to have very dated interiors and avionics.

My wife (and me to some extent) like the two doors of the 182, but several friends and my CFI insist that the stability on the ground and in crosswinds will be nicer int he Dakota.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

:confused: I find PA28s run out of rudder at 25kts direct crosswind, and 182s a bit over 30, so I give crosswind to the 182. Loading under the wing and from both sides sell me the 182 over the Dakota. Personally I also prefer the O-470 Continental over the O-540 Lycoming. The fact I can do a Katmai conversion on a 182 and not a Dakota seals the deal for me. Both are capable airplanes, both make reasonably stable IFR platforms, and I may even give the edge to the 182 on that as well. It really comes down to which you like better. Some people think a low wing is better, some a high. Personally having flown a bunch of both and some bi wings as well, I don't see either having a distinct advantage when it comes to flying, but a biplane has the worst characteristics of both with the advantages of neither.:lol:
 
James331 said:
If you got that kind of change, get a A185F, haul more, go faster, land anywhere, way cooler, manual flaps, etc.

If you want more fun, swap the 8.5 tires (and some speed) for big tundra tires,

live up north? Get some penetration skis

Want to really have fun, spend a few more bucks and get floats or amphibs.


For 125k you can get a good example on wheels.

I don't think I could get 125k worth of value out of any 182 or PA28/32.

4611E.jpg


This guy has more then a few for sale
http://www.skywagons.com/aircraft_for_sale.html#.VXY1NGK9KSM
Click to expand...

You can put a 182 on floats just fine, and I'm pretty sure I've seen a picture of one on skis.
 
I'd would want to know how many of those giving advice have ever sat in a Dakota let alone flown one.
 
Ark235B said:
I'd would want to know how many of those giving advice have ever sat in a Dakota let alone flown one.
Click to expand...

At least 3 Dakotas (or PA-28-235s) plus a Turbo Dakota, and several other PA-28s. They all have one door and load over the wing.
 
DesertNomad said:
I am looking for either a 182 or a Dakota with a budget of $125K.

Most of my training was in 172s and I have maybe 60 hours in a 182 and only 5 or so in Pipers. It seems easier to find nicely outfitted Dakotas for this price, but most of the 182s I find are 1979 to 1981 (which is fine) but they tend to have very dated interiors and avionics.

My wife (and me to some extent) like the two doors of the 182, but several friends and my CFI insist that the stability on the ground and in crosswinds will be nicer int he Dakota.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Get a Bonanza.
 
Ark235B said:
I'd would want to know how many of those giving advice have ever sat in a Dakota let alone flown one.
Click to expand...

I've flown one. A pathfinder and a Dakota. Biggest problem for me was the single door and lack of space in the hangar. Otherwise they flew beautifully, nice and stable...just like my 182.
 
Henning said:
You can put a 182 on floats just fine, and I'm pretty sure I've seen a picture of one on skis.
Click to expand...

Yeah but it's still a 182, if you're spending the big bucks, might as well get a big boy plane.



How about a U206, or just a 206, WAY more room, good speed, super stout, and you have loading doors unlike the PA28 or 182, so you can actually get the stuff in there!

Again, you'd actually be getting 125k worth of plane

.watermarked_3cc9890581d06913ba089efb78fe6307.jpg


.watermarked_2778a1f6c914a51f682694281fa21cd0.jpg



Ark235B said:
I'd would want to know how many of those giving advice have ever sat in a Dakota let alone flown one.
Click to expand...

I've flown almost all, if not all, the PA28s, Dakota included.
Wasn't impressed
 
Last edited:
As much as I like flying PA-28s, the single door and that bulkier items have to be loaded over the wing, are big negatives for me. This is where Maules shine, but I believe that this was not your question... :rolleyes:

Therefore: 182
 
Ark235B said:
I'd would want to know how many of those giving advice have ever sat in a Dakota let alone flown one.
Click to expand...

Sit in an Archer? You've sat in a Dakota! :wink2:
 
Screw all of those planes - you need a 207! Will haul anything you can close the door with, it's in CG if the tail isn't on the ground, and it will take 45 knots of crosswind with good technique! (And a rally goot rally brave pilot)
 
DavidWhite said:
Screw all of those planes - you need a 207! Will haul anything you can close the door with, it's in CG if the tail isn't on the ground, and it will take 45 knots of crosswind with good technique! (And a rally goot rally brave pilot)
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Lol gotta love the slead
 
James331 said:
Yeah but it's still a 182, if you're spending the big bucks, might as well get a big boy plane.



How about a U206, or just a 206, WAY more room, good speed, super stout, and you have loading doors unlike the PA28 or 182, so you can actually get the stuff in there!

Again, you'd actually be getting 125k worth of plane

.watermarked_3cc9890581d06913ba089efb78fe6307.jpg


.watermarked_2778a1f6c914a51f682694281fa21cd0.jpg





I've flown almost all, if not all, the PA28s, Dakota included.
Wasn't impressed
Click to expand...

If they would have put the wide cabin on the 185 I would be with you, but they didn't, and those few inches of shoulder room are significant to me. As for a 206, it's in another category really, capability and cost wise.
 
James331 said:
:yeahthat:

Lol gotta love the slead
Click to expand...

Seriously, it's ugly as hell (if you ask anyone but me, I think it's a beauty) my dads 172 was faster, and most of them have more hours on them than most 121 airliners flying but I think they are probably the best airplane I have ever flown. I absolutely love them. I'm in the process of getting upgraded to the caravan, which makes me kind of sad. If you mess up a start on the 207, you blow an awesome fireball out the exhaust, laugh, and keep on trucking. If you mess up a start in the caravan you get an awesome fireball, cry, and start packing your bags.
 
I went through this decision last year and went with the Dakota. Both great planes for what we wanted (4 seater that could actually carry 4 adults and full tanks, that could have good climb even in higher DA, that was relatively benign in flight characteristics, not expensive to own, and flew well). The Dakota is a bit faster, has a higher useful load, and longer range plus to us it felt better in turbulence and landings and we ultimately preferred the lower wing. Either way you can't go wrong.
 
DavidWhite said:
Seriously, it's ugly as hell (if you ask anyone but me, I think it's a beauty) my dads 172 was faster, and most of them have more hours on them than most 121 airliners flying but I think they are probably the best airplane I have ever flown. I absolutely love them. I'm in the process of getting upgraded to the caravan, which makes me kind of sad. If you mess up a start on the 207, you blow an awesome fireball out the exhaust, laugh, and keep on trucking. If you mess up a start in the caravan you get an awesome fireball, cry, and start packing your bags.
Click to expand...

You're right, but they were quite stable in cruise IMO.

The PT6s start slow enough you got plenty of time to catch it, it was the TPE331s where I was always on high alert, para/series start when it made the switch, if one of the batts was too tired you would loose all your engine instruments, and those starts happened fast! I was always ready to flip the switch and back it up with the lever.
 
netsurfr said:
I went through this decision last year and went with the Dakota. Both great planes for what we wanted (4 seater that could actually carry 4 adults and full tanks, that could have good climb even in higher DA, that was relatively benign in flight characteristics, not expensive to own, and flew well). The Dakota is a bit faster, has a higher useful load, and longer range plus to us it felt better in turbulence and landings and we ultimately preferred the lower wing. Either way you can't go wrong.
Click to expand...

Some 182s carry 88 or 92 gallons - more than the 72 in the Dakota so how is the Dakota longer range?

I have flown an Arrow and felt that it didn't glide at all (the Dakota should be similar, yes?) - seems like a 182 can land in a lot shorter distance than a Dakota. I feel like a 182 doing a power off landing is quite a bit easier than any Piper I have been in... not that I normally do such landings but the 182 seems more docile in the landing configuration.

I am flying a Dakota tomorrow to compare.
 
Last edited:
We did a same-day fly-off between a 182 and a Pathfinder (couldn't find a Dakota to fly) and decided on the 182. Granted, the Pathfinder has a smaller backseat area than the Dakota, but the 182 beats both. The 182 also has an enormous list of STCs available, including several just for the engine. I generally like the cockpit ergonomics of the Pipers better than Cessna's, but that didn't overcome the other factors for me.

But it is a Ford vs. Chevy thing - both are good at what they do.
 
Yes some 182s carry 88/92 but we were not looking comparing vs that particular model years and they give up even more useful load due to fuel weight.

Dakota/182 are not gliding machines when you kill the power like 172s/DA40s are. That big 6 cylinder up front makes a big difference on that so this was not one of the key criteria for me. If so I would have gone w/ a DA40/172 or Cirrus where you can just pull the shute!

Landing distance between Dakota/182 is about 250' if I recall, takeoff is about the same. We don't fly into dirt/backcountry so I didn't need to worry about making a 650' or 800' landing as that's way shorter than my minimums. If I was intending to fly into unimproved areas I would certainly go w/ a 182/185...


Not sure about the ease of landing thing but I prefer the heavier flight feel of the Dakota and how it lands vs. high wings but any plane you buy you'll learn to adjust to so not a differentiator.

DesertNomad said:
Some 182s carry 88 or 92 gallons - more than the 72 in the Dakota so how is the Dakota longer range?

I have flown an Arrow and felt that it didn't glide at all (the Dakota should be similar, yes?) - seems like a 182 can land in a lot shorter distance than a Dakota. I feel like a 182 doing a power off landing is quite a bit easier than any Piper I have been in... not that I normally do such landings but the 182 seems more docile in the landing configuration.

I am flying a Dakota tomorrow to compare.
Click to expand...
 
Easy maintenance access is always appreciated. A 182 wins over the Dakota there too.

My favorite of course is the Cardinal.

 
Ark235B said:
I'd would want to know how many of those giving advice have ever sat in a Dakota let alone flown one.
Click to expand...

I have flown both. From a flying standpoint, I prefer the Dakota.
 
Pilawt said:
Except for the four-position fuel selector on the floor, the Cherokee Pathfinder (1974-77) has the same interior as the Dakota.
Click to expand...

Before that they were just a Cherokee 235 with the short fuselage, right?
 
I have a 1984 182 R. Paid a good bit less than that for it. I am biased. But I am 52 and don't like climbing in from the passenger side and over the passenger seat to get in anything. The two doors on the 182 are awesome. I also like the high wing when on the ground and it's raining. Also when it's 100 degrees I can stand in the shade. The airflow in the 182 is much better as well. You can also open both of the windows in flight. Mine carry's 92 gallons. with full fuel three 200lb men and three golf bags I am still under on the WB. Barely:eek:. I am extremely please with it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top