Besides the obvious differences between a late 70s Dakota to a late 60s 28-235, cabin size, tapered wing. Anything that would be a deterring factor. I look and and see an older 235 goes for a bit cheaper than a Dakota close to equally equipped and engine hours.
Dakota compared to older 235
- Thread starter TommyG
- Start date
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
Fuel burn higher in the 235 with the lower compression engine. Backseat legroom can also be a problem but you mentioned cabin size so I assume you're aware...
Fuel management is another thing. 235 prolly has 4 tanks vs 2 on the 236.
Of course the 201T is the way to go...
Fuel management is another thing. 235 prolly has 4 tanks vs 2 on the 236.
Of course the 201T is the way to go...
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
The '73 through '77 models ('73 was called "Cherokee Charger"; '74-'77 were "Cherokee Pathfinder") had the old wing and the new stretched cabin. There was no 235-hp model for 1978.
Yep; the old wings had four tanks holding a total of 84 gallons, same as a Cherokee Six. The Dakota's two tanks hold 72.
Last edited:
gms5002
Pre-Flight
I have a '67 235. The biggest downside for me is the backseat legroom, other than that it's a great plane.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
Both the 235 and the Dakota are fine airplanes - I have owned and flown both. But James331 is correct, the taper wing Dakota is the better choice if the budget will allow the higher price to purchase. The higher aspect ratio tapered wing is a wee bit nicer to fly, particularly at high loads, and the dead simple 2-tank fuel system eliminates a lot of fussing.
The Dakota is my all time favourite of the Cherokee derivatives I have owned (which includes a 160, a 180 and a naturally aspirated Arrow) - the Dakota has a decent cabin size, carries a good load and has a nice balance between performance and cost to operate/maintain.
If you want to go high and fast a Mooney or Bonanza is a better bet, especially now the price premium those used to command has shrunk. But if I was to ever buy another Piper single it'll be a Dakota.
The Dakota is my all time favourite of the Cherokee derivatives I have owned (which includes a 160, a 180 and a naturally aspirated Arrow) - the Dakota has a decent cabin size, carries a good load and has a nice balance between performance and cost to operate/maintain.
If you want to go high and fast a Mooney or Bonanza is a better bet, especially now the price premium those used to command has shrunk. But if I was to ever buy another Piper single it'll be a Dakota.
FloridaPilot
Pattern Altitude
I had a buddy just go up in one and he loves it, (He is a beginner). He told me the interior was upgraded and it looked fantastic inside.
Won't you have the same problem even if you had two tanks?
Don't know whether the Dakota uses the one on the sidewall like the Archer or whether it has the horizontal design in the 'pedestal' like the 235 and Six.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
It's on the sidewall, just like the Warrior, Archer, Arrow, etc.
Maybe not. I've heard that repairs are more difficult and parts are harder to get for the four-position valve.
DesertNomad
Pattern Altitude
I have never flown a 235, but I have owned my Dakota for a bit over a year (155 hours in it so far). I have also flown a Hershey-bar wing Arrow. The Dakota's tapered wing handles much better in the landing configuration once you get slow and in the flare. Also, the two tanks IMHO is better. I'd much prefer 20 gallons split between two tanks than 20 gallons split between 4 tanks. I don't think you can go wrong with a Dakota. The only think I do not like is the dual-mag system on the O-540 that the Dakota uses.
FloridaPilot
Pattern Altitude
I see you are in Nevada. How does the Dakota do in the higher elevations, places like Colorado, Utah...etc
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
I've flown 'em out of Reno and West Yellowstone, fully loaded in the summertime. Did fine. This pic was on the way home over the Sierras from Reno:
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
Useful load is one of the top criteria for me when selecting an airplane. I fly out of a 4000 ft ASL airport on the lee side of the Continental Divide. Useful load was the reason I went from a Cherokee 180 to the 235. I traded my later Dakota for an Arrow - that was a mistake (subsequently corrected permanently with the Aztruck which carries anything, anywhere, any time
) Although the Arrow was a fun airplane, got more attention on the ramp and was a truly economical retract, I lost 200 lb of useful load over the Dakota and didn't gain enough speed to offset that.If I loaded 350 lbs of fuel, 550 lbs of passengers and 200 lbs of baggage in the cabin & rear compartment I was still 300 lb below the max gross on the Dakota. Climb rates were reasonable in that configuration even in summer.
However, if you are in Colorado and 5000 ft ASL or higher you may want to consider a turbo-charged airplane. Piper made a turbocharged Dakota for only one year I believe, but I think it was a Continental engine? You are probably better off looking at a more common turbo airplane, including the more plentiful turbocharged Piper Arrows if you are in that situation.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
Clark1961, who posted earlier in this thread, has a PA-28-201T Turbo Dakota, so he may chime in later. The name "Turbo Dakota" really wasn't appropriate; the PA-28-201T was more a fixed-gear Turbo Arrow III, with the Arrow's 200 hp Continental TSIO-360, and gross weight 100 pounds less than the NA 235 hp PA-28-236. The "Turbo Dakota" was only built in the 1980 model year, I believe.
One of the 235s I flew some years back was a barn-find that was reactivated after 21 years in storage. One of the pieces that needed repair was the 4 (or 5?) position fuel selector. It was leaking internally (fuel from the tips ran into the mains). I remember rebuilding it was a bit more involved and it had to be sent out or even replaced (I faintly remember an AD). The Archer/Warrior style selector on the sidewall otoh is a fairly simple design with a capstan and some O-rings that any mechanic can rebuild if you get that whiff of fuel while changing tanks.
There are some things I remember about the short-body 235:
- it was light and could get off the runway in a hurry
- when flown slow in the pattern, it seemed to fly at a high angle of attack
- it could fly on mogas. Good thing as it never met a gas pump it didn't like.
- 84 gallons is a lot of fuel. Pulled back to 11gph you could bop along at 115kts for 7hrs before you get into VFR reserves
Last edited:
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
The model year was 79 not that it matters. If you look at engine output, the Turbo Dakota has as much or more power than the Dakota when above 5,000'. Fuel burn in the Turbo Dakota is much better than the Dakota. I cruise at 10 gph or less depending on how fast/slow I want to go. The TSIO-360 is common and used on several airframes. Ya gotta be a little more careful with manifold pressure than some more sophisticated turbo setups. The engine is great down low. Up high ya gotta watch oil temp. Cylinder temps are never a problem in the Turbo Dakota.
The turbo helps here in Colorado in the summer but it doesn't solve all problems. At Leadville I've had to use half the runway on departure...
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
No doubt you're correct. There is some confusion, though ... at least one was painted in 1980 colors for the brochure:
Ruth Preston
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2018
- Messages
- 7
- Display Name
Display name:
Cavuflyer
Maybe a Cherokee 180 would be ok for cost if mainly two people fly.
UngaWunga
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 2,026
- Display Name
Display name:
UngaWunga
Piper PA-28 Cherokee 235/Dakota - Aviation Consumer
[IMGCAP(1)]Big-engined four-place tricycle singles are an interesting - and small - class of airplane. Its almost always possible to go faster for less money and fuel, and often possible to get more utility than is afforded by sticking a bigger engine on a relatively small airframe...
www.aviationconsumer.com
DMD3.
Pre-takeoff checklist
The Dakota has better climb, ceiling, cruise speed AND a roomier cabin than the 235. The only thing the 235 wins on is payload (it can literally carry its own weight), but that’s not saying much. The Dakota still has a very good payload and is a true four-person hauler. And speaking of the ceiling, there are those who claim being able to cruise in the lower teens, though not at full gross. Amazing what tweaking the airframe can do without increasing engine horsepower.
Sinistar
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
- Messages
- 3,735
- Display Name
Display name:
Brad
I skimmed over the thread and didn't see a mention of the older the 235's not having a constant speed propeller. We have (2) older 235's on our field with fixed pitch prop's but maybe they are even older than the "late 60's 28-235" specified in this thread?
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
CSP was an extra-cost option on the PA-28-235 from the beginning up through the 1972 model year. It was standard equipment starting with the 1973 model, the first of the long-body 235s.
According to the performance charts in the original (1963) Cherokee 235 owner's manual, the optional CSP provides better takeoff and climb performance, as expected; but cruise speed at 75% power is two or three mph slower with the CSP than with the fixed-pitch.
1975 Pathfinder Owner...came from a T Arrow III. A lot went into my buying decision. I like both wings , what I really ike is the dependability of the O-540, and for me the DUEL MAG set up was important. The 235 is much better in a x- wind and turbulence . Its good IFR platform . I'm not flying any 6 hours legs-, but you could. It has the bigger cabin and I rarely have 3 passengers , but I could. For me it checks a lot of the boxes.
Garee
Pre-Flight
If price doesn’t matter then definitely get the Dakota, I have owned 1966 235 over 10 years and love it! Yea it likes it’s fuel but I run it on mogas so not bad at all. What I like is I can fill just the main tanks (50 gallons) and still have 1000# of useful load while cruising at 150 mph for 3+ hours, fill it to 84 gallons and over 5+ hours and 700 mile range, mine has auto pilot so it’s a nice traveling machine…..
Steamflyer
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2022
- Messages
- 537
- Display Name
Display name:
Steamflyer
The earliest -235s could haul their empty weight - if I recall, the one I used to fly was 1350# BEW and 1350# useful. Impressive. That one had a fixed pitch prop as well, which went away later. With two on board have coaxed it out of about 700' of muddy grass, so the straight wing preforms well enough IMHO. It does stop flying all at once, so being near the ground when it does so is recommended.
Whoever put the selector on the left side invisibly down low was just being cheap.
Whoever put the selector on the left side invisibly down low was just being cheap.