Dakota vs Skylane (First Impressions)

Sinistar

Sinistar

En-Route
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
3,734
Display Name
Display name:
Brad
A good friend at our local airport helped me drop of the Skylane for the ADSB Install. His Dakota and our Skylane are both early 1970's models. I believe the Dakota is a 235hp vs our 230hp. Here is the wackiest part....this was my first time I have ever flown in low wing GA plane! So it was a great experience.

Getting There (2 planes)
It was a 50nm flight and I launched about 90seconds after he did. I flew +400ft higher than he did, both around 3500agl. Since he recently had is Garmin 345 installed my old GDL39 had him all the way. I also had him visually the entire flight but it was a bit tricky with all the haze and smoke in the air. The entire flight he was about 3 miles ahead. He said he was showing a ground speed of 151mph and I was showing 150mph. Talk about close. On the flight back we discussed MP and RPM and determined that he was flying at 21" and 2250rpm and I was at 21" and 2300rpm. Once again, talk about close. I am pretty sure at those settings and leaned we were both burning a bit under 11gph. I wish we could have got a photo as both planes have the same color schemes.

The Ride Back Home
So this was my first ride ever in a low wing GA plane. Very, very different. As a passenger the 1 door thing didn't really bother me that much. Climbing up was easy and the upper handle was in a good spot for getting in. Basically just put the left foot in and dropped in.

Right away I noticed how narrow it is compared to the 182. I really didn't mind that it is narrower up by my shoulders, it was how narrow it was down low. If I was skinny it probably wouldn't matter all the much. The first complication was the seat belt. It fit but the short end was so short that when I dropped it, it kinda fell back underneath so he fished it back out for me.

Once that was done we started up. Door still open since its so hot. I was wearing my Zulu 3's so its hard to compare engine noise. I think the Dakota was a bit quieter but ironically a bit rougher...by just a bit. Once we had ATIS and taxi clearance we taxied. I knew I was sitting a bit lower but didn't really bother me that much.

When it came time to close the door, he reached over and pulled it shut and I then dropped that black vacuum like handle thingy. I love that!! Our Skylane door, especially the pilot door doesn't really seal that tight. This door was snug. I would have to think its less drafty in the winter. It also had a fan he turned on which helped a little bit.

I am pretty sure our takeoff roll was longer in the Dakota. The reason I know this was that I was at the same airport 2 days earlier practicing DA leaned takeoffs and landings. I was always getting off the ground faster. Yes it was just me but I probably weight 80lbs more than him but I was easily hauling 100lbs more fuel than him. Once in the air I think he climbed about the same and I am guessing with just him on board he would easily outclimb just me when carrying full fuel. I also felt like his rotate speed was fast at a bit over 70kts and in the Skylane I am rotating at 65mph.

Now comes the part that sucks. In about 10 minutes I started to get a cramp on the outside muscle in my left leg (nearest him). Since there is some equipment down on the floor it means the entire flight was trying to keep my left foot back under my right knee. He probably sensed it but I didn't want to complain. About every 3 minutes I would shuffle around a bit, but it was really uncomfortable. I went into it thinking I would be bumping my shoulders as its tighter up top but that wasn't the case.

Coming into land I learned that the elevator trim and flaps were between the seats. And the seats seem about 4" closer together...in other words not much gap. So I was moving around to make sure he had full access to everything. Ironically, once he went full flaps I rested my left leg against it and instant relief.

I was really watching the landing sight picture and it didn't seem wildly different. Just seemed like he landed a bit faster. I think I could have figured it out in a lesson or two.

I kinda dig the throttle quadrant. The Dakota has better airflow. Looking down and seeing a wing didn't bother me at all. But I didn't find myself magically looking up in awe either. The seats definitely sit lower but were comfortable other than the leg issue.

Actually, I have had that same thing happen once riding 5hrs in a old Jeep Grand Cherokee where the hump was so wide that as a passenger my left leg would cramp up. So far, my longest flight in the Skylane was over 3.5hrs and this has never happened. I have also done over 2hrs as passenger and it hasn't happened so I think the extra width plus higher sit height keeps this from happening to me. I am wondering if he had my seat way ahead and if I had slid it back I would have had more room for my left leg?

Getting out wasn't too bad. I was trying to reverse my entrance but he gave me a different approach which worked better.

We were getting some good chop on both flights as it was afternoon and getting hot. I am pretty sure the ride up in the Skylane was a bit less bouncy than the ride back In the Dakota. But I am guessing the Dakota will easily win at being more responsive/fun on the controls.

Sorry if that was too long. I just thought it was cool to compare the Skylane and Dakota back to back, same trip, same day and same wx. I would like to learn to fly a low wing like a Dakota or Cirrus or Diamond. However, for this round I think the Skylane wins for me when all things are considered.
 
Narrow ? ..Dakota is supposed to be 41 inches wide while 182 is listed as 42 ...so what I am missing here ?
 
Sinistar said:
A good friend at our local airport helped me drop of the Skylane for the ADSB Install. His Dakota and our Skylane are both early 1970's models. I believe the Dakota is a 235hp vs our 230hp. Here is the wackiest part....this was my first time I have ever flown in low wing GA plane! So it was a great experience.

Getting There (2 planes)
It was a 50nm flight and I launched about 90seconds after he did. I flew +400ft higher than he did, both around 3500agl. Since he recently had is Garmin 345 installed my old GDL39 had him all the way. I also had him visually the entire flight but it was a bit tricky with all the haze and smoke in the air. The entire flight he was about 3 miles ahead. He said he was showing a ground speed of 151mph and I was showing 150mph. Talk about close. On the flight back we discussed MP and RPM and determined that he was flying at 21" and 2250rpm and I was at 21" and 2300rpm. Once again, talk about close. I am pretty sure at those settings and leaned we were both burning a bit under 11gph. I wish we could have got a photo as both planes have the same color schemes.

The Ride Back Home
So this was my first ride ever in a low wing GA plane. Very, very different. As a passenger the 1 door thing didn't really bother me that much. Climbing up was easy and the upper handle was in a good spot for getting in. Basically just put the left foot in and dropped in.

Right away I noticed how narrow it is compared to the 182. I really didn't mind that it is narrower up by my shoulders, it was how narrow it was down low. If I was skinny it probably wouldn't matter all the much. The first complication was the seat belt. It fit but the short end was so short that when I dropped it, it kinda fell back underneath so he fished it back out for me.

Once that was done we started up. Door still open since its so hot. I was wearing my Zulu 3's so its hard to compare engine noise. I think the Dakota was a bit quieter but ironically a bit rougher...by just a bit. Once we had ATIS and taxi clearance we taxied. I knew I was sitting a bit lower but didn't really bother me that much.

When it came time to close the door, he reached over and pulled it shut and I then dropped that black vacuum like handle thingy. I love that!! Our Skylane door, especially the pilot door doesn't really seal that tight. This door was snug. I would have to think its less drafty in the winter. It also had a fan he turned on which helped a little bit.

I am pretty sure our takeoff roll was longer in the Dakota. The reason I know this was that I was at the same airport 2 days earlier practicing DA leaned takeoffs and landings. I was always getting off the ground faster. Yes it was just me but I probably weight 80lbs more than him but I was easily hauling 100lbs more fuel than him. Once in the air I think he climbed about the same and I am guessing with just him on board he would easily outclimb just me when carrying full fuel. I also felt like his rotate speed was fast at a bit over 70kts and in the Skylane I am rotating at 65mph.

Now comes the part that sucks. In about 10 minutes I started to get a cramp on the outside muscle in my left leg (nearest him). Since there is some equipment down on the floor it means the entire flight was trying to keep my left foot back under my right knee. He probably sensed it but I didn't want to complain. About every 3 minutes I would shuffle around a bit, but it was really uncomfortable. I went into it thinking I would be bumping my shoulders as its tighter up top but that wasn't the case.

Coming into land I learned that the elevator trim and flaps were between the seats. And the seats seem about 4" closer together...in other words not much gap. So I was moving around to make sure he had full access to everything. Ironically, once he went full flaps I rested my left leg against it and instant relief.

I was really watching the landing sight picture and it didn't seem wildly different. Just seemed like he landed a bit faster. I think I could have figured it out in a lesson or two.

I kinda dig the throttle quadrant. The Dakota has better airflow. Looking down and seeing a wing didn't bother me at all. But I didn't find myself magically looking up in awe either. The seats definitely sit lower but were comfortable other than the leg issue.

Actually, I have had that same thing happen once riding 5hrs in a old Jeep Grand Cherokee where the hump was so wide that as a passenger my left leg would cramp up. So far, my longest flight in the Skylane was over 3.5hrs and this has never happened. I have also done over 2hrs as passenger and it hasn't happened so I think the extra width plus higher sit height keeps this from happening to me. I am wondering if he had my seat way ahead and if I had slid it back I would have had more room for my left leg?

Getting out wasn't too bad. I was trying to reverse my entrance but he gave me a different approach which worked better.

We were getting some good chop on both flights as it was afternoon and getting hot. I am pretty sure the ride up in the Skylane was a bit less bouncy than the ride back In the Dakota. But I am guessing the Dakota will easily win at being more responsive/fun on the controls.

Sorry if that was too long. I just thought it was cool to compare the Skylane and Dakota back to back, same trip, same day and same wx. I would like to learn to fly a low wing like a Dakota or Cirrus or Diamond. However, for this round I think the Skylane wins for me when all things are considered.
Click to expand...

I personally would choose the 182 mainly because of the pilot door. I have many hours in a 182, and several in a Warrior and Arrow. I get what you mean about the seat. In the 182 or 172 I never have to squirm around at times to change position to keep my butt/leg from hurting. Never have to do that in the 182/172. According to specs they're actually the same width, or at least in what I looked at. I just thing how it's designed is the difference. And that causes certain perceptions as you said. But there are some real differences in how each cabin makes me feel.
 
Warmi said:
Narrow ? ..Dakota is supposed to be 41 inches wide while 182 is listed as 42 ...so what I am missing here ?
Click to expand...
Has to do with wing location.... And think about anatomy too...

PA28's... wing is low, so wider space is down low, below hip level. So elbows and shoulders don't have much room.

C182's (and similar)... wing is above, so from hip level to overhead, the fuselage cross section gets wider. Lots of shoulder and elbow room is something I really enjoy in the Skylane.
 
Thanks for the report. It's interesting to hear first impressions like this.

Sinistar said:
His Dakota and our Skylane are both early 1970's models.
Click to expand...
Dakota would not be an early-1970s model. Up through the 1977 model year the 235-hp version of the PA-28 series was the PA-28-235 (variously known as "Cherokee 235", "Cherokee Charger" or "Cherokee Pathfinder", depending on the year). These all had the 32'-span rectangular "Herhsey-bar" wings and four fuel tanks, total 82 gallons usable. There was no 235-hp model for 1978. The PA-28-236 "Dakota" was the 1979-1994 version - same fuselage, cabin and tail as the 1973-77 PA-28-235, but with 35'-span semi-tapered wings and two fuel tanks, total 72 gallons usable. The Dakota's engine was a higher-compression version, putting out 235 hp at 2400 rpm.

Warmi said:
Narrow ? ..Dakota is supposed to be 41 inches wide while 182 is listed as 42 ...so what I am missing here ?
Click to expand...
Interior dimensions are a moving target -- it depends where you measure. There are so many curves, tapers and other variations in a typical lightplane fuselage that a single "maximum width" measurement doesn't really mean much.

Mooney printed a comparison chart in its 1975 M20C brochure, quoting the elbow-to-elbow width (as measured by Mooney itself) of the Skylane at 45.5", and the PA-28 series at 42.0".

PA-28-235 interior.jpeg

This, from another Mooney ad, shows how variable these dimensions can be:
Mooney interior.jpg

Here are the dimensions from the 1978 C-182Q POH. The only width measurements shown -- at the lower window line and at the cabin floor -- are at the bukheads, the narrowest points:

C182Q.jpg

The cabins of the PA-28 series, like most low wing types in this class, have a box-like cross section from the floor to shoulder level, then a more-or-less semi-circular cross section above the shoulder level. Thus the cabin is quite a bit narrower at eye level than it is at the elbows. Cessnas, on the other hand, have a rounded cross-section near the floor, and nearly vertical sidewalls and windows all the way up to the ceiling. Also, in a Cessna you're sitting more upright, and higher off the floor. All of these affect one's perception of room, while the high wing can make one feel more closed-in.
 
Last edited:
I’m in a club that has, amongst two other planes, a 182 and a 180 HP Grumman Tiger. The Tiger was my first low wing to be checked out in and I absolutely love it. Like your friend’s Dakota, the flap and trim are between the seats. Rarely need the trim though. Kinda set it and forget it. Not sure if that’s a low wing characteristic or not.

So, did he let you fly it? I rarely have rated pilots in the right seat but when I do I always ask them to check their brakes on the ground and then let them fly it once in cruise.
 
182 feels much much wider than a PA28 to me, because of what @Pilawt said. I've done ~5.5 hours nonstop....don't think I would want to go more than that
 
woodchucker said:
I’m in a club that has, amongst two other planes, a 182 and a 180 HP Grumman Tiger. The Tiger was my first low wing to be checked out in and I absolutely love it. Like your friend’s Dakota, the flap and trim are between the seats. Rarely need the trim though. Kinda set it and forget it. Not sure if that’s a low wing characteristic or not.

So, did he let you fly it? I rarely have rated pilots in the right seat but when I do I always ask them to check their brakes on the ground and then let them fly it once in cruise.
Click to expand...
Nope, didn't fly it. I think the discomfort in my left leg and all my fidgeting would have thrown me off. I would love to learn how to fly it though. Anyhow, he used his AP so we mainly talked about the differences in the planes, etc. I don't have a AP so like the first 10 minutes were talking about that.
 
As a PA-28 owner I fully concur with this PIREP. I love how when it comes to ergonomics, the Dakota people maneuver and cajole for ameliorating arguments, but say Arrow and it's VFR-direct to Redwood sized Shade LOL.

I've measured the PA-28 cabin, it's 41.5 inch cabin at the elbows. It's fine for solo, cramped for two adults. The 182 is 44 inches at the elbows (yes, listed as 42 at the window sill and 30-something at the floorboard, but it's a 44 inch cabin where it counts).Short people will have some issues with the panel height in the 182, it's tank slit view when you raise the seat high enough to clear. No free lunch in life.

At any rate, to me it's the difference between being comfortable with someone next to you, and having to contort your arm all the time in the conduct of the flight, as the OP listed. BTW, all PA-28s are the same width. Don't let Dakota owners tell you different. From the piddly 140 to the Arrow to the Dakota, they're all the same. The only change occurred in the rear row leg room dimensions as a function of the fuselage extension which occurred in the 70s (different individual years depending on which variant of the PA-28 it was).

@SoCalPilot88 did us the solid a while ago and posted actual pictures displaying the difference. I wholeheartedly concur with his assessment.


In this horsepower class comparison, my vote goes for the 182. The PA-28 cabin width decision was a purposeful boned-up decision by Piper to spare the antique Comanche sales, then the thing flooded and now it's well.. I digress on that front to avoid the flame war. At any rate, the Dakota ended up suffering from lackluster ergonomics that plagued that decision compared to the 182, and the rest is history. Like its short rear cabin parent the 235, it's all horsepower wasted on a tight airplane imo.

If Lycoming powered ones were more reasonably priced, I wouldn't hesitate to chuck the Arrow for the 182 (slow for the gas, but more comfy for 4 imo). I don't do Toys-R-Us cylinder kit Contis though, so vintage 182s are out. At any rate, the comfort factor and climb rate is becoming important to me after a decade of this spam can ownership thing. Lastly, for what people are asking for a Dakota, I'd just get a Lance. That'd be my preference on the cabin comfort. Actually, throw in the commander 114 on that list too.
 
hindsight2020 said:
As a PA-28 owner I fully concur with this PIREP. I love how when it comes to ergonomics, the Dakota people maneuver and cajole for ameliorating arguments, but say Arrow and it's VFR-direct to Redwood sized Shade LOL.

I've measured the PA-28 cabin, it's 41.5 inch cabin at the elbows. It's fine for solo, cramped for two adults. The 182 is 44 inches at the elbows (yes, listed as 42 at the window sill and 30-something at the floorboard, but it's a 44 inch cabin where it counts).Short people will have some issues with the panel height in the 182, it's tank slit view when you raise the seat high enough to clear. No free lunch in life.

At any rate, to me it's the difference between being comfortable with someone next to you, and having to contort your arm all the time in the conduct of the flight, as the OP listed. BTW, all PA-28s are the same width. Don't let Dakota owners tell you different. From the piddly 140 to the Arrow to the Dakota, they're all the same. The only change occurred in the rear row leg room dimensions as a function of the fuselage extension which occurred in the 70s (different individual years depending on which variant of the PA-28 it was).

In this horsepower class comparison, my vote goes for the 182. The PA-28 cabin width decision was a purposeful boned-up decision by Piper to spare the antique Comanche sales, then the thing flooded and now it's well.. I digress on that front to avoid the flame war. At any rate, the Dakota ended up suffering from lackluster ergonomics that plagued that decision compared to the 182, and the rest is history. Like its short rear cabin parent the 235, it's all horsepower wasted on a tight airplane imo.

If Lycoming powered ones were more reasonably priced, I wouldn't hesitate to chuck the Arrow for the 182 (slow for the gas, but more comfy for 4 imo). I don't do Toys-R-Us cylinder kit Contis though, so vintage 182s are out. At any rate, the comfort factor and climb rate is becoming important to me after a decade of this spam can ownership thing. Lastly, for what people are asking for a Dakota, I'd just get a Lance. That'd be my preference on the cabin comfort. Actually, throw in the commander 114 on that list too.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with this post at all.

Sometimes I wish I had more cargo-carrying capability and more range than my 180-hp C-172N offers. I do volunteer flights carrying large cartons of blood platelets. Those cartons are too big to fit through the 172's baggage door, so they have to be loaded through the passenger door (a tight squeeze behind the front seat) and ride on the back seat, which rules out passengers back there. The cartons are not particularly heavy, so for my needs useful load is not as important as are cargo area volume and door dimensions.

I wonder about a 182 or a Cherokee 235. While both offer good range and useful load, neither has a decent-sized cargo door. The 182 baggage door is only half an inch wider than the 172's, and the 172's baggage door is half an inch taller. The only fixed-gear four-seater I can think of with a big enough cargo door is a Maule.

So how about a C-206 or fixed-gear PA-32, both with ample cargo capacity and access? Both are thirsty and relatively slow, and I'd rather not shell out for six seats worth of insurance (I don't have that many friends). The PA-32, especially, is very roomy, but on those solo burger runs I'd probably feel like a BB in a boxcar. On the other hand, the PA-32 is Mrs. Pilawt's all-time favorite airplane, because of the cabin room.

I'm not as agile as I used to be, so getting in and out of the 182 is easier than the PA-28, or just about any other low-wing type (except maybe Grumman). Arizona summers favor the 182's high wing (shade from the sun) and big openable windows. My summertime pre-landing ritual in the 172 is power back, carb heat on, first notch of flap, and window open. :) I certainly appreciated the big openable windows the day a wasp appeared in the cabin at 11,500'. :eek: I like taking pictures while flying, so that favors the high wing, as well.

Advantage PA-28 on the visibility. The top of a 182's glareshield is only an inch or two lower than the top of the side windows. Thus you have to crane your neck to see over the panel, then hunker down to look out the side. That's hard on the cervical vertebrae. Full disclosure: My 172 has the same issue, but to a lesser degree than the 182.

C-182Q side.jpg

C172N side.jpg

Given the choice, I too would rather have a Lycosaurus O-540 than a Continanderthal O-470. Mogas STCs are available for older Cherokee 235s and 182s, but not for the Dakota or 182Q or later.

Performance-wise, the 182's wing will do better with short fields and high density altitudes. A high wing doesn't take up as much floor space in the hangar, as well. And one landing gear oleo strut is better than three, any day. As for handling, I'll give a slight edge to the PA-28.

There's more of a selection among used 182s, but the prices are considerably higher than for the Hershey-wing PA-28-235s. Dakota prices are way up there, too.

Neither a 182 nor a Cherokee 235 would be more than 5-10 knots faster than my 172 (it's a speedy one for a 172), at the cost of 25-30% more fuel.

This analysis results in nothing more than a headache, and the conclusion that I should just stick with what I have. It doesn't excel at anything, but does okay in most things. Like me. :p

The PA-28 cabin width decision was a purposeful boned-up decision by Piper to spare the antique Comanche sales, then the thing flooded and now it's well.. I digress on that front to avoid the flame war.
Click to expand...
No flame war; what you say is documented fact, except the decision was made long before the Comanche was an antique.

In 1956, Piper Aircraft Corporation was ready to leave the aging PA-22 behind and create the all-metal PA-28. [...] Keenly aware that one restriction of the Tri-Pacer design was its small cabin, Pug Piper wanted a wider interior but the width was not to exceed 42 inches. [Designer Fred] Weick preferred a wider width to increase comfort, but Piper did not want the PA-28's cabin to be as wide as that of the more expensive PA-24 Comanche that was about to enter production at Lock Haven. The Comanche's cabin was 44 inches wide.
Piper: A Legend Aloft by Edward H. Phillips, p. 82​
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
Sometimes I wish I had more cargo-carrying capability and more range than my 180-hp C-172N offers. I do volunteer flights carrying large cartons of blood platelets. Those cartons are too big to fit through the 172's baggage door, so they have to be loaded through the passenger door (a tight squeeze behind the front seat) and ride on the back seat, which rules out passengers back there. The cartons are not particularly heavy, so for my needs useful load is not as important as are cargo area volume and door dimensions.

I wonder about a 182 or a Cherokee 235. While both offer good range and useful load, neither has a decent-sized cargo door. The 182 baggage door is only half an inch wider than the 172's, and the 172's baggage door is half an inch taller. The only fixed-gear four-seater I can think of with a big enough cargo door is a Maule.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, how does the 177 compare with regards to fitting your mission?
 
asicer said:
Just out of curiosity, how does the 177 compare with regards to fitting your mission?
Click to expand...
Valid question. I do like Cardinals. I got checked out in one of the early '68s when they first came out, then years later was in a club that had a 177B. They are very pleasant to fly, and visibility is outstanding for a high-wing..

Cargo area and baggage door of a 177RG would not accommodate these boxes, so that's out. A 177B would be about the same speed and useful load as what I have now; more range and cabin room but more complexity (fuel pump, C/S prop, cowl flaps). There's plenty of room in the baggage compartment, but I'm still not sure the baggage door is big enough.

A Grumman AA-5X with its station-wagon-style fold-down rear seat (love 'em - used to own a Cheetah) would certainly accommodate the boxes, but they'd have to lifted over the canopy rail. The baggage door is much too small.

The big back door of a Beech C24R Sierra looks promising -- but I'd rather avoid retractables and I don't know if that back door was available on the fixed-gear Mice.
 
Last edited:
I have these automotive organizers/cup holders on my floor both in front and back and can still put an oxygen bottle, flight bag, and extra iPad between the front seats. 182PEE8E08FA-D04E-46D5-9608-A14E8BEE4AA4.jpeg FC469266-9E52-4F8F-B9FE-9D6A02AAEB44.jpeg
 
Pilawt said:
A Grumman AA-5X with its station-wagon-style fold-down rear seat (love 'em - used to own a Cheetah) would certainly accommodate the boxes, but they'd have to lifted over the canopy rail. The baggage door is much too small.
Click to expand...

Did your Cheetah have the later style seats that were hinged like a normal seat back? I would imagine that the earlier style that was hinged on the middle of the seat bottom might impede your loading ability.
 
Pilawt said:
127-130 KTAS at 75% power; 122-125 at 65%. 180 hp, Power-Flow, gap seals, Maple Leaf exhaust fairing, full factory wheel & brake fairings.
Click to expand...
Wow. Our club 182 I don’t think does that!!!
 
Well at 14 gallons per hour even a greased brick can do 140 knots....:D
 
I have the '73 235 ("Charger") and pretty much agree with what's already been said. I got mine for useful load first, most other considerations second, and it's been a good choice for me. I needed to be able to put 4 adults in it in the Arizona summer, and a 172 wasn't going to do that. I might have gone for a 182 had I seen a nice one first, but at the time they were pricey compared to a comparable 235, and I did my training in a Cherokee so I was basically used to them.

woodchucker said:
Rarely need the trim though. Kinda set it and forget it. Not sure if that’s a low wing characteristic or not.
Click to expand...

I'm just one data point, but that's not my experience -- I'm adjusting the trim pretty frequently. It is true that if you have a front seat passenger who likes to spread out, you might have to say something about keeping the flap lever and trim wheel clear (I have electric trim, which helps a lot as long as it doesn't have to change too fast).
 
Pilawt said:
Despite the presence of a manifold pressure gauge, it's a fixed-pitch prop. This is about 70% power, density altitude a hair under 9,000'.

Click to expand...
I like how all of your engine/fuel gauges are on the left side. Makes so much more sense
 
deyoung said:
I have the '73 235 ("Charger") and pretty much agree with what's already been said. I got mine for useful load first, most other considerations second, and it's been a good choice for me. I needed to be able to put 4 adults in it in the Arizona summer, and a 172 wasn't going to do that. I might have gone for a 182 had I seen a nice one first, but at the time they were pricey compared to a comparable 235, and I did my training in a Cherokee so I was basically used to them.



I'm just one data point, but that's not my experience -- I'm adjusting the trim pretty frequently. It is true that if you have a front seat passenger who likes to spread out, you might have to say something about keeping the flap lever and trim wheel clear (I have electric trim, which helps a lot as long as it doesn't have to change too fast).
Click to expand...

Interesting, I’ve never flown electric trim. But in a 172/182 I’m always fiddling with trim. Nothing wrong with that regardless. In the Tiger I guess I adjust throttle if needed. I’ll play around with that next time I’m up.
 
woodchucker said:
Interesting, I’ve never flown electric trim. But in a 172/182 I’m always fiddling with trim. Nothing wrong with that regardless. In the Tiger I guess I adjust throttle if needed. I’ll play around with that next time I’m up.
Click to expand...

You don't fiddle with it any less, of course, but the fiddling is easier with a push-forward, push-back thumb switch on the yoke. It is slower than working the wheel by hand though, if you really need to put a lot of trim change in quickly. I haven't ever had that be an issue, but just FYI. There is a button to disengage the electric trim if you want to change it manually, in my installation; I believe that if you ignore this and just put in a lot of manual adjustment without disengaging it then it will still work, but it might not be very good for the electric system. Something to worry about later, depending on the circumstances.
 
I have always like the price point of the 235, just seems like a decent buy. If you older with bad knees the 182 probably a lot easier to deal with.
 
deyoung said:
You don't fiddle with it any less, of course, but the fiddling is easier with a push-forward, push-back thumb switch on the yoke. It is slower than working the wheel by hand though, if you really need to put a lot of trim change in quickly.
Click to expand...
It's also easy to overshoot if you just want to dial in a minuscule amount of adjustment. With a manual trim wheel it's much easier to tweak the trim just a tiny little bit.
 
woodchucker said:
Interesting, I’ve never flown electric trim. But in a 172/182 I’m always fiddling with trim. Nothing wrong with that regardless. In the Tiger I guess I adjust throttle if needed. I’ll play around with that next time I’m up.
Click to expand...

Tigers require very little trim. Once when you enter cruise, once to slow down on approach and that is about it.
 
I've owned a Dakota. It was, imo, the all-round best of the four Cherokee derivatives I've owned (160, 180, 200R)

The 235 hp 182 is still in production. The 235 hp Cherokee is not. That alone should tell us something about the comparison. ;)
 
GRG55 said:
I've owned a Dakota. It was, imo, the all-round best of the four Cherokee derivatives I've owned (160, 180, 200R)

The 235 hp 182 is still in production. The 235 hp Cherokee is not. That alone should tell us something about the comparison. ;)
Click to expand...

Superiority isn't the reason on that one, instead Piper's frequently precarious financial situation. The Cheyenne, especially the IV/400, was a better product than the King Air (as was the Conquest), but the worst product is still in production.
 
I remember my close up look at Clark's Frankenkota... a very nice and well appointed airplane. And was the perfect thing for his missions in and around Colorado.
 
N1120A said:
Superiority isn't the reason on that one, instead Piper's frequently precarious financial situation. The Cheyenne, especially the IV/400, was a better product than the King Air (as was the Conquest), but the worst product is still in production.
Click to expand...

Ya, we can get into the Betamax vs VHS argument, but at the end of the day the market decides. And the winner is the 182. Even the used market is indicating that today.
 
AggieMike88 said:
I remember my close up look at Clark's Frankenkota... a very nice and well appointed airplane. And was the perfect thing for his missions in and around Colorado.
Click to expand...

That's why I sold my Arrow and bought the Dakota. Good climb with a decent useful load in the mountains. Didn't even consider a 182, Because I was still of an age where there was no way I was going to be seen in a ...shudder...high wing "training" airplane. :)

Now look at me. In keeping with the times, I'm now gender neutral (or is that non-binary?).
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
Ya, we can get into the Betamax vs VHS argument, but at the end of the day the market decides. And the winner is the 182. Even the used market is indicating that today.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. You can get older 182s pretty cheap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top