Dakota Vs SR20

Sinistar said:
@AnthonyS1 - a lot of suggestions for the Bonanza...but all of your original suggestions had fixed gear if I understand correctly. Is a retract an option for you?
Click to expand...

A retract is an option. I'm starting to look at F33's now that some seem to think a nice bonanza can be aquired In our price range. I really thought that while the SR20/22 may be a bigger acquisition cost it would beat the bonanza on operating costs mainly in the MX department. Anyone have good performence numbers for the F33A? Specifically the 285HP IO-520. Do the tip tank modifications incur a speed penalty due to drag? Also what would low compressions be for that engine? I believe I've heard before continental engine compressions can sometimes be much lower than lycomings? I saw one F33A about 100nm from me from with a price of 139k. Full garmin GNS stack with paint and interior at an 8 out of 10. Engine at 1800SMOH though... some of the compressions were advertised in the mid high 50s. Is 40-45k a good number for an overhaul on that engine? Thanks again for all the feedback.
 
AnthonyS1 said:
I really thought that while the SR20/22 may be a bigger acquisition cost it would beat the bonanza on operating costs mainly in the MX department.
Click to expand...

It's a non-difference. People often prefer the capital expenditure because they can finance it, whereas they can't formally finance the mx costs (for the most part, engine O/h perhaps being the big exception). The reality is that YoY mx costs of singles of most vintages as a median fleet sample will not exceed yearly financing costs on these 150K and above cirri, especially when you consider the fact that what you're saving is not the total mx bill, but merely the differential in mx between the two airplanes. This often amounts to a rounding error when compared to the loan payment every month.
 
I recently sold my Piper Dakota (completely restored inside/out including avionics) to move into loaded SR22 G2 GTS. As much as I loved the Dakota, the 22 is in a totally different class than any other 4 place single piston in my opinion. The speed, comfort, technology, and safety features are simply hard to match/beat. The IO550N is a solid engine and the 22 runs extremely well LOP. In my Dakota I would fly at 65% HP burn 15.5 GPH at optimal altitude and get TAS of 135ish knots depending on OAT. In the 22 if I'm not in a hurry to go anywhere I can fly in economy mode @ 50% HP burning 9 gph with TAS of 130 knots. If I'm traveling bump that up to 65% HP @ 13.5 gph LOP and TAS of 170 knots. If I decide to go ROP it can get to 180 knots so extremely efficient. Add the 2 doors, CAPS, 26g seats, seatbelt airbags, TAWS, active traffic, & envelope protection of the autopilot and you'll be hard press to find any other single piston that can provide all that. It does cost more to own/maintain but if you find a well maintained one then annual expenses (over and above CAPS & related reserves) are not going to be drastically different than Bonanzas. If you find a well cared for G1 (nothing wrong with them and they probably are the best value in terms of Cirrus) you may be in the ballpark of your target $ so don't pass on that option without exploring it.
 
AnthonyS1 said:
A retract is an option. I'm starting to look at F33's now that some seem to think a nice bonanza can be aquired In our price range. I really thought that while the SR20/22 may be a bigger acquisition cost it would beat the bonanza on operating costs mainly in the MX department. Anyone have good performence numbers for the F33A? Specifically the 285HP IO-520. Do the tip tank modifications incur a speed penalty due to drag? Also what would low compressions be for that engine? I believe I've heard before continental engine compressions can sometimes be much lower than lycomings? I saw one F33A about 100nm from me from with a price of 139k. Full garmin GNS stack with paint and interior at an 8 out of 10. Engine at 1800SMOH though... some of the compressions were advertised in the mid high 50s. Is 40-45k a good number for an overhaul on that engine? Thanks again for all the feedback.
Click to expand...
I know for our O-470 we are shooting to save up $50K, partly due to inflation and partly because when that thing comes out I just know there will be other stuff (hoses, mags, etc) that might also need work and its best to do it then.

I think things have changed when it comes to the older Continental compressions. A mid 50's number probably just isn't really all that bad. There seems to a lot of paperwork and info on this lately from Continental. If its a Lycoming engine...I have no clue, have never been an owner of one. However, I think a compression in the 50's for a Lycoming seems to be worse.

Funny thing - when we bought our 182 it's annual previous to our buy indicated a few compressions in the 50's. So that owner put in a whole new top end. Later on when our mechanic looked at it he was "That guy wasted his money, it just wasn't being flown enough. It didn't need the new top end." If you looked at the hours for the year before the new top end it was only probably flown twice.

But that does bring up a point - you don't have to overhaul the entire motor if you have one bad compression. You could just replace one cylinder. But if you are TBO it might as well be fully overhauled.

Even though I am a biased 182 owner, my wish list would first be a Cessna TTx (no chute, a bit faster, can land at MTOW, fixed gear). Right after that would be a Bonanza. Whats cool about the Bo is that its got a lot of power, great W&B and can really climb. I also love the look of the Mooney, especially the newest one. Damn they look awesome up in the air. But I think the Bo (if you want retract) really is a fantastic plane to get lots of people/stuff someplace noticeably faster than our 182 or the Dakota and not be overly crammed in there.

Dumb question does either the Dakota or Bonanza have a pilot side door?
 
My G2 2005 GTS is roughly at least $500 / hour @ 125 hours / year, but that's all-in. Keep in mind, most folks when they quote numbers forget things like depreciation (actually my G2 has not depreciated at all in 400 hours...even with the higher time engine and cost of the chute replacement), hangars, property tax (1.25% / year of hull value in CA), overhaul allowance, chart subscriptions, XM satellite fees, on and on.

Once I got the kinks worked out 4 years ago and replaced the 'chute, my maintenance has been reasonable. Annuals have been $5 - $6K including repairs. Insurance is $2,400 / year (IFR rated, 750 hours, 450 in SR platform).

Buy a Cirrus for the speed (I fly 163 knots, 12gph, LOP), comfort (the cabin is MUCH wider than Piper and super comfy for 4), and most important, safety (among the lowest fatality rates in GA, even though SR's are used a lot for weather / IFR flying).
 
AnthonyS1 said:
... Hes also 66 so hes quite a bit slower than me on the learning curve...
Click to expand...

I represent that statement!! I am only a few month from 66 and I will put my learning curve up against any of you young whippersnappers. Now get off my friggin' lawn.
 
wayne said:
The cabin is noticeably wider than a Bonanza; so much so that the center armrest had storage space in it. Two doors are really nice as well.
Click to expand...
Yeah.. for how much people love to talk about the Bonanza as the "ultimate" single engine GA plane I find its cabin small and the backseats especially cramped. The table and club style seating gives the illusion of size, but it's honestly quite small and narrow in there. The Cirrus is a remarkably comfortable plane, even in the backseat with plenty of room for your head, feat, arms, etc. And having two doors makes it a very easy plane to get in and out of

netsurfr said:
the 22 is in a totally different class than any other 4 place single piston in my opinion. The speed, comfort, technology, and safety features are simply hard to match/beat.
Click to expand...
Yes. It is in its own class for sure

I've brought up flying a lot of Cirrus haters and have yet to find someone who didn't fall in love with it after flying in one. Even an older SR20.. fine it's not as fast or climbs as well as some of the more advanced planes, but for someone who just got done training in a tattered 1970s Cherokee or Skyhawk even an SR20 is a huge leap forward. Then you step into a 22, and especially a turbo.. you're at the epitome of what single engine piston GA can give you in a well rounded package.. (some planes will do ONE task better, but no other plane gives you the balance the Cirrus does)

And say what you will about the parachute, but it's an excellent safety tool.. no one is forcing you to use it, but if things go belly up it's a great resource to have
 
[
alfadog said:
I represent that statement!! I am only a few month from 66 and I will put my learning curve up against any of you young whippersnappers. Now get off my friggin' lawn.
Click to expand...

The Bonanza partnership I am in had a gentleman in his 60s who joined and sold within a year because he never managed to get comfortable with the speeds. He bought into a 182 and has been happy with his decision.
 
I looked at SR20 and 22's when I was shopping, nice planes but chute repack and upfront cost scared me off. I ended up finding a Socata Trinidad, same cabin width as a Cirrus (50"), 1100 # useful load, cruise at 9500' is 154 kts true burning 13 to 13.5 gal/hr. Easy to fly, trailing link gear so even I can land it. You can find really nice ones for under $150k. Mine is an 86, had a garmin 430w, auto pilot, had ~400 hrs on overhaul 2200 TT and it was well under $100k, but that was about 4 yrs ago, think they've went up. I ruled out anything that didn't have 2 doors early on, I'm not getting younger, and apparently not getting any skinnier soon!
 
Thanks for all the replies. We have looked at a lot of SR22 ads online. There are some very nice G2's for around 200-250k. Only problem is I will have to finance my share if we go that route and I dont think I'm totally comfortable with that. Bottom line is it sounds like we have somewhat ruled out the dakota. It's just really not much of a step up from our archer... We are most likely going to fly in a cirrus this weekend if the weather holds to check it out. The spaciousness of the cabin really seems amazing. I have about 15 hours in a saratoga and thought that cabin was incredible! Cirrus seems to be a step up. We are defintely going to fly a bonanza as well though before ruling it out. Problem is there is no where around here to rent one so were just going to have to fly one thats for sale or hope we can find someone nice around our area to take us for a spin in theirs!
 
GBSoren said:
Socata Trinidad
Click to expand...
that whole line is very under-appreciated, those planes are built rock solid and are great traveling machines

I believe I read somewhere that they have never had an in flight break up, I think it's also a single piece spar wing
 
Tantalum said:
that whole line is very under-appreciated, those planes are built rock solid and are great traveling machines

I believe I read somewhere that they have never had an in flight break up, I think it's also a single piece spar wing
Click to expand...
They're also as common as hens teeth. A consideration that's a non issue for some, and important to others, depending on ownership styles and other factors.
 
hindsight2020 said:
They're also as common as hens teeth. A consideration that's a non issue for some, and important to others, depending on ownership styles and other factors.
Click to expand...
We're getting into thread creep territory here, but so what it's POA. Yeah they're not common planes at all, but this guy made a YouTube video and claimed that their parts support was top notch.. he made a very comprehensive review

Before I budgeted out my current flying situation I was seriously thinking about getting a Trinidad. Anyone who knows me personally can attest that I tend to like things a little off the beaten path haha

 
GBSoren said:
I looked at SR20 and 22's when I was shopping, nice planes but chute repack and upfront cost scared me off. I ended up finding a Socata Trinidad, same cabin width as a Cirrus (50"), 1100 # useful load, cruise at 9500' is 154 kts true burning 13 to 13.5 gal/hr. Easy to fly, trailing link gear so even I can land it. You can find really nice ones for under $150k. Mine is an 86, had a garmin 430w, auto pilot, had ~400 hrs on overhaul 2200 TT and it was well under $100k, but that was about 4 yrs ago, think they've went up. I ruled out anything that didn't have 2 doors early on, I'm not getting younger, and apparently not getting any skinnier soon!
Click to expand...

Yup, and I’ll throw in the Commander 114 too. It is one of my favorite singles in that category. Essentially the same as a TB-20.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
3f6d03adf1bc8317b08cf8700b8e2e08.jpg
 
Dakota Vs SR20

Round here this is a Dakota[1].

6D812366-1B71-4992-860EEE8A8A6C11CF_600xauto.jpg



... and on a google image search Dakotas like these are the only kind to be found, pages and pages of them. Who knew?

upload_2018-10-26_7-22-1.jpegupload_2018-10-26_7-22-54.jpeg

I think I am confused...

[1] https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/dakota/
 
Piper should have bumped the power to 250 and added a retract gear to the Dakota and they would have had a winner.
 
they did.....it's called a Six or Lance or Saratoga....but the HP was later increased to +300HP. :D
 
AnthonyS1 said:
Ehhhh too old I think for us.
Click to expand...

Why does age scare you? It's usually total time that will cause issue not age. The only real issue age causes is corrosion and seal leaks which should be easily picked up during a thorough pre-buy. Total time is what wears items out, causes cracks....etc. I would be more interested in 2000 hour Comanche than a 10k hour Dakota.
 
Grum.Man said:
I would be more interested in 2000 hour Comanche than a 10k hour Dakota.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't, but we re still presenting a false dichtomy though. There's more to age when it comes to comanche. The fact remains a comanche requires much more involved mx oversight, and mechanics that know the type well. That may not be an opportunity cost of consequence to some, but it is for others. Otherwise, you are looking at a lot of pencil whipped junk out there in the absence of nuanced mx capability. That's is simply not a barrier of consequence to the pa28 line. Anybody looking at this question with objectivity will come to the conclusion a Cherokee variant is much easier and regionally inelastic an airplane to source and maintain.

As an arrow owner I very much second the commentary that piper missed the mark by coddling lance sales and not putting that io540 on the arrow. Ditto for not allowing the pa28 the 45 inch cabin, which would have added nothing on manufacturing cost to an already cheap line to manufacture. As refined as the comanche wing was, we re really talking about nothinburger differences in performance across all these spam cans when horsepower is indexed. A 250hp arrow iii would leave little on the table to a comanche, and I'd be willing to accept whatever drag penalty there is for the simpler and more commonly accessible mx. Alas, vaporware, so the only options is to eat the opportunity cost of those blasted continentals (beech) or 12k gear pivots (cessna) if one wants to go 150kts with 4 seats.

BL, I don't consider a lance a legitimate answer to the comanche.
 
weilke said:
Piper should have bumped the power to 250 and added a retract gear to the Dakota and they would have had a winner.
Click to expand...

I've owned a series of Pipers; in order a Cherokee 160, 180, 200 hp Arrow and a Dakota. I enjoyed owning each one in their turn. The Arrow is such a forgiving retract that my insurance company didn't change my premium from the 180. However, imo the Dakota was by far the best Cherokee derivative of the lot. Tough and capable enough that it got me in and out of places I wouldn't take the others.

I won't argue against more hp, but making it a retract would have spoiled a good airplane. I sold the Arrow to buy the Dakota because the Arrow useful load was compromised by the weight of the retractable gear (my old 180 had a slightly higher useful load than the Arrow) and the Pipers are so drag prone, sucking up the gear isn't a really huge improvement over the wheel pants.

I was looking to buy an A36 Bonanza when I came back from overseas, but they command the Beechcraft premium and don't have the useful load to be a true 6-place airplane. The Aztec costs more per hour to operate but it cost considerably less to buy (and insure), and its far more capable than the Bo. In fact the Aztec cost quite a bit less than what I had sold my Dakota for years earlier.
 
Doesnt the comanche also have the elevator trim on the ceiling?? I have a about 40 hours in an older cherokee that has that setup and just could not get used to it.
 
AnthonyS1 said:
Doesnt the comanche also have the elevator trim on the ceiling?? I have a about 40 hours in an older cherokee that has that setup and just could not get used to it.
Click to expand...

We are all different. I especially dislike have to bend forward to reach for trim wheels on the lower console when flying IFR. The ceiling mounted elevator and rudder trim on my Aztec is quite intuitive and easy to reach without having to even look at it. For fine pitch adjustments I reach up instead of using the electric trim on the yoke.
 
hindsight2020 said:
...the only options is to eat the opportunity cost of those blasted continentals (beech) or 12k gear pivots (cessna) if one wants to go 150kts with 4 seats..
Click to expand...

Mooney or RV10?
 
Grumman Tiger? Buy a tricked out one for well under 100K.

135 to 137 KTAS all day long on 10 gal per hour. Fixed gear and fixed pitch prop for simple ops, cheap maintenance and cheap insurance (my ins was $500 last year). Awesome visibility, 900 lb useful load, sliding canopy for the hot summers, plus you can fold down the back seat for a flat 6ft long space to carry lots of stuff. Best engine in aviation (Lyc O360) and great back seat room. Best of all it has a Grumman tough airframe with the landing gear mounted on the fuselage instead of the wing for less stress and no wing bolt or wing carry through worries.

Nearly as fast as a C model Mooney or an Arrow but much cheaper to maintain.

Besides you will look cool taxiing into the blocks with the canopy open!
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
We are all different. I especially dislike have to bend forward to reach for trim wheels on the lower console when flying IFR.
Click to expand...

When they moved the pitch trim in the Cherokees, the wheel is on the floor between the seats. No leaning forward, and easy to get at unless your butt is too fat.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
AnthonyS1 said:
Doesnt the comanche also have the elevator trim on the ceiling?? I have a about 40 hours in an older cherokee that has that setup and just could not get used to it.
Click to expand...

I consider the Chrysler window crank a feature, not a bug. Easy to make little trim adjustments.
 
GRG55 said:
In fact the Aztec cost quite a bit less than what I had sold my Dakota for years earlier.
Click to expand...

It may be a good airplane, but the fact remains Dakota prices are out to lunch. It's a low wing 182 with less cabin space. Its cult pricing further supported by low-time pilots averse to retract insurance premium (a forest for the trees stance to take afaic). Same dynamic as six-300 pricing. Hell, I'd say FG Six is a better value on that front alone, considering they cost the same to acquire in this market.

The Aztec as you well know is a 25K/yr airplane (sans regional dependent fixed costs) for 100 hours give or take. The Dakota is just like an Arrow. Sub 15K (my ledgers are all sub-10K for 5 years on the Arrow for 70 hours a year). Not even in the same ballpark. The capability of the Aztec justifies that premium of course, if you need it. The purchase price delta is just a nice to have. It certainly wouldn't drive me to an Aztec over a Dakota over price alone. Again, to me the Dakota is a good airplane, but not a good value.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Again, to me the Dakota is a good airplane, but not a good value.
Click to expand...

From what I can gather, they don't depreciate much. The only valid comparison is one that accounts for all money in, all money out vs. either time or miles traveled. While there is a premium on the purchase price of the Dakota, you are bound to get that back when you sell. With a 'cheap twin', that's far less of a given.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top