Why the Pathfinder/Dakota is the Best 4-Seat GA Plane

Nope. It has a weak gear compared to a 180 or 182, and is not a good airplane on rough fields.

In Alaska, they just bulldoze Cherokees off the end of the runway after they try to land. Not worth trying to fix a gear that is pushed through the wing.

Also, there were a couple of Cherokee seaplanes. The 180 and 300. I flew the 180 seaplane and it was a real dog even compared to a 150 HP Cessna 172.

I am not biased, I own a Cherokee 180. But I am well versed in its limitations. In the late 70's I instructed for Seattle Flight Service, a Piper dealer. The GI bill was hot then and soon to be discontinued. 1500 hrs instructing in Cherokees of all kinds in less than a year.
 
Last edited:
Jay, I have been a low wing guy and Piper fan since I started flying and the 235, Pathfinder, Dakota is an awesome plane.........................however there are a few detractors so I wouldn't say it out preforms a 182 in every area. First since there were so few of them sold they are somewhat expensive, more so that the 182 on the other hand for owners that is good as they seem to have held their value more than other planes.

The article was obviously not written by a neutral source:rolleyes: But it does state a lot of positives about the 182. The biggest one it does not touch on is the back seat. The back seat in the 235 can be painful. Kent and Mike flew with Kate who is 50 lbs soaking wet from the midwest to expo in Hartford CT. They tell stories of how Kate who sat in the back could not get comfortable and sit forward. I believe when they renamed it the Dakota the back seat was redesigned for humans. The 182 back seat however, well I sat back there and WOW it was like sitting on my den sofa, could put my legs out and everything.

Sigh but I do like the Dakota you sure can pack a load in it.
 
AdamZ said:
The article was obviously not written by a neutral source:rolleyes: But it does state a lot of positives about the 182. The biggest one it does not touch on is the back seat. The back seat in the 235 can be painful. Kent and Mike flew with Kate who is 50 lbs soaking wet from the midwest to expo in Hartford CT. They tell stories of how Kate who sat in the back could not get comfortable and sit forward. I believe when they renamed it the Dakota the back seat was redesigned for humans. The 182 back seat however, well I sat back there and WOW it was like sitting on my den sofa, could put my legs out and everything.

Sigh but I do like the Dakota you sure can pack a load in it.
Click to expand...

Yes, the pre-1973 Cherokee 235 was cursed with the Cherokee 140/180s back seat. IMHO, this is what killed Piper's efforts to compete with the 182.

After 1973 (mine is a 1974) the backseat is almost comically spacious -- especially when Mary is PIC! :D

(For those who haven't met her, Mary is, uh, height-challenged. She claims to be 5' tall, but that's in thick-soled shoes. When she flies, the seat is all the forward, all the way up, and with a pillow behind her.

As a result, the back seat is like a stretch limo. I rode back there once when she was flying, and literally could not touch the back of her seat with my feet!)
 
kgruber said:
Nope. It has a weak gear compared to a 180 or 182, and is not a good airplane on rough fields.

In Alaska, they just bulldoze Cherokees off the end of the runway after they try to land. Not worth trying to fix a gear that is pushed through the wing.
Click to expand...

True that. For off-road flying, nothing beats a sprung-gear Cessna high wing.

HOWEVER -- that represents such a tiny portion of GA flying in the Lower 48 that I daresay it is irrelevant to the comparison. The Cherokee gear is plenty tough for landing in grass -- I've done it many, many times -- and that's as rough as 99% of pilots will ever experience.

(Heck, I know way too many pilots who are afraid of landing on groomed sod -- let alone taking on a real back-country strip.)

And the floatplane comparison? Well, that's an even smaller subset of GA flying in the Lower 48. For the past 25 years I have seen floatplanes exactly once a year -- at OSH -- and I live on an island, for chrissakes. They just don't exist outside of Alaska much anymore, sad to say.

So, yes -- in those two rarified examples, the 182 is superior. But I think I've shown that to the vast majority of pilots, that simply isn't important.
 
It is great, just lacks a door.
 
bartmc said:
As someone said the other day. Cherokee doors leak, be glad you only have one. :D
Click to expand...

That should read: "On Cherokees used for flight training, the doors leak."

My Warrior spent years on the line, training new pilots. It took a lot of effort, but I FINALLY got that door to not leak.

My Pathfinder has never been used for flight training. The door is as tight as a freaking submarine hatch.
 
Slightly faster with a higher fuel burn than a 182,

Despite what the article said the useful load is identical

Fewer doors
Harder to get into and out of
Lacks a flat floor for cargo loading
More complex landing gear

And a grey engine rather than a superior gold one ;)


I bought the better plane.
 
When I was shopping for my plane, I gave the 235 series serious consideration. Here were my issues:

1) there are just not that many of them, which makes finding one local a challenge.
2) my hangar is quite small, and a low wing makes maneuvering around nearly impossible. With a high wing, having a hangar is like having an extra garage.
3) one of my good friends is a aerial photography nut. Highwings are better for that kind of thing.
4) the single door is a pain, and climbing on the wing adds extra inconvienence boarding and deplaning.

I guess most of those issues are high-wing versus low-wing. I used to fly a Lance so I'm familiar with the Piper line. In the end, a 182 seemed like an easier plane to find, buy, and eventually one day sell.
 
Jay Honeck said:
That should read: "On Cherokees used for flight training, the doors leak."

My Warrior spent years on the line, training new pilots. It took a lot of effort, but I FINALLY got that door to not leak.

My Pathfinder has never been used for flight training. The door is as tight as a freaking submarine hatch.
Click to expand...

I don't know if mine does or not... It hasn't seen water since I've owned it.
 
Brad Z said:
When I was shopping for my plane, I gave the 235 series serious consideration. Here were my issues:

1) there are just not that many of them, which makes finding one local a challenge.
2) my hangar is quite small, and a low wing makes maneuvering around nearly impossible. With a high wing, having a hangar is like having an extra garage.
3) one of my good friends is a aerial photography nut. Highwings are better for that kind of thing.
4) the single door is a pain, and climbing on the wing adds extra inconvienence boarding and deplaning.

I guess most of those issues are high-wing versus low-wing. I used to fly a Lance so I'm familiar with the Piper line. In the end, a 182 seemed like an easier plane to find, buy, and eventually one day sell.
Click to expand...
The fuel tanks are also too small
 
bartmc said:
82 USEABLE gallons isn't enough? :yikes:
Click to expand...

Not at 13.5 gph

Drop 1 GPH and add 6 gallons and you have my machine, and she's been run down to VFR reserves several times with me at the helm.
 
Last edited:
They both lack great control feel. In fact, they both fly like trucks. The Piper like a dump truck, and the Cessna like diesel dualie (how do you spell that!) pickup.

Thank God for autopilots.
 
bartmc said:
I don't know if mine does or not... It hasn't seen water since I've owned it.
Click to expand...

Mine leaked air. Freaking below zero Iowa air. It was painful, especially for the kids.

They were very happy when I finally fixed that leak. (Actually, it was a series of leaks. I could write a book on Cherokee leaks, and how to detect and fix them.)
 
Jay Honeck said:
Mine leaked air. Freaking below zero Iowa air. It was painful, especially for the kids.

They were very happy when I finally fixed that leak. (Actually, it was a series of leaks. I could write a book on Cherokee leaks, and how to detect and fix them.)
Click to expand...

I would buy that book
 
Doing anything under a Piper panel requires a trained monkey that doesn't mind standing on its head.
 
Skylane81E said:
Not at 13.5 gph

Drop 1 GPH and add 6 gallons and you have my machine, and she's been run down to VFR reserves several times with me at the helm.
Click to expand...

Good God. Your bladder must be the size of a hoppity hop. :dunno:

Our Pathfinder holds 84 gallons. We can lean it back at altitude to 12 GPH. (Well, we could pull it way back to Warrior/Archer speeds, and burn 8 GPH, I suppose.)

That's 7 freaking hours (well, okay, 6+) in a spam can without a bathroom. I did 5.5 hours once -- that was about 2 hours more than I want to ever do again.
 
Tom-D said:
Doing anything under a Piper panel requires a trained monkey that doesn't mind standing on its head.
Click to expand...

Well, if you take the seats out it's a LOT easier. :lol::lol:

But, yeah, it was never designed for easy access. Of course, lots of planes are that way.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Well, if you take the seats out it's a LOT easier. :lol::lol:

But, yeah, it was never designed for easy access. Of course, lots of planes are that way.
Click to expand...

Take the seats out???

isn't that where your feet go getting in and out?
 
Tom-D said:
Take the seats out???

isn't that where your feet go getting in and out?
Click to expand...

Um, no?

That's where they went when getting into/out of my Ercoupe -- you had to stand on the seat before sitting down and closing the canopy -- but I don't put my feet on the seats in the Pathfinder.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Mine leaked air. Freaking below zero Iowa air. It was painful, especially for the kids.

They were very happy when I finally fixed that leak. (Actually, it was a series of leaks. I could write a book on Cherokee leaks, and how to detect and fix them.)
Click to expand...

I'm the only person on earth who knows how to shut my door so that doesn't happen. Push the handle down, firm pull, HOLD IT.. latch, let go.

Coldest I've ever departed it was -27F on the ground, I latched the door that day.
 
bartmc said:
I'm the only person on earth who knows how to shut my door so that doesn't happen. Push the handle down, firm pull, HOLD IT.. latch, let go.

Coldest I've ever departed it was -27F on the ground, I latched the door that day.
Click to expand...

Ours had a gap big enough that a piece of paper could be sucked out of the bottom of the door. It actually happened, somewhere over Ohio, when one of my kids' works of art went bye-bye.

This gap created a suction in the cabin that made a gap under the back bench seat into the equivalent of a sub-zero vacuum cleaner. Actually, it felt more like a blower.

The fix was removing the door, removing every molecule of the old, hardened door seal, replacing it with a new, more compliant door seal -- and then tweaking the hinges with shims to make the door conform properly to the fuselage side. Years of students leaning on the thing had bent the hinge points enough so that the door couldn't fit anymore -- and I'll bet I had that thing off and on the plane 20 times before I got it just right.

Once that was done, a piece of closed-pore foam between the lip of the bench seat and the pedestal sealed it off completely, and the Warrior was toasty warm again.
 
I'm staying out of this one. ;)

I'd fly either one.

For whoever said that they fly like trucks... I like trucks. I drive a Yukon. ;)
 
I have yet to fly a Piper of any model. I'd sure like to though!
 
What is it in us that needs to feel we have the undisputed best of anything?

I could start writing articles for any brand of boat, car, aircraft, etc. Blow a bunch of "this is the absolute best" smoke and the owners would just eat it up. Oh yeah, never mind, a bunch of people are already doing that.
 
bartmc said:
As someone said the other day. Cherokee doors leak, be glad you only have one. :D
Click to expand...

Older gentleman (who used to be a piper dealer) told me: Why would you want to have the @#%#### leaking door on your side of the plane.
 
the 182 has a factory approved towhook installation...
 
Alexb2000 said:
What is it in us that needs to feel we have the undisputed best of anything?

I could start writing articles for any brand of boat, car, aircraft, etc. Blow a bunch of "this is the absolute best" smoke and the owners would just eat it up. Oh yeah, never mind, a bunch of people are already doing that.
Click to expand...

My dad can beat up your dad.

I went looking to upgrade over the past few months. I wanted the HP range the 235 is in, I never even considered it as an option. I don't really know why. I did consider a 182 but then figured if I was going to burn that much fuel, I'm going to fold up the wheels and make the best of it and I think the Cessna retracts are goofy. I picked a Bo, there's no shortage of video footage of people landing them on the backcountry strips here in MT I want to be at, and it's fast.
 
bartmc said:
My dad can beat up your dad.

I went looking to upgrade over the past few months. I wanted the HP range the 235 is in, I never even considered it as an option. I don't really know why. I did consider a 182 but then figured if I was going to burn that much fuel, I'm going to fold up the wheels and make the best of it and I think the Cessna retracts are goofy. I picked a Bo, there's no shortage of video footage of people landing them on the backcountry strips here in MT I want to be at, and it's fast.
Click to expand...

Montana+back country+Bonanza=Scott Newpower

Am I close?
 
bartmc said:
Don't know him, recently noticed he posts on Beechtalk and is out of Billings.
Click to expand...

Contact him, I bet he'll be helpful to show you how to fly your Bo into the backcountry stips.
 
Alexb2000 said:
What is it in us that needs to feel we have the undisputed best of anything?

I could start writing articles for any brand of boat, car, aircraft, etc. Blow a bunch of "this is the absolute best" smoke and the owners would just eat it up. Oh yeah, never mind, a bunch of people are already doing that.
Click to expand...


As airplanes are all about compromise, I nominate my 182P for the title of the "most average airplane ever".
 
Alexb2000 said:
What is it in us that needs to feel we have the undisputed best of anything?

I could start writing articles for any brand of boat, car, aircraft, etc. Blow a bunch of "this is the absolute best" smoke and the owners would just eat it up. Oh yeah, never mind, a bunch of people are already doing that.
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth!

Brad Z said:
As airplanes are all about compromise, I nominate my 182P for the title of the "most average airplane ever".
Click to expand...

Best description for a 182 I've heard.
 
Pfffft. 235hp hardly seems like enough.

I find it rather odd that the PA-28-235 and the PA-32-260 both burn 14 gph at 75% power.
 
I would like to think the "best" aircraft is whatever I can afford to fly, and am current and qualified enough in to fly, and that brings me home at the end of the day.

All the rest is just style points. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top