182 or Dakota?

[satpak77]

Looking for opinions here

Mission Requirements

- Local area Sunday flying with your kids (2)

- Once a month 500 NM trip to visit grandma

- Day VFR primarily

- Budget = You are not Bill Gates

 

[88_MALIBU]

I own a cherokee and love it. So I am the Dakota vote. I love low wings and think they make great cross country platforms.

 

[starvingcfi]

definitely the dakota. both great planes, but i have to go with the dakota b/c of the low wing. makes for much better visibility which equals increased safety.

 

[Palerider957]

Oh man....no comparison....Dakota. You can't go wrong with a solid Piper.

 

[340drvr]

Both good, but if you live out west in the mountains, I'd pick the 182. (I'm now donning my flak vest!)

 

[flying_gringo]

182... I'm in the Southwest - and used to own a 182, then a Bonanza with air conditioning, then went back to a Cessna for my current T210. The high wing Cessna is 20 degrees cooler then the air conditioned Bonanza while waiting in line out of PHX mid summer... keeping the sun off during a longer cross country for me is invaluable... and I love being able to open both side windows wide - if you go for a 182 - make sure it has both opening windows.

but this all may be moot to you. - other factors - when I fly - I find I'm looking at the ground - so I prefer the high wing....

I also enjoy the occasional off paved airport landing (intentional ones) and like knowing that every tall bush isn't going to leave its mark on my wing.

if your getting a hanger - I can stuff a car or two under each wing of a Cessna - with a low wing - its airplane only in the hanger.

while waiting for cargo I used to love sitting in the shade under the wing.

I much prefer the ease of Cessna entry and egress - two doors, one either side, and no climbing up on the wing - which is harder with older passengers - and no fun in the rain or snow.

and I don't want to get into the Lyc / Cont thing here... but the 0540 is more expensive for o/h then the 0470...

and no I don't enjoy using a ladder each time to check gas caps... but I've got a little folding wooden step that works great and folds completely flat.

I've also had better luck with the 182 and T210 when leaving the airplane out in the rain - the only leaks I get are from the rear window... I was looking at a saratoga at one point - but I demo'd it the day after a rain, and the front seats were soaked... It may have just been one bad airplane, but that seal is exposed, and I don't like flying airplanes that stink of mildew.

either way - its a compromise... both are great airplanes as evidenced by their production runs and value retention- before you buy go rent both for the trip to grandma's and bring the family and get their input. Your wife and kids will bring up many suprising good points and help you steer your decision.

fg

 

[Lopaka]

182 definately.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

My dad has a 235, which is the older designation for a Dakota.

The engine is easier to operate. THe 182 engine is very susceptible to shock-cooling, and I think carberator icing also.

I think other than the easier to operate engine, I don't think there's a lot of difference.

My dad's 235 you can put full fuel, 2 people and a TON of stuff in it. It's basically impossible to get it out of CG. It'll fly about 6.5 hours w/ IFR reserves. His best time was S. MI to Panama City in about 4.5 hours, non-stop. He put an O2 system in the aircraft and can fly up to 17K for favorable winds.

CLiff
DTW

 

[bobbysamd]

Piper

I don't have any Dakota time but I have tons of time in various other Pipers, e.g., Seminoles, Arrows, Archers and Cadets, and I have 182RG time. 182s are SOBs to land properly without a somewhat aft CG. I met only one person throughout my entire flying experience who could land a 182 consistently well; everyone else, including yours truly, almost always landed flat. Compare with Piper, which are more friendly to land and make excellent instrument platforms. (In all fairness, the RG was a good instrument airplane.)

Piper flaps with the manual Johnson bar are relatively idiot-proof compared to Cessna electric flaps. On the other hand, Cessna high-wing fuel management is relatively idiot-proof.

Two reasons to consider 182s are they indeed haul a ton with little brainwork on loading, and they are better suited to soft or rough fields than Piper.

Having said all that, my $0.02 choice would be Piper. Good luck and best wishes with your choice.

 

[ellsworb]

real airplanes have tailwheels.

 

[Freightdog75]

I used to run checks in PA-32 and 34's, night and day. On the day flights with nice weather and a couple hour layover I'd kick off the shoes/ shirt put my feet against the fuselage, body going out the wing and catch a tan(without having to lay on ramp).

Mute point, but thought I'd toss it out anyway.

FD75

 

[Headwind]

I owned a Cherokee 235 about 20 years ago. I flew it about three years. I also flew a 182 for a customer at that time. I like them both.
The 182: Has more room in the back seat. Easier to get in and out for 4 people. The 182 had a STOL kit and had better short field performance.
The 235/Dakota: Pay load is more than it's empty weight! It's 4 or 5 knots faster than the 182. Has a longer engine TBO (2000 vs 1700) The 84 gal. fuel may save a fuel stop on a long trip.
On the TBO - I have known people to go 3000 hrs. on a 235 without top end work. You're lucky to do 1700 on the 182. They are both good airplanes. The 235 has more payload, but where can you put it? The rear seat area is small.
Headwind

 

[JediNein]

Both are good planes. I have one student pilot in a 182 and one in a Dakota.

The Piper 235 is a shorter fuselage than the 236 (less PAX room). The passengers sit more upright in a C182 than a PA28236. If you look up all the time, low wing. If you look down, like most passengers, high wing. Summer, high wing. Winter, low wing. Flying around in the mountains, C-182 over a C-206 or P-236 any day. SUV=182. Family sedan = 236. Cruising around with the significant other who likes lots of straight and level, 236. Cheaper price for the same value = 236. Best product support: 182. Best tax incentive for use in business: NEW 182. Best insurance price= depends on the company.

For saving big $$$$, install a JPI fuel flow/graphic engine analyzer. I've been directly responsible for 4 clients installing them in their aircraft, one had a cylinder failure 10 hours after installation, another was able to find a fuel flow problem within 4 hours of installation. One client refused to spend the $1200 and spent that much in mechanic's bills trying to find a plugged fuel injector (3/12 plugged).

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[aeronautic1]

Brand New 192

Today, I flew a brand new 182TC for the first time. Had to ferry a crew to pick up our new BAE41 (executive interior). Panel included autopilot with altitude alert/VSI, Gamin GNS with nexrad uplink, moving map and BOSE noise limiting headsets (they really do make a difference), air conditioning. Now, I fly Lears and Citations and I haven't flown anything that goes suck, squeeze, bang for a couple of years. But this aircraft was a dream to fly. Flew a coupled GPS approach and one hands on ILS. Outer marker, dial in 17" manifold/full prop and go to your usual flap settings on the approach. At full flaps I get about Vref+10 all the way to the numbers without touching the throttle until flair. Greased on both landings. This thing has all the bells and whistles including a voice "Trim in motion" alert (cool). Very nice airplane!!! Can't wait to get in it again. Oh, and in the hot Florida sun, the high wing makes for a nice sunbrella while I am along the beach on bikini patrol.

 

[cargodawg]

Flown them both. Go with the 182. Basically if you can get the doors shut you are good to go. And I totally agree definately go with a GEM (graphic engine monitor). Well worth the $$. Even if you don't usually have pax there will be times you want the extra room. I thought they were pretty descent to land even in a 30 kt x-wnd.

Whatever you decide happy flying.

 

[#1 FLAMED OUT]

If you looking at those types of airplanes, spend the money and get a Cherokee Six! Excellent Airplane with lots of power

 

[FearlessFreep]

If you are out West and your 500 nm trip includes crossing any of the higher mountain ranges get the 182, with the bigger wing it can handle the altitude better. If you are not going to do that get the Dakota. Both are very capable aircraft. I do not know what the current market price is on these machines but if I remember correctly the Dakota is probably going for a little less than the 182. Build quality on the Pipers always seems to be a bit more solid feel to it than the Cessna.

I have flown both and they are all capable aircraft.

For me I would like to have a 182.

 

[beam_d]

Why not a 180?

I know this wasn't one of the choices, but I have a Cessna 180 that "does it all" at a fraction of the price. I think 235's are more expensive and I know a similarly equipped 182 is. I've flown my 180 from Alaska to the midwest and now in the northwest. For my money, no better aircraft for the $.

 

[Lopaka]

Recently flew my 182 from Orlando, FL to San Jose, CA and back. Other trips include FL to WA, TX, CO..... You can't beat a good 182. Very capable and dependable.

 

[JimNtexas]

Both are good planes, but I think passengers are much happier in the Cessna.

I am in a partner in an Archer and a Cardinal RG. My passengers hate the Archer and love the Cardinal. The Archer is great for two adults on shorter trips, but I hate to put an adult in the back.

The Cardinal isn't the weight lifter that the C-182 is, but it's useful load is very respectable. The Cardinal is even more comfortable than a C182, handles better, and flies about the same speed on a lot less gas.

The C177RG is the best all around four seat single engine airplane out there for under $100K, IMHO.

 

[aeronautic1]

Cessna

Yeah, and let's not forget that you have egress the airplane, two doors are better than one!!

 

[Heavy Set]

How about a used Cirrus SR20? Perhaps there is a good deal on a used version.... Otherwise, I'd pick the 182 for the power and reliability. Go with the Cirrus if you have a little more cash to play with - nice sidesticks...

 

[fokkers&beer]

Cessna 182s are great. I own a 1961 model, it still has manual flaps, fast back, yet it has a swept tail. Its fairly fast and hauls a bunch. We have flown it up to Alaska and all over the west. You can find older (pre '62 models) fairly cheap and they are simple, tough, nice airplanes. The engines seem fairly maintenence free on one that has been well maintained and there are not alot of AD's on the aircraft.
As for shock cooling, my fathers a 200 hour private pilot who flies it more than me and our cylinders seem just fine. All of the compressions are in the mid 70's wich is great for those airplanes.
One more nice thing if you decide to do some flying thats not like work and take them off paved strips into something short and in the mountains, they are a solid performer and lots of fun.

 

[DenverDude2002]

My vote is for the Piper, low wings rule

 

[Steveair]

Flying Magazine's Pick - The C182 is #1

I've flown both the Dakota and the 182 and found the 182 to be quite sturdier and more comfortable. There are two doors and two windows in the 182. It's also a little bit wider than the 172 whereas the Dakota is nothing more than a Warrior with a big engine. The 182 cruises a little bit faster and I find it still does well on the climb even with a full load. Nonetheless, I've also loaded up a Dakota to max and it's done fine too. If anything, you can put a 182 on floats!

Flying Magazine did a report on the ten best aircraft to buy and the 182 was #1. That article is ten years old though but then again most 182s and Dakotas are twenty or more years old!

 

[RightPedal]

real airplanes have tailwheels.

Amen Bro!

Buy a Maule.

 

[flyer172r]

I'd go for the 182. I find high wings to be better for sightseeing, and I like having my own door.

 

[skid]

Why just limit this to these 2 primary kinds? Sure both are good, but you can save $$ and still go about as fast with an early Arrow 1 or 2, or even something like a Grumman Tiger. Sounds like for that mission you could even go as cheap as a 180 hp style piper like an Archer or something equal to that. Try looking at an early model Beech like a debonair. 225HP...can burn auto gas...carries as much and will out run the fixed gears.