182 or Dakota?

[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.