Piper Dakota

carl.p....@usa.net

unread,

Apr 5, 1998, 4:00:00 AM4/5/98

to

Hi,

I'm looking for information about the Piper Dakota. What kind of speeds do
you get and what is it like to fly? How does it compare to the Arrow for IFR
flying?

Regards
Carl Edwards

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Petronious Arbiter

unread,

Apr 5, 1998, 4:00:00 AM4/5/98

to

In article <6g8bc9$olv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, carl.p....@usa.net wrote:
> I'm looking for information about the Piper Dakota. What kind of speeds do
>you get and what is it like to fly? How does it compare to the Arrow for IFR
>flying?

I just got a Dakota and have done some time in the Arrow. I get about 145 in
cruise. It is quite stable and it may ways its handling is similar to the
Arrow. The biggest difference between the two is that the Dakota (like the
182) is a real four-seat+full-fuel+some-bagage airplane.

John - N8086N

PLEASE NOTE: The Marketing Morons at AT&T Worldnet are
raising the price for 10hrs/day from $19.95/month.
to $168.45/month.

Substandard service+outrageous prices=I'm leaving.

Full Name:
-------------------
-J.o.h.n?M.i.a.n.o-
-------------------

Mike Ferrer

unread,

Apr 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/10/98

to

I've had a '79 Dakota (PA28-236) for several years. Prior to that, I owned a '69
Cherokee 180.

The Dakota is similar to an Archer II with bigger engine, better performance,
larger fuel tanks, and bigger payload. My true useful load is 1,228 pounds and I
cruise around 138 knots. It is one of the few singles that can truly carry 4
adults (170lb ea), 5+hours of fuel (72 gal) and 100lb of luggage. Fuel
consumption is flight planned at 13gph. Insurance is cheap because it's a
fixed-gear Cherokee with a good record.

Never flew an Arrow but I think you'll find the Arrow is more like a retractible
Archer or Cherokee 180 because of the smaller engine. An Arrow will cruise as
fast, or slightly faster than the Dakota, but you'll have a much smaller payload
and, of course, less fuel consumption.

IFR characteristics should be similar since they share the same fuselage, cockpit
layout, and taper wing design (later model Arrows, that is). It's a good, solid
IFR platform.

Be advised that there was also a Turbo version of the Dakota available only in
1979 that used a Continental engine instead of the "Bullet-proof" Lycoming O-540.
The Turbo model has a tarnished reputation and, therefore, a much lower selling
price than the Lycoming model.

Love my Dakota, lots of power (235hp) for those high altitude or short field
takeoffs, smooth running 6 cylinder engine, roomy, modern cockpit, stable, low
maintenance costs ( I do the work myself) and so on....

Can't really think of anything I don't like except that I wish it could go 160
knots, but then if it did that, I'd wish for 200 knots...

Mike

carl.p....@usa.net wrote:

> Hi,

>
> I'm looking for information about the Piper Dakota. What kind of speeds do
> you get and what is it like to fly? How does it compare to the Arrow for IFR
> flying?
>

Reece R. Pollack

unread,

Apr 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/10/98

to

On Fri, 10 Apr 1998 09:45:37 -0500, Mike Ferrer <mfe...@gte.net>
wrote:

>Never flew an Arrow but I think you'll find the Arrow is more like a retractible
>Archer or Cherokee 180 because of the smaller engine. An Arrow will cruise as
>fast, or slightly faster than the Dakota, but you'll have a much smaller payload
>and, of course, less fuel consumption.

I own a 1977 Arrow III. At 65% power I cruise at 135 kts, while
burning something less than 11 gph. At 75% power I cruise in the low
to mid 140's, with a fuel burn rate of 11.6 gph. Useful load for my
plane is 1002 lbs, but I know of a similarly equipped Arrow III which
has a basic empty weight of 60 lbs less, so at some point we're going
to weigh our planes.

>IFR characteristics should be similar since they share the same fuselage, cockpit
>layout, and taper wing design (later model Arrows, that is). It's a good, solid
>IFR platform.

I have about a hundred hours in a PA-28-236 Dakota, as well as several
hundred hours in my PA-28R-201 Arrow III. They behave very similarly
in flight. I find the Arrow easier to land, partially because the
Dakota is more nose-heavy.

>Be advised that there was also a Turbo version of the Dakota available only in
>1979 that used a Continental engine instead of the "Bullet-proof" Lycoming O-540.
>The Turbo model has a tarnished reputation and, therefore, a much lower selling
>price than the Lycoming model.

The Turbo Dakota has a 200 hp Continental TSIO-360, which is basically
the same engine as in the Turbo Arrow. It's better to think of the
Turbo Dakota as a turbocharged Archer.

--
Reece R. Pollack
CP-ASMEL-IA -- N1707H Piper Arrow III (based GAI)

Peter Cowper

unread,

Apr 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/15/98

to

I have flown a 1979 PA28-236 Dakota for the past three years in my
flying club. I just completed my instrument rating (1/27/98) after 3
years and 151 hours of instrument instruction (15.7 hours actual) flying
about 3 times a month. I primarily flew a 1977 PA28-151 Warrior with
about 23 hours in the Dakota. I found the two planes to feel quite
similar with the obvious exception of the huge power difference on
takeoff. I found that the Dakota was much easier to fly ILS approaches
due to the slightly heavier controls and faster speed due to the power
differential. I used 90 knots for precision approaches in the Warrior
and 100 knots in the Dakota.
As far as cruise speed in the Dakota, I figure 135 knots at 75%
power. I flew Visalia, California to Brackett (Pomona/LosAngeles) with
4 adults averaging 12.1 gallons per hour; Visalia to Reno with 3 adults
averaging 12.5 gallons per hour; and recently flew an instrument flight
plan with just myself aboard from Visalia to Gillespie (San Diego) at
10,000 feet and averaged 12.06 gallons per hour. I had a 30 knot tail
wind chasing me down to San Diego (177 DME), however a 20 minute ATC
delay in the Gillespie run-up area coming home probably cancelled out
any fuel savings!
The Lycoming engine in the Dakota will give you 2,000 hours
compared to the 1300 hours most of my Bonanza pals are getting before
staring ot replace cylinders. I don't find the Lycoming 6 as smooth as
the Continental 6 but it appears to be more bulletproof. Depending on
how much you fly, the extra fuel to pull those wheels through the air
may still be cheaper than the insurance and annuals for a more fuel
efficient retractable.