Piper Dakota and turbo Dakota
MLSHOOP
I have been posting to these groups trying to find information and
opinions on Piper Dakota`s and turbo Dakota`s. For some reason
my posts only last a couple of hours and then disappear. Oh well,
I am nothing if not persistant. Any info and opinions on these air-
craft would be greatly appreciated. I would like to know how they
compare to the C-182 in performance and handling qualties?
Also, I have heard the continental engine that powers the turbo
Dakota is a terrible piece of equipment that requires lots of
maintence? I think it is the IO-360 but I am not sure, any opinions
or first hand knowledge? Thanks
James M. Knox
The turbo-Dakota is not really a *bad* plane, but it is something of an
orphan. Only 91 were made (just that one year's production), and one of
those was "used up" in the testing for certification. How many are still
flying? Would have to check.
Personally, I *like* turbocharging. But the turbo-Dakota has an engine that
is much less powerful than that of the non-turbo version. This means that it
is actually slower below about 12000 MSL than is the regular Dakota, *and*
slower to climb to that altitude. Double bummer!
I would have to check, but the engine is probably a TCM TSIO-360, stressed but
not unduly so. TBO *will* be less than for the non-turbo engine.
Personal opinion: I wouldn't say *not* to consider the turbo Dakota, but I
think the non-turbo might be a better choice for most folks. For people
wanting turbo in that general type of plane, I would recommend a turbocharged
Arrow III.
jmk
MLSHOOP
Hello James Knox,
Thank you for your input on the Dakota`s. You are correct on your
engine for the turbo Dakota, I found that out today from an a/c
buyers guide. It also states that the turbo has had numerous
engine problems as it is woefully underpowered for the plane.
The guide also said that the Dakota has an almost cult like
following,
most people either love them or hate them. For now, I think I will
stay away from the turbo, but am still interested in the normally
aspirated version. Any other opinions out there?
Mark McDougle
mls...@aol.com (MLSHOOP) wrote:
Hmmmmm. I'm not familiar with "an a/c buyers guide", but am quite
familiar with modern single-engine Pipers. The original TSIO-360's
that were installed around the time that the Turbo-Dakota was being
produced did have some problems, the main one being "light" connecting
rods. Most of these engines I would have to say have been either
modified or have been overhauled by now.
I'm also confused by the "woefully underpowered" statement. Compared
to a standard Dakota, there are a helluva lot of four-place modern
general aviation aircraft that could be considered "underpowered".
The engine that powers the Turbo-Dakota is virtually identical to the
engine installed on Seneca II's and all the Turbo Arrows.
This airplane is not a world-beater by any standards, but it does
perform quite adequately for what it is.
This engine is, however, fairly expensive as far as HP-per-$-per-hour
goes. The overhaul cost is somewhat higher than a normally aspirated
engine, and the TBO is somewhat lower. The only inherent problem with
the engine that I am familiar with is 99% pilot-induced. It is a
turbo-charged, fuel-injected engine and must be treated as such at all
times, not just when it is convenient. It will also require more
(make that adequate) fuel to operate or it will swallow exhaust valves
and roach cylinders, but that is not a TSIO-360 only problem.
The airframe is also standard fixed-gear four-place tapered-wing
Piper, aside from the tubular engine mount. It's been a few years
since I had a Turbo-Dakota in the shop, but I would have to say that
there would be few other parts that would not be common to the other
planes.
From a maintenance standpoint, the fixed gear is a definite bonus
(both on the Turbo- and non-Turbo-versions)as there ain't a whole lot
that is going to wear out. If you compare "book" speeds and "real
lif" speeds on like model airplanes, there is very little difference
between the performance of a Piper with the newer fully-streamlined
wheel fairings, and the retractable gear models.
Bearing in mind the above items, and the normally lower resale value
of the Turbo Dakota, I feel it would be possible to buy one right and
end up with fair value for the flying $$.
The Dakota is a fine aircraft, as is the PA28-235, and really can't be
compared to the Turbo-Dakota.
The only down side (in my opinion)is the fact that the engine (on the
Dakota) is of the single-drive dual magneto category. I have
performed or overseen virtually all the maintenance performed on
engines with D-series mags that have accumulated a total of over
50,000 engine hours (mainly on Piper Navajos so that's flight hours x
2). The reliability factor is not anything to write home to mom
about. I have never used anything other than TCM/Bendix
factory-overhauled magnetos or factory (not after-market) internal
parts. The planes I maintain are inspected, and the magnetos
maintained according to all the applicable service information. And
they still have their fair share of mag problems.
From what I have seen personally, the reliability of the D-series mags
on the lower HP normally-aspirated aircraft is better than on the
Navajos, but I am personally kinda against having all my ignition eggs
in a single-drive magneto basket.
The core engine is basically bulletproof, a design that is way, way
beyond proven by time and hours in the air.
Useful load on the Dakota is impressive by about anybody's standards,
and the speed ain't too shabby either.
For a four-place aircraft, I'll cast my vote for an Archer for
cost/performance/maintenance/value, but a Dakota will run away and
hide from an Archer, with a whole lot more weight in the cabin.
Mark
--
Mark McDougle
ma...@bright.net
http://www.bright.net/~markm/
MLSHOOP
Hi Mark,
Your right, it is not an "a/c buyers guide" I referenced.
Actually the ariticle was written in an Aviation Consumer
newsletter about three or four years ago that my partner
suscribes to, sorry my mistake. Anyway, thank you for
considerable insight. My partner is still leaning towards
a C-182, however, the more I learn about the Dakota,
the more I like!
Lee Wonnacott
Mark McDougle wrote:
>
big snip....
>
> The only down side (in my opinion)is the fact that the engine (on the
> Dakota) is of the single-drive dual magneto category. I have
> performed or overseen virtually all the maintenance performed on
> engines with D-series mags that have accumulated a total of over
> 50,000 engine hours (mainly on Piper Navajos so that's flight hours x
> 2). The reliability factor is not anything to write home to mom
> about. I have never used anything other than TCM/Bendix
> factory-overhauled magnetos or factory (not after-market) internal
> parts. The planes I maintain are inspected, and the magnetos
> maintained according to all the applicable service information. And
> they still have their fair share of mag problems.
>
> From what I have seen personally, the reliability of the D-series mags
> on the lower HP normally-aspirated aircraft is better than on the
> Navajos, but I am personally kinda against having all my ignition eggs
> in a single-drive magneto basket.
>
Mark I had the unfortunate experience of finding out that my 1979
Piper Six was single drive dual magneto...
I had arrived at Gainesville, Florida, on a 95 degree day after
penetrating a small squall line just a few minutes earlier. 15
minutes after shutdown I was ready to leave and taxied out for
usualy run-up. Everything worked well. Put the power to the
engine and away I go. Upon rotating to climb attitude and at
altitude of 70 feet the engine quit cold.
Oops! If ABC had a shit cam shot of that it would have been
a keeper... Lowered the nose, slip to land and end up with
the pointed end of the aircraft just a few feet from the far
end of the runway and tower controller asking if I need help.
By that time the engine had refired...what gives? I taxied back
and did it again, but much more cautiously. Each mag dropped ok
and a full power check shows everything ticking right along.
Did the take off drill again, but expected to lose the engine
and did...not so much a thrill this time but just making
quick mental notes.
Taxied back to the waiting mechanics who already had the shop
space cleared for me. Examination of the magneto after uncowling
found that a drop of rain water had gotten onto the hot plastic
case of the magneto and cracked it. More water had pooled into
the drive and when the nose rotated up it moved enough to short
out both left and right....
A lesson learned, look in the manual to find out if the magneto
is dual drive or single and remember that left/right doesn't
always mean redundant...
Regards,
Lee Wonnacott
Mark Dickens
I owned a 1980 Dakota for about three years and found it to be a great airplane.
The engine is reliable (2000 hour TBO) and powerful. The Cherokee airframe is
proven and sturdy. I chose it over the Cessna 182 because the engine had a better
reputation and you didn't have to worry about the fuel bladders in the 182. I was
never able to overload the Dakota and it would climb like an elevator. So why did
I sell it? The cabin became too small for my growing family...good luck!
MLSHOOP wrote:
> I have been posting to these groups trying to find information and
> opinions on Piper Dakota`s and turbo Dakota`s. For some reason
> my posts only last a couple of hours and then disappear. Oh well,
> I am nothing if not persistant. Any info and opinions on these air-
> craft would be greatly appreciated. I would like to know how they
> compare to the C-182 in performance and handling qualties?
> Also, I have heard the continental engine that powers the turbo
> Dakota is a terrible piece of equipment that requires lots of
> maintence? I think it is the IO-360 but I am not sure, any opinions
> or first hand knowledge? Thanks
>
dspre...@surclean.com
> I have been posting to these groups trying to find information and
> opinions on Piper Dakota`s and turbo Dakota`s. For some reason
> my posts only last a couple of hours and then disappear. Oh well,
> I am nothing if not persistant. Any info and opinions on these air-
> craft would be greatly appreciated. I would like to know how they
> compare to the C-182 in performance and handling qualties?
> Also, I have heard the continental engine that powers the turbo
> Dakota is a terrible piece of equipment that requires lots of
> maintence? I think it is the IO-360 but I am not sure, any opinions
> or first hand knowledge? Thanks
>
> MLS...@aol.com
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
--
Jim Pennino