Why the Piper PA-28 Dakota is Extremely Well Designed

[@smartysmarty1714]

I've owned a 182 and flown both of these planes many hours. While the Dakota may get you to your destination a few minutes faster, that's about all it has to it's advantage. The cabin width and ease of entry for the 182 exceeds any benefits the Dakota may offer. And if you ever get into an "off airport landing" scenario, you may be damn glad you have two doors to exit the plane. Being trapped in a burning aircraft can ruin your whole day...

[@ConvairDart106]

My father was killed in a fiery crash back in "67", flying a Cherokee 140. That alone made me a Cessna man, until I actually began flying Pipers, and it did not take long until I was choosing them for every long flight that I made. I did love the Cardinal we had in our 17 airplane club, but it did not last long as it did not fly enough to pay for itself. All the Pipers flew more after students got licensed. I attribute this mostly to the luxurious 80's interiors Piper offered over the plastic and cheap vinyl of the Cessna's of the 60's and 70's. I say this because our older Hershey bar Piper's did not rent well, or stay around long either. It may have a lot to do with the capability of the autopilots we had at the time. All of our Piper's had 3 axis autopilots, where our Cessna's had little more than wing levelers.

[@smartysmarty1714]

@@ConvairDart106 --- I'd have to agree with that. Back when I was in the rental world (and now that I'm back there again), I often chose a Warrior or Archer for Canadian fly in fishing trips I went on. Once settled in, they were cozy. But as I have gotten older, I still appreciate the ease of entry into the Cessnas, and the 172's and 182's seem to have taller seats (from the floor) but maybe that's just my imagination. And then there's the fire thing.... My dad also crashed a plane, way back in 1964, but he lived to talk about it. It was a 150 and it didn't burn, but he brought that up on many occasions as one of the main reasons he went with a 182 when he could finally buy one. The 182 I eventually owned was a 1958, and although not luxurious, it was like hopping into a '57 Chevy. The interior and upholstery was all original, and it was a nice experience. All in all, I'll still choose two doors now when I have the option.

[@karaayers2867]

Sure is nice being able to fuel up without a ladder. Cessna is easier to get in/out, but I can fuel our warrior 151 up with my feet on the ground

[@captbart3185]

The Dakota is the best IFR, single engine platform I have flown. I have flown most or all of the Cessna, Beech, Grumman, Rockwell and Piper singles and for sheer comfort when flying IFR the Dakota takes the prize. Not the most capable by far but sheer comfort IFR. That said, my preference is the Cessna 182. At 73 my days of climbing over wings and sliding across seats are over. The 182 is a good solid platform so I will choose it if an option but flying the Dakota is a tad better. Jus my not so humble opinion but I’ve been flying for over 61 years so my opinions are very true 😂

[@bernardanderson3758]

Between flying all of these aircraft my favorite is the Cessna 180 and I’ve flown the Piper Dakota and the Piper 235 Pathfinder

[@rustypilot65S]

Nice informative video. I own the N8465S in your videos.

[@alexdarcydestsimon3767]

It is ''Maule'', sounds a bit like ''Mall'' but it is funny you name it a mule. :-)

[@dmaeroflyer9279]

Hi! Where did you get the pic of LX-AVG? I used to work on it in Luxembourg and I have flown it. The company I worked for painted it also.

[@bradyoder5899]

I sold my speedy Mooney to buy a Dakota. It is a capable airplane that has very benign flight characteristics. I have upgraded the panel to glass and have added the GFC 500 AP. The thing i dont understand is why it has a carburetor and not fuel injection. I have iced it up in the soup and it was not a pleasant feeling.

[@patrickscott-er1rr]

The 235 hold 84 gallons of fuel. Dakota hold 70 gallons of fuel. While the 235 is slower it will fly longer legs. I owned a 1967 model 235. Great little plane, love the Dakota. Have lots of time in a 182, but I'd take the 235 over the 182 floppy doors and windows.

[@alexdarcydestsimon3767]

Dakota light breaks : You are not supposed to use the breaks on a landing. If you do, it's the runway which is to short. Breaks on an aeroplane should only be used for taxi or to build up power before take off.

[@Captndarty]

You are wrong!

[@alexdarcydestsimon3767]

@@Captndarty only when one brake... will brake on you and you ground loop, will change your mind. Some people like you only learn the hard way. A happy few are lucky enough to survive.

[@Captndarty]

@@alexdarcydestsimon3767 hey idiot You can’t groundloop a tricycle gear Aircraft plus it has not 1 but 2 brakes. People like you shouldn’t be afforded the right to think Out loud

[@alexdarcydestsimon3767]

@Joshua Jones like you re an overbearing archloch ?

[@alexdarcydestsimon3767]

@Joshua Jones Thank you 10pm no life. :-)

[@fjp3305]

I used to rent a Dakota. Great airplane for the money.

[@ryanedwards7741]

Not a MULE nor is that a picture of a Maule. Pronounced like the hammer.

[@teddryden1089]

lots of errors :-). but still a nice video.

[@josephsener420]

The Dakota was made for over 14 years. Mine was built in 1980!

[@roadscholar05]

Maule is NOT pronounced "mule". It is pronounced "maul", which is a long handled hammer. You would think the people who do these videos who learn how to pronounce what the fook they are talking about

[@Captndarty]

Or people like you that make the same comments as everybody else did well before yours. Read first comment later…

[@roadscholar05]

@@Captndarty And just how many times have you reposted your same lame comment? BTW, I was a 19 y/o Huey PIC in Vietnam and a 20 y/o IP at Fort Rucker, In another 18 months I was IP rated in Kiowa, and Osages of which I was also an SIP.

[@Captndarty]

@@roadscholar05 first time and your credentials or the fact you felt the need to tell me about them is meaningless too me.

[@harryagrotis326]

I always loved the Dakota but if you are going to burn that much avgas I think the Cherokee 6/300 makes more sense ?

[@blimpcommander1337]

This video has a lot of wrong information. One example saying the Dakota has larger tanks then saying they hole 77 gallons. That is 7 gallons less than the 84 gallons on the 235. One of many things wrong on here.

[@henrikvr2721]

Also the engine is not the same. The Dakota has a different variant that is more fuel efficient, offsetting the slightly smaller tank capacity. Also the Dakota is faster, but definitely not 17 kt faster in cruise. Such a speed improvement on the same HP would be magic. Maybe 4-6 knots faster. Also, it is heavier than the Pathfinder, mainly brcause the wing is heavier. Brake problems? never heard that one before. Also, it is not correct that the Dakota has more HP than the C182; they have the same. And why the AA-5 gets so much screen time (with more inaccuracies) I don’t understand. Seems a random and misplaced choice. Even the top model AA-5B Tiger does not remotely have the same load carrying ability as the Dakota/Pathfinder/C182. I suspect much of the information is from the internet, or maybe brochure data taken out of context.

[@robertcooper6289]

My wife and I own one of the Dakotas on this channel. N203CC. We purchased it back in March of this year. Really nice airplane.

[@kimskislalom]

I am looking on getting a Dakota so how do you like it and is it easy to land.

[@robertcooper6289]

@@kimskislalom My wife and I both love it. Have a brand new Garmin panel and it has the three bladed propeller which makes the aircraft run smoother versus the two bladed propeller. It’s like a Piper warrior or archer on steroids. It really gets up and goes. it does everything a Cessna 182 does but cost quite a bit less on the initial purchase. Not as many of them built as the 182 but there seems to be plenty of parts since most of the Piper Cherokee series parts are interchangeable. I would highly recommend a Dakota if you can find a nice one.

[@kimskislalom]

@@robertcooper6289 What is it like to land. Is it hard to flare. I am flying a piper PA-180-140 Cherokee

[@robertcooper6289]

@@kimskislalom I have a friend that has a Cherokee 140 so I have flown it a little bit. The Dakota just has a slightly heavier feel than the 140. It’s actually balanced very well so the flare to me is essentially the same. You get just a little bit more speed on the approach than the 140. It has a very stable feel with a larger wing compared to the older Cherokee models. The coolest thing about it is the fantastic acceleration on takeoff and initial climb out. When it’s just half fuel tanks and my wife and I on a normal day, the initial climb is about 1500 ft./min. You can fill the tanks all the way up with 72 gallons, 4 adults and still be under gross weight. Very few four seat airplanes can say that.

[@scarybaldguy]

How exactly does a larger stabilator = more rudder?

[@kentfuqua9634]

Loved flying this bird! Gave up flying to go earn a doctorate in counseling. Wish I could get back to flying again. The Dakota would be my choice!

[@roadscholar05]

Oh, and the picture of the Maule, which he calls a "mule", is not a Maule. Get your pictures straight also

[@karrpilot7092]

I used to fly a Warrior. What I liked best about it was the heater. The only aircraft I have ever flown that I had to turn the heat down in. Every Cessna I got into, the heaters could barely keep up. Some I saw my breath in. I miss that airplane. Another rental pilot totaled it in a taxing accident....

[@bernardanderson3758]

The Turbo Dakota is nice but if you like flying higher altitudes on cross country trips this is the one for you

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Hell yeah