Decisions, decisions... Which plane should I get???

bdhill1979 said:
Two more cylinders means that much more Mx in addition to burning more gas.
Click to expand...

I've never thought of two more cylinders as more MX, retractable gear, now that's a MX hog and check the difference in insurance:eek:.

Since I've owned a PA28-235:cool: The Dakota gets my vote, it is and all around good airplane, not a rocket ship, but a good cruising plane that will haul anything you want it to haul and climb like crazy.
 
BillErvin said:
I've never thought of two more cylinders as more MX, retractable gear, now that's a MX hog and check the difference in insurance:eek:.

Since I've owned a PA28-235:cool: The Dakota gets my vote, it is and all around good airplane, not a rocket ship, but a good cruising plane that will haul anything you want it to haul and climb like crazy.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my reason for including the Dakota. It's not fast like the Mooney, but it can carry enough payload for 4 people with space to spare.
 
WacoFan said:
Really? I have to chose between these three? I feel like Nancy Kerrigan..."WHY? WHY? WHHHYYYYYY?"

Take off the panties, slip on some boxers and step up to this:

StinsonV-77.jpg
Click to expand...

Waco, you need to come on down to my house, we got two of these on the field.
 
BillErvin said:
I've never thought of two more cylinders as more MX, retractable gear, now that's a MX hog and check the difference in insurance:eek:.
Click to expand...
+1 to that. I'd say the swinging wheels more than make up for the 2 fewer cylinders. I'd also look into exactly which engine is in the Dakota...The normally aspirated Lycs I've flown have been pretty much bulletproof but I don't know that that applies to the bigger ones like in the Dakota.
 
I really think that the Saratoga, and the Cessna 206/207 are about the best light planes there are. Cheap to maintain (relatively) the Toga has the bulletproof IO540, they can carry a pilot, fuel, and 1000lbs, and they really aren't that expensive to buy. They don't go that fast (if speed is your desire get a lance or a 210) but you don't have to worry about the gear not coming down. All in all, I like the 207 the best (even though its kind of a pig) because it won't cube out, and can take a real beating, but for pavement to pavement, I'd say go Saratoga or Lance. Avoid anything with a turbo charger, because yeah, its cool, but the mx costs will kill you in the long run. Even if you're gentle those things break too much. Just my $.02.
 
Out of the 3, I picked the Dakota. So much less to go wrong. Even when nothing goes wrong on all 3, the Dakota's annuals will be less $ every year you own it. Believe me, I could do any Piper PA-28 annual/100hr in one day or less(the inspection, not working squawks). But as soon as you bring jacking the airplane into the equation, and gear swings, and hydraulic systems, and emergency extension systems, and uplocks, and downlocks, and the associated switches and wiring, and stupid hockey puck main gear(mooneys). With the Dakota you will never have to send your hydraulic powerpack in for an $3000 overhaul, only to find out that it's an outdated P/N, and you owe another $2000 core charge.

My personal pick would be the C-177 non RG with the slotted elevator(only later years). I would put the new 210HP(the later models of fixed gear 177 had 180hp) Lycoming 390 STC engine (just awarded STC last month) in that thing, and cruise all day long into the sunset.
 
Also - people say the Dakota sucks gas. True...but this is also true: YOU can control how much gas is sucked through an engine depending upon how fast you want to fly. Want to save gas, pull the throttle back. Want to go faster, push the throttle forward and increase fuel flow.

Think of the Bearhawk. These machines can be built with IO-360's, 470's or 540's. I would opt for the 540. If you want to replicate the performance and fuel flow of the IO-360, pull the go lever back...but you still have the capability of the IO-540 when you want and need it. Fuel flow is largely a component of how much performance you want at a given time.
 
Probably because nobody has time in Dakota's. Frankly, it's not exactly the most popular aircraft in the world, where flight schools have Arrow's.

I'd avoid the Arrow at all costs. It's a solid, stable cruiser, but doesn't really move that fast and MX bills are going to kill you.

The Mooney is fast, REALLY fast, and an awesome aircraft. You won't go wrong with it, but it WILL be more expensive.

The Dakota is probably you're most utilitarian choice.

Oh and since when did a Lycoming TIO-540 become bulletproof? I'm downright afraid of those engines, and would MUCH prefer to be flying behind an IO-360 on the Mooney.
 
jtrain609 said:
Probably because nobody has time in Dakota's. Frankly, it's not exactly the most popular aircraft in the world, where flight schools have Arrow's.

I'd avoid the Arrow at all costs. It's a solid, stable cruiser, but doesn't really move that fast and MX bills are going to kill you.

The Mooney is fast, REALLY fast, and an awesome aircraft. You won't go wrong with it, but it WILL be more expensive.

The Dakota is probably you're most utilitarian choice.

Oh and since when did a Lycoming TIO-540 become bulletproof? I'm downright afraid of those engines, and would MUCH prefer to be flying behind an IO-360 on the Mooney.
Click to expand...

But no love for the Cessna 180?

Normally aspirated Dakota is my pick of the three. Mooney's are great, but take the speed of the Mooney, subtract the speed of the Dakota, then compare MX and insurance for a year. Find out how much that speed increase costs you per knot.
 
I know of a really good deal on an early 80's Fixed Gear Saratoga for around 120k with a factory new engine, PM me if interested and I will get the details for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top