Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

Piper PA-28 Cherokee 235/Dakota

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/1_1/usedaircraftguide/5011-1.html

Volume 1 Number 1 Aircraft Review Used Aircraft Guide Piper

Volume 1

Number 1

Volume 1 Number 1 Aircraft Review Used Aircraft Guide Piper PA-28 Cherokee
Volume 1 Number 1 Aircraft Review Used Aircraft Guide Piper PA-28 Cherokee
Volume 1 Number 1 Aircraft Review Used Aircraft Guide Piper PA-28 Cherokee

Aircraft Review Used Aircraft Guide

Volume 1 Number 1 Aircraft Review Used Aircraft Guide Piper PA-28 Cherokee 235/Dakota Piper’s competitor to

Piper PA-28 Cherokee 235/Dakota

Piper’s competitor to the Skylane didn’t do as well in the marketplace, making it a possible bargain.

Big-engined four-place tricycle singles are an interesting — and small — class of airplane. It’s almost always possible to go faster for less money and fuel, and often possible to get more utility than is afforded by sticking a bigger engine on a relatively small airframe. Nevertheless, muscular four-place singles have proven reasonably popular in the marketplace over the years; popular enough, at least, to support two significant entries. These are the Cessna 182 and Piper PA-28-235/236.

entries. These are the Cessna 182 and Piper PA-28-235/236. A close look at this 1973 Charger

A close look at this 1973 Charger shows the fill caps for the tip tanks.

There’s another class of big-engined

singles, exemplified by the Cessna 185 and Maule. They are more in the line of working bushplanes, however. The 182 and the Piper entry are more mainstream in their design.

The 182 has been, by any measure, a success. It features a good combination of utility, roominess and performance. The Piper entry, however, never quite matched the 182 in terms of popularity. Nevertheless it has a lot going for it: decent performance, simplicity, and common, proven components. If your needs include a big dose of horsepower coupled to a simple airframe, the biggest Cherokee is certainly a valid candidate.

History Starting in the 1960s, Piper proved to be the absolute master of taking a single design and turning it into a bewildering variety of airplanes. The PA-28 Cherokee started life as a basic four-place, fixed-gear single with a 160-HP engine, positioned opposite the Cessna Skyhawk. Before all was said and done, the PA-28 had been mutated into everything from the lowly Cherokee 140 up to the Turbo Arrow IV.

The Cherokee 235 represented the top end of the fixed-gear PA-28 line, with a derated Lycoming O-540 engine mated to the basic Cherokee airframe. It was brought to market less than three years after the original Cherokee hit the scene. Aside from the engine, the only significant difference between the Cherokee 235 and its less-powerful siblings was an extra two feet of wingspan. The extended wingtips housed fuel tanks, boosting the total fuel capacity

Piper PA-28 Cherokee 235/Dakota

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/1_1/usedaircraftguide/5011-1.html

to 84 gallons.

to 84 gallons. The panel is Piper-standard. The plane offers good

The panel is Piper-standard. The plane offers good crashworthiness features, including thick glareshield padding and excellent seat design.

The original 1964-65 model came equipped with a fixed-pitch two-bladed propeller mated to a 235-HP Lycoming O-540-B2B5 engine having a TBO of only 1200 hours. Plane spotters can identify this, along with the follow-on B model, by the presence of only two side windows. The B model also had an optional constant-speed propeller. It was produced from 1966-68. The 1968 model boasted an increased TBO of 2000 hours: the improvement was retrofittable, and by now there should be none of the 1200-hour engines left in service.

The 1969 C model boasted a third side

window, new instrument panel and power controls. Few other significant changes were made for this, the D, E or F models. This first PA-28-235 series finished up in 1972, with the F.

The 235’s second decade began with the 1973-74 Charger. It was still a PA-28, but with enough differences to be significant. For one thing, the constant-speed prop was made standard. The follow-on model dubbed Pathfinder was produced from 1975-1978. During the reign of these two models several alterations were made, the most notable being a five-inch fuselage stretch coupled with a 100-pound boost in takeoff weight and a corresponding a 59-pound increase in empty weight. There were other, minor alterations, like the provision of standard shoulder harnesses for the front seats, and a stall horn to replace the stall light.

The final variant, the PA-28-236 Dakota, was introduced in 1979. This airplane boasted the new semi-tapered wing planform that had first turned up on the Warrior in 1975. It was larger in a couple of critical dimensions, with another fuselage stretch of 7.5 inches and a span increase of 3.4 feet.

Also new was a different engine variant, the Lycoming O-540-J3A5D, still of 235 HP. It offered better fuel efficiency, less noise and vibration. It was also designed to use 100/130 avgas instead of 80 octane. The Dakota also had a new cowling and Piper’s new-style wheel pants.

Along with the new wing came new ailerons and a new fuel system that decreased capacity from 84 to 77 gallons (73 usable). Despite the drop in fuel capacity, range didn’t suffer as much as one might expect. This can be attributed to better engine efficiency and improved aerodynamics thanks to the long, semi-tapered wing.

By the time the Dakota came out, general aviation sales were beginning to drop dramatically. Few changes were made to the model, and production slowed to a trickle. The last produced came off the line in 1994.

Turbo We did leave one “Dakota” out of the history detailed above. This is not a mistake, it’s intentional, because it’s really a different airplane: the PA-28-201T Turbo Dakota, with a turbocharged 200-HP Continental TSIO-360-FB powerplant. Aside from the questionable move of putting a significantly less powerful engine into an airplane that people buy because of horsepower, the execution left a great deal to be desired in the areas of induction, cooling and exhaust air flow.

The result was a bundle of mechanical trouble. The 201T has historically proven to be far less reliable than the more powerful, normally aspirated Dakotas, with trouble and accident rates four times higher than one would expect, based on the proportion of 201Ts in the population. (It’s impossible to be precise, since FAA lumps all PA-28s together in the activity surveys.) An unusually large percentage of accidents, incidents and SDRs are directly related to the powerplant and accessories.

Piper PA-28 Cherokee 235/Dakota

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/1_1/usedaircraftguide/5011-1.html

The “non-Dakota” Dakota was made for one year, 1979, and only 91 were built. Some of these were sold as 1980 models. Suffice it to say that everybody makes mistakes, and this was one of Piper’s big ones. Oddly enough, some owners love them.

If you can find one that you just can’t resist, be certain it has a solid-gold pedigree, with documented proof of meticulous maintenance before you consider purchasing it. Otherwise, run the other way. Fast.

Marketplace The big PA-28 of choice is the PA-28-236 Dakota. The enhanced performance provided by the new wing makes a real difference, and it’s reflected in the prices they bring. According to a recent Aircraft Bluebook Price Digest, the earliest Dakota retails for $97,000, versus $72,000 for the last Pathfinder. As a side note, the Turbo Dakota goes for only $80,000, some $17,000 less than the same year “real” Dakota.

The Cessna 182 enjoys much higher prices in the marketplace. A 1979 model currently fetches some $106,000 versus the Dakota’s $97,000. There are similar differentials between the Cherokee 235 and earlier 182s.

If you’re in the market for a big Piper, we’d opt for the nicest Dakota we could find. If money is more of an issue, there’s an interesting trade-off that can be made. As noted below, the pre-Charger and Pathfinder PA-28-235s actually perform better than the Charger/Pathfinder do, though not as well as the Dakota. The trade-off comes in the extra useful load and interior space afforded by the Charger and Pathfinder. As noted above, it’s wise to avoid the Turbo Dakota unless you’re very, very sure it’s right for you.

Handling Most PA-28s handle about the same, and the 236/236 is no exception. There’s more difference between early Hershey-bar models and later, taper-wing versions than there is between the different models with the same wing. The Hershey-bar-equipped versions are quite stable in all but the most turbulent air (at which point they become very high workload if you want to fight rather than accommodate conditions). Many pilots term them truck-like. The taper-wing Dakota is more responsive and requires a lower level of effort. A well-known “feature” of PA-28 handling is also present in the 235/236, and is caused by the fact that the nose gear is not self-centering and is connected full-time to the rudder pedals. When the rudder is deflected in flight, the nose gear is, too. The effect is compounded with larger fairings and wheel pants. (Having trouble maintaining desired heading in cruise? See if you are inadvertently putting some pressure on one of the rudder pedals, or kick the pedals left and right to see if the nosewheel is centered.) There’s an obvious hazard if the pilot has the rudder deflected when the nose wheel touches down.

It’s not really a problem, but something for new Piper pilots to remain aware of. Still, for all the years these characteristics have been known, the long-term damage caused by improper stress, and loss of control and gear collapse accidents occur with high frequency.

There is a particular handling quirk found in this biggest of Cherokees that you won’t find in an airplane like the Warrior, however. That big engine weighs a lot, and it affects the way the airplane handles in the flare.

The 235 is an easy-flying airplane (and many owners praise its stability in IFR operations), but the greater weight of the engine/propeller combination out front-while contributing to a generous CG envelope-increases the tendency to under flare in landing and even during takeoff. Lightly loaded, the 235 can be difficult to flare properly during landing, especially if speed control is not good and airspeed is high and full flaps are used. The same trick that works so well in PA-32s and PA-34s-using the first or, at most, second notch of flaps-helps the pilot to hold the nose gear off.

Performance Unlike some airplanes, the performance of the early Cherokee 235s was better than that of the later models. This is due, in part, to the fact that many designs start out underpowered; not so

Piper PA-28 Cherokee 235/Dakota

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/1_1/usedaircraftguide/5011-1.html

the 235, which had plenty of horses from the outset.

Cruise speed, rate of climb, range, service ceiling and landing performance all decreased to some extent. One of the most notable performance losses was the comparably poor altitude performance of the Charger/Pathfinder, which can be attributed to the same engine hauling around more airplane. Even the official figures reflect this (late-model 235s with constant-speed props have a service ceiling of 16,500 feet. The Charger’s official top is a dismal 12,000 feet, and even getting to 10,000 in the summer is a trial).

The new, longer wing on the Dakota brought much better performance to the design. The service ceiling went back up to a very respectable 17,900 feet, which assures adequate density-altitude performance and ability to cruise with relative efficiency at the middle altitudes (14,000-16,000 feet). Only takeoff ground run performance declines, compared to the Charger (886 to 850 feet), although performance to cross a 50-foot barrier improves (1,216 versus 1,410 feet).

Climb performance in the Dakota is also markedly improved, again because of the longer wing. These are the characteristics that attract people to big-engined singles — an airplane with a smaller engine simply can’t hold its own in a hot-high-heavy situation the way a Dakota can. In its own way, the Dakota shows what aircraft development within a model line should be but rarely is: improved utility, improved performance.

The Dakota’s wing also pays off in improved roll response, due to the taper and new aileron design.

Systems There are a few things to be aware of about the PA-28-235/236’s systems, some of which are potential problems for the uninitiated.

The brakes come in for routine castigation. Especially in the later models, pilots complain there is too little braking power available and that pedal feel is too spongy. This may be a perception rather than a fact. Brake power may be properly modulated to the airplane’s performance and wheel and tire size. Too much brake power puts the expense elsewhere, in replacing flat-spotted tires.

The fuel system in earlier airplanes deserves mention as well. The original four-tank fuel supply requires constant attention to fuel management. Accidents continue to occur because of failure to switch tanks or because a tank with no fuel or low fuel is selected. This occurs despite the location of the fuel gauges and selector on the 235s in the center of the cockpit, below the engine controls. In the Dakota, the fuel system is simpler but the selector is in the usual out-of- sight, out-of-mind PA-28 position on the left side wall.

Another potential problem area is the pitot/static system design. With the pitot tube (or blade in this case) mounted on the bottom of the port wing, the system is very susceptible to water contamination and bug blockage. It is nearly impossible to inspect properly, and frequently the only indication is the lack of or clearly erratic indication of airspeed during the takeoff run.

Interior In later models, with more seat adjustments in both the front and rear, and better attention to seat shape, the 235 is better than the average lightplane over long stage lengths. A number of owners have commented on seat design as a plus. We agree, and not only for comfort reasons. Piper is one of the only manufacturers to pay attention to crashworthiness of their

Piper PA-28 Cherokee 235/Dakota

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/1_1/usedaircraftguide/5011-1.html

seats: The “S” shaped seat frame deforms on impact, absorbing energy.

Especially after the fuselage stretch introduced in 1972, the 235 series provides reasonable comfort for four people. The front-seat passenger actually has an easier time keeping out of the pilot’s way than in a Bonanza. The Dakota is roomier still.

Cockpit layout is typical Piper, which is to say that it’s good in our opinion with the exception of the engine instruments. While there is a certain logic to putting the tachometer and manifold pressure gauge near the throttle, we prefer to see the critical powerplant information up high, and near the pilot’s line of sight. To us, the late-model Bonanza is about as good as it gets in a single.

From an operational standpoint, fuel management raises pilot workload in the earlier models (in the Dakota, it is a relatively simpler matter of maintaining reasonable lateral balance).

simpler matter of maintaining reasonable lateral balance). These later Piper seats are often praised as being

These later Piper seats are often praised as being among the most comfortable, adjustable available.

Maintenance The 235/Dakota has a huge advantage going for it when it comes to maintenance: reliability. The O-540 is significantly derated compared to some variants of the same engine, like the 350-HP versions in the Navajo. That means stresses are low, and service reports verify that the 235-HP version is nearly bulletproof.

With the core engine still in production and tens of thousands in the field, support has not been a problem. With parts and service widely available, proper maintenance does not require a guru.

Being a PA-28 also means that parts and service for the airframe are quite easy to come by. As these things go, it’s an easy airplane to live with.

These observations, of course, do not apply to the Turbo Dakota. The powerplant and accessory problems it suffers are legion by comparison.

Mods, orgs The organization most frequently mentioned as a source of helpful information is the Cherokee Pilots Assn., (813) 935-7492.

Mods available include STOL kits from Sierra and Bush, and a few aerodynamic goodies from Met-Co-Aire and LoPresti Speed Merchants. Speed brakes are also available from Precise Flight.

Owner Comments The 235 is so unique within the Cherokee clan, it doesn’t seem fair to use the same name. Yes, the wing flies similarly, and yes, the looks are almost indistinguishable. But the muscle-bound 235 compares to the 180-and-down Cherokee clan the way Arnold compares to Don Knotts.

I’ve owned my 1964 235 for two and a half years. I’m a fusser/fiddler by nature, and I’ve put over 20 337/STC mods into my airplane is as many months. I’ve intimately researched and dealt with every AD ever issued against my airplane, and quite a few that took me a while to determine that they were not applicable to it. Also, with an older airplane and many owners (I’m the 10th), I spent a fair amount of time finding all the wrong/broken/missing screws,

Piper PA-28 Cherokee 235/Dakota

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/1_1/usedaircraftguide/5011-1.html

changing all possible hardware to stainless, cleaning up old Velcro glue, repainting trim pieces and whatnot, etc., etc. Once I got all the vagaries of a 32-year-old airplane taken care of, it became a solid, reliable mount for almost any kind of aviation I wanted.

I bought my Cherokee primarily for the reliable Lycoming O-540 engine, and the superb cabin visibility. It has probably the thinnest window posts I know of, and wide-view sightseeing is a joy. The low-wing obscures a bit of ground below, but it more than makes up for this by being able to see all around the plane, especially in the traffic patterns.

Performance in brief: it cruises at about 153 MPH at 65 percent power at around 8000'. At that power setting, it burns around 12 GPH door-to-door. Even with all the stuff I’ve done to it, it still weighs only 1520 pounds empty, and the gross of 2900 allows 1380 pounds of useful load. With all 84 gallons sloshing in the tanks (2 mains and 2 tips), I have room for 4 FAA occupants plus 200 pounds of baggage plus 20 pounds more of the normal stuff we all keep in our own airplanes (books, flashlights, survival gear, etc.). At that weight, it carries almost 250 pounds more payload than the vaunted 182, at similar speeds and ranges.

My bladder is good for maybe 4-5 hours; my airplane will last for 6-7 in normal cruise, or 7-8 at economy settings. It’s easily an 800-mile craft, with generous reserves. I normally will push it to about 600 miles per leg on long trips and still land with 1/3 tanks.

What about all the worries of costs of operation on the big O-540 six-cylinder monster up front? When I’m not in a hurry, I’ll dial it back to 45-50% power and loaf along at 125MPH and 9.5GPH. Two weeks ago, we roamed all over Northern California for an entire Sunday, logging 4.5 hours of flying time for a total fuel expenditure of 34 gallons, about $70 at today’s prices.

Among the many mods and upgrades and AD-eliminations, I have installed the MASA STOL kit, which consists of a dorsal fin and leading-edge cuffs. This mod lowers the stall speed by about 4-5MPH, but more importantly, increases the control in the stall to astonishing levels. With the yoke almost full back, full flaps and about 35% power, the airplane will simply live within a power-on stalled condition and fly happily around a crazily-tilted sky. The deck angle is around 35 degrees, airspeed about 48MPH, with the center of the wing in a busy buffet while the ailerons give full control and the prop-washed wing root keeps flying in the relative wind. Under zero-wind conditions, take-off and landing rolls at moderate weights are around 500 feet, even with the sluggish Piper laminar-flow (haha) Hershey-bar wing. All the speed and STOL mods put together have taken the stall speed down about 5-6MPH, not a huge amount. But, more importantly, there is a very solid, sure feeling of CONTROL in the stall. I really have to brutalize it to get a wing to drop.

I’ve done nothing yet to the interior, which is passable but not bragging-level. The rear seat is incredibly comfortable, and the fronts are less so, but tolerable. Additional lumbar-foam will go in when I do the interior.

As an IFR platform, it is OK, nothing startling. It will drift off on one wing or the other if left uncorrected, but only gradually and so what else is new? The 4 tanks take some management, and I switch about every 20 minutes or so. If I let it go too long, she reminds me by getting wing-heavy. I consider this a blessing, a sort of auto-fuel-management system, and I would not own an aileron-trim system. I would very much like an autopilot — it came without one, and adding an S-Tec is up around $3000-$4000 these days.

Ground handling is spectacular. The CG is so low, the gear stance so wide, it feels like a sports car driving a Cherokee around the ramp. You have to remind yourself to be cautious, because side loads can be easy to self-induce, and the gears are attached directly to the wing spars. The low wing also makes for really easy cross-wind landings, so much in fact that I feel quite spoiled. By the time the wings get down to their 3' height above the ground, most of the punch has gone out of any crosswind. I carry a crab almost to touchdown, then a touch of wing-low, and carefully take all the rudder out just as the nosewheel (no bungees) touches down. If I forget about the nosewheel, it will chirp back and forth once or twice, trying to caster straight against my crossed-controls.

For rough-field conditions, I put a bit of extra air in the struts and pick the whole airplane up an

Piper PA-28 Cherokee 235/Dakota

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/1_1/usedaircraftguide/5011-1.html

inch or two (all the struts have over 10" of travel, so adjusting for specific conditions is possible once you understand the mechanics of things). Plus I run it light, of course. But even with full camping gear and 3/4 tanks, I’ve put it in and out of fairly short strips (1200-1400 feet) with plenty of margin for error.

This early model was shorter than later Cherokees, and rear seat legroom will not accommodate basketball players, especially with long-leggers in the front seats. The shortness also made it “wallow” a bit in turbulence; fortunately, the MASA dorsal fin corrected that quite well.

The ventilation system leaves a lot to be desired, but it manages to cool off my passengers on all but the most brutal summer days. Unfortunately, the vents are little doors on the outside surface of the fuselage (later design took the air in from the wing and tailfin leading edges). When I open all five vents, I have recorded a cruise loss of 3MPH! A little drag goes a long way.

The early instrument panels were a far cry from post-1968 standard configurations, and I’ve spent considerable time re-doing the panel arrangement. Fortunately, it’s not structural, so only logbook entries are called for in a panel re-do. With the radios very centered, and the control column using up depth behind the lower part of the panel, it takes some creativity to come up with a good design full of IFR panel components. I managed to get the basic-T in by using Terra radios (which are very compact). For other models, the stack would have to move to the right, and my IA tells me such a mod would probably warrant another 337.

My particular 235 came with a fixed-pitch prop, a mixed blessing if ever there was one. It lacks the weight, complexity, and AD (500 hours recurrent) of the Hartzell constant-speed prop. But it takes about 100 feet more to get off the ground, and it compromises the book service ceiling by 2000 feet. Luckily, I virtually never fly at gross weight, and my actual service ceiling is somewhere around 16,000 feet or more — I have never had the opportunity to determine it. On the way back from Oshkosh in 1996, my friend and I were at 16,500 (density altitude), with full camping gear, half tanks, 55% power, and climbing 600FPM at 100MPH The fixed prop also runs out of RPM at about 65% at cruising altitudes, so spending 75% power (14GPH) for some extra speed is not an option. I estimate the 75% setting might get me up towards 160+MPH or so. Putting a standard Hartzell on the nose is simple, except for one minor problem: my serial number is so early, I have the B2B5 engine, and the Hartzell is certified only for the B4B5. The difference, heavier crankshaft counterbalances, requires a major teardown. I’ll probably put a constant-speed prop on it eventually, for the sake of short-field work, but it will be more for the purpose of another project and a slight performance edge, than any real necessity.

Of the entire list of ADs on the airplane, none are really any kind of heart-breakers. The early plastic control wheels tended to crack, and had a 50-hour recurrent inspection requirement. I replaced mine with the late-model ram’s-horn style, $600 from Wentworth. The early main-gear torque links also liked to crack (100-hour recurrent), so $150 worth of late-model links were installed. (Thanks again Wentworth) Oil hoses, stainless/Teflon, $150 for a full set. I added the Airwolf remote filter ($350), bumping the oil changes from 25 to 50 hours. The left mag impulse coupling needs inspection every 500 hours, which is about two years at my flying rate of 250 hours a year. And there’s a couple of nuisance-level ADs, like the recurrent fuel-valve door inspection, which the pilot-owner can comply with.

Small headaches: oleo struts suck. The seals don’t last very long, and the struts have a static friction, which can cause a rough ride even on smooth asphalt. Fortunately, when you really bump them, like on rough dirt, they move readily.

The alternator is a perennial headache for some Cherokee owners, but mine is trouble-free. The secret? — check out the mounting system and repair/replace any worn brackets. Then, shim the rear mounting lug with oversize washers to prevent its moving on its bushing. Double- and triple-check the belt alignment. Start the motor with the alternator field breaker OPEN — otherwise, the alternator will put out max current while you are cranking. My logbooks showed almost an alternator a year before I got the plane. I’ve got over 400 hours on a rebuilt unit now, and no problems.

Piper PA-28 Cherokee 235/Dakota

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/1_1/usedaircraftguide/5011-1.html

The door is a bit of a joke. I have yet to figure out how to get it truly sealed, without investing $600 in a high-tech inflatable door seal. I use headsets and ignore the noise. My Cherokee doesn’t leak a drop of rain, which is NOT a typical story. There is some runoff from the wing spar which ends up in the belly of the fuselage, but one of Piper’s service bulletins okays two small drain holes near the baggage bay spar, and the water just runs right out again before it can do any damage. The baggage door was also laughable, with multiple repairs having been ineffectually made, and the latch nearly useless after years of abuse. 15 hours of cleanup, rework, and careful sealing brought it back to functionality. Designed to flip up, the strapped-back door can deal a nasty cut if you’re not careful climbing off the wing, so I watch it and caution my passengers. Better yet, I don’t leave it open during passenger egress.

Overall, maintenance is a relative dream, especially compared to such nightmares as the multi- screwed, tight-cowled Mooneys and Bonanzas. The top cowl comes off with 4 quick-release latches. The bottom comes off for oil changes with only 12 screws. Rear seats remove with 6 bolts, front seats with 2 screws each. It takes me about 45 minutes to an hour to completely strip the airplane to get it ready for the annual.

The Cherokee systems are simple, easy to get at, and easy to fix. Virtually all the parts for the airplane are still available from Piper, and some are even reasonably priced. Although $140 for

a throttle cable sounds like a lot, it ain’t bad compared to Cessna’s $520.

For my 1964 airplane with nine previous owners, my first annual cost over $5000, including trim cables, exhaust system, ignition harness, and myriad lesser items. Since then, it’s been between $1000 and $2000. All costs are with me doing most of the work, signed off by my IA. I don’t scrimp on anything, if it’s worn, it gets replaced, period.

Really worthwhile mods: higher alternator capacity, control columns, gear torque links, engine oil filter, instrument panel standard ‘T’, copper battery cables, Sky-tech starter, modern ELT with panel-remote. The K2U tail-cap strobe reduces electrical system load by about 6 amps. When my windshield gets scratchy enough, I’ll put a 1/4-inch upgrade in (I fret about bird strikes).

Probably not worth the time/trouble: the STOL kit, most speed mods, Bogert battery-box mod. Unless you’re a purist and can’t sleep until everything that can be done has been done. (Like me.)

If it sounds like I’m happy with it, I am. Oh, sure, I’d like it to be faster, and slower, and maybe

a bit sexier. I’d LOVE two doors, and I’d kill for a big baggage door like a Maule. But as an

all-around airplane, a reasonably quick load-hauler, it’s very hard to beat.

-Gregory Illes

via e-mail

The Dakota is a Cherokee on steroids. The performance difference is so noticeable that on more than one occasion I’ve had passengers familiar with Warrior and Archer performance comment on how much more “substantial feeling” the Dakota is. It’s probably the push in the back you get on take-off roll and the positive rate of climb that is achieved almost instantly on rotation that wakes up the masses.

Cruise is a comfortable 135 KIAS at 6000 — 9000 feet at something just under 75% power. I’ve found that if I can get it to the airport in my Oldsmobile Aurora, it’ll fit in the plane and the plane will fly! (My barbell set excluded.) I fly missions for Angel-flight of New England and have had occasion to take three passengers, luggage for a trip to Europe — including a carton of medical supplies — and an adult stroller (used for the disabled when a wheelchair is not appropriate.) It fit, the W&B worked and I flew them into JFK without a hitch.

The downside of all this heavy lifting is that it costs bit more to operate than your average Skyhawk. Fuel burn runs about 14 GPH block to block and engine reserve must be higher than with a smaller 4 cylinder engine. I purchased my Dakota with 2132 hours on the original engine

Piper PA-28 Cherokee 235/Dakota

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/1_1/usedaircraftguide/5011-1.html

(400 hours STOH). I put on another 100 hours and went for a Lycoming Factory Overhaul. The engine set me back $16,700, and with prop, governor, mounts and R & R the job was almost $23,000. Next time around it’ll be even more so a $12.50 per hour reserve is not out of line.

The oleos are finicky. They bind in odd positions, sometimes extended, sometimes compressed. They’ve been serviced but I still find that I am often lifting up one side or the other just before I get in the car to go home after tying her down. For 14 months I’ve been trying to figure out why I sometimes have difficulty getting to door to close and latch. No other PA-28 I’ve been in, and I’ve rented plenty of them, has given me this trouble.

The #1 exhaust riser broke off in flight recently leaving me with my JPI showing only 5 functional cylinders. Power was normal — just a little extra noise and vibration- so I avoided using the “E” word and exercising my right to foul up JFK traffic on a Sunday evening and made it back home (FRG) without incident. My A&P subsequently informed me that every Dakota he takes care of has broken the #1 riser. He considers it almost a normal wear item on this plane. It seems that there is no support for the mufflers other than the riser flange bolted to the cylinder head.

-Michael Harbater Far Rockaway, N.Y.

Also With This Article Click here to view charts for Resale Values, Payload Compared and Prices Compared. Click here to view the Piper Dakota features guide.

About Us / Contact Us / Privacy Policy / Site Map Copyright Belvoir Media Group, LLC. All rights reserved.