Resource for choosing a plane?

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:28:49 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Pathfinder/Dakota/Turbo Dakota may give you the most bang for your buck
while filling most if not all of your requirements. $100,000 will give
you
several to pick from.

My thoughts exactly.

It's not *quite* 150 knots, (more like 140, in our Pathfinder), but it's a
true 4-place plane (1400 pound useful load) that can be landed on grass
comfortably.

The PA28-235 is a great plane, but is this true in Colorado Springs?
In the summer?

My Cherokee 180 serves as a wonderful 2-place in the Midwest, but when
I visited Boulder in the summer, takeoff and climbout were less than
spectacular, and I was 200lbs under gross.

Thus why I also suggested the Turbo Dakota. It really depends on the
mission or what percentage of his missions would be 4 place/full fuel out of
CS.

Everything is a trade off and priorities need to be addressed. The $100,000
price limit would also limit the number of well equipped Turbo Dakotas
available but if my missions were mostly at heavy takeoff weights I would
definitely put my priorities in the Turbo column over the "well equipped"
column.

Once you get the engine/airframe you want, everything else is simply money.
Make it what you want after it meets your performance requirements. A glass
cockpit will never decrease your takeoff distance or increase your climb
rate.

YMMV.
Jim

Thus why I also suggested the Turbo Dakota.

Personally, I'd stay away from that particular model.

It's common to think that the Turbo Dakota used a turbo-charged version of
the six-cylinder O-540 that is standard in all other PA28-235/236s.
Unfortunately, Piper opted to use the Continental TSIO-360 -- a
four-cylinder engine -- and it has been much maligned as being an engine
that is "pushed too hard" and thus doesn't last long.

Here is a telling excerpt from the "Buyer's Guide" on the Cherokee 235/236
owners group website:

"In the opinion of most, the only model to stay away from is the Turbo
Dakota
(PA28-201T). There were only 89 built in 1979 and they were plagued with
engine problems from the Continental TSIO-360. One member felt that
although the Turbo Dakota is much-maligned, due to its reportedly unreliable
engine, under certain circumstances it may be worth a look (i.e. you really
need to fly high). He met one Turbo Dakota driver who claimed that with
proper engine management, he had experienced no trouble at all."

That's what I call "damned with faint praise."
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:



Personally, I'd stay away from that particular model.

It's common to think that the Turbo Dakota used a turbo-charged version of
the six-cylinder O-540 that is standard in all other PA28-235/236s.
Unfortunately, Piper opted to use the Continental TSIO-360 -- a
four-cylinder engine -- and it has been much maligned as being an engine
that is "pushed too hard" and thus doesn't last long.
/snip/

Well, Jay,

For one thing, the TCM IO/TSIO-360 is a *six* cylinder powerplant, that
puts out the same 200 horses that Lycoming's *four* cylinder IO-360
does. So, no, "overworking" is not an issue. Secondly, although the
turbo's original iteration included a fixed wastegate and no
intercooler, subsequent mods have made these improvements available,
with the benefit of much better durability.

I believe the Turbo Dakota would be a *very* viable choice, given the
OP's stated requirements, especially in regards to density altitude of
the airports he plans to operate out of.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane
N92054

"Scott Skylane" wrote:

For one thing, the TCM IO/TSIO-360 is a *six* cylinder powerplant, that
puts out the same 200 horses that Lycoming's *four* cylinder IO-360 does.
So, no, "overworking" is not an issue.

What's the number of cylinders got to do with it?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:

"Scott Skylane" wrote:


For one thing, the TCM IO/TSIO-360 is a *six* cylinder powerplant, that
puts out the same 200 horses that Lycoming's *four* cylinder IO-360 does.
So, no, "overworking" is not an issue.


What's the number of cylinders got to do with it?

Dan,
Absolutely nothing, which was my point in responding to Honeck's
assertion that the TCM 360 is a *four* cylinder engine with a reputation
of being "pushed too hard"(his words).

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane
N92054

Scott Skylane wrote:

Absolutely nothing, which was my point in responding to Honeck's
assertion that the TCM 360 is a *four* cylinder engine with a reputation
of being "pushed too hard"(his words).

Regardless of the number of cylinders, Jay said it is pushed too hard in
comparison to the O-540. Which puts out 235 hp.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

For one thing, the TCM IO/TSIO-360 is a *six* cylinder powerplant,

Whoops. I was mistaking it for the Lycoming O-360.

My bad.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 4-Jan-2006, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

It's common to think that the Turbo Dakota used a turbo-charged version of
the six-cylinder O-540 that is standard in all other PA28-235/236s.
Unfortunately, Piper opted to use the Continental TSIO-360 -- a
four-cylinder engine -- and it has been much maligned as being an engine
that is "pushed too hard" and thus doesn't last long.


Actually, the Continental TSIO-360 is a 6 cyl engine. Otherwise, I think
Jay's comments are accurate. The Turbo Dakota is really much more a fixed
gear version of the Turbo Arrow. (Same engine, airframe, similar useful
load, but quite a bit slower due to the fixed gear.)

From the OP's list of desired characteristics, I'd have to say that a Turbo
Arrow might be the "obvious" choice. Other models might fit the mission
(and his body size/shape) better, but not within his $100K budget. Some
owners have had issues with the TSIO-360, but it works better on the T-Arrow
than the T-Dakota because of better cooling (due to higher airspeed).
Another factor is that T-Dakotas are rare, but T-Arrows were built in large
numbers in the 1977-80 time frame, and are quite plentiful on the used
market.

As to questions of added costs associated with retractable gear and CS prop:
RG will probably end up costing $200-300 extra per year for hull insurance.
Based on our experience (normally aspirated 1979 Arrow IV) extra
maintenance averages about $250/year. However, we save about $1500 per year
in fuel costs (flying 150 hrs), compared to similar performance FG aircraft
(e.g. C-182, Dakota). The CS prop probably costs about $1.50-2.00/hr in
extra maintenance costs (largely the cost of overhaul). However, it is a
must for turbocharged aircraft.
--
-Elliott Drucker

wrote in message
news%lvf.2414$q26.1856@trnddc03...

[snip]
As to questions of added costs associated with retractable gear and CS
prop:
RG will probably end up costing $200-300 extra per year for hull
insurance.
Based on our experience (normally aspirated 1979 Arrow IV) extra
maintenance averages about $250/year. However, we save about $1500 per
year
in fuel costs (flying 150 hrs), compared to similar performance FG
aircraft
(e.g. C-182, Dakota). The CS prop probably costs about $1.50-2.00/hr in
extra maintenance costs (largely the cost of overhaul). However, it is a
must for turbocharged aircraft.

Elliott:

Thanks, that's the sort of rough numbers I've been looking for viz c/s vs
fixed prop, retract vs fixed gear, etc. That sounds like, all told $1K /
year "extra" for the retract (ins + mx) and c/s prop (mx).

Is your $10/hr "savings" based on going the same speed but burning ~2.5 - 3
gph less to do it in a retract (less drag, I assume)? I'm still getting a
feel for performance comparisons (hence this thread!), I don't want to make
a bad assumption on what you're saying....

What about turbo vs normal aspiration? Another poster suggested ~$40K for
an overhaul of a (specific model) t/c engine, which seems to be ~2x what
I've read elsewhere. What about annual & "surprise" mx cost differences?

If I'm understanding you correctly, the differences (not including turbo)
should be about a wash for flying 100 hrs/yr. Even if it's not (or if I
fall into the apparently common category of overestimating my annual
flying), $1K / yr extra doesn't scare me....

Thanks!

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)