Turbo Dakota question

[Mike Noel]

Happy Holidays to the group.

I would like to know more about the turbo Dakota. I understand it was built
for only about a year around 1979-80 and has a TSIO-360 200 HP engine on an
airframe similar to an ArcherII. Why only a year? Is it considered a
desirable airplane?

--
Best Regards,
Mike.

http://flickr.com/photos/mikenoel/

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Mike Noel" > said:
>Happy Holidays to the group.
>I would like to know more about the turbo Dakota. I understand it was built
>for only about a year around 1979-80 and has a TSIO-360 200 HP engine on an
>airframe similar to an ArcherII. Why only a year? Is it considered a
>desirable airplane?

I doubt it's a 200 hp engine. The non-turbo Dakota has a 235 hp engine.
But yeah, it's the same fuselage as the Warrior, Archer, Arrow, etc.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"using Outlook to read e-mail is like licking public toilets; using Outlook
with a virus checker is like taking antibiotics and then licking public
toilets (it might work, but it's hardly optimal" -- David Megginson

[Bob Noel[_2_]]

Mike Noel wrote:
> Happy Holidays to the group.
>
> I would like to know more about the turbo Dakota. I understand it was built
> for only about a year around 1979-80 and has a TSIO-360 200 HP engine on an
> airframe similar to an ArcherII. Why only a year? Is it considered a
> desirable airplane?
>

Think of it as a fixed-gear version of the turbo arrow. Even though
it was called a Dakota, I believe it has more parts in common with
the arrow than the dakota.

[Bob Noel[_2_]]

Clark wrote:
> Bob Noel > wrote in :
>
>> Mike Noel wrote:
>>> Happy Holidays to the group.
>>>
>>> I would like to know more about the turbo Dakota. I understand it was
>>> built for only about a year around 1979-80 and has a TSIO-360 200 HP
>>> engine on an airframe similar to an ArcherII. Why only a year? Is it
>>> considered a desirable airplane?
>>>
>> Think of it as a fixed-gear version of the turbo arrow. Even though
>> it was called a Dakota, I believe it has more parts in common with
>> the arrow than the dakota.
>>
>>
> They're all the same airframe, just different engines and landing gear.
>
>
I believe the wing spar and other structural items are different between
the turbo dakota and the regular dakota.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Clark > said:
(Paul Tomblin) wrote in
:
>> In a previous article, "Mike Noel" > said:
>>>Happy Holidays to the group.
>>>I would like to know more about the turbo Dakota. I understand it was
>>>built for only about a year around 1979-80 and has a TSIO-360 200 HP
>>>engine on an airframe similar to an ArcherII. Why only a year? Is it
>>>considered a desirable airplane?
>>
>> I doubt it's a 200 hp engine. The non-turbo Dakota has a 235 hp engine.
>> But yeah, it's the same fuselage as the Warrior, Archer, Arrow, etc.
>>
>>
>Why do you doubt it's a 200 hp engine? It's a TSIO-360 FB and Continental
>rates it for 200 hp at 41 inches MP.

Because I stupidly assumed that if they called it a "Turbo Dakota" instead
of "Turbo Archer", it would have more in common with a Dakota than an
Arrow with the gear welded down.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Microsoft: bringing the world to your desktop -- and your desktop to
the world.
-- Peter Gutmann