My FBO asked me, Toga or 182

AdamZ

AdamZ

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
14,866
Location
Montgomery County PA
Display Name
Display name:
Adam Zucker
My FBO is buying a new plane, ( not new to them but acutally new) they are asking the opinions of thier customers. The choices were a straight tail Arrow IV or a Saratoga HP.

I voted for the Toga but now they have added a twist and asked me my preference of the Saratoga HP or a 182.

Now thats a tough one. Love to hear your opinions.
 
To quote the late, great John Belushi....

"Toga! Toga, Toga!"
 
If you plan to use it for cross country travel, go with the 'toga.

Jay
 
As a "toga" driver, gotta go with the flow on this one. Plus, there's a lot more room in the Saratoga than in the Cessna.

Of course, If I was the FBO, I'd rather have the arrow or the 182 on the line, easier to insure. As a renter, the 'toga hands down. If my local FBO had gotten a 6 seat rental, I wouldn't be a club member now.

Jim G
 
AdamZ said:
I voted for the Toga but now they have added a twist and asked me my preference of the Saratoga HP or a 182.
Click to expand...


Six place vs. Four
300 HP vs 230
Retract vs. Fixed
155 Kts vs. 130 Kts

Have they said what the rental will be for each? Seems like the 'toga will be much more expensive.

James Dean
 
One problem with the new Togas are they are load-challenged.

A well-equipped 1976 Lance (mostly the same airframe) has a typical useful load of 1400-1450 pounds. An 07 Toga, according to Piper's website, has a standard useful load of 1200 pounds, from which you subtract the options the dealer has likely preordered, typically including air conditioning. So the result is a useful load in the 1120-1150 area. Fill the tanks. The Lance will take 98 gal, leaving about 850 for the cabin. The Toga will take 102 gal, leaving about 525 for the cabin.

In a rental environment, a six seater with this kind of loading issue creates fuel management issues, primarily when it comes to needing it defueled.

That said, I'd rather wax a Toga than fly a Skylane.
 
Yeah, I got the Arrow vs Toga email too. Voted for the Toga. I haven't gotten one about 182 vs the toga. I think I'd vote for the the 182. It will probably be cheaper to rent and I'll be able to check out in it faster.
 
I suspect that no matter how the poll comes out, a 182 will fly significantly more hours than a Toga, making it a better choice from the FBO's perspective. It will be significantly cheaper to rent without having significantly lower speed or payload, and how many times does anyone carry more than four people?
 
Ron Levy said:
I suspect that no matter how the poll comes out, a 182 will fly significantly more hours than a Toga, making it a better choice from the FBO's perspective. It will be significantly cheaper to rent without having significantly lower speed or payload, and how many times does anyone carry more than four people?
Click to expand...
Depends on who you ask! :)

If someone put a new Toga on the line here, I would not now be an almost-owner. But a 182 does me no good.
 
I'd vote Toga too, how many other places have a six place for rent. If he is going new why not the Six.

Dan
 
A nice, large and powerful Saratoga would be great to fly... now and then. But, most who could afford the cost are not far behind being able to buy their own plane. I'd suggest the 182 since it would get more widely used. Should it be an older 182 with "no defects" then I'd definitely go for it from the FBO's perspective. Our 182RG gets so much use, I've had a heck of a time keeping it scheduled for my commercial training.

Plus, Piper knows where the wings are supposed to glued on :D
Click to expand...
And, what would some rotorhead know about "glued wings"?!?!? :D
 
What I'd like to have would be the Toga, though it would almost never have 6 people. What I think would make the most financial sense for the FBO would be a 182. What if they went about it by asking a slightly different question: Would you be willing to COMMIT to renting 10 hours a year in a 182 at $x/hr or a Toga at $(1.5x)/hr. I am, of course, making up the 1.5 factor, but with the higher operating costs and the smaller pool of qualified renters, they would certainly have to price it higher. The 182 requires an HP endorsement, but the Toga also requires a Complex. The insurance company will see three things: Retractable, 6 seats, and renters. They'll charge a pretty penny and require high time in type to rent.

But, given all that, if they can swing the Toga financially and reasonably, go for it!
 
Oh Ron, for cripes sakes, why do you have to be so logical!!!!!!!!!!

It's not your FBO, take your logic and go elsewhere!!!!!!!!!

:p

Ron's right, of course, from a strictly economic perspective.

I responded "TOGA!" as I had when the FBO owner asked me for my opinion a few months ago. Those of us who care, want a TOGA. Those who rent would likely prefer a 182. Still, we don't have an HP/Complex alternative at KLOM. There is only one rental Arrow. They'll replace that aircraft with the new one, so a TOGA makes more sense than a 182 in terms of endorsements.
 
flyersfan31 said:
I responded "TOGA!" as I had when the FBO owner asked me for my opinion a few months ago. Those of us who care, want a TOGA. Those who rent would likely prefer a 182. Still, we don't have an HP/Complex alternative at KLOM. There is only one rental Arrow. They'll replace that aircraft with the new one, so a TOGA makes more sense than a 182 in terms of endorsements.
Click to expand...
Pros and cons The problem Leslie and I are running into (and I think Kent has a similar one) is that we don't have a complex aircraft for rent at our FBO to allow us to get our Commercial tickets. (Okay, to be fair, there's a 310, but that's hardly economical!).
 
Most FBO's that have a Toga or 6 will only rent to IR pilots. I have never seen that same requiremnt for a 182RG. So I think they will be reducing the pilot pool with the Toga. If they want a HP/CMP to rent then the 182RG would be the ticket. 182RGs in the St.Louis area rent fore $125-$135 wet, a 6 or Toga will go for $185+.
 
Dean said:
Most FBO's that have a Toga or 6 will only rent to IR pilots. I have never seen that same requiremnt for a 182RG. So I think they will be reducing the pilot pool with the Toga. If they want a HP/CMP to rent then the 182RG would be the ticket. 182RGs in the St.Louis area rent fore $125-$135 wet, a 6 or Toga will go for $185+.
Click to expand...
I didn't see where it was a 182RG; only a straight-legger 182. Did I miss that?
 
Having owned both, I'd opt for the 182 as a more profitable money-maker for the FBO. Fixed gear, more forgiving, non-complex (read: no retractable=no gear-up landings) and a helluva lot less maintenance.

Personal preference if I was a family man would be the Saratoga. . . PROVIDED it was a turbo Toga. I flew n/a's and turbos before I bought. Hands down, turbo.

All depends--does the FBO owners want to make money with this airplane first and foremost, or does he want to go after a niche?

The answer is in the above question.

Regards.

-JD
 
CowboyPilot said:
Personal preference if I was a family man would be the Saratoga. . . PROVIDED it was a turbo Toga. I flew n/a's and turbos before I bought. Hands down, turbo.
Click to expand...
And I don't think I'd want to be putting a Turbo on the line, from the stories I've heard. (Which are basically along the line of "you don't want to put a turbo on the line")
 
Grant,
I thought that the AOPA Ultimate Arrow was on leaseback at Clow?
 
Tony, it went off leaseback a few months ago. :(

BTW, it wasn't a turbo, in case anyone was confused.
 
Last edited:
Well, the guy was losing his shirt, and I certainly don't blame him! Only problem is, it leaves us without a single complex.

It's still based at Clow!
 
AdamZ said:
My FBO is buying a new plane, ( not new to them but acutally new) they are asking the opinions of thier customers. The choices were a straight tail Arrow IV or a Saratoga HP.

I voted for the Toga but now they have added a twist and asked me my preference of the Saratoga HP or a 182.

Now thats a tough one. Love to hear your opinions.
Click to expand...

It's not a twist at all (both 4 seat), and the answer remains the same: 'Toga.
 
gprellwitz said:
but with ....... the smaller pool of qualified renters, they would certainly have to price it higher. The 182 requires an HP endorsement, but the Toga also requires a Complex. The insurance company will see three things: Retractable, 6 seats, and renters. They'll charge a pretty penny and require high time in type to rent.

But, given all that, if they can swing the Toga financially and reasonably, go for it!
Click to expand...

As to the endorsements, that is a non starter issue as the required endorsements can be taken care of during the check out, no worries. The only difference operationaly between them is a gear switch, and that's not that difficult to deal with. The insurance for an FBO to add it to their fleet will not be that different, but as you say, the Toga will be higher.

If the area of operations is reasonably populated, I believe the Toga will actually attract new customers to the FBO and create an overall increase in business. I always have a hard time find 6 seaters to rent, and I often look for them. When I do find one, even if I only need a 150 for my intended flight, I'll go to the FBO with the 6 seater just to do my part to help keep them in business so that plane is there when I want it, and I'm not the only one that thinks and acts that way.
 
Since this is for rental I think we need to think about the business side of the question as well. That means the the cost of keeping the plane and the planned revenue of the plane will equate to a rental cost.

What are the relative rental costs to customers?

One has to ask, based on those numbers, which will have the higher relative hours of operations and how that equates to profit for the year. Saying all that I would wager that the 182 will rent for less and fly more which would mean more profit for the FBO.
 
smigaldi said:
Since this is for rental I think we need to think about the business side of the question as well. That means the the cost of keeping the plane and the planned revenue of the plane will equate to a rental cost.

What are the relative rental costs to customers?

One has to ask, based on those numbers, which will have the higher relative hours of operations and how that equates to profit for the year. Saying all that I would wager that the 182 will rent for less and fly more which would mean more profit for the FBO.
Click to expand...

Well, that's what I was bringing up earlier, there's two sides to that. Plenty of places have 182s, very few places have a 6 place aircraft. There is the potential to attract more customers from other FBOs by having a 6 place available. They'd get my business, others have before, and not only for the 6 but for other craft as well since I tend to buy block time.

It's a risk one has to assess according to the market you're in, but it's one I'd be inclined to take, no risk, no reward.
 
Henning said:
Well, that's what I was bringing up earlier, there's two sides to that. Plenty of places have 182s, very few places have a 6 place aircraft. There is the potential to attract more customers from other FBOs by having a 6 place available. They'd get my business, others have before, and not only for the 6 but for other craft as well since I tend to buy block time.

It's a risk one has to assess according to the market you're in, but it's one I'd be inclined to take, no risk, no reward.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree but you have to weigh what the risk vs reward is and decide if it fits into your business plan. It just seemed that many people were choosing the plane based on the cool to fly factor and not looking at this as a business decision.

Without really crunching the numbers it is really just a SWAG as to what the better choice is as we do not know the market dynamics of the area the investment into the new plane is going to. There already could be several 182s in the area to rent or none at all.
 
smigaldi said:
I don't disagree but you have to weigh what the risk vs reward is and decide if it fits into your business plan. It just seemed that many people were choosing the plane based on the cool to fly factor and not looking at this as a business decision.

Without really crunching the numbers it is really just a SWAG as to what the better choice is as we do not know the market dynamics of the area the investment into the new plane is going to. There already could be several 182s in the area to rent or none at all.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but obviously they have done some crunching and have given this point some consideration since they are considering it. Personally, I don't really see the Toga as a "Cool to Fly" plane (I'd go 36 Bo for that) rather I see it as a craft of higher capability, and that increase in capability is what drives my decision, it's just so difficult to find a six seater, and there are quite a few occassions where I need one, and I am not alone in this. This is also a plane that you will rent to owners who already have 4 seat aircraft but have occassional need to take a couple extras.
 
Last edited:
Bill Jennings said:
Damn, pretty big and expensive two seater...
Click to expand...
Ken can that be right? My '75 Seneca II can carry 750 pounds 1000 nmiles (to exhaustion). Toga is supposed to be MORE efficient that it's twin brother....

If we say 15 gph at 155 kts for a Toga, that's 90 gallons or 540 pounds, hours and 600 in the cabin. New or old Toga? Have they gotten that heavy?
 
bbchien said:
New or old Toga? Have they gotten that heavy?
Click to expand...

Most of the new pipers have gotten heavy. Our club Archer III has a useful of 836, add full fuel, two 200lb guys, and two flight bags, and you're right at gross.
 
bbchien said:
Ken can that be right? My '75 Seneca II can carry 750 pounds 1000 nmiles (to exhaustion). Toga is supposed to be MORE efficient that it's twin brother....

If we say 15 gph at 155 kts for a Toga, that's 90 gallons or 540 pounds, hours and 600 in the cabin. New or old Toga? Have they gotten that heavy?
Click to expand...

The early Lances are about 1450 useful. The early Togas were about 1250 useful. As the model years progress, the useful goes down until now you're at about 1130. A lot of this has to do with the sales model Piper uses. By having dealers order them, most of the newer ones are all tricked out, because it increases margin. Try to find a new/newish one for sale that does not have air conditioning, for example. There's whatever, 40-60 pounds right there.
 
Ron Levy said:
I suspect that no matter how the poll comes out, a 182 will fly significantly more hours than a Toga, making it a better choice from the FBO's perspective. It will be significantly cheaper to rent without having significantly lower speed or payload, and how many times does anyone carry more than four people?
Click to expand...


My thoughts exactly. I'd rather fly a Toga on a trip of any length, but the Skylane satisfies a much larger range of mission requirements.
 
Henning said:
But the Toga has less market competition in the region.
Click to expand...

Again, there's a good reason for that. Having owned both (Saratoga and a Skylane), the Toga cost me significantly more to own, operate and upkeep.

There's a guy at our airpatch that's been trying to sell his Saratoga for better than two years. He's been at book value and now is below it and still doesn't have anything other than an occasional tire-kicker.

I know the feeling. It took me over ten months to sell our Saratoga and I took a beating on it. In comparison, when I put the Skylane up for sale, it was sold in less than two months at book value plus almost ten percent.

As I said before, if someone is looking to OWN and has a family or a five-seat mission need such as hauling dogs, doing a lot of medical volunteer flying, etc, the Saratoga fulfills that mission better than a Skylane.

Saratoga is an airplane you buy and keep. Skylane is an airplane you can buy and easily sell simply on reputation alone.

Regards.

-JD
 
CowboyPilot said:
Again, there's a good reason for that. Having owned both (Saratoga and a Skylane), the Toga cost me significantly more to own, operate and upkeep.

There's a guy at our airpatch that's been trying to sell his Saratoga for better than two years. He's been at book value and now is below it and still doesn't have anything other than an occasional tire-kicker.

I know the feeling. It took me over ten months to sell our Saratoga and I took a beating on it. In comparison, when I put the Skylane up for sale, it was sold in less than two months at book value plus almost ten percent.

As I said before, if someone is looking to OWN and has a family or a five-seat mission need such as hauling dogs, doing a lot of medical volunteer flying, etc, the Saratoga fulfills that mission better than a Skylane.

Saratoga is an airplane you buy and keep. Skylane is an airplane you can buy and easily sell simply on reputation alone.

Regards.

-JD
Click to expand...

No arguements with anything you said, however, none off what you brought up is really the issue here. The "market" in this situation isn't a sales market, rather a rental market and I still think that having a plane with the expanded capabilities of the Saratoga has a good chance of offsetting the lower use by current customers by attracting new customers who can not get that utility elsewhere for the occassional times they need/desire it. Like I said, it's a gamble that requires research of what's on the local rental market as well as what is locally owned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top