Jeanie
Pattern Altitude
Have any of you had experience with a piper 6x or XT?
Piper 6x / 6xt? PIREP
- Thread starter Jeanie
- Start date
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
Jeanie
Pattern Altitude
Well, yes... Are you saying they're slow? I have a student who wants a fast plane that will haul a lot... As in a six seated with a decent payload.
kgruber
Final Approach
They are Okay as long as you stay on pavement. Not good as an Alaska bush plane.
Pilawt
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,481
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
I imagine it would be just like an '80s-vintage, fixed-gear Saratoga with a new instrument panel and smaller windows (?!).
kgruber
Final Approach
He'll want an RG model if he wants some speed, he'll need a twin for speed and load.
Last edited:
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
I think he just summarized it in language you could understand. :wink2:
Jeanie
Pattern Altitude
~~~~~. Thanks, Henning, I agree that a twin would be better in the long run, but frankly I doubt it's the best choice for a PP student. He will need a retract though....
Wayne, I'm not sure what you guys are getting at. (maybe piper has been doing some heavy advertising)
I just had someone mention them to me, so I asked. I have very little knowledge about piper anythings, so I'm trying to do some research.
Perhaps a Saratoga would be better.
Jeanie, the 6X is a good plane for what it is, but why does this guy want one... And why, when he's still a student? It is a lot of plane to be flying around as a fresh 'un, especially if he's local to you. It is not a hot rod at sea level, hot day in Alpine would be an adventure, indeed.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Jeannie, you are experienced enough to share the pilot accident record coming out of alpine. He obviously needs the load capacity.
I'd be giving him some NTSB High altitude/Summer accident reading materials, like from Eager AZ, Springerville, Show Low, St. John's, etc. They may make him a little more circumspect.
I'd be giving him some NTSB High altitude/Summer accident reading materials, like from Eager AZ, Springerville, Show Low, St. John's, etc. They may make him a little more circumspect.
Pilawt
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,481
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
6x/XT is just a dolled-up FG Saratoga, which in turn is a Cherokee Six 300 with tapered wings. Few 6x/XTs were built before Piper dropped the PA-32 line a few years ago. FAA registry shows 54 normally-aspirated 6xs, and 45 turboed XTs.
An older Saratoga or Six would probably carry more load, but none of them could be called "fast".
Karl, no, I don't have a brochure on this one. I must have been out of town the week or two that the 6x was on the market.
An older Saratoga or Six would probably carry more load, but none of them could be called "fast".
Karl, no, I don't have a brochure on this one. I must have been out of town the week or two that the 6x was on the market.
Last edited:
Jeanie
Pattern Altitude
~~~~~. He's a doctor and wanted a multi.... I've talked him into a single. And, he wasn't the one who mentioned a 6.... Someone else suggested it and since I had never heard of them I thought I'd ask.
The guy has mentioned a cirrus and a Cessna 210 lately. He doesn't know what to get he just wants "fast" that has a high useful load. So, now we get to do more research. A mooney was suggested too but I don't think they carry enough. He needs to be able to carry 6 people, he and his wife and two small kids plus a mom or dad or sister and me.
Jeanie
Pattern Altitude
~~~~~~. Circumspect about which plane is the best choice? We will be very clear about high DA operations. We fly out of Ft Stockton which is only 3000 field elevation compared to Alpine's 4500 but it still gets hot and impossible.
Oh. Just read this.
Hard to imagine a single that will really serve his needs. Six real people ( even if two are kids) are a lot for a "six place" airplane. Six and baggage? And "fast"?
I am no Bruce Chien, but I still reserve the right to say it.
Sigh.
Hard to imagine a single that will really serve his needs. Six real people ( even if two are kids) are a lot for a "six place" airplane. Six and baggage? And "fast"?
I am no Bruce Chien, but I still reserve the right to say it.
Sigh.
+pictures from every elevation and angle
I have sat in one and compared with the 70s and 80s vintage interior, the 6X is really a step up.
The useful load on the NA is still pretty decent and it carries a fair amount of fuel. For a short mission like getting the family to the beach, it could be a better option than having to go through the hassles of upgrading an older bird.
The only 6 seat single that will carry 6 adults, luggage and fuel is a Cherokee Six with the 260hp engine. But it will be cramped, slow, barely climb and drop like a brick if you chop the throttle. The other option would be a A36 with tip tanks and TAT turbonormalizer (both give a payload boost). It will still be cramped, just faster.
Last edited:
If he can afford the ticket of training you haven't done him any favors. Train the guy to use the plane he needs.
Jeanie
Pattern Altitude
Ok, I'll ask.....and start a new thread I think....
So, we have a rich, intelligent motivated doctor... New student just solo'd a 152...
Should he get a multi for his first plane or a decent single like an A36?
Let the opinions fly!
So, we have a rich, intelligent motivated doctor... New student just solo'd a 152...
Should he get a multi for his first plane or a decent single like an A36?
Let the opinions fly!
This might as well be the lead-off paragraph of a future NTSB report
The good thing about a 6X for a starter plane is that you could transition him into it before he gets the license. It's just another Cherokee. It would also not be a terrible plane to obtain his IR in (no need for speed during the IR, it'll fly throttled back to 55% just fine).
I don't know whether all of the 6Xs have AC, probably a good investment in your corner of the country.
I have not flown any of the PA32 turbo variants, they seem to require a fair amount of fuel to keep temps under control.
With IR and some hours in the 6X he could still step up to what he really needs: A Navajo.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Jeanne, this of course has nothing to do with whether or not the guy's a doctor. It has to do with his decision making and whether or not he has the right temperament to be PIC. If he has the right makeup, he needs buy a Seneca and get on with it.
I recently trained a friend of mine, a pathologist. His spouse regarded me as the devil incarnate. Three years later, at a barbecue, I let slip a comment that, "you know, he has the right temperament to be a pilot".
That was the moment; from that moment forward she relaxed. This gentleman always cancels trips when flying isn't CLEARLY reasonable. I would have had NO TROUBLE at ALL starting this guy in the twin, after PVT-ASEL.
OTOH, my hangar neighbor, he's a Doc and a real risk taker. A few years ago, I had to shovel out around his ice+snow laden aircraft, which he left out upon night before arrival, so I could get the airport's pickup back blade close enough to move him into his hangar (so I could clear the ramp and get myself out).
It had a good 3/4" of ice on it; at the time he was not even instrument rated. A few years later he heartily invited me into his hangar to see his repaired P-Baron...the stringer below the rear door has corroded away and was repaired. This is fellow ended up giving his a/c to the insurance co. after departing in IMC with a bad battery, flying one hour, forgetting to put the gear down with his remaining Volts, and pancaking it into an Indiana airport.
All of us with CFI certificates are waiting to read about him.
I vote for a TN A36. A Turbo Lance would also do but he will eat it over and over on maintainence if he doesn't respect true 65%.
*****
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/o03hzmystm4la230jtoqfn551/X03172012120000.pdf
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/cg5nduy2fxl0mc45o4roscr51/U03172012120000.pdf
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/egw3ku453ke0strv0wuo1gfn1/I03172012120000.pdf
Heavily loaded PA32s at higher densitly altitudes + bad judgement = fatalities. The third is the heavily loaded BARON at St. Ignace who made three runs at it....and died. Heavy loads, high DAlt, the latter with an upsloping runway.
Last edited:
If a person doesn't have the right temperament it doesn't matter if they are SEL or MEL, they will not be safe in either and the Seneca and Lance and Baron and Bo will kill the same amount of people if handled improperly. If a person isn't safe in a multi they aren't safe in a single either.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Correct.
But they kill themselves and their families a tad slower in the single. One day with the whole family aboard he'll box an engine in the Baron, think he's got it control, and then- when it goes over Vmca it's a bit like a SnapRoll.
In the single he just lands out....
Correct.
But they kill themselves and their families a tad slower in the single. One day with the whole family aboard he'll box an engine in the Baron, think he's got it control, and then- when it goes over Vmca it's a bit like a SnapRoll.
In the single he just lands out....
He's over the mountains with the family, he loses an oil line/cylinder...what ever, cages it and continues to the next airport for a safe landing, in the single they eat rocks. Same same for differences really. Then there's the performance difference, horsepower is your friend, no horsepower will kill nyou a lot faster than excess horsepower.
There's a reason you fly a twin as well, you can't protect people from themselves and you can't fix stupid, you just prepare them the best you can and hope for the best.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
A King Air with autofeather and rudder boost is the safest plane he could own.
Hard to argue that, easier to fly than any recip twin and flies out on one reliably with minimal pilot reconfig.
lr60plt
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2012
- Messages
- 381
- Display Name
Display name:
gotime242
I fly a 2003 Piper 6xt every now and then. Its a nice, well equipped plane...good platform for IFR trips, etc. The back has 4 seats facing each other with a nice big door to get in from. The cockpit is comfortable even after a couple hours.
In terms of flying it...if i remember correctly you might be looking at about 135kts indicated, and the ability to climb up high and see maybe 160kts true. You can average almost 20gph, and lean it down to maybe 17/18gph at (29"/30" and 2400).
The main thing with the one i flew was that all the equipment it had (avionics, air conditioning, other stuff...etc...etc) got it to a point where it only had just over 1000 lbs useful load (this one was a heavy girl). So with those 100 gallon tanks filled up you are looking at 400 lbs left over. That 2 people and some bags. And if you put more people in...well...you can do the math.
Either way i like the plane. I like how it flys, it kind of has that big airplane feel for a piper single. I think for what you can pick up a 6xt for (~350k) there are better options out there.
In terms of flying it...if i remember correctly you might be looking at about 135kts indicated, and the ability to climb up high and see maybe 160kts true. You can average almost 20gph, and lean it down to maybe 17/18gph at (29"/30" and 2400).
The main thing with the one i flew was that all the equipment it had (avionics, air conditioning, other stuff...etc...etc) got it to a point where it only had just over 1000 lbs useful load (this one was a heavy girl). So with those 100 gallon tanks filled up you are looking at 400 lbs left over. That 2 people and some bags. And if you put more people in...well...you can do the math.
Either way i like the plane. I like how it flys, it kind of has that big airplane feel for a piper single. I think for what you can pick up a 6xt for (~350k) there are better options out there.
kgruber
Final Approach
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
FWIW, while a Cherokee Six or it's first cousins is as easy to fly as any other Cherokee when loaded well below MGW, fully loaded it presents a few challenges not normally faced with something like a Cherokee 180. Get low and slow on final in the 180 and a little blip on the throttle will fix it. Get low and slow in a heavy Six and full power might be enough.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
He'll need one for a while, maybe for a long time, and perhaps even for a real long time. A friend who bought one 3 years ago never flew it by himself, although he planned to do so as soon as the insurance company approved. He forgot that the ultimate approval (from SWMBO) might be a tad more difficult to come by.
Lots of people who get into 2 pilot cockpits aren't that eager to go back to single pilot.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
In the King Air I sit in front for the first hundred miles and the last hundred miles, and when the other guy needs a break. Otherwise, I sit in the back.