Piper Aztec vs. C210 vs. Cherokee 6 vs. Lance/Saratoga

K

k9medic

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Sep 27, 2018
Messages
867
Location
N Central FL and GTC Bahamas when off work
Display Name
Display name:
ATP-H, CMEL, CSEL, CFI/CFII Airplanes and Helicopters
I had a serious conversation with my airplane partner this past Sunday. We love our Cherokee 6/260 as it does exactly what we want it to do - Fly to/from the Bahamas.

On Saturday, I was making a run over with supplies as was a friend of mine. He flies a C210. I saw him on the ADS-B readout and he was cruising along at 160kts. I was slugging through the air at 128kts. This got me to thinking - do we (I) need a faster plane?

My partner is not opposed to changing airframes but we need to keep it in budget. We got into our 6/260 for a great price and made some improvements so it's vref is about $75K.

Real world numbers for the 6/260 are $1500 for average annual. Fuel is 13gph @ 128kts. We charge ourselves $50/ hour MX setback. This last flight over cost me $663 in gas and mx setback.

Normal flight is 335nm one way. AT 128kts. that comes out to 2.7 hours on the tach. If I could decrease the transit time it might offset the higher operating costs.

For example, the Aztec POH hows an intermediate cruise speed of 181kts burning 27 gph. That would be approximately 50 gallons burned on the trip over compared to 35 gallons in the 6/260, so I would see an increase in fuel cost of about $120 for the round trip

How would this compare in real world numbers for the Aztec, 210 or Lance/Saratoga?
 
Last edited:
Not much different cept for bragging rights... larger fuel bill... larger maintenance bills....but bragging gets cepensive. ;)

Former PA32-260 owner....now have a V35A TC
 
In the 210 youll burn between 15 - 17gph doing that 160kts, but its worth it! I burn just shy of 17, but thats mainly to keep temps in range. Once I improve my baffling I'll probably be able to run less fuel.
 
I am a Cessna guy and like 210s, but would opt for a Saratoga. The Saratoga is higher quality airplane.
 
Computerjim said:
The Aztec will get you home if one engine quits over water. I burn 24-25 gallons per hour at 155-160 KT
Click to expand...

This is my experience also.

I can bring mine back to 150 kts at 10.5 gph per side in cruise, LOP. It'll run like that all day. Or I can push it to 160 kts and its burning ~13 gph per side once at altitude. Because I live in the mountainous west I generally fly 8,000 to 15,000 ASL.
181 kts TAS is "very optimistic" for an Aztec.

I'm really happy with my Aztec, for what I do, but I own it for the useful load capability, extraordinarily comfortable cabin and its performance in ice, not it's outright speed. If you want to go fast in a twin you need to be considering Barons or 310s (the early models of both are pretty quick on the smaller Continental 470 engines).

The 210 may be a good alternative for a single. But I suspect adding 30 kts is going to prove marginal performance improvement on 335 nm trips for the cost of changing airplanes. If you really want to cut the transit time you might need to be thinking about a 6-cyl Mooney or Cirrus SR22 with 180 kt+ speeds.
 
Last edited:
A 30 minute block improvement on a 335NM trip (short by my standards) doesn't pencil out for me as a sole owner, but you're looking at this from the colored glasses of co-ownership, so everything is "cheaper". 30 knot block speed deltas for me start to pencil out when your 80% mission exceeds 550NM. To me, the point of a Cherokee six is to keep the family comfortable enough to want to do the trip with ya in the first place.

No, I don't think you need a faster airplane, you just want one. The real question to me is: do you want the costs deltas and are you willing to make an honest assessment of them, as opposed to downplaying them in order to confirmation bias your decision. I can't answer that for ya of course.

I'm with @GRG55 , climb rate, useful load and comfort is where it's at when it comes to upgrading chariots of this category. Cruise is a distraction.
 
Computerjim said:
The Aztec will get you home if one engine quits over water. I burn 24-25 gallons per hour at 155-160 KT
Click to expand...

Okay, this is the real world GOUGE that I need. I have always thought that the POH was a little optimistic for most aircraft but a 20kt. reduction from the POH in the real world is a no go for me.

I would have to gain at least .7 or .8 on the trip over. 180kts would be a 1.8 hour trip versus 130kts 2.5 hours.

@hindsight202, you are correct, I don't need a faster plane but if going faster equates to the same or similar costs then it's money well spent. I have a big boat and normally cruise at 8kts (6gph) but I have actually saved money by running faster (17kts @25gph) at times than I normally do because the time savings keeps me from having to pay a marina fee.
 
Zeldman said:
I think we all want more horse power/faster planes....:lol::lol:
Click to expand...

Until you get to a certain stage in life. :eek:
My latest airplane purchase (Aviat Husky) is the first time I've purchased a plane slower than the one before. A LOT slower ;):p

k9medic said:
...I would have to gain at least .7 or .8 on the trip over. 180kts would be a 1.8 hour trip versus 130kts 2.5 hours.

@hindsight202, you are correct, I don't need a faster plane but if going faster equates to the same or similar costs then it's money well spent. I have a big boat and normally cruise at 8kts (6gph) but I have actually saved money by running faster (17kts @25gph) at times than I normally do because the time savings keeps me from having to pay a marina fee.
Click to expand...

Drag goes up by the square of velocity. That means bigger engine/more fuel burn for a similar airframe. The only way to avoid the ever present cost of greater fuel penalty for more speed is reduce flat plate area (narrower cabin) and form drag (retract the gear, etc.) of the airframe. Basically squeeze into a (much) smaller space than you have in the Cherokee Six (e.g. Mooney, Bo or similar).

Checkout_my_Six said:
Nope... just me and an occasional bushel or two of live crabs. The wife decided she doesn’t fly.....so we down “sized”. :D
Click to expand...

"Fastest crabs in the East"?
You need to sell that honkin' big airplane and build an RV-3 (for total in-flight privacy) :cool:
 
Last edited:
Hmm good question good answer may be harder. Everyone always says twins will bring you home if one quits. But accident data says the reason most piston GA have two engines is because they don't fly well on just one. Love Aztrucks but if you are not going to invest in training AND proficiency (yes maneuvering with just one running) don't go there. There may be an Aztec simulator available somewhere but don't think so, so plan on more maintenance due to practicing single engine.

Think beyond the obvious engine failure on take off scenario. If you loose an engine what is the max altitude you can hold...will that be high enough given where you fly. Same thing if you have to go around/execute a missed approach.

Sounds like you haul a lot of stuff. Look at the size of your stuff and the doors/cargo area, will things fit? How hard will it be to load/unload?

Good luck, keep us informed!
 
jonvcaples said:
Hmm good question good answer may be harder. Everyone always says twins will bring you home if one quits. But accident data says the reason most piston GA have two engines is because they don't fly well on just one. Love Aztrucks but if you are not going to invest in training AND proficiency (yes maneuvering with just one running) don't go there. There may be an Aztec simulator available somewhere but don't think so, so plan on more maintenance due to practicing single engine.

Think beyond the obvious engine failure on take off scenario. If you loose an engine what is the max altitude you can hold...will that be high enough given where you fly. Same thing if you have to go around/execute a missed approach.

Sounds like you haul a lot of stuff. Look at the size of your stuff and the doors/cargo area, will things fit? How hard will it be to load/unload?

Good luck, keep us informed!
Click to expand...

I use a Piper Seneca II Redbird 3-axis simulator at our flying club. The numbers are a bit different, but the two Piper airplanes are similar enough that the emergency procedures training sticks. We are upgrading to an Alsim that will also have the Seneca II option this winter.

As for max altitude on a single engine, two comments:
- The reason I have a twin with a hellacious useful load is I can carry a decent payload and still "fly it light"(well below gross) when over the mountains, Single engine service ceiling in a naturally aspirated twin is heavily influenced by the load.
- The time it takes to descent to single engine ceiling provides optionality that a single in the same situation does not. The airports are in the valleys, the valleys generally run north-south where I am, which is perpendicular to my usual east-west flight path. Geographic situational awareness is paramount in hill country.
 
Last edited:
k9medic said:
the Aztec POH hows an intermediate cruise speed of 181kts burning 27 gph.
Click to expand...
k9medic said:
Okay, this is the real world GOUGE that I need. I have always thought that the POH was a little optimistic for most aircraft but a 20kt. reduction from the POH in the real world is a no go for me.
Click to expand...

Are you looking at the Turbo Aztec POH? That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Edit: I went back to the Aztec D brochure - yes, for the normally aspirated Aztec they did quote 208 mph (181 knot) "intermediate cruise" 24"/2400 at 6,000' and 27 gph. I don't buy that, either. Surprising, because Piper numbers were usually pretty honest in those days.
 
Last edited:
Just remembered this from a CPA who divides cost per hour by GS to evaluate airplanes. His method requires good data which is hard to comeby but gives a good starting place. It also ignores considerations such as terrain but here goes a couple of examples using rental aircraft. Round up

C-172 $100 hr/110K = 0.91

C-182 $140hr/130K= 1.08

200 hp Arrow $150hr/140 K= 1.07

S-35 Bonanza $170hr/150K = 1.14

Of course you need to consider things such as terrain (here in Denver if I'm going west then 172 is out), planned cruising altitude based on terrain and flight rules (we have some tall MEAs), and comfort (172 nis ok for up to about 3 hours then gotta stretch my legs).

Let us know what you decide and why please good sir!
 
Grg

Do you find the Redbird ATD accurately models the Aztec's behaviour on one engine? I volunteer at Experience Of Flight where we have the glass cockpit 172 Redbird and about half of the instructors say it accurately models the 172 but the other half say it does not. Several of the naysayers complain the ATD is very different from the airplane especially in roll and yaw.

Thank you for contributing!
 
Just curious, does the LOA for your Redbird list single engine work among the approved uses (or however it is worded)?
 
I'd imagine that the C210 is the only one out of the batch that would get you more speed for same $. However, insurance may go up with the retract (assuming you didn't go straight leg) and access to the back seats is worse in the C210 than your current ride. Not sure the cost to switch would be worth it for the extra speed, but if you don't care about big cargo door on the PA32-260, then the C210 might be a good idea.
 
I nearly spit out my coffee when I saw the 181 knots for an Aztec. Forget it.

Have you considered a Cessna 414? They are available cheaper than a good 210 and will legitimately do over 200 knots in the flight levels, on gas that isn't much different from the Aztec.
 
I think it's hard to beat a Saratoga/Lance given it's combination of decent speed, incredible amounts of room, and manageable costs.
 
Bonchie said:
I think it's hard to beat a Saratoga/Lance given it's combination of decent speed, incredible amounts of room, and manageable costs.
Click to expand...

Acquisition cost is usually where the Lance/Saratoga have a tougher time vs the Cherokee Six/C210/Aztec. Even some of the 310s can be had for less than Saratoga money.
 
Bonchie said:
I think it's hard to beat a Saratoga/Lance given it's combination of decent speed, incredible amounts of room, and manageable costs.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Only place where I part company is the capex. The saratoga is a lesser value to me than a lance in this instance. Otherwise the advice is on point; the OP would be well served by a Lance in his partnership imo.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Acquisition cost is usually where the Lance/Saratoga have a tougher time vs the Cherokee Six/C210/Aztec. Even some of the 310s can be had for less than Saratoga money.
Click to expand...

True, but I'd rather spend $20k more getting the plane than having to pay for two engines and all that maintenance long term.

The 210s command a premium as well, and I'd imagine a Saratoga is probably cheaper all around unless something big breaks, but who knows. Those are probably comparable options actually. I prefer the Saratoga/Lance in that case (and I fly a 182).

But for what he wants, I wouldn't go to a twin.
 
At the time I had a Super Viking I was mumbling about 'faster'. My youngest son, smart mouth and withering wit, looked at me, cocked his head to one side and said, "You fly for fun. So why would you want it to be over faster? I don't feel that way about sex."
He had a point. So, I've been flying an Apache the past 20 years.
 
Bonchie said:
True, but I'd rather spend $20k more getting the plane than having to pay for two engines and all that maintenance long term.

The 210s command a premium as well, and I'd imagine a Saratoga is probably cheaper all around unless something big breaks, but who knows. Those are probably comparable options actually. I prefer the Saratoga/Lance in that case (and I fly a 182).

But for what he wants, I wouldn't go to a twin.
Click to expand...

No argument from me there.
 
Dr. O said:
At the time I had a Super Viking I was mumbling about 'faster'. My youngest son, smart mouth and withering wit, looked at me, cocked his head to one side and said, "You fly for fun. So why would you want it to be over faster? I don't feel that way about sex."
He had a point. So, I've been flying an Apache the past 20 years.
Click to expand...
Should have downgraded to a Cub at that point. :)
 
Dr. O said:
At the time I had a Super Viking I was mumbling about 'faster'. My youngest son, smart mouth and withering wit, looked at me, cocked his head to one side and said, "You fly for fun. So why would you want it to be over faster? I don't feel that way about sex."
He had a point. So, I've been flying an Apache the past 20 years.
Click to expand...
...and you married an Apache?o_O
 
N1120A said:
I nearly spit out my coffee when I saw the 181 knots for an Aztec. Forget it.

Have you considered a Cessna 414? They are available cheaper than a good 210 and will legitimately do over 200 knots in the flight levels, on gas that isn't much different from the Aztec.
Click to expand...

LOL. I nearly spit out my coffee when I saw you think you can fly a 414 at 200 kts on the same fuel as an Aztec. :rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
I spit out my coffee because it was too hot.
 
GRG55 said:
LOL. I nearly spit out my coffee when I saw you think you can fly a 414 at 200 kts on the same fuel as an Aztec. :rofl::rofl::rofl:
Click to expand...

I didn't say the same. I said similar. 200-220 in the flight levels, no O2 needed, on 34 GPH, compared to 160-165 (maybe) at 28 in an Aztruck.
 
N1120A said:
I didn't say the same. I said similar. 200-220 in the flight levels, no O2 needed, on 34 GPH, compared to 160-165 (maybe) at 28 in an Aztruck.
Click to expand...

As I posted earlier I do 150 kts at 10.5 gph a side. Lets round that up to 22 gph total. 200 kts is 33% faster than that. 34 gph is 55% more fuel than me.
Over the course of a year a 414 will burn a measurably greater amount of fuel than me to go the same distance, and get there sooner. And then you got all those other costs to bear for the turbocharging, the pressurization, the Conti engines with the inevitable top overhauls, and on it goes.

I think people who compare pressurized twins to something like an Aztec and claim they are similar ownership experiences or budgets are completely deluding themselves. Ask @Ted DuPuis. He's owned both types and flown them extensively.
 
GRG55 said:
As I posted earlier I do 150 kts at 10.5 gph a side. Lets round that up to 22 gph total. 200 kts is 33% faster than that. 34 gph is 55% more fuel than me.
Over the course of a year a 414 will burn a measurably greater amount of fuel than me to go the same distance, and get there sooner. And then you got all those other costs to bear for the turbocharging, the pressurization, the Conti engines with the inevitable top overhauls, and on it goes.

I think people who compare pressurized twins to something like an Aztec and claim they are similar ownership experiences or budgets are completely deluding themselves. Ask @Ted DuPuis. He's owned both types and flown them extensively.
Click to expand...

But then you forget the advantages of even higher ground speeds at altitude.

You also leave out that I didn't say the numbers are exactly the same, but the utility of the 414 leaves the Aztec in the dust when you consider purchase prices and things like avionics.
 
Don’t forget guys, this was a discussion about total costs as well. There Hass to be comparisons.

I’m sure insurance on a 414 would be a hell of a lot more than on a Cherokee six, or an Aztec.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
1976 NA Lance 155TAS 15 gph Maintenance is a bit of a sore subject as we’re currently buying a factory reman engine to replace our 2300 hour engine. Insurance is $3200
 
N1120A said:
Have you considered a Cessna 414? They are available cheaper than a good 210 and will legitimately do over 200 knots in the flight levels, on gas that isn't much different from the Aztec.
Click to expand...

Based on the OP's first post, I would strongly recommend against a 414.

First, a 414 vs. an Aztec will burn right about at 50% more fuel if flown the same way (i.e. economy cruise LOP vs. power cruise ROP). You'll reduce your block times by about 25% on long trips, but on short (<200 nm trips) the difference between an Aztec and 414 would be the 414 passengers are done peeing by the time the Aztec lands.

Second, and most important, the maintenance on a 414 will be way, way higher. Parallel valve Lycomings vs. turbocharged Continental 520s are the start of it. The exhaust on turbocharged Twin Cessnas has an expensive AD attached to it. Turbos go out. 414s are notorious for going through cylinders. De-icing equipment (which Aztecs can have but I would assume the OP would go without) has single handedly been the most expensive system I've had to maintain on every plane I've cared for. Need a windshield? Expect to spend $20k.

At the end of the day, the 414 cost about 2x per mile vs. the Aztec, and my numbers on the 414 were in line with the average 414 numbers according to the Twin Cessna member's survey.

In short, fuel is the cheapest part of owning a 414. If you wanted to suggest a twin that got better MPG than the Aztec but was still within the mission criteria, I'd be talking 310 or Baron.

To the OP, I am a huge fan of the Aztec and I think that given what you're looking at, it'd be a good option. However keep in mind you're talking about literally two of the engines you currently have in the Cherokee 6/260, two of those same props, and adding retractable gear. When I operated the Aztec I found $250/hr was a realistic cost, so it will cost more than the singles you're looking at. You will not be spending $1500 on an annual on an Aztec.

Generally, I say that you spend $10k on an Aztec/310/Baron every year before you fire up the engines, then add fuel on top of it.

If you're currently making trips in 2.7 hours in the Cherokee 6, any of the other options you've listed are more or less a 2.3 hour trip. You're not saving a whole lot of time. A 310 or Baron with 470s would be a solid 175 kt plane and that'd get you closer to the 2 hour mark, with operating costs similar to the Aztec per mile, but a 310 is a ~$300-350/hr aircraft for one with 470s.

Anything you move to that's faster will be noticeable, make no mistake, you're talking about a significant increase in cost per mile as well as cost per hour. However with the right plane you'll be able to do more or less a straight up trade as far as values go and you'll be mostly paying more on operating costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top