Piper Saratoga fixed gear opinions (X-posted on Red)

[grattonja]

Next question in the quest to escape renting: What do you all think of the Piper Saratoga fixed gear? Don't know the year yet, I'll post that after I fly it on Sunday, but it appears it will have to be one of a narrow number of years, because they didn't make them for all that long. It sounds good, low time engine, recent paint, decent avionics (read G430, dual axis coupled autopilot, +). I have the chance to join a club with one at LNS.

From what I can find over the net, book numbers suggest a cruise around 150 Knots. According to the club member I talked to, we can fly to the tabs AND carry 1000 pounds of people and stuff (with a range of roughly 5 hours), or full fuel and 800 lbs (range around 7 hours). Compared to the new skyhawks I have been using for trips, that is like carrying around the family farm! Quickly!

Opinions from those who know the plane, have flown one, etc? I have a few hours in a straight tail Lance. Never got my HP endorsement, but was pretty close when that CFI sold the plane. Is this going to be basically like flying the lance with fixed gear? A large Archer?

Is the type known for traps, pitfalls, etc? I'll spare the details on the club until after I have flown the plane and we have thought some about it. For now, just info on the type itself please.

Thanks.

Jim G

 

[gismo]

I've never flown one but I can't imagine that a FG Saratoga would be any faster than a Cherokee Six since it's pretty much the same airplane. And they cruise at 135 KTAS unless you want to burn gas quickly in which case you can get another few knots.

 

[infotango]

I don't know the answer to the question, but as an aside, I've read that Roy LoPresti managed to clean up a Cherokee six so much that it was actually quicker than the retractable Saratoga.

 

[tonycondon]

James Dean owns one, hopefully he will chime in. Ive flown a straight tail lance with all the lopresti speed mods and it trued out about 150 knots. The hershey bar wing is just draggy. Saratoga has tapered wing (?) so it might be a little faster than cherokee 6.

 

[James_Dean]

Jim,

I own an '83 FG 'toga. I flight plan for between 140 and 145 kts depending upon weight. I plan for 29 gph the first half hour and 14.5 gph after that. After three years and 350 hrs of ownership I'm using $170/hr as cost of operation. This includes mx, fuel, oil, reserves, insurance, hangar, charts, AOPA, magazines, everything except acquisition costs.

For hauling the family around this thing is tough to match.

The only gotcha is that when loaded she comes out of the sky like a brick. You must be aware of your weight condition when landing and adjust power and speed appropriately.


I had four aboard with golf clubs on this flight.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N4296N/history/20060812/0144Z/KIKK/KLRJ/tracklog


EDIT: 150 kts is possible if below 500 under gross at 7000 ft and running prop/MP flat out, and 75 ROP with 18 - 19 GPH. I run with a all cylinder CHT/EGT and can easily run 50* LOP on the richest cylinder. I can go 130 - 135 kts on as little as 12 GPH. I can't get CHT's to 410 even when leaning in a climb on a hot day.


James Dean

 

[jdwatson]

The only gotcha is that when loaded she comes out of the sky like a brick. You must be aware of your weight condition when landing and adjust power and speed appropriately.

James Dean

I wonder how this plane compares to a T206H. I like your numbers, and the T206H comes out of the sky like a brick with or without a load.

 

[Ken Ibold]

I wonder how this plane compares to a T206H. I like your numbers, and the T206H comes out of the sky like a brick with or without a load.

T206 is MUCH smaller on the inside, and the lack of a forward baggage compartment complicates loading.

 

[Skip Miller]

Is this going to be basically like flying the lance with fixed gear? A large Archer?

Jim, I got my HP endorsement in the fixed gear Saratoga. I like the plane a lot. I will imagine that it flies a lot like the Lance (I have never flown the Lance) but it is not like a large Archer. Yes, the panel and cockpit layout will look quite familiar, but it is a much heavier airplane and that does affect the handling.

First thing you will notice is that steering on the ground takes a strong leg! Much more so than the Archer. That nose is long and the engine is heavy. As others have mentioned, it comes down like a brick! Another thing to watch is landing speed. I am going from memory now, but lightly loaded we flew final approach at 90 knots. Recommended short field approach speed was 80 knots. When flown at 80 at max gross your nose is way up in the air and you must have a ton of power on to stay aloft. Do this with the CFI as it will be alarming if you are not ready for it. (I could be off on the speeds here...)

These are just some of the "getting used to" items you will need to master, but that is not hard. It is a very well mannered plane, hauls a bunch pretty quickly. I like it a lot. Our club then got a Saratoga PA-32R but it had a runout engine with a huge (but airworthy) nick in the prop. The fixed gear would outrun it by 5 knots! Then the retract got a new engine and new prop. Now that was a nice plane..... (looks at lottery ticket...)

-Skip

 

[Pilawt]

T206 is MUCH smaller on the inside, and the lack of a forward baggage compartment complicates loading.

Here is a 1980 Piper ad comparing the interiors of the Saratoga, A36 Bonanza and C-210. The C-206 interior is about the same as the C-210, without the hump behind the rear seats for the MLG well, and without the spar carry-through in the cabin ceiling.

-- Pilawt

 

[jdwatson]

Here is a 1980 Piper ad comparing the interiors of the Saratoga, A36 Bonanza and C-210. The C-206 interior is about the same as the C-210, without the hump behind the rear seats for the MLG well.

-- Pilawt

I gotta show the CFO, er my wife, that ! Great depiction.

 

[flyersfan31]

How well do they climb (FG or the RG versions)? Saratogas are "aircraft of interest" for my next plane, so I'm curious to learn more about them. My CEO likes the idea of club seating, for her and the kids. I'm interested in weather-evasion performance, i.e., I don't want to fly in ice, but I'd like something that can get me out of trouble by climbing as well as descending. My impression is that an A36 might be better in that case.

Probably a pipe dream, once the CEO finds out actual aquisition costs. Still, it's nice to think about. We're flying commercial down to Orlando to visit Mickey and friends in September. Hopefully the experience will be unpleasant enough to make a single-piston aircraft trip seem like a reasonable alternative.....

 

[James_Dean]

How well do they climb (FG or the RG versions)? Saratogas are "aircraft of interest" for my next plane, so I'm curious to learn more about them. My CEO likes the idea of club seating, for her and the kids. I'm interested in weather-evasion performance, i.e., I don't want to fly in ice, but I'd like something that can get me out of trouble by climbing as well as descending. My impression is that an A36 might be better in that case.

Probably a pipe dream, once the CEO finds out actual aquisition costs. Still, it's nice to think about. We're flying commercial down to Orlando to visit Mickey and friends in September. Hopefully the experience will be unpleasant enough to make a single-piston aircraft trip seem like a reasonable alternative.....

0* and 1000 under gross = Homesick angel >1500 fpm

100* and gross = Fat pig with wings <500 fpm

I once timed a climb to 8000 holding Vy and leaning to 1300* EGT every 1000 feet. Temp on the ground was 64*, and I was 600lbs under gross. Time was 6 min 42 sec.

James Dean

 

[spiderweb]

Jim,

I'm purposefully posting before I read the other posts, because I don't want to be influenced in my opinions. This or a C206 is what my CFI is looking to buy and rent to select IFR-rated former students. I have nearly 50 hours in the Saratoga, but it was a retract. Flying qualities are heavy, but dignified. She handles turbulence like royalty, and pasengers love the plane. And passengers love the plane. By the way, passengers love the plane.

You will never see 150 KTAS, unless you are talking turbo. In the very, very nice 1988 PA-32SP that I fly, clean at 8,000, with throttle to the firewall, and prop dialed back a smidge, you may see 155 KTAS, but that is overworking the engine, IMO. I flight plan for 60% and expect 146-147 most times. Thus, I would expect that a PA-32FG, with everything cleaned and waxed could see as much as 140 KTAS with everything at the stops, and probably 135 KTAS for more engine-friendly ops. If this is the bird my CFI buys, this is what we'll plan.

All in all, I think an FG would be a GREAT plane to have--gear is always down, and you are only a few minutes slower on most trips.

And the passengers LOVE the plane.

 

[spiderweb]

I wonder how this plane compares to a T206H. I like your numbers, and the T206H comes out of the sky like a brick with or without a load.

A T206H should do better if you go to the happy altitudes of 16,000 or 17,000. Down low, it should be the same as the FG.