Saratoga, A36, or....?

Jared Kornelsen said:
Based on those charts looks like the turbo toga is around 160kts at 12-13,000 and the NA is 5-10 slower if I'm reading that right.. Heftiger, the turbo lance wont do better than 160kts below oxygen levels?
Click to expand...

That’s correct. I usually see around 145 - 150 TAS, fully loaded, 55% at 12k. I’m sure we could push it to 155 - 160, it just takes fuel.
 
Not sure. Here’s 65% at 11.7k

Based off of the indicated speed (not in this photo) TAS is around 160. But looks like I’m probably descending to get back to 11.5. So likely more like 155 - 158 once leveled. EDIT: I take that back. The next photo that I’m using with the ASI is actually after I leveled. So 160 is probably accurate.

Again, this is loaded up with wife, kids, and weekend baggage. These planes can carry a lot and being heavy changes the speeds. It’s hard to compare speeds because one person may be talking fully loaded (that’s my mission) while somebody else is talking single pilot empty plane.

27ab04dfbe34ab9c42c1e3c696aab9ec.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm in a bit of the same boat. I've had my Dakota for four years and it cruises well at 140kts. I'd like something a bit faster and possibly with two engines. We flew the Dakota from Miami to Guatemala (via Cozumel) and it would be more comfortable over water with a twin. Same 150K-200K budget. I think the budget puts me a bit short of a good A36. Great thread.
 
Last edited:
Rgbeard said:
I fly a Turbo Lance, go 1gph above "book", fly 65% power, and never have a problem.

160kt steady.

2300/25"/17gph
Click to expand...

Do you have an engine monitor? How is TIT and CHTs? Do you temperature compensate for the power chart? Also, fish mouth or aftermarket cowling?
 
No engine monitor. Stock EGT/CHT. Planning to get a TIT.

Stock cowling, no problems with cooling.

CHT monitors the right-rear cylinder, and it stays below 350. EGT below 1,500.
 
Lancair IV-P..........if you’re brave enough.
 
Well maybe I’ll have to reconsider the Turbo Lance, all factory turbo Lances are T Tails correct?

I wish the Lancair had 6 seat planes, I’d love to own one one day, the high approach speeds and dirty flying characteristics seem a little sketchy though.
 
Jared Kornelsen said:
Well maybe I’ll have to reconsider the Turbo Lance, all factory turbo Lances are T Tails correct?

I wish the Lancair had 6 seat planes, I’d love to own one one day, the high approach speeds and dirty flying characteristics seem a little sketchy though.
Click to expand...

All factory-Turbo Lances are T-Tail.

Are you ever in the Phoenix or San Diego area? We could play for an hour.
 
I’m not really but what’s the metal building contruction world like out that way? I could maybe do a “scouting/sales trip” up there in a few months perhaps if that’s something that happens a lot out there. I’m really not familiar with that area at all as far as construction goes but we are looking to branch out more this year, hence one of the reasons I have a plane now.
 
Jared Kornelsen said:
Thinking about the next plane... Our family will be growing probably in the next year or so.It'll be me, my wife and 3 small kids. The Mooney M20F is going to be too small at that point.

Mission will be mainly 300-500nm trips besides just flying for enjoyment locally. Budget will be in the $150,000 - $200,000 range give or take. I want 160kts cruise speeds or better, definitely need to make it from Paris Tx to Seminole Tx in around 2 hours or preferably less. I feel like a nice low time turbo, retractable gear Saratoga can be had for that. An A36 is maybe at the top of that price range for something low hours, but looks like it can also be had for that. I've researched both some, looks like the Saratoga is moderately bigger in cabin size and hence more comfortable but the A36 may be a little faster.

What is yalls opinions on these 2 planes, pros cons etc. Or am I excluding any other worthy options I haven't listed? I know T-Tail Lances may fall into the requirements as well but I hear bad things about cooling and the tail, which the tail does not concern me near as much as cooling.

Should I be looking at/considering twins as well? If so which ones?
Click to expand...
My 2 cents. 1977 Piper Lance NA 2 blade prop. PA-32R-300 is the best value for your mission.
Best Useful load and 155 kts.
A piper Turbo does not mean a faster plane. I had a 1976 NA Lance and wanted more speed so I bought a 1980 Saratoga Turbo and it has the same speed but burns 3 GPH more.
 
I understand that perhaps under 7-8,000 it may not be noticeably faster but surely once you start getting close to 14,000 it should pick up 5-10knots no? Was the toga you bought retractable gear?
 
Jared Kornelsen said:
I understand that perhaps under 7-8,000 it may not be noticeably faster but surely once you start getting close to 14,000 it should pick up 5-10knots no? Was the toga you bought retractable gear?
Click to expand...

Yes. With a turbo Mooney you’re probably already a high altitude flyer? I’m based near the Sierra Nevada mountains so all flights are around 12k+. Turbo makes sense here. What is your average cruising altitude?
 
I think he said Texas flat lands.

If supplemental oxygen logistics with children and wives are not a detraction, sure (and I'm being rhetorical lol). Otherwise, "2kts per 1k" above 10k on a headwind day hardly seems worth the trouble. I go back to my original mantra: If you steal it from someone (vis a vis NA pricing), then by all means. Otherwise I'd just hold off for an NA Lance/toga. Speed differentials at 14k are not going to be significant from 8k, especially when we're talking about piddly 500NM radii. 5-10knots is ballwash for such a short trip. To add insult to injury, the NA airplane will ground faster than you while 8 thousand feet below you, on less gas on the westbound trips across TX. Meanwhile you're "truing 160" up there admiring your pyrrhic victory.

There's a lot of good reasons to eat the turbo opportunity cost on these piston setups. Speed, at the block speeds all of these spam cans float around (turbo or not), is just not one of them imo. But hey, your monkey your circus. The cabin is great for families, from the draggiest six-260 to the sleekest Toga and even the Seneca. Can't go wrong with that.
 
I see what your saying.. if thats the case then it sounds more and more logical to go the 310 route.. there the extra speed is significant enough to make a difference. So a non turbo 310 should not have issues getting to 180-190 bellow 12,000?
 
The Turbo isn't just for speed, it's for flexibility and safety, IMO.

Flagstaff airport is in our area. It's really nice to have the Turbo for my use-case. (I despise the term "mission" Makes me sound military 'n stuff).

Being a little warm at Flagstaff in the Summer sends the density altitude climbing for five digits.

The Turbo makes it mostly a non-issue.

I'm confidently off the runway, while many others are chanting: "I think I can.... I think I can...."
 
As for my altitudes, I haven’t had the Mooney long and still training in it but my CFI also does contract flying so we are taking the Mooney next week to Kerrville and to Boerne and something like that is typically done at around 6,500-8,500 in this area.
 
Jared Kornelsen said:
I understand that perhaps under 7-8,000 it may not be noticeably faster but surely once you start getting close to 14,000 it should pick up 5-10knots no? Was the toga you bought retractable gear?
Click to expand...
Yes Retractable
 
Last edited:
Jared Kornelsen said:
As for my altitudes, I haven’t had the Mooney long and still training in it but my CFI also does contract flying so we are taking the Mooney next week to Kerrville and to Boerne and something like that is typically done at around 6,500-8,500 in this area.
Click to expand...

Right, but do that same flight in the dead of TX summer, and the density altitude is where the turbo aircraft are going to shine. That 8,500' flight may have a DA in the teens, so the NA is going to be wheezing trying to make power where the turbo just chugs right along. There's still the DA effect on the wings, but at lease the power is still there.
 
Okay so yes that makes sense too, gets pretty hot over here in the summer..
Sooo..
B58
C310 NA or Turbo
Lance T-Tail
Saratoga Retrac and Turbo

Lets break those into categories, please rate them in order 1 through 4:
-How does that list stack speed wise?
-How does it stack in fuel consumption running around 75%?
-How does it stack with maintenance cost assuming you buy a clean well kept example with around the 500 hrs SMOH mark? Also I am capable of doing some myself as well.
-How does it stack with cabin room? I dont care very much about ease of getting in and out or big doors for big cargo, its nice but not a need for me.
-How does it stack with insurance costs?
 
mtuomi said:
No free lunches with those twins. First one is with two near-run-out engines, budget $100k to fix that. Second one is turbo, something you suggested to stay away from (for a good reason!), and third one is Canadian with no engine times listed, and based on that, I'd say it will have runouts too.
Click to expand...

IMO, buying a plane with high time engines is the way to go, if they are priced appropriately. Any extra time you get out of them is a bonus.
 
Jared Kornelsen said:
Loving the 310 and the retrac Toga so far. The turbo Toga, how much speed would you gain with the turbo vs NA if you stay around or under 13,000?
Click to expand...

It really doesn't sound like your mission is a good one for turbos. If you're going to stay under 13,000, you'll only have a few knots on a normally aspirated bird. You'll get there a little quicker, but for the higher performance birds like you're talking about, climb rate usually isn't much of an issue. The only reason I can see for doing it is to get up out of the heat a little faster in the summer, but is the difference in fuel burn worth an extra minute of cooler air and 5 knots?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
IMO, buying a plane with high time engines is the way to go, if they are priced appropriately. Any extra time you get out of them is a bonus.
Click to expand...

I can see that in a single piston, but imo the best value point on a piston twin is usually about the 1/2 time engine mark. They are already heavily discounted against comparable high performance piston singles. No need to set yourself up for potentially two engine jobs in the near to medium term in this market for twins.

You can buy an entire decent Aztec or 310 with 1/2 time engines for less than the cost of a pair of engine/prop overhauls on the same plane. As I have posted before, if I get to the point I need to do the engines on my Aztec, and the market stays as it is now, I'll buy another one with half time engines, swap them over, keep the best 2 of the 4 props, sell the run-out engine cores & 2 props, and part out the remaining airframe.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
I was surprised how few are on controller right now. It seems like mostly late model planes from Australia in the listings.
There are plenty of 70s era Be58 out there. It may just be a quirk that there are currently very few on controller.
Click to expand...

For some reason, it seems like all the 310s are on Trade-a-Plane and not so many on Controller. I have no idea why. :dunno:
 
Jared Kornelsen said:
Is it just because of the pressurization system that things are so expensive to keep that working good or what is it about them?
Click to expand...
With a Duke, it's not unusual to flight plan for 48 gallons per hour.
 
Jared Kornelsen said:
Is it just because of the pressurization system that things are so expensive to keep that working good or what is it about them?
Click to expand...

It's not so much the pressurization system itself as that all the other systems have to be designed and maintained with pressurization in mind. I think I saw an article about that somewhere recently (we were trying to figure out whether a 310 or 340 would be the next plane), but now I can't find it. :dunno:
 
Well between a 310 NA or a turbo Lance or Toga of the 3 ,in order of most to least, which would be most expensive to maintain? The extra fuel cost of the 310 to me would be worth the extra speed but what about maintenance?
 
Lance/Toga will be the same MX. 310? No clue, but prob double over all.

Where you at OP? There are a few us us here with Turbo Lances. Mine is the best one though.....
 
You really think a naturally aspirated 310 would be double that of a turbo Lance or Toga? I imagine when it comes to rebuild time 2 NA engines vs a turbo single wouldn’t be too huge of a difference, besides props obviously are double. I guess double the oil changes as well. How about annuals?
 
Maybe not equal but I’ve researched OH cost on turbo engines, like cirrus sr22 NA vs Turbo is a very big difference, as is the Cessna 350 vs 400. Am I wrong to assume it’s not the same across the board. I believe Cessna 350 vs 400 is some thing like close to double. At least that’s what Van Bortels told me
 
Jared Kornelsen said:
You really think a naturally aspirated 310 would be double that of a turbo Lance or Toga? I imagine when it comes to rebuild time 2 NA engines vs a turbo single wouldn’t be too huge of a difference, besides props obviously are double. I guess double the oil changes as well. How about annuals?
Click to expand...

My annual is flat rate $2k plus parts, any extra labor at $90/hr. I usually spend about $3k on annuals. Yes I do think they could be double that. I would fly a twin if I could afford the MX. And twins are not “safer” than singles.

What city are you around?
 
I live in Seminole TX now, about an hour or so south west of Lubbock. What is the cost to overhaul a Turbo Lance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top