Saratoga Drivers question.

citizen5000 said:
Performance Saratoga
  • Max speed: 165 kts
  • Cruise speed: 139 kts
  • Range: 1000 nm
  • Service ceiling: 14600 msl
  • Rate of climb: 1050 ft/min
Performance Cherokee
Small difference (30kts delta) in performance and no difference in ceiling assuming both or neither are turbocharged (both have a constant speed prop and retractable). Fifteen hundred pounds heavier and double the HP so double the fuel burn. The high performance "training" will be nothing more than a single flight with a CFI to get the logbook endorsement.
Click to expand...

That would be a woefully inadequate checkout in that make and model.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I could never twist that knob fast enough to properly account for the gusty crosswinds and rapid AOA and power changes on takeoff and landing.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
I was mostly talking about long climbs. On TO and landings you just have to push paddles. But eventually those muscles will get stronger !!
 
Very nice. Take a look at Beech A36 as well if you don't need as much shoulder room.
 
Clip4 said:
That would be a woefully inadequate checkout in that make and model.
Click to expand...
Like another poster said, a PA32 isn't a DC-7.

Everything that needs to be covered can be accomplished in a single flight. It might take a little longer than 1.0 on the Hobbs, but it shouldn't require more than one flight to get checked out.

I got checked out to solo in a single flight. I felt the checkout was plenty thorough and I felt comfortable in the airplane when it was done.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Like another poster said, a PA32 isn't a DC-7.

Everything that needs to be covered can be accomplished in a single flight. It might take a little longer than 1.0 on the Hobbs, but it shouldn't require more than one flight to get checked out.

I got checked out to solo in a single flight. I felt the checkout was plenty thorough and I felt comfortable in the airplane when it was done.
Click to expand...

And you didn't start already having a complex HP sign off?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Fearless Tower said:
Like another poster said, a PA32 isn't a DC-7.

Everything that needs to be covered can be accomplished in a single flight. It might take a little longer than 1.0 on the Hobbs, but it shouldn't require more than one flight to get checked out.

I got checked out to solo in a single flight. I felt the checkout was plenty thorough and I felt comfortable in the airplane when it was done.
Click to expand...

If private pilot transitions to a hp complex airplane, it takes about 5 hours of dual for the pilot to fly the aircraft to private pilot standards. Part of the check out in a PA32 should involve flight with that aircraft at gross weight.

Avemco, who now will only insure 172RGs and 182RGs in flying clubs, requires 10 hours dual. So your comfort level and theirs is in disagreement.
 
Last edited:
I just happened to be copying my logs into FF today (what a pain)...:eek2: I did my Complex and HP in two 1.2 hr. flights. The FBO/insurance company wanted 10 hrs. before I could rent the aircraft alone... :yes: I just got with my CFI and we did some IR procedures and approaches to burn the time down...

Each time I've moved up it was the increase in the weight and heavier controls that took some getting use to.... Go for it, you'll be fine... Just get a good checkout from someone that knows the type...
 
gsengle said:
And you didn't start already having a complex HP sign off?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yes, I had both my complex and HP endorsements already.

But I thought the subject was a model specific checkout, not the initial HP or complex training.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Yes, I had both my complex and HP endorsements already.

But I thought the subject was a model specific checkout, not the initial HP or complex training.
Click to expand...

Part of it was the first time complex. Most training schools say ~10 hours and combine the HP/complex between ground and flight.
 
Clip4 said:
If private pilot transitions to a hp complex airplane, it takes about 5 hours of dual for the pilot to fly the aircraft to private pilot standards. Part of the check out in a PA32 should involve flight with that aircraft at gross weight.

Avemco, who now will only insure 172RGs and 182RGs in flying clubs, requires 10 hours dual. So your comfort level and theirs is in disagreement.
Click to expand...
We seem to be talking about two different things: an aircraft checkout vs initial HP/complex training.
 
blueskyMD said:
That's why there is rudder trim
Click to expand...

Negative! Maneuvering on the ground requires a very strong leg to push the rudder pedals, and at low taxi speeds your rudder won't help at all. In the air of course you are right. -Skip
 
Fearless Tower said:
We seem to be talking about two different things: an aircraft checkout vs initial HP/complex training.
Click to expand...

"Flying a complex or high-performance airplane requires a pilot to further divide his or her attention during the most critical phases of flight: take-off and landing. The knowledge, judgment, and piloting skills required to fly these airplanes must be developed. It is essential that adequate training is received to ensure a complete understanding of the systems, their operation (both normal and emergency), and operating limitations.

You can't do that in an hour and a half with the typical private pilot transition. 3 hours of ground and 3 hours of flight instruction is suggested by the FAA for these transitions in their sample syllabus. But if you are a CFI, it is your signature in their logbook.
 
Clip4 said:
"Flying a complex or high-performance airplane requires a pilot to further divide his or her attention during the most critical phases of flight: take-off and landing. The knowledge, judgment, and piloting skills required to fly these airplanes must be developed. It is essential that adequate training is received to ensure a complete understanding of the systems, their operation (both normal and emergency), and operating limitations.

You can't do that in an hour and a half with the typical private pilot transition. 3 hours of ground and 3 hours of flight instruction is suggested by the FAA for these transitions in their sample syllabus. But if you are a CFI, it is your signature in their logbook.
Click to expand...
Your still arguing around me.

I'm not debating that. Just saying that an aircraft checkout (not HP/complex training) does not require multiple flights.
 
paflyer said:
Very nice. Take a look at Beech A36 as well if you don't need as much shoulder room.
Click to expand...
That's a good suggestion.

Beech is a bit faster, but not as much room. But always remember your -typical- mission. If your flights are within 200 nm, the extra speed won't be noticed as much as the extra comfort.
 
spiderweb said:
That's a good suggestion.

Beech is a bit faster, but not as much room. But always remember your -typical- mission. If your flights are within 200 nm, the extra speed won't be noticed as much as the extra comfort.
Click to expand...

I'll even go one farther and double that mileage. Let's say 400 nm... 400/150 = 2.66 - 400/170 = 2.35 - 2.66-2.35= 0.31 0.31 * 60 = 18.6 minutes.

400 nm trip the difference between 150 and 170 knots is 18.6 minutes (not considering all the wind / pattern variables).

We'd all love to go faster but IMHO if you're near 150 knots the speed difference (adding 15-20 knots) is pretty negligible for trips less that 500 nm. Again, it's just my opinion. Regular 1,000 nm trips and yeah it would add up.
 
The "speed" spec is a head game. Unless you are flying passengers and/or meeting a schedule what real difference is an extra 10 minutes enroute?

In real world flying my plane has a top cruising speed over 200 ktas but unless I have a 30 kt tailwind I don't fly that fast. 75% throttle and LOP at 17k feet gives acceptable fuel burn/cost and keeps the engine happy.
 
Last edited:
citizen5000 said:
The "speed" spec is a head game. Unless you are flying passengers and/or meeting a schedule who cares how long it takes to get there?

Also, a 30 ktas difference in speed between aircraft cruise is easily negated in real world flying and winds.
Click to expand...

Disagree. I went from a 137kt Arrow to a 180kt Mooney. With a lot more range. New England to Florida dropped from 9-10 hours to 4-5, including skipped fuel stop. Speed matters for many of us...

And with headwinds the speed difference translates to an even higher percentage difference....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Fearless Tower said:
Just saying that an aircraft checkout (not HP/complex training) does not require multiple flights.
Click to expand...
Something like an Arrow or Mooney or R182, yes. But I'll respectfully disagree with regard to the Saratoga (unless the pilot is experienced and knows what to expect with larger aircraft) ... I'd want one flight at light weight with full forward CG, and another at MGW and aft CG. They're different animals.
 
arkvet said:
I'll even go one farther and double that mileage. Let's say 400 nm... 400/150 = 2.66 - 400/170 = 2.35 - 2.66-2.35= 0.31 0.31 * 60 = 18.6 minutes.

400 nm trip the difference between 150 and 170 knots is 18.6 minutes (not considering all the wind / pattern variables).

We'd all love to go faster but IMHO if you're near 150 knots the speed difference (adding 15-20 knots) is pretty negligible for trips less that 500 nm. Again, it's just my opinion. Regular 1,000 nm trips and yeah it would add up.
Click to expand...
arkvet said:
I'll even go one farther and double that mileage. Let's say 400 nm... 400/150 = 2.66 - 400/170 = 2.35 - 2.66-2.35= 0.31 0.31 * 60 = 18.6 minutes.

400 nm trip the difference between 150 and 170 knots is 18.6 minutes (not considering all the wind / pattern variables).

We'd all love to go faster but IMHO if you're near 150 knots the speed difference (adding 15-20 knots) is pretty negligible for trips less that 500 nm. Again, it's just my opinion. Regular 1,000 nm trips and yeah it would add up.
Click to expand...
True.

And in the Saratoga I fly, we get a reliable 160
 
gsengle said:
Disagree. I went from a 137kt Arrow to a 180kt Mooney. With a lot more range. New England to Florida dropped from 9-10 hours to 4-5, including skipped fuel stop. Speed matters for many of us...

And with headwinds the speed difference translates to an even higher percentage difference....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
But here we are talking 160 compared to 170.
 
Depends a turbo retract Saratoga will do more than 10kts on a na fixed gear one..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Depends a turbo retract Saratoga will do more than 10kts on a na fixed gear one..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Actually, a turbo will do a lot better than a FG, depending how high one flies.
 
gsengle said:
Disagree. I went from a 137kt Arrow to a 180kt Mooney. New England to Florida dropped from 9-10 hours to 4-5, including skipped fuel stop.
Click to expand...

Fuzzy math. 140 to 180 is 25% faster. Yet say you cut your travel time by 100%.

Real aircraft speed starts in the 300 kts mark. Or even better FL250 @ .75 mach. You need to upgrade to a turboprop or a light jet to get there. Range is more a function of fuel efficiency and fuel capacity, not just speed.
 
Efficiency is often highly correlated with airplanes that can go fast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
citizen5000 said:
Fuzzy math. 140 to 180 is 25% faster. Yet say you cut your travel time by 100%.

Real aircraft speed starts in the 300 kts mark. Or even better FL250 @ .75 mach. You need to upgrade to a turboprop or a light jet to get there. Range is more a function of fuel efficiency and fuel capacity, not just speed.
Click to expand...
I think he cut the time down mostly by not having to stop.

But . . . more than two hours, and many passengers need a potty. . . .
 
Yep a fuel stop is invariably an hour, total. And faster airplanes also climb faster...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
citizen5000 said:
Or even better FL250 @ .75 mach.
Click to expand...

That is over 310 indicated. There isn't a turboprop that I'm aware of that can get anywhere close to that and most of the light jets would have a Vmo well under that.
 
James_Dean said:
That is over 310 indicated. There isn't a turboprop that I'm aware of that can get anywhere close to that and most of the light jets would have a Vmo well under that.
Click to expand...

Just for grins let's do some numbers and suggest a plane for gsengle that has the best chance (converter used: https://www.globalaircraft.org/converter.htm).

@ FL300 @ -10c OAT @ .75 mach = 440 ktas (or 250 ias).

The Stratos VLJ is spec'd to fly @FL300 @ 415 ktas with a service ceiling of FL410 http://www.stratosaircraft.com/stratos-714-specifications.html
 
Another data point here. I just asked a local school what there process is for checkout to rent their toga if you already have complex and high perf. They responded 4-6 hours of dual.

My insurance seems to want 10 hours dual for any new type.
 
arkvet said:
I'll even go one farther and double that mileage. Let's say 400 nm... 400/150 = 2.66 - 400/170 = 2.35 - 2.66-2.35= 0.31 0.31 * 60 = 18.6 minutes.

400 nm trip the difference between 150 and 170 knots is 18.6 minutes (not considering all the wind / pattern variables).

We'd all love to go faster but IMHO if you're near 150 knots the speed difference (adding 15-20 knots) is pretty negligible for trips less that 500 nm. Again, it's just my opinion. Regular 1,000 nm trips and yeah it would add up.
Click to expand...
In that speed range, what you're making up for is headwinds. 25kt on the nose, 170 vs 150 makes a big difference.
 
paflyer said:
In that speed range, what you're making up for is headwinds. 25kt on the nose, 170 vs 150 makes a big difference.
Click to expand...

Agreed! but I like to keep my glass half full and will suggest the difference is even less since half the time that'll be a tailwind... and also consider when travelling part of the planning is considering winds aloft. If we choose altitude with that in mind then on average we should see a "net" increase in ground speed relative to TAS, while seeking out the most favorable wind conditions (minimize headwind / maximize tailwind).

Mathematically, though, you are correct. With a 25 knot headwind those TAS's yield 400 nm trip times of 3.2 / 2.75 hours respectively (27 minute difference)
 
arkvet said:
Agreed! but I like to keep my glass half full and will suggest the difference is even less since half the time that'll be a tailwind... and also consider when travelling part of the planning is considering winds aloft. If we choose altitude with that in mind then on average we should see a "net" increase in ground speed relative to TAS, while seeking out the most favorable wind conditions (minimize headwind / maximize tailwind).

Mathematically, though, you are correct. With a 25 knot headwind those TAS's yield 400 nm trip times of 3.2 / 2.75 hours respectively (27 minute difference)
Click to expand...
Unfortunately "half the time that'll be a tailwind" doesn't seem to work in reality.
 
Salty said:
Another data point here. I just asked a local school what there process is for checkout to rent their toga if you already have complex and high perf. They responded 4-6 hours of dual.

My insurance seems to want 10 hours dual for any new type.
Click to expand...
Right, these are insurance requirements, not how long it would take a current/proficient pilot to get acclimated.
 
paflyer said:
Right, these are insurance requirements, not how long it would take a current/proficient pilot to get acclimated.
Click to expand...
I guess insurance isn't that important when trafficking sex slaves.
 
paflyer said:
Unfortunately "half the time that'll be a tailwind" doesn't seem to work in reality.
Click to expand...

Since we eventually end up where we started I think statistics would disagree. More likely the crappy headwinds are the most memorable.
 
Salty said:
I guess insurance isn't that important when trafficking sex slaves.
Click to expand...
Yeah, goes without saying...

wait-say-what-gif.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top