Saratoga possibility

Pretty high price for a fixed-gear Saratoga with radios that are no longer serviceable.
 
bradg33 said:
Pretty high price for a fixed-gear Saratoga with radios that are no longer serviceable.
Click to expand...
That "150 Since Lycoming Factory Rebuilt" comment is probably raising the price a lot.

I like it. I wish I could afford one for a photo plane! I would probably skip the turbo though.
 
Seems a little expensive, nice low time engine, but fixed gear, old autopilot, inop stuff, no HSI and interesting carbon fiber work
 
Last edited:
Seems an odd mix to have the Turbo and stiff legs.

Personally, I love the Turbo. I'm able to get to Flagstaff, enjoy my day, and haul out of there with fewer concerns than the NA crowd. The Turbo doesn't seem to add much maintenance. My dad has had his since 1989, and I'm more of a recent Turbo owner.

Inop gear means you'll want to plan a panel upgrade in the near future. Give it a year, and you'll be itching to get it to an Avionics shop and get it redone.
 
Looks nice I like the new interior alot! Recent factory reman engine is a huge plus. That is defintely one of the more expensive engines to overhaul. Still scratch my head everytime I see those turbo engine cowls. Have no idea what piper was thinking at the time. As far as price I'm not really sure what these things go for. Good luck!
 
Thanks everyone. The price was just dropped so the broker reached out to me as he knew I had an interest in a Toga. Yes I would definitely be upgrading the panel if I went through with it. The big plus on this one is recent overhaul.
 
I've never seen a cowling like that before. Reminds me of the WW2 era Tempest and Typhoon. Kind of cool.
 
Bartelt, they are right in my backyard.
 
jsstevens said:
I've never seen a cowling like that before. Reminds me of the WW2 era Tempest and Typhoon. Kind of cool.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong, but (Hah! this is POA, of course you will correct me if I am wrong!)...

I think those "fish mouth" PA 32s and PA-28s routed cooling air from the bottom of the engine up through the cylinders. At some point they switched, and the aircraft with the cowlings usually seen today (two air intakes either side of the propeller) routed the cooling air over the top of the engine then down through the cylinders.

Since Piper installs Lycoming engines (yes there have been exceptions), maybe @Ted DuPuis can shed some insight as to why the change?

-Skip
 
Skip Miller said:
Since Piper installs Lycoming engines (yes there have been exceptions), maybe @Ted DuPuis can shed some insight as to why the change?
Click to expand...

I never worked on or was particularly familiar with that exact engine. What comes to my mind is that it has updraft cooling (top exhaust, similar to what's on Navajos) and that might be why.
 
Seminole Pilot said:
Thanks everyone. The price was just dropped so the broker reached out to me as he knew I had an interest in a Toga. Yes I would definitely be upgrading the panel if I went through with it. The big plus on this one is recent overhaul.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd hold out for one where the wheels fold up. Fixed gear costs a lot of speed, speed you may find yourself wanting shortly after buying. A retract Saratoga is likely to be a much longer-term airplane (not too many places to go up from there without big money).
 
Other than the price, what's not to like? IOW other than the shooting how was the play Mrs. Lincoln.

As to the fixed gear v retract. I'm not sure what the speed penalty is in the high teens. Remember fixed gear is a bigger penalty in higher density, as it is a parasite drag penalty, not an induced one. Obviously it also affects climb rate but that goes without saying.

OP, Do you absolutely need to get into a TIO-540? I'd worry about that more than even the whole FG vs retract thing to be honest. Updraft cooling was shelved because it wasn't well designed in this application. They made retrofit for additional louvers later on in order to ameliorate that, with mixed reviews. Personally I'd go NA unless DA>5k is part of your "80% mission". Better fuel efficiency to as a function of higher CR.

bradg33 said:
Pretty high price for a fixed-gear Saratoga with radios that are no longer serviceable.
Click to expand...
Welcome to trying to buy a PA-32 series at the top of the market. I've gone passive again on the search since my last attempt last week. It's just too frothy right now. Not that it was burning a hole in my pocket anyways, but I've decided to hold on to the arrow until after I have the replacement aircraft in hand. I'd be right screwed for the flying season if I had unloaded airplanes before an upgrade in this market.
 
Also note, despite what the ad says, that airplane doesn't have a 430W, it's got a GNS480/CNX80. Garmin has announced that those are end of life, no more service or repair. And there is no slide-in replacement.
 
Thanks. My flying profile will be a lot of local flying (up to 200 NM trips) and then 6-8 long distance round trips (900NM each way) from FL to Michigan. My original thoughts were NA engine and keep going back & forth about FG vs RG...seems I’d save around 30 min flight time on my long legs but have higher insurance & mx cost. Also never have to worry of a wheels up accidental landing or malfunction.
 
Seminole Pilot said:
Thanks. My flying profile will be a lot of local flying (up to 200 NM trips) and then 6-8 long distance round trips (900NM each way) from FL to Michigan. My original thoughts were NA engine and keep going back & forth about FG vs RG...seems I’d save around 30 min flight time on my long legs but have higher insurance & mx cost. Also never have to worry of a wheels up accidental landing or malfunction.
Click to expand...

In the grand scheme of airplane ownership, the insurance and mx differential between a fixed gear PA32 and a retract will be nominal.
 
Seminole Pilot said:
Thanks. My flying profile will be a lot of local flying (up to 200 NM trips) and then 6-8 long distance round trips (900NM each way) from FL to Michigan. My original thoughts were NA engine and keep going back & forth about FG vs RG...seems I’d save around 30 min flight time on my long legs but have higher insurance & mx cost. Also never have to worry of a wheels up accidental landing or malfunction.
Click to expand...

By yourself, or with a bunch of people or kids? If the latter, the proposition of O2 use will be an "easier said than done" affair imo. Recognize also the time difference is non-linearly higher with headwinds, as drag is not linear with dynamic pressure. All in all, I think a NA Toga, based on your willingness to pay that much for a PA-32, would probably be the sweet spot. I still think a NA Lance would be a better value, but we're splitting hairs at this point.
 
hindsight2020 said:
By yourself, or with a bunch of people or kids? If the latter, the proposition of O2 use will be an "easier said than done" affair imo. Recognize also the time difference is non-linearly higher with headwinds, as drag is not linear with dynamic pressure. All in all, I think a NA Toga, based on your willingness to pay that much for a PA-32, would probably be the sweet spot. I still think a NA Lance would be a better value, but we're splitting hairs at this point.
Click to expand...

The long distance flights for the most part would be myself (commuting to Michigan and Florida for business) and maybe 1 or 2 times a year might include my family (wife and 3 kids- 8,6,2). Local flying is a mixed bag, usually at least 1 other person and possible could be my family or a few friends. Just curious as to why you think a NA Lance would be better? I haven't looked much into them as I had focused on Togas and A36's. Also you say willing to pay that much for a Saratoga, if you look at what's out there that is one of the lowest price Saratoga's on the market. Most seem to be around 175-225K in the 1980's era build.
 
Seminole Pilot said:
Just curious as to why you think a NA Lance would be better? I haven't looked much into them as I had focused on Togas and A36's. Also you say willing to pay that much for a Saratoga, if you look at what's out there that is one of the lowest price Saratoga's on the market. Most seem to be around 175-225K in the 1980's era build.
Click to expand...

Forgive me, when I say better I meant cheaper. Capital costs are a big driver in my participation in this hobby, so it colors my opinion to the degree it doesn't for people financing these things.

At any rate, A NA 540 will be significantly (imo) cheaper to maintain than a turbo variant in the long run. Now, if you were thinking better as in performance? No I wasn't commenting on that. But sure, anything is better with the willingness to throw enough fuel thrown at it (as an afterburner operator at work, I can confirm the truism :D). My point was that I'd be willing to eat the opportunity costs of higher lifetime operating and mx costs... only IF the acquisition costs are properly discounted. That doesn't seem to be anywhere near the case in this market, which is why I mentioned the NA variants.

As to the Lance, I just meant that, again, better fuel efficiency for a respectable useful load, at similar to slightly lower prices. I've owned the Lance retract system, and feel confident in the low aggregate cost of long term maintenance compared to the competition (especially the cessna competition). To each their own. If the mission absolutely needs a turbo for safety margins (I read flat lands so I assumed not) then disregard my comment about NA engines.
 
Seminole Pilot said:
The long distance flights for the most part would be myself (commuting to Michigan and Florida for business) and maybe 1 or 2 times a year might include my family (wife and 3 kids- 8,6,2). Local flying is a mixed bag, usually at least 1 other person and possible could be my family or a few friends. Just curious as to why you think a NA Lance would be better? I haven't looked much into them as I had focused on Togas and A36's. Also you say willing to pay that much for a Saratoga, if you look at what's out there that is one of the lowest price Saratoga's on the market. Most seem to be around 175-225K in the 1980's era build.
Click to expand...

The Lance probably has more useful load, for one.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Forgive me, when I say better I meant cheaper. Capital costs are a big driver in my participation in this hobby, so it colors my opinion to the degree it doesn't for people financing these things.

At any rate, A NA 540 will be significantly (imo) cheaper to maintain than a turbo variant in the long run. Now, if you were thinking better as in performance? No I wasn't commenting on that. But sure, anything is better with the willingness to throw enough fuel thrown at it (as an afterburner operator at work, I can confirm the truism :D). My point was that I'd be willing to eat the opportunity costs of higher lifetime operating and mx costs... only IF the acquisition costs are properly discounted. That doesn't seem to be anywhere near the case in this market, which is why I mentioned the NA variants.

As to the Lance, I just meant that, again, better fuel efficiency for a respectable useful load, at similar to slightly lower prices. I've owned the Lance retract system, and feel confident in the low aggregate cost of long term maintenance compared to the competition (especially the cessna competition). To each their own. If the mission absolutely needs a turbo for safety margins (I read flat lands so I assumed not) then disregard my comment about NA engines.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for the input. As for a Lance, what would be a typical cruise speed & gph? I have not looked at them, but just glancing now they seem like a great deal if their speed isn’t far off a Toga. Any reason in particular they are a fair amount less cost?
 
Seminole Pilot said:
Thank you very much for the input. As for a Lance, what would be a typical cruise speed & gph? I have not looked at them, but just glancing now they seem like a great deal if their speed isn’t far off a Toga. Any reason in particular they are a fair amount less cost?
Click to expand...
Typical lance 6-9k (na) 145-150 true @14gph, 150-155 @16 gph. As to why togas carry such a premium, I have zero clue. Only difference is the tapered
wing and less useful as a fleet average.
 
ircphoenix said:
For what it's worth, there are few members of these boards who I would take their airplane advice as gospel.

One of those is @hindsight2020.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't. He's not as informed on all the models as he thinks he is, and has been dead wrong on a few things (Comanche for one - can't say about others because I haven't owned the others). But when you own a certain model you tend to know when someone who has never owned one is talking out of their ass. Not to say EVERYTHING is wrong, but when you know certain things are, you wonder about all the rest of what's being said. There's a bunch of posters on here that SOUND knowledgeable, but when you find out they've never owned but talk like they have, you have to wonder how much they REALLY know. I look at it like the news. Sounds good to the uninformed, but look how much crap they get wrong. Same goes for posters on here. Sounds good to those not in the know.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Typical lance 6-9k (na) 145-150 true @14gph, 150-155 @16 gph. As to why togas carry such a premium, I have zero clue. Only difference is the tapered
wing and less useful as a fleet average.
Click to expand...

The tapered wing affects the handling a noticeable amount. For example, the Lance climbs like it's still tied down; the Saratoga is better.
 
jsstevens said:
I've never seen a cowling like that before. Reminds me of the WW2 era Tempest and Typhoon. Kind of cool.
Click to expand...

I ferried one of those once. the hot air coming out of the slots sort of kept the windshield defrosted...
 
bradg33 said:
The tapered wing affects the handling a noticeable amount. For example, the Lance climbs like it's still tied down; the Saratoga is better.
Click to expand...

I've owned tapered and hershey wing variants of the same airplane. I don't dispute the taper being nicer, but 75-100 AMUs nicer? That's what's in dispute here wrt Saratogas.

What some FG owners of the 'Toga say is that due to the additional clean up of the Toga (mainly the wheel pants in all honesty), they could approach within 10 knots of a Lance to make the RG costs (overestimated in the first place) enough of a detraction so as to consider the acquisition premium worth it. And again, they would be right on the merits of the speed advantage; I just disagree on the scale of capital cost premiums. I think this is driven by low-time owners in reality, as most people with more than 500 hours in retracts would attest, the insurance woes rapidly go away. But when you finance that capital premium, you cheapen it's perceived cost. Essentially a higher-faluting version of the car payment crowd. Fact remains, those capital costs far outstrip the mx costs that motivate the higher priced alternative purchase in the first place.

But good bad or indifferent, that's the market and that's how people are. It certainly does present value in the Lance for those who can see beyond, or don't belong to the demographic in question in the first place.
 
EdFred said:
I wouldn't. He's not as informed on all the models as he thinks he is, and has been dead wrong on a few things (Comanche for one - can't say about others because I haven't owned the others). But when you own a certain model you tend to know when someone who has never owned one is talking out of their ass. Not to say EVERYTHING is wrong, but when you know certain things are, you wonder about all the rest of what's being said. There's a bunch of posters on here that SOUND knowledgeable, but when you find out they've never owned but talk like they have, you have to wonder how much they REALLY know. I look at it like the news. Sounds good to the uninformed, but look how much crap they get wrong. Same goes for posters on here. Sounds good to those not in the know.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I was speaking more to the fact that he makes a lot of sense in regards to the financial side of aircraft ownership. He gave me a lot of good info when I was buying a plane that would have been wise for me to heed because it turns out I got burned by almost every single thing he told me to watch out for.
 
k9medic said:
1200 useful? Is that full fuel useful?


I’m at 1000lbs useful with full fuel or just shy of 1500 without.
Click to expand...

"Useful Load" = How much you can load when the airplane and its tanks are empty.
"Payload" = How much you can load when the tanks are full. Often, incorrectly and confusingly called "full fuel useful load."

maxresdefault.jpg
 
The last W&B for the Lance came out with a useful load of 42,000 pounds. I thought it was pretty good!

(too bad it was an error, and my A&P corrected it right away)
 
ircphoenix said:
Fair enough. I was speaking more to the fact that he makes a lot of sense in regards to the financial side of aircraft ownership. He gave me a lot of good info when I was buying a plane that would have been wise for me to heed because it turns out I got burned by almost every single thing he told me to watch out for.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the vote of confidence. The inputs regarding aircraft ownership we've shared privately and on previous threads still stand as my opinion, and I'm more than glad to share whatever I can with ya. Do not hesitate to PM me if you ever need any input on these topics away from the public threads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top