Saratoga vs. Lance

jdfrey1

jdfrey1

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
96
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
Display Name
Display name:
Jeff Frey
I am fairly close to upgrading from my Archer. I've done quite a bit of research and what I really want is an early to mid-80's Turbo Saratoga. I've read all the articles comparing the PA32 to the Cessna 210 and Beech A36 and there are many reasons why I want to buy the Piper. What I think I will face now though is the decision between a Lance and a Saratoga. I know I definitely don't want the T-tail Lance but I have seen a lot of very nicely equipped and refurbished Lance's at a fraction of the cost of a Saratoga. My biggest issue though is the Hersheybar wing. I've owned both a 1966 Cherokee 180C and now the 1979 Archer II and in my opinion the Hersheybar wing on the 180 was much less stable and didn't perform as well taking off and landing. For those of you that have experience can I expect the same difference between the Lance and Saratoga? What other things do I need to consider in this family? Do you know of anyone wanting to sell either of these types of planes? If so, please PM me.
 
I just did my first training flight in our club 1981 Saratoga. The elevator control is somewhat diminished at slower speeds, but if you nail your approach and landing speeds it is not much of an issue. We landed in a grass field over an obstacle, and I had full back deflection on the elevator control to keep the nose off the ground. Barring that, the Saratoga is a beautiful plane, and a very stable IFR platform.

I also learned how to use the rudder trim to help my chicken legs not shake so much while flying her. :)
 
My first plane was a 1969 Cherokee six 300. Great plane, definitely would fall from sky when throttle pulled back. Super comfy and could definitely be loaded with ease! It was very dependable and was predictable in flight even though I was a new pilot.

When it came time to upgrade from my T182T a couple months ago I looked at each of the aircraft you mention. The 210 definitely was high on my list, however gear maintenance and future of parts really concerned me. I strongly considered a F33 with turbo normalized until I sat in one, too narrow for me. Great performer with huge useful load but space for kids just wasn't there. Thought briefly about A36 but again too narrow for me.

I settled on 98 Saratoga II tc and love it. We just traveled from northern Colorado to San Diego this week for kids spring break. I cruise 175 knots at 10-11k, 1109 pounds useful load. Even near gross it just took off like it was nothing. The wing is definitely a plus over the Hershey bar. Ride is very smooth, kids didn't mind turbulence even with moderate we experienced. You definitely need to plan ahead as it doesn't want to slow down like the old one. Being able to drop gear at 132knots helps. Although just slowing to get that takes a little time. Landing in the old six I would frequently add very small amt of power to grease the landings. The saratoga doesn't require anything like this.

Lastly I love the interior, my kids played games and had a great time the entire trip. I can recline my seat and just get all kinds of comfortable when flying.

Hope this helps, good luck with your search!
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    53.1 KB · Views: 166
Okie, was that Cherokee 6 approved for inverted flight?
 
ja_user said:
Okie, was that Cherokee 6 approved for inverted flight?
Click to expand...

For a brief moment in time! Breaks up the monotony of the returning home trip! That's in the Saratoga, I would never do anything that dumb in the six.:D

I'm quite deficient in computer skills with these darn photos.
 
Jthamilton said:
For a brief moment in time! Breaks up the monotony of the returning home trip! That's in the Saratoga, I would never do anything that dumb in the six.:D

I'm quite deficient in computer skills with these darn photos.
Click to expand...

I thought it was just normal mountain turbulence...
 
Okie, for a first plane would you recommend the Cherokee six? I've read mixed reviews that the later planes just got more "fat" and we're not a lot better? What's your take? Is the added expense and hassle of retrac worth it? There are some slick 6x's out there now
 
All depends on your mission. If there is a need to carry a couple kiddos and baggage I love the plane. It is a simple plane to fly once you get adjusted to the big 300hp up front. It teaches you how to use your rudder for sure. No big surprises, forgiving and stable. You can load it almost any way you want within reason and still be well within cg. I would get 140 knots/13-14 gph.

Insurance was pricy at first. I flew mine prob 275 hours in the couple years I had it and it never failed us. I use to have pics of my dad and a friend stretched out sleeping in back seats and another friend up front with me on way to OSH 10-11 years ago. Never once did I think I wish I had smaller fuselage!

My mistake is we didn't use it for what it could do and I found myself flying the bus around by myself. Our recent trip in the new Saratoga just reinforced how much I love traveling in it as there is so much space! Regarding retract gear after 400 hours I still only had 5 hours retract so I figured might as well. My recent annual cost $3600. As mentioned earlier we intend on traveling back and forth to Oklahoma and the faster toga makes it quite easy. If I was only traveling around the states around my home and occasional long distant trip I would lean towards the fixed gear. I also live now at 7,000feet so turbo was required. I personally wouldn't fly a six up here.

Hope that helps!
Jon
 
Last edited:
I put this analysis together when I was trying to decide if I "needed" the turbo and retract or not. Basically it compares the cost and time to fly 1000 miles. The turbo/retract of course was the fastest so the most efficient of the options. I know that there are definitely pros & cons for all the options so I put them in another tab and weighted them by importance to me. For me the lower TBO, higher maintenance cost, higher insurance, etc was outweighed by the performance improvement and that's why I've decided on the turbo & retract.

Here is the link to my spreadsheet:
http://www.sendspace.com/file/uwnp4x
 
Jeff

Does your spread sheet have a built in Mx reserve?
 
This is only based on fuel usage, not total cost of ownership. I weight out the pros and cons and recognize there will increased hourly costs based on Mx for shorter TBOs, turbo, landing gear, higher insurance costs, etc. For me the time savings and the ability to fly over the weather will be very nice.
 
To get technical the main difference between the two is with the Saratoga Piper went from the hershey bar to the tapered wing. Also depending on the Lance some had a t-tail as opposed to a standard tail. Most Lances have slightly more useful load then the Saratoga. This is mild for the early toga's (until about the 88). It gets significant with the HP and TC models introduced in the 90's, which may be as much as 150 less. In general Saratogas are 5 to 10 knots faster.

My father owns a 82 Saratoga SP. He cruises at 158 easily, top of the green, at about 65% power. He has a useful load of 1298, but his plane has factory a/c.


Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
 
I have most of the Hershey Bar wing Cherokees and most of the "Warrior winged" Cherokees. On the smaller end, the differences most notable are that the Hershey bar wing seems more stable in pitch (don't ask me why) and doesn't float as much on landing. The Warrior wing makes landings a bit nicer and glides better. I think that they are close to a wash in the PA-28 series, with the exception of the turbo Arrow. Up high the higher aspect ratio is better for performance and stability.

On the PA-32 series, the originals wear slightly light on aileron authority. Not terrible -- until they made a twin out of it -- but a gusty crosswind kept you on your toes. I like the way the Saratoga flies better than the Lance, however, the Lance typically has a much better useful load and Piper kept adding froo froo that loaded them up. I have flown a Lance with 1500# of useful and I haven't heard of a Saratoga coming all that close. So it really kind of depends on your mission.

For those that don't know, the "Warrior wing" is the same airfoil, and the wing is completely the same, out to where it starts to taper.
 
I think the Saratoga flies better than the straight tail Lance. However, I owned two straight tailed Lances and no Saratogas -- due to the fact that I valued the useful load and better bang for the buck of the Lances.

IMO, the Toga is nicer to fly, but not enough to make up for the loss of useful load or the higher purchase price.
 
I have over 400 hours in a 1977 straight tail normally aspirated Lance and 100 hours in a 1980 Turbo Saratoga. I feel both handle the same in all aspects of flight. You are a little faster in the Toga but the tradeoff is 150 less useful load and 5 GPH more fuel burn. If you spend most of you flying time above 14000 or in high altitude airports then a Turbo will help. If you are mostly a low altitude flyer I would go with a Lance.
 
I used to fly quite a bit with a friend in his Turbo T-Tail Lance. It was like having a personal airliner for him, but there wasn't a lot of fun factor in flying it. As transportation it was very good, carried a lot, and was comfortable.

The things I didn't like about it I really disliked. For instance there was no way to tell how much gas was in the outer tanks from inside the plane. Who thought that up? It never met a long runway it didn't like, and it wasn't that fast for the fuel burn. His was the recipient of a lot of speed mods so it must have been dirt slow before them. I disliked these things so much about that airplane that I didn't partner with him when I was looking, and it had everything in the panel and a wonderful interior.
 
brywd said:
For instance there was no way to tell how much gas was in the outer tanks from inside the plane. Who thought that up?
Click to expand...

Why do you need to know how much is in the outer tanks? In the PA32RT, unlike the Cherokee 6's, the two tanks are piped together effectively making them one tank which is what the gauge in the cockpit reflects.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Why do you need to know how much is in the outer tanks? In the PA32RT, unlike the Cherokee 6's, the two tanks are piped together effectively making them one tank which is what the gauge in the cockpit reflects.
Click to expand...

The inboards have a gauge on the outside, but I believe the gauge inside also only reflects the inboard tanks. This is why most have a fuel totalizer
 
jdfrey1 said:
I am fairly close to upgrading from my Archer. I've done quite a bit of research and what I really want is an early to mid-80's Turbo Saratoga. I've read all the articles comparing the PA32 to the Cessna 210 and Beech A36 and there are many reasons why I want to buy the Piper. What I think I will face now though is the decision between a Lance and a Saratoga. I know I definitely don't want the T-tail Lance but I have seen a lot of very nicely equipped and refurbished Lance's at a fraction of the cost of a Saratoga. My biggest issue though is the Hersheybar wing. I've owned both a 1966 Cherokee 180C and now the 1979 Archer II and in my opinion the Hersheybar wing on the 180 was much less stable and didn't perform as well taking off and landing. For those of you that have experience can I expect the same difference between the Lance and Saratoga? What other things do I need to consider in this family? Do you know of anyone wanting to sell either of these types of planes? If so, please PM me.
Click to expand...

Jeff, don't dismiss the Lance--even the T-tail. The Lance is a wonderful, spacious, relatively fast airplane. The Saratoga is basically the same airplane; but you'll pay more for the name change.

The speed differences between fixed-gear Lance/Saratoga and retract are not great.

The wing design does make a little bit of difference in flying characteristic, but not all that much.
 
ja_user said:
The inboards have a gauge on the outside, but I believe the gauge inside also only reflects the inboard tanks. This is why most have a fuel totalizer
Click to expand...
It's been a while since I flew my dad's, but I don't believe that is the case. Pretty sure the cockpit gauge shows a combined fuel.

Edit: just looked it up in the POH. The cockpit gauge is indeed a combined gauge with sensors in both tanks. The inboard tanks have external gauges for assisting the pilot in determining fuel during the preflight.
 
Last edited:
I'll have to look too. Either way, fuel totalizers are pretty useful in anything that's fuel burn can vary between 14-18gph. I never trust the gauges.

I do like this setup better than anything I have seen in a Bonanza, at least each tank has a gauge...
 
ja_user said:
I'll have to look too. Either way, fuel totalizers are pretty useful in anything that's fuel burn can vary between 14-18gph. I never trust the gauges.

I do like this setup better than anything I have seen in a Bonanza, at least each tank has a gauge...
Click to expand...

Yeah the earlier Bo's did share a gauge between the left aux and main, and the right aux and main with a switch for each determining which tank one is looking at. There were also the issues of fuel returning to the left main, so it had to be burned off first or gas would go overboard. FWIW my Bonanza has one 40 gallon tank in each wing and a gauge for each, and it's turning 50 years old next year. I think they went to this in 1961 with the N model. Plenty to choose from without complex fuel systems out there, or just to see if you want to cross it off of your bucket list.


But I digress. This is a Lance/Saratoga thread and clearly the more limited mission of an old Bonanza isn't what the OP is seeking.
 
Fearless Tower said:
It's been a while since I flew my dad's, but I don't believe that is the case. Pretty sure the cockpit gauge shows a combined fuel.

Edit: just looked it up in the POH. The cockpit gauge is indeed a combined gauge with sensors in both tanks. The inboard tanks have external gauges for assisting the pilot in determining fuel during the preflight.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. I'm wondering now if my buddies had a problem? It's been 10 years since I last flew in it. I know he almost ran out of gas over Idaho due to not being able to tell what he had and where. He had a JPI, but he somehow screwed up just the same. I'll have to call him and learn more about the system later this morning. Hey if I'm wrong I not only can admit it, but I want the bad info purged from my mind.
 
Having owned a couple examples and flown dozens of others carrying boxes, I wouldn't get hung up on which flavor you buy. Rather, I'd focus on finding an example of either type that isn't a worn out dog. These are working planes. Finding one that isn't beat up underneath will be more of a challenge than with an a36 or 210. If you do go for the straight wing pa32 that's ok just count the diamond patches as evidence of what kind of life it's had. Personally id pass on an example with more than 2 patches but that's just me.
 
EDIT: Sorry I put this in the wrong topic.

I sat in a 2001 Meridian for the first time on Saturday at the AOPA fly in.
I am too big for this bird. With the seat all the way down my head hit the ceiling and the seat would not go back far enough for my legs. Right next to the Meridian I sat in a new 2014 TBM900. Wow it was very nice. It was like sitting in a leather lounge chair. There were big windows all around.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top