saratoga

M

maggot

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
21
Display Name
Display name:
maggot
Newbie.
Myself and another are considering owning a plane together. The Saratoga seems to fit our missions. Ah, which Saratoga? We have concluded that the Saratoga FG is fast enough and should cost us less to own and operate than the retract. East coast, so no apparent need for turbo.
I am trying to convince myself that this is a good choice. We live in southeast West Virginia (LWB). I have never flown a Saratoga of any sort, and am looking to fly one first. Any suggestions for where to look for a test flight or two ?
Thanks,
Steve
 
maggot said:
Newbie.
Myself and another are considering owning a plane together. The Saratoga seems to fit our missions. Ah, which Saratoga? We have concluded that the Saratoga FG is fast enough and should cost us less to own and operate than the retract. East coast, so no apparent need for turbo.
I am trying to convince myself that this is a good choice. We live in southeast West Virginia (LWB). I have never flown a Saratoga of any sort, and am looking to fly one first. Any suggestions for where to look for a test flight or two ?
Thanks,
Steve
Click to expand...

Ah I just posted something concerning this in Hangar Talk!

I have 60 hours or so in the Saratoga, retract. I don't know your proficiency level, but with an IR and some retract time, I think the retract is best. I mean, you get 160 knots easily and if it is the II, you can either load 4 people, all their bags, and full fuel; or fill all 6 seats with day bags and half fuel. Controls are heavy, but it is a real traveling machine.

I'm comparing it to a turbo Cessna 182 RG right now . . . .
 
Skytech might be a great place to start.

Rock Hill SC (KUZA)and Westminster Maryland (KDMW)
 
Don't rule out turbo, esp in WV. It is really nice to be able to punch in, say, 900fpm, and keep it up into the teens. Gets you out of summer turbulence faster.

Older Saras, in my opinion, are better. The newer they are, the fatter they are. The late-model Saratogas are so loaded down with leather and extras they can barely carry 2 people and full fuel.
 
BTW, resale on a FG Saratoga, or any Saratoga these days, is tough. You should get a good deal, but don't expect to sell it for more than you bought it for, at best, particularly a FG Sara. It seems that speed sells better than payload these days, hence the success of Cirrus. If it fits your mission, go for it and enjoy it. Easy to fly, that's for sure.
 
Very useful airplanes. Not terribly exciting to fly. Consider a Lance to get more bang for your buck. Lots of room.

The biggest thing the PA 32 has going for it is cabin space. Big cabin. The nose baggage bay as well as rear bay make manipulating the CG easier. Club seating with 4 aboard gives the rearmost seats a limousine like feel.
 
Thanks for all the comments. Ken, how is the lance more bang for the buck. I see WV is not colored, ?
 
maggot said:
Thanks for all the comments. Ken, how is the lance more bang for the buck. I see WV is not colored, ?
Click to expand...
An early vintage Toga is priced 15-20 percent higher than a comparable straight tail Lance. The Lance typically will have a higher useful load. Performance is almost identical.
 
Ken,
I am interested in anyones comments and opinions. If I mention a couple ads, will you comment on price?
Thanks
 
I fly a FG 'toga. 137-145 kts depending upon weight @ 65% and 16 GPH. Can fill the tanks and put 750 lbs in the cabin.

PM with q's. I'm looking to sell my because I need more seats. :)


Eggman
 

Attachments

  • 4296Next (3).JPG
    4296Next (3).JPG
    201.2 KB · Views: 34
I've flown both the Toga and a Turbo Lance... I'd look for a Lance. The difference in useful load adds a lot of utility. And the turbocharger (if flown properly) can be a big help in dealing with weather. And they'll take just a little getting used to to fly well.
 
TMetzinger said:
I've flown both the Toga and a Turbo Lance... I'd look for a Lance. The difference in useful load adds a lot of utility. And the turbocharger (if flown properly) can be a big help in dealing with weather. And they'll take just a little getting used to to fly well.
Click to expand...

+1 PA32RT300T - Flew one for years; good airplane.
 
James_Dean said:
I fly a FG 'toga. 137-145 kts depending upon weight @ 65% and 16 GPH. Can fill the tanks and put 750 lbs in the cabin.

PM with q's. I'm looking to sell my because I need more seats. :)


Eggman
Click to expand...
No Seneca for Eggman. He's looking at C421 territory.
 
bbchien said:
No Seneca for Eggman. He's looking at C421 territory.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.....


Now, where to find the time to be proficient? Oh, and that whole $600/hr thing.


Eggman
 

Attachments

  • dean family.JPG
    dean family.JPG
    229.7 KB · Views: 33
  • 414A.jpg
    414A.jpg
    309.3 KB · Views: 27
Last edited:
I've owned an '89 FG Toga for six years. It's comfortable and a great family plane. We've covered parts of Canada, the Bahamas, & the Rockies in her. Having luggage space both in back and in the nose really helps. There's not much luggage room in the other 6-seaters.

What others have said about the useful load is spot on: it tended to decrease over the years. But you have to check empty weight on every airframe you look at. The pre-'94 PA32's came out of the factory with a wide variety of options - some are loaded down like pigs, some aren't. In '94 New Piper started including most of the options as standard so all subsequent airframes are pretty heavy. As a general rule a Lance has the same useful load as the fixed gear Toga. If I were doing this over I'd also look at Lance's as, being retract, you can expect another 10 knots or so out of it & carry the same amount of stuff. But remember what I said about checking the useful load on each airframe.

Performance of my aircraft is similar to what Eggman describes. I fly it harder and usually see 155 KTAS.

Being based near DC I don't mind being normally aspirated. A turbo would be nice for climbing over the some of the summertime cumulous, though. (But I chalk that kind of thinking up to "You can't ever go high enough or fast enough. :rolleyes: ) If you do get a turbo, look for one that has the aftermarket intercoolers. Those engines are much happier & the plane doesn't look like a stranded fish on the ramp.

PM me with your email and I can send you additional info that you might find useful.
 
Joe B said:
If you do get a turbo, look for one that has the aftermarket intercoolers. Those engines are much happier & the plane doesn't look like a stranded fish on the ramp.
Click to expand...

A face only a mother would love...

Piper%20Turbo%20Lance%20II.jpg
 
I know of a C421 tucked away in a hanger here. Awesome panel, recent extensive annual, full deice , been sitting about a year though, not sure how much it has been run. Might be in some kind of financial trouble.
 
maggot said:
Newbie.
We have concluded that the Saratoga FG is fast enough and should cost us less to own and operate than the retract. East coast, so no apparent need for turbo.
Click to expand...

That right there pretty much is your answer - if you are content with the speed of the fixed gear PA32 and don't fly over the mountains of the western US, then you will find the FG non-turbo will cost you less in both maintenance and insurance.

I have equal time in a Cherokee 6 (300HP) and Turbo Lance II. Despite the ugly mug, the PA32RT is a great airplane.....as long as someone else is paying the bills. You will get a faster cruise speed, but at 20 GPH vs 13-14 that I burn in the C6. Plus, if you ever have to overhaul the turbo engine, the cost is ridiculous.

Turbos are great if you really need them, but if you don't truly need that performance, it is a real waste of money. Kind of like buying a 4 wheel drive SUV if all you are going to do is commute in the LA area or you think your tires might see some snow once a year. Not worth it.

If I were looking to buy my own 6 seater, I would probably look for a retract, non-turbo Lance, but that is mostly because I would prefer a little faster speed than the fixed gear offers and as mentioned, you can get some good deals on Lances.

One recommendation though - if you go with the fixed gear, look for a later model that has the simplified fuel system. The earlier Cherokee 6's have 4 separate selectable fuel tanks and fuel management can be a pain - lots of fuel starvation accidents because of poor fuel management. Later models simplified the design so that the outboard tanks are piped to the inboards and you only have to select right or left.
 
Retract costs more money to buy, more to maintain, and definitely more to annual...
Turbo costs more money to buy, more to maintain, and definitely more to annual...

10 knots more don't mean diddly... On a thousand mile run that ten knots gets you there 36 minutes sooner... Make your refuel stop quicker in the FG and you get there in the same time...

You identified in your first post your priorities... I say stick with your plan, find a good FG, and do lots of flying with the money for fuel you will save every year over an RG/turbo airplane...

denny-o (older than dirt)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top