Which plane is a better fit??? (Toga vs A36)

[Country Flier]

1980 Piper ad:

View attachment 103839

Every flying ad I see makes me realize I fly underdressed.

 

[EdFred]

Every flying ad I see makes me realize I fly underdressed.

and you undersmoke.

 

[Racerx]

it's too bad club seating became a thing.. no one wants to sit backwards, and yes, it makes that row unusable.. most people I know who fly 6 place club seating planes with usually 2-3 people have the third person all the way in the back, third row

What's the problem?

 

[EdFred]

it's too bad club seating became a thing.. no one wants to sit backwards, and yes, it makes that row unusable.. most people I know who fly 6 place club seating planes with usually 2-3 people have the third person all the way in the back, third row

Go home, you're drunk. I love club seating and sitting backwards whether it be in a conversion van playing cards in the back, or in a plane.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

So....what's your point?

it's too bad club seating became a thing.. no one wants to sit backwards, and yes, it makes that row unusable.. most people I know who fly 6 place club seating planes with usually 2-3 people have the third person all the way in the back, third row

 

[Tantalum]

What's the problem?

this is the way it should be

 

[Tantalum]

Go home, you're drunk. I love club seating and sitting backwards whether it be in a conversion van playing cards in the back, or in a plane.

I'm just different. I'd also take the sideways seats you get on the military transports, or some Beech 18 and old Land Rovers

 

[Rgbeard]

I've had my club-seating plane filled several times, and never had a complaint from the peanut gallery sitting in the reverse-facing seats.

There's also an issue that the club-seating is at one of the widest points in the airframe. As such, you can remove whatever's between the seats (oxy or beverage console) and accommodate a larger person with no problems at all.

 

[Tantalum]

Like I said, I'm the freak of PoA. I don't like facing backwards, not on boats, trains, cars, buses, planes, etc. I like to face the same direction as that which the conveyance goes.. or if I can't face forwards then at least sideways

 

[Salty]

Like I said, I'm the freak of PoA. I don't like facing backwards, not on boats, trains, cars, buses, planes, etc. I like to face the same direction as that which the conveyance goes.. or if I can't face forwards then at least sideways

It’s safer to face backward.

 

[Salty]

It’s safer to face backward.

Unless you are the pilot. Lol

 

[BarryCooper]

Nobody’s mentioned that your gonna have to buy cylinders for the Bo every 800-1000 hrs

 

[Martin Pauly]

Nobody’s mentioned that your gonna have to buy cylinders for the Bo every 800-1000 hrs

Let me try to reword that a bit more constructively: Transitioning to any high performance aircraft piston engine requires that the pilot invest some time in becoming knowledgeable about the proper operation of that engine, or else damage and costly repairs are likely. Whether that engine is installed in a Saratoga, a Bonanza, or something else doesn't make much of a difference. The engine doesn't really know much about the airframe it's pulling.

- Martin

 

[AnthonyS1]

My Bonanza F33a does 165KTAS on 13.5 GPH. I don't have a lot of Saratiga time maybe 50 hours but the two that I flew were 155KTAS at 18.5GPH. The Saratoga cabin is more roomy for sure. I valued speed and efficiency alot more and most of the time i fly its just me and my girl or solo so thr Bonanza was a no brainer. The extra cost of fuel feeding the Saratoga will add up significantly over time.

 

[EdFred]

You weren'tleaning correctly if you were burning that much in the Saratoga.

 

[AnthonyS1]

You weren'tleaning correctly if you were burning that much in the Saratoga.

That was for 75% power about 100 ROP. 155KTAS. From what I remember leaning below 18GPH resulted in higher CHTs and less speed. It's been a while though.

 

[EdFred]

That was for 75% power about 100 ROP. 155KTAS. From what I remember leaning below 18GPH resulted in higher CHTs and less speed. It's been a while though.

Yeah, that's way too rich.

 

[weilke]

Is the A36 also a 3600 lb max gross plane?

Tip tanks and a 300hp engine can bump that to 4025. It drops the plane into the standard category. What it doesn't add is extra power to get it in the air. Once you are over 3600, the POH supplement says something like 'add 30% to all distances'. I have taken off in south Florida at 3850 and the plane certainly isn't in a hurry to climb out. Not an issue if you don't ask the plane to do things it can't do.

 

[weilke]

@Martin Pauly how hard is it to remove the seats in the A36? One of the features I love about my plane is the ease with which I can pop seats in & out to make it a big 4 place or a 2 place with room to camp in the back.

Turning the center row of seats around takes 45min the first time and 10min the second time ;-)

The last row is snug and has a total weight limit for both pax. Some families find that it works best to separate combatants by having one seat each facing forward in the rear rows using the empty space for luggage. There is iirc a prohibition against having one middle seat forward and one back. I assume that is to keep people from smashing their heads together in a rough landing.

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

That was for 75% power about 100 ROP. 155KTAS. From what I remember leaning below 18GPH resulted in higher CHTs and less speed. It's been a while though.

Not all planes are created equal of course but my Lance does 158 at 70% at 15.5 gph. I do have some speed mods. That's usually 8k feet. I can get the gph down as I get higher.

 

[Pilawt]

Not all planes are created equal of course but my Lance does 158 at 70% at 15.5 gph. I do have some speed mods. That's usually 8k feet. I can get the gph down as I get higher.

Another data point -- 1978 Six 300 (fixed gear, same engine as the normally-aspirated Lance and Saratoga), 145 KTAS at 65% at 14 gph, CHTs all 330-350°.

I don't have a lot of Saratoga time maybe 50 hours but the two that I flew were 155KTAS at 18.5GPH.

18.5 gph is high even for a Turbo Toga, which is thirstier than the normally-aspirated version.

 

[aftCG]

Every flying ad I see makes me realize I fly underdressed.

Wait. We're supposed to wear clothes?

 

[Joshua D Jones]

@Joshua D Jones given your flying experience and budget - why not a twin bonanza, cessna 3xx or whatever twin's piper offers?

My father will be flying the plane some as well and he doesn't have any multi-ratings so that's not really a consideration for us at the time even though it would nice if it was. The cheaper acquisition of light twins would offset the operating costs (at least for several years).

 

[Joshua D Jones]

Josh,

I was in a very similar situation ten years ago - get a plane large enough for trips with the wife and three kids. Up to that time, I had been in a partnership sharing a Piper Arrow, so we never had a way to use the plane for traveling with the whole family. I fell in love with the Bonanza after flying it once.

You bring up a few good considerations in your post. The Piper will indeed be roomier, especially for baggage. When the five of us traveled together on long trips, we usually shipped a suitcase of two ahead with FedEx. The Bonanza feels sturdier and generally of higher build quality. By all means, fly both airplanes before you make a decision. The Bonanza is a joy to hand-fly; the Piper is ... well, it's a Piper.

A few other things which you have not mentioned: The Bonanza will fly faster on less fuel burn. There is also wider support for aftermarket modifications available if you worry about adding things later (e.g. FIKI, tip tanks, turbo, A/C - all of that can be added later). There is also a phenomenal owner community amongst Beech owners/pilots which you will not find in the Piper world, things like ABS (type club), BeechTalk and just the pride of ownership and willingness to help other Beech owners.

Finally, if the vast majority of your flying is with just 2 or 3 people as you wrote, I would be careful about optimizing the aircraft for the very few trips with a full cabin. By the time your 3-year-old is big enough to be a factor for cabin size and payload, your now 12-year-old will probably be in college and not be traveling with you as often anymore.

I've been very happy with the A36 and never regretted my choice. It's not perfect, but it's the best compromise for me in terms of speed, payload, roominess, aesthetics, and handling characteristic. It was a tight fit on a handful of flights we've made over the years, while being larger than necessary on most flights. It has always worked for us, while sometimes requiring that we ship stuff ahead.

Again, by all means fly both airplanes before you decide. In fact, fly more than one of each. Talk to owners. Hear their stories. Then decide.

To find Bonanzas in your area to test-fly, sign up on BeechTalk and then go to their mentor program:
https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/mentor.php

Best of luck for finding the best ride for you and your family!

- Martin

Thanks for the reply Martin. My father and I watched several of your well done vids early on in the process trying to decide between the 2 planes. I can't argue with anything you say about the Bo, but I think the biggest factor is the cabin size and the Saratoga is just so much more comfortable and roomy. Getting a Saratoga TC will allow us to claw back some of the speed loss to the Bo and help there. Honestly I wish I could take things about both planes I love and create one new plane that would do everything that both planes do well lol.

-josh

 

[Joshua D Jones]

10-15 knots is about right. If you’re flying into a headwind, though, that 30 minutes can get stretched because the slower plane is spending more time in the headwind.

Also, the Bonanza has the D’Shannon tips so it can skip the fuel stop on that 1000 nm trip if the passengers are so inclined, which mine are.

Also, my wife said to say that if you’re the one in the back with the kids 30 minutes is a looong time.

On the longer flights when I will be carrying the wife+3 kids, we won't be flying longer than 2-2.5hr legs anyways (bladder limitations) so the speed loss isn't much of a factor to me. And a TC Saratoga up at 9-12k ft isn't that much slower or slower at all compared to a N/A Bonanza that's cruising down at 6-8k ft.

 

[Racerx]

On the longer flights when I will be carrying the wife+3 kids, we won't be flying longer than 2-2.5hr legs anyways (bladder limitations) so the speed loss isn't much of a factor to me. And a TC Saratoga up at 9-12k ft isn't that much slower or slower at all compared to a N/A Bonanza that's cruising down at 6-8k ft.

As I said before, the useful load on those later model 'Togas can really suck. Useful loads in the 1050-1150 range. Compared to the Lance and Cherokee Six in the 1500 range. If speed is secondary to comfort, pa32.

 

[Joshua D Jones]

As I said before, the useful load on those later model 'Togas can really suck. Useful loads in the 1050-1150 range. Compared to the Lance and Cherokee Six in the 1500 range. If speed is secondary to comfort, pa32.

A/C is a must for us in south FL and we are wanting a later model plane so the lower useful load is a price we are willing to pay. Wish there were gross weight increase STC for the Saratogas like the Bonanza’s. I would imagine the Saratoga could easily manage another 200lbs of weight over gross and still be safe.