Cherokee 6 vs Saratoga SP

[WhichWays_Up]

Made a post a few weeks back about upgrading from my Cherokees 180D to ab Arrow 180. I've since realized that's a dumb idea (thanks guys!)

I've come across two PA32s. The main reason for upgrading is range and "speed".

One is a '67 Cherokee 6/300 (7700TT)
2 Owners since new. Fresh Victor Black engine (108 SMOH). Clean history. Dated Avionics (530W, Altimatic IIIB) 84G Fuel

Other is a '81 Saratoga SP (5300TT)
5 Owners. 886 SMOH. 2 Blade (on a Saratoga?) 430Wx2, KFC 200, 107G Fuel
Currently Grounded with a dead "dual mag" issue. AME gave me quotes for an ElectroAir Ignition Conversion. Works well with the budget, gets rid of that dumb setup.

All things aside, both need some upgrades, but both are in the price range and have good logs (the '67 has ALL logs including the original Piper bill of sale, 2 owners.)

Questions for owners:

Is the Tapered Wing and Retract worth the increase in speed? MX cost?

Been quoted Cherokee 6 speeds of around 130 knots. Saratoga SP of around 145.....Sounds right?

Not worried about insurance. Gotta build time to get time. Have about 30h retract already, not that it'll help too much lol

Appreciate it. I'm going grey doing this research

 

[Jim K]

My Hershey bar winged Lance cruises 150. I'd expect the taper wing to maybe add another 5. 6-300 should be more like 135. Is that delta worth anything? That's up to you. It was to me. Assuming similar hull values (doubtful considering the age difference) retract insurance will run you about 2X. Last I heard the Electroair setup was buggy and caused more issues than a dual mag. Dual mag is kinda dumb, but not really an issue if you keep up on maintenance.

I wouldn't be afraid of a two blade. It will help with W&B (the three blade is very heavy and very far from CG) and should cruise a couple knots faster. Be aware the rear cargo door wasn't a thing on the very early models...67 might've been the first year? (or maybe the last without?) The 67 will have fiberglass fuel tank wingtips that have either been repaired or will need to be soon. Also a 4 way fuel selector. The 'Toga will just have left/right/off. Four tanks plumbed as two, greatly simplifies fuel management.

Personally, given the choice as you present it, I'd take the 'Toga, although being grounded with a "mag issue" is a bit of a red flag. They aren't all that hard to get repaired. Caveat to that is if you need 7 seats or a big useful load, then the older birds win. My Lance has 1520 lb UL, the last Saratogas were down into the 1100's. The early 6-260's can approach 1700.

There is no comfier single engine piston. The Cirrus might match it up front, but it can't do this:



Good Luck! The PA-32 Owner's & Pilots group on Facebook is pretty good if you do FB.

 

[Pinecone]

Check with your insurance broker on insurance of retract versus non-retract.

Look at POHs for fuel burn for those faster speeds.

 

[WhichWays_Up]

My Hershey bar winged Lance cruises 150. I'd expect the taper wing to maybe add another 5. 6-300 should be more like 135. Is that delta worth anything? That's up to you. It was to me. Assuming similar hull values (doubtful considering the age difference) retract insurance will run you about 2X. Last I heard the Electroair setup was buggy and caused more issues than a dual mag. Dual mag is kinda dumb, but not really an issue if you keep up on maintenance.

I wouldn't be afraid of a two blade. It will help with W&B (the three blade is very heavy and very far from CG) and should cruise a couple knots faster. Be aware the rear cargo door wasn't a thing on the very early models...67 might've been the first year? (or maybe the last without?) The 67 will have fiberglass fuel tank wingtips that have either been repaired or will need to be soon. Also a 4 way fuel selector. The 'Toga will just have left/right/off. Four tanks plumbed as two, greatly simplifies fuel management.

Personally, given the choice as you present it, I'd take the 'Toga, although being grounded with a "mag issue" is a bit of a red flag. They aren't all that hard to get repaired. Caveat to that is if you need 7 seats or a big useful load, then the older birds win. My Lance has 1520 lb UL, the last Saratogas were down into the 1100's. The early 6-260's can approach 1700.

There is no comfier single engine piston. The Cirrus might match it up front, but it can't do this:

View attachment 131338

Good Luck! The PA-32 Owner's & Pilots group on Facebook is pretty good if you do FB

Thank you VERY much for the reply!

The Saratoga actually has a deposit on it already from another buyer, so that's off the book now anyways.

But I found your claim of the ElectroAir problems intriguing, so I did a bunch of research last night. I didn't realize they're causing so much trouble! Pilots are actually removing them only months after installing them. Thank you for that information!

As far as payload, it's just full fuel and me, maybe a passenger once and a while. No kids or dogs.

Thanks again!

 

[WhichWays_Up]

Check with your insurance broker on insurance of retract versus non-retract.

Look at POHs for fuel burn for those faster speeds.

Both are done. Looking for real world information on the aircraft themselves. Always take the POH numbers with a grain of salt!

 

[AlleyCat67]

Thank you VERY much for the reply!

The Saratoga actually has a deposit on it already from another buyer, so that's off the book now anyways.

But I found your claim of the ElectroAir problems intriguing, so I did a bunch of research last night. I didn't realize they're causing so much trouble! Pilots are actually removing them only months after installing them. Thank you for that information!

As far as payload, it's just full fuel and me, maybe a passenger once and a while. No kids or dogs.

Thanks again!

I’m confused. If you don’t need room for five passengers why are you considering a Saratoga or Cherokee 6? Wouldn’t a Comanche, Mooney, or V35 get you more speed with lower costs?

 

[WhichWays_Up]

I’m confused. If you don’t need room for five passengers why are you considering a Saratoga or Cherokee 6? Wouldn’t a Comanche, Mooney, or V35 get you more speed with lower costs?

Fair question. I'm not a small guy. My 180 is not bad actually, that's why I own it. But it's not what I'd call "roomy".....

I'm not comfortable in Bo's. No matter how much foam is removed from the seat, my body build makes its too uncomfortable for me want to own one....

Never been in a Mooney. Most up here are dealing with corrosion on the tubular structure. But they are nice. I've heard the "Al Mooney was a big guy" from everyone and their uncles....

My AME is a Comanche owner. He's the Piper man! One of a few that can properly rig the gear still. I've been in/flown his 250 a few times. His is the older two tank, without the range I want. I'd have to find a newer one with the larger fuel capacity.

But I like the room of the PA32/34 aircraft. The money I'm spending, I'd better comfortable!

 

[AV8R_87]

Dated Avionics (530W, Altimatic IIIB)

Man, some people would be so happy to have a 530W in their panel, instead of a 300 or a 250 (or worse).

 

[WhichWays_Up]

Man, some people would be so happy to have a 530W in their panel, instead of a 300 or a 250 (or worse).

True lol! Considering I started with just a pair of KX-155s in my 180!

 

[Jim K]

Never been in a Mooney

If you don't feel comfortable in a bonanza, you won't fit in a Mooney either. They're a little tighter than your Cherokee.

If I had your mission, and could stretch the budget into the 300s, I'd be looking for an older sr22t.

I'm 6'4" and 275lb. The cirrus and the pa32 are both very comfortable. Comanche, 182, 210 next step down. Then Cherokees & bo's. Id put 172s and Mooney's in the category of "I fit, but I'm not happy about it". Meanwhile @flyingcheesehead is bigger than me and flies a Mooney , so it's somewhat subjective.

 

[WhichWays_Up]

If you don't feel comfortable in a bonanza, you won't fit in a Mooney either. They're a little tighter than your Cherokee.

If I had your mission, and could stretch the budget into the 300s, I'd be looking for an older sr22t.

I'm 6'4" and 275lb. The cirrus and the pa32 are both very comfortable. Comanche, 182, 210 next step down. Then Cherokees & bo's. Id put 172s and Mooney's in the category of "I fit, but I'm not happy about it". Meanwhile @flyingcheesehead is bigger than me and flies a Mooney , so it's somewhat subjective.

Subjective is correct. It's annoying though that everyone differs in dimensions lol.

I can comfortably get in a 152 (alone)!.....but I'm uncomfortable in a Bonanza

My tall torso is the bain of my existence.

Even cars I'm surprised at. I can fit perfectly in some compact cars with moonroofs, but I'm uncomfortable in some full size cars or even half ton trucks

 

[Gess]

That's a shame because you seem perfect for a PA-28-235 if not for wanting a little more hip room.

I'm 6'4" 270lbs and am comfortable in the PA-28. But my forever plane will be a PA-32.

 

[WhichWays_Up]

That's a shame because you seem perfect for a PA-28-235 if not for wanting a little more hip room.

I'm 6'4" 270lbs and am comfortable in the PA-28. But my forever plane will be a PA-32.

The PA28-235/Dakota's.....they hold 84 gallons as well don't they? I never thought of that. Not sure if it would get me further though.

 

[Nick Geber]

Made a post a few weeks back about upgrading from my Cherokees 180D to ab Arrow 180. I've since realized that's a dumb idea (thanks guys!)

I've come across two PA32s. The main reason for upgrading is range and "speed".

One is a '67 Cherokee 6/300 (7700TT)
2 Owners since new. Fresh Victor Black engine (108 SMOH). Clean history. Dated Avionics (530W, Altimatic IIIB) 84G Fuel

Other is a '81 Saratoga SP (5300TT)
5 Owners. 886 SMOH. 2 Blade (on a Saratoga?) 430Wx2, KFC 200, 107G Fuel
Currently Grounded with a dead "dual mag" issue. AME gave me quotes for an ElectroAir Ignition Conversion. Works well with the budget, gets rid of that dumb setup.

All things aside, both need some upgrades, but both are in the price range and have good logs (the '67 has ALL logs including the original Piper bill of sale, 2 owners.)

Questions for owners:

Is the Tapered Wing and Retract worth the increase in speed? MX cost?

Been quoted Cherokee 6 speeds of around 130 knots. Saratoga SP of around 145.....Sounds right?

Not worried about insurance. Gotta build time to get time. Have about 30h retract already, not that it'll help too much lol

Appreciate it. I'm going grey doing this research

I owned a Cherokee 235 until last September. A fabulous plane with a great useful load. Cruised at 135kts TAS although a little fuel hungry, 16PGH or so. I am 6ft 270ilbs. The Cherokee was little tight. I decided I really wanted a Cherokee 6 or Saratoga Turbo. I ruled out the 6 in favor of a turbo Toga SP. After putting a couple into prebuys (neither passed), my wife talked some reason into me and I realized that 99% of the time it would be me and her and maybe our dogs and that the kids probably wouldn't be joining us that often. So I "kicked it up a notch" and got a Mooney Ovation with full glass and TKS. 1100#UL. I cruise between 175-182 KTAS on 15-17 gph or so. The Mooney is actually 1.5" wider than the Cherokee and the Bo. My CFI that I did transition training with is 6'4", 220lbs. We both fit up front no problem. I found an Ovation to sit in before I bought one, to make sure. I have flown the Mooney with 3 full sized males as passengers. Other than a fuel penalty, everyone was comfortable.

So what I'm trying to say is

1. Define your mission. Do you REALLY need the extra space in the back? Would you rather have extra speed? Fuel efficiency? Turbo? TKS or a glass panel?
2. Take most of the advice here as "advisory" (lol). If there's a plane you like, or think fits your mission, go check one out. Sit in it, if possible get someone to take you around the patch. Learn everything you can about it. You will be surprised about how many common myths are dispelled that way!
3. DON'T RULE ANYTHING OUT UNTIL YOU SEE FOR YOURSELF.
4. I will second the opinions of the poster recommending the Lance. Excellent value and decent performance + space. Personally, I love the PA-32's. Great planes. If they fit your mission, you will be happy. Cherokee 6 is a great and comfy load hauler but a tad slow. Later Saratogas have less UL.
5. Don't fall in love with a particular bird until it's been through pre-buy.

Good luck and good hunting!

 

[EdFred]

You don't need a newer Comanche with 4 tanks. There are some out there (I have a 58) with tip tanks.

 

[charheep]

182RG? Cardinal?

 

[Nick Geber]

Here's a copy of a thread on cabin width from another group - hope this helps:

The range of cabin sizes in the SE piston market is between 38 and 50 inches. That is a full 12 inches / 30 cm difference between the smallest and the widest cabin. What I found very interesting is that some cabins which are said to be spacy are in fact narrower than others which are said to be tiny. But here are the most popular types:

The Cessna 150 is the tightest with 38 inches/96 cm.

The Cessna 172 and 152 according to Cessna’s website is 40 inches / 102 cm wide.

The Grumman AA5 is 41 inches / 104 cm wide.

The Cessna 182, PA28 and Bonanzas have 42 inch/107 cm cabin widths

The Cessna 206/210 has 43 inches/109 cm

The Mooney cabin is 43.5 inches/110 cm wide.

Next in the close ball park is the Piper Saratoga/Seneca cabin with 48.25 inches and the Corvalis with 48 inches/122 cm.

Next are the Malibu with 49.6 inches / 126 cm followed closely by the Cirrus SR20/22 with 49 inches/125 cm.

The widest single engine cabin are found: In the TB9/10/20/21. According to specs the cabin is 50.3 inches / 128 cm wide.

 

[Nick Geber]

Good Luck! The PA-32 Owner's & Pilots group on Facebook is pretty good if you do FB.

Piperforum is also a good community.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If you don't feel comfortable in a bonanza, you won't fit in a Mooney either. They're a little tighter than your Cherokee.

Disagree. Mooney is as wide as a 182, so wider than the Cherokee.

It feels very similar to what a Cherokee would feel like if you moved the rudder pedals about a foot or two closer to the prop. As a tall guy, I can actually reach stuff on my panel in the Mooney.

FWIW, Al Mooney was 6'5" and he built an airplane he'd fit in. Mooney is GREAT for a lot of tall people.

Meanwhile, I bang my head on the top of the Bo/Baron because of the semicircular shape of the top of them. Mooneys, Comanches, etc are more square in their cross section so I don't have that problem.

 

[Garee]

The PA28-235/Dakota's.....they hold 84 gallons as well don't they? I never thought of that. Not sure if it would get me further though.

Yes 84 gallons and still 800# usefull load left. That’s good enough for 5+ hours and 750 miles…….

 

[SoonerAviator]

Here's a copy of a thread on cabin width from another group - hope this helps:

The range of cabin sizes in the SE piston market is between 38 and 50 inches. That is a full 12 inches / 30 cm difference between the smallest and the widest cabin. What I found very interesting is that some cabins which are said to be spacy are in fact narrower than others which are said to be tiny. But here are the most popular types:

The Cessna 150 is the tightest with 38 inches/96 cm.

The Cessna 172 and 152 according to Cessna’s website is 40 inches / 102 cm wide.

The Grumman AA5 is 41 inches / 104 cm wide.

The Cessna 182, PA28 and Bonanzas have 42 inch/107 cm cabin widths

The Cessna 206/210 has 43 inches/109 cm

The Mooney cabin is 43.5 inches/110 cm wide.

Next in the close ball park is the Piper Saratoga/Seneca cabin with 48.25 inches and the Corvalis with 48 inches/122 cm.

Next are the Malibu with 49.6 inches / 126 cm followed closely by the Cirrus SR20/22 with 49 inches/125 cm.

The widest single engine cabin are found: In the TB9/10/20/21. According to specs the cabin is 50.3 inches / 128 cm wide.

The Commander 112/114/115 series should be right there with the TB 20/21 series in terms of cabin width. Probably the best 4/5-seater in terms of comfort/cabin space. Of course you pay for that with increased drag resulting in slightly lower cruise speeds than others.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The Commander 112/114/115 series should be right there with the TB 20/21 series in terms of cabin width. Probably the best 4/5-seater in terms of comfort/cabin space. Of course you pay for that with increased drag resulting in slightly lower cruise speeds than others.

It definitely has that reputation, so I had to go look. 47" wide for a Commander 114, almost as much as the PA32/34.

 

[Lawson_Stone]

Don't forget the Cessna Cardinal/Cardinal RG which has a cabin with of 48 inches, pretty big for a plane basically in the Archer/Arrow category (though faster).

 

[Rgbeard]

I got confused on this one. Are you looking at a Saratoga SP, or a Turbo Saratoga? Seems the reading I was doing here in the posts was mixing the two.

Also, is your maintenance professional converting a K1G5D to a K1G5, or S1AD to an S1A (if that's a thing)? I'm unclear on the STC path for these, as I haven't researched it. What can you tell me?

Seems to me the electronic ignitions are an early attempt at success, as it is.

 

[Chrisgoesflying]

If you don't need the room, I wouldn't restrict myself to just the 6 seat Pipers. Not saying you shouldn't get one, just saying to also consider other planes like the Comanche. I was in the exact same boat 1.5 years ago. I was fixed on the 6 or Lance as I wanted something faster and bigger than the Cherokee I had at the time. Then, someone told me, unless I need six seats, check out the Comanche and I haven't looked back since then. It's a true 4 seater + luggage. I also have to two tank set up, giving me about 3 hours + 1 hour reserve. I don't fly longer than 3 hours at a time anyways but if you need more range, there are some older ones with tip tanks. If you're a big guy, Mooneys probably won't work for you. I'm not big and felt tight in the Mooneys I test-sat.

By the way, I see you're in SW Ontario. So am I at the moment. Where exactly are you?

 

[WhichWays_Up]

I got confused on this one. Are you looking at a Saratoga SP, or a Turbo Saratoga? Seems the reading I was doing here in the posts was mixing the two.

Also, is your maintenance professional converting a K1G5D to a K1G5, or S1AD to an S1A (if that's a thing)? I'm unclear on the STC path for these, as I haven't researched it. What can you tell me?

Seems to me the electronic ignitions are an early attempt at success, as it is.

No conversion needed as far as the Saratoga SP I was looking at. It's just a simple STC from ElectroAir that removes the "Twin Single Mag" and replaces it with two independent ElectroAir Ignitions. One off the mag Mount, one off a crank sensor installed behind the prop.

The aircraft in question is a regular ol' Saratoga SP. Not a Turbo.

 

[Pinecone]

Mooneys work if you are tall. If you are large in girth, less so, but not that bad if the person in the right can move their seat back a notch or two.

Al Mooney was 6' 4", so designed for tall people.

 

[Chrisgoesflying]

Mooneys work if you are tall. If you are large in girth, less so, but not that bad if the person in the right can move their seat back a notch or two.

Al Mooney was 6' 4", so designed for tall people.

But, unless it's a long body M20, you'd have to treat it as a 2 seater. You can't put anyone on the backseat, unless you really don't like the person you put there.

 

[GoFly]

Is 15kts worth the extra expense of retractable gear?

 

[Nick Geber]

But, unless it's a long body M20, you'd have to treat it as a 2 seater. You can't put anyone on the backseat, unless you really don't like the person you put there.

That's actually not correct. The mid bodies and long bodies have the same back seat space. The myth that Mooneys have no back seat leg room is because the front seats are designed to slide all the way to the back of the rail beyond the last stop position to aid in ingress/egress of the front two seats. In that position, the back seats look my back seats did in my old cherokee 235. However, with the front seats in the last stop position on the rail, there's a surprising amount of leg room in the back. The long bodies have more baggage area than the mid bodies and I believe a little more length in the front footwells. The vintage short bodied Mooneys have little to no back seat leg room regardless.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Is 15kts worth the extra expense of retractable gear?

Yes. Maintenance cost is pretty low. Insurance costs maybe 10%-15% more. Fuel costs for your trips go down by 10%-ish and the plane becomes more useful.

There's a lot of talk about cost of retracts on online forums, but when my club replaced our 182, I spoke with some shops and the insurance company and found the numbers worked well for us. Also, going to the retractable R182 was FAR cheaper than going to a fixed-gear 6-seat 206. No extra gear maintenance on that, but the possibility of being sued by two more people literally doubled the insurance cost.

Plus, who wants to fly around with their bits dangling in the wind? I mean, that's just embarrassing.

 

[GoFly]

lol. Bits dangling in the wind?

 

[WhichWays_Up]

Depending how high up you are, the sheer cold temps keep your bits from dangling too low anyways

 

[WhichWays_Up]

But, unless it's a long body M20, you'd have to treat it as a 2 seater. You can't put anyone on the backseat, unless you really don't like the person you put there.

Don't care about rear seat legroom anyways lol! My 69 Cherokee is the old short body with the absolutely useless rear bench seat. Useless for passengers that is. Perfect place to keep my portable oxygen and back pack full of snacks and drinks

As far as Mooney's, my torso is tall and shoulders are wide. Thus the Bonanza conundrum.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

 

[Rgbeard]

When this industry finally figures out what crap-tier component is causing their problems it will be more interesting than it is now.

 

[Tantalum]

Fair question. I'm not a small guy. My 180 is not bad actually, that's why I own it. But it's not what I'd call "roomy".....

I'm not comfortable in Bo's. No matter how much foam is removed from the seat, my body build makes its too uncomfortable for me want to own one....

Never been in a Mooney. Most up here are dealing with corrosion on the tubular structure. But they are nice. I've heard the "Al Mooney was a big guy" from everyone and their uncles....

My AME is a Comanche owner. He's the Piper man! One of a few that can properly rig the gear still. I've been in/flown his 250 a few times. His is the older two tank, without the range I want. I'd have to find a newer one with the larger fuel capacity.

But I like the room of the PA32/34 aircraft. The money I'm spending, I'd better comfortable!

Go with a Lance / Cherokee Six. The Saratoga's "look nice" but the useful load is downright shameful for its size. That 10-15 knots over most trips is negligible. I'm with you on the comfort, for how pretty Bonanzas are on the ramp and their god-like status among aviators it's a not a comfortable plane to ride in.. an extra two inches of cabin width would have gone a long way! I won't even get into Mooneys.. literally and figuratively! I have time in them and it is true there is a ton of leg room and you "fit" once you're in but I just don't get the appeal of flying in something that just feels so "snug"

Cherokee Six is like a living room inside. Same with Cirrus. Same with the Trinidad / Tobago planes, although what they boast in width they lack in head room. The king of comfort probably goes to the Commanders though.. cool looking too! Should have have a 540/550 from the get go though.. their tainted now by being "slow"

I love the 210, but that's another one for how imposing it is on the ramp the relatively tight cabin (something something wing spar!)

 

[Nick Geber]

Go with a Lance / Cherokee Six. The Saratoga's "look nice" but the useful load is downright shameful for its size. That 10-15 knots over most trips is negligible. I'm with you on the comfort, for how pretty Bonanzas are on the ramp and their god-like status among aviators it's a not a comfortable plane to ride in.. an extra two inches of cabin width would have gone a long way! I won't even get into Mooneys.. literally and figuratively! I have time in them and it is true there is a ton of leg room and you "fit" once you're in but I just don't get the appeal of flying in something that just feels so "snug"

Cherokee Six is like a living room inside. Same with Cirrus. Same with the Trinidad / Tobago planes, although what they boast in width they lack in head room. The king of comfort probably goes to the Commanders though.. cool looking too! Should have have a 540/550 from the get go though.. their tainted now by being "slow"

I love the 210, but that's another one for how imposing it is on the ramp the relatively tight cabin (something something wing spar!)

Lances are great but 1st gen Saratoga’s are similar in UL. Either one!