Hypothetical Desert Island Purchase

[spiderweb]

Setup: You have to buy a Saratoga. There are only three choices. Which one do you buy?

1) Turbocharged and reaching probably 170 KTAS in the flight levels http://www.aso.com/listings/spec/ViewAd.aspx?id=133166&listingType=true&IsInternal=True&dealerid=

2) A lot cheaper. Not glass-panel, but very well equipped, and with ice protection. http://www.aso.com/listings/spec/ViewAd.aspx?id=133342&listingType=true&IsInternal=True&dealerid=

3) Cheaper still (because it is late 90's). But it is still turboed, AND it has co-pilot instruments! That's going to make checkouts a lot easier. (From my hours in the Saratoga, one of the nicest parts about it--the huge elbow room and width--is a pain for the right-seater, because the instruments are so far away, at such an angle.) http://www.aso.com/listings/spec/ViewAd.aspx?id=135396&listingType=true&IsInternal=True&dealerid=

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Easy. Since I couldn't fly any of them, I would buy the cheapest one and use the left over money to buy something light and sporty (Or a self launch glider...)

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Looks like #3 will be due for an engine overhaul much sooner than the other two.

If #2 has "no damage history" as is claimed, I'd be digging into why it had an engine overhaul and new prop 333 and 385 hours ago, respectively.

What's my criteria/budget/etc.? #3 is a lot of airplane for the money. #2 has a lot of nice upgrades. Those bring added weight and maintenance expense. I'd also want to be seeing the useful loads on all three compared to how I'd most often load the aircraft for the kinds of trips I'd be using it on.

 

[spiderweb]

Looks like #3 will be due for an engine overhaul much sooner than the other two.

If #2 has "no damage history" as is claimed, I'd be digging into why it had an engine overhaul and new prop 333 and 385 hours ago, respectively.

What's my criteria/budget/etc.? #3 is a lot of airplane for the money. #2 has a lot of nice upgrades. Those bring added weight and maintenance expense. I'd also want to be seeing the useful loads on all three compared to how I'd most often load the aircraft for the kinds of trips I'd be using it on.

Agree. The rear seat of the 'Toga removes easily enough, and you can fly four persons in great comfort with lots of bags that way. There's also a nose baggage area which, incidentally, puts the engine further forward and somewhat reduces noise.

 

[PilotAlan]

I can't afford any of them. About the runout, don't forget that the TIO-540 is one of the most expensive engines out there to overhaul. The IO-720 has it beat, but that's not saying much.

 

[EdFred]

Why would I want a 'Toga on a desert island?

 

[spiderweb]

Why would I want a 'Toga on a desert island?

Haha, I was thinking that as I posted it. Let's revise that to a string of beautiful desert islands, replete with NewPiper service centers!

 

[John Baker]

What a swell daydream. Not only about owning such an airplane, but also about the job you must have in order to support such a toy. Perhaps just a nice trust fund instead of actually having to work for a living.

I bought a Lotto ticket a few months ago when the prize was around 200 million. I did find myself entertaining such rich mans fantasies, but then the numbers were drawn and my dreams were dashed. Another dollar bill tossed to the wind.

Anyway, disregarding the money part of it, my choice would still be the cheapest one, with steam gages on both sides. For some reason I just do not get all that excited about glass panels.

John

 

[AdamZ]

The one I can afford as long as it meets my mission

 

[denverpilot]

You forgot Option 4... "Why buy a Piper?"

 

[iflyforfun]

I bought a Lotto ticket a few months ago when the prize was around 200 million. I did find myself entertaining such rich mans fantasies, but then the numbers were drawn and my dreams were dashed. Another dollar bill tossed to the wind.
John

The only time we ever buy a lottery tick is when we're driving cross-country (think Indiana to Florida) and the jackpot is over $100M. At that point, we rent a $0.99 DVD from Red Box for the kids to watch and we buy a lottery ticket and "spend" the winnings as we drive.
* What would you buy first?
* What would we do for our parents?
* What would we do for our friends and extended family?
* How much would we save?
* Would we really take the cash up front? What would it be like to get $3M a year for the next 20 years?

I don't consider this a dollar tossed to the wind, I see it as cheap entertainment. Like I said, the only time is when we're travelling and can get something for our dollar other than one-in-a-trillion odds.

 

[SCCutler]

I'd say, absent other information, the third one; it is quite nearly the same airplane as the second, and teh cost of overhaul (while substantial) is nothing close to the difference, and when the overhaul is done, you can have it done to the standard, and by a shop, of your choice.

Troy's comments above echo my thoughts, as well. If the operator of plane no. 2 required overhaul so fool early because he abused the engine with improper power settings or poor MX practices, then continued operating it the same way after the overhaul, then he's well along the way to cooking another.

I also would not pay the huge premium for the G1000, especially since (IIRC) the 2007 does not have WAAS. If you want/need glass, you can add a multi-tube Aspen or a G500 or G600.

 

[EdFred]

You forgot Option 4... "Why buy a Piper?"

Because if you dip the wing a little bit you can get some great pictures without ruining them. Unlike Cessna and their retarded struts that ruin every picture you try and take with the exception of the 210 and 177. "Oh look, I got a picture of this mountain, with a strut in the way. Yay Stupidity!"

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Because if you dip the wing a little bit you can get some great pictures without ruining them. Unlike Cessna and their retarded struts that ruin every picture you try and take with the exception of the 210 and 177. "Oh look, I got a picture of this mountain, with a strut in the way. Yay Stupidity!"

My strut at least says "Experimental" on it...

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/5vClxTbJoQ1n1cUiWaL7nw

:wink2:

 

[Ted]

I can't afford any of them. About the runout, don't forget that the TIO-540 is one of the most expensive engines out there to overhaul. The IO-720 has it beat, but that's not saying much.

The other issue with TIO-540s (which is really a pilot issue) is that poor operating practice lead to increased maintenance costs faster than what you'll see on naturally aspirated engines. My understanding (although I've never flown one) is that the Saratoga doesn't have good cooling, which contributes further to this. I would believe that to be true given my typical experience with Pipers (Ed's Comanche being the exception).

It's really not too hard to make your engines live long, though.

You forgot Option 4... "Why buy a Piper?"

Lots of reasons. If I'm buying a single engine aircraft, I don't want a Cessna. I don't like how they look and I really don't like how they fly.

If I'm buying a twin, the Pipers are built more ruggedly and do short fields better. They also carry ice better. The Cessnas are faster, though.

But I wouldn't buy a Saratoga. I don't understand what mission it fits. A Seneca II or later would be better, probably burning about the same fuel if done properly on both planes.

 

[Everskyward]

But I wouldn't buy a Saratoga. I don't understand what mission it fits.

I think Ben wants to carry his best friend, the cello!

 

[EdFred]

I think Ben wants to carry his best friend, the cello!

There are a lot of planes that will fit a Cello.

 

[Ted]

I think Ben wants to carry his best friend, the cello!

As Ed pointed out, lots of other planes can carry a cello. And they can do it better, faster...

 

[John Baker]

The only time we ever buy a lottery tick is when we're driving cross-country (think Indiana to Florida) and the jackpot is over $100M. At that point, we rent a $0.99 DVD from Red Box for the kids to watch and we buy a lottery ticket and "spend" the winnings as we drive.
* What would you buy first?
* What would we do for our parents?
* What would we do for our friends and extended family?
* How much would we save?
* Would we really take the cash up front? What would it be like to get $3M a year for the next 20 years?

I don't consider this a dollar tossed to the wind, I see it as cheap entertainment. Like I said, the only time is when we're travelling and can get something for our dollar other than one-in-a-trillion odds.

No, with me it was an act of desperation. As soon as the kid handed me the ticket my blood pressure went up, my hand started sweating and shaking, all I could think about was the money. This was my last big chance at salvation. I had worked up the nerve and gone for it, no matter what the odds were.

After I was crushed by the bitter defeat of not winning, while waiting in line at the bridge with all the others, I saw a slight ray of hope. I gave up my place in line and walked back to my car, my old, beat up Jeep, a poor mans car, and I drove home.

I had dawned on me, while standing in that long line, that cold bleak, dark night, that yes, there was still hope for me. Someday, once again, that Lottery will get back up to 200 million, and I would yes, have another chance.

I resolved to myself right then that I would set another dollar aside for when that big day arrived.

No matter how tough things are going for you, remember, there is hope, there is hope for all of us.

Set your dollar aside, and go ahead and dream of that one day, when you can afford to buy, option number three.

John

 

[steingar]

Why would I want to purchase a hypothetical desert island? I'd rather purchase a real one, with lots of palm trees and pretty brown-skinned girls.

 

[EdFred]

A desert island wouldn't have palm trees on it. A desert island would just be............mostly dirt.

I will take a deserted tropical island with a freshwater spring, however.

 

[spiderweb]

As Ed pointed out, lots of other planes can carry a cello. And they can do it better, faster...

For me, traveling with a cello, I'd want either a Saratoga or a C206. A Seneca would be awesome, too. The Saratoga and Seneca have more width inside, and that's good for me and my long arms always hitting things, haha!

I just thought for this little exercise, I'd narrow it down to only one, and have the comments focus on which of three versions of the same thing would be better and why?

(I'm trying to convince my flight school to get a Saratoga.)

 

[spiderweb]

I notice no one is going for #1. Reasons?

 

[TangoWhiskey]

I notice no one is going for #1. Reasons?

$295.1 K buys a lot of avgas.

 

[spiderweb]

$295.1 K buys a lot of avgas.

Yes, that's why I didn't vote for #1! But if you have unlimited funds, would you want something newer, with glass?

 

[EdFred]

If I had unlimited funds, it wouldn't be a Saratoga

 

[spiderweb]

If I had unlimited funds, it wouldn't be a Saratoga

I have required you to buy one of three Saratogas! They are the only airplanes in the world! Buy one now!

 

[EdFred]

I buy all three, destroy two of them, and hold the 3rd one hostage!!!!

 

[spiderweb]

I buy all three, destroy two of them, and hold the 3rd one hostage!!!!

Ahhhh! Excellent!!!!

 

[PilotAlan]

But I wouldn't buy a Saratoga. I don't understand what mission it fits.

OK, so I need to carry this piano, and......

 

[Ted]

OK, so I need to carry this piano, and......

The Saratoga and the Seneca have the same cabin (as far as I'm aware). But the Seneca does it with redundancy.

Actually, an A36 Bonanza would be a much better option as a single, or a 58 Baron in a twin. Yeah, that would be the real way to go - a 58 Baron.

 

[PilotAlan]

The Saratoga and the Seneca have the same cabin (as far as I'm aware). But the Seneca does it with redundancy.

Yes, they do, but....
I can never afford the redundancy of a Seneca. So for me, it's an easy choice.

 

[jesse]

Because if you dip the wing a little bit you can get some great pictures without ruining them. Unlike Cessna and their retarded struts that ruin every picture you try and take with the exception of the 210 and 177. "Oh look, I got a picture of this mountain, with a strut in the way. Yay Stupidity!"

I'll take a Cessna for aerial pictures any day of the week. One screw and the window is completely out of the way (try that on a Piper). The strut is never really an issue rudder can fix that.

Taking pictures with an ENTIRE wing in teh way is worse, combined with a window screwing up the images.

 

[Ted]

Yes, they do, but....
I can never afford the redundancy of a Seneca. So for me, it's an easy choice.

I would argue that if you can't afford the Seneca, then you probably also can't afford the Saratoga.

 

[Everskyward]

I would argue that if you can't afford the Seneca, then you probably also can't afford the Saratoga.

I really disagree with that. The redundancy advantage on a twin comes because you have two of a lot of items which hopefully won't malfunction at the same time, but they will malfunction. In a 10 year period you will need to replace many more items on a twin than you would on a single.

 

[EdFred]

I'll take a Cessna for aerial pictures any day of the week. One screw and the window is completely out of the way (try that on a Piper). The strut is never really an issue rudder can fix that.

Taking pictures with an ENTIRE wing in teh way is worse, combined with a window screwing up the images.

Commercial check ride steep turns are 60 -5 for a reason. Plus I have 1000 pictures from a 12 day trip with the wing in the pictures only when i wanted it to be. Strut would have been in the way for most of them because I wasn't taking pictures of stuff right under me.

 

[PilotAlan]

I would argue that if you can't afford the Seneca, then you probably also can't afford the Saratoga.

With all respect, Ted, that's just silly.
We all know that the purchase price of an airplane is a minimal part of the overall ownership expense.

A Seneca will cost twice as much in fuel burn, twice as much in engine reserves, more than twice as much in insurance, well more than twice as much in maintenance, plus whatever training requirements (Flightsafety or whatever else) the insurance company requires.
Add to that significantly higher annual inspection rates, plus twice as many crucial components that may need rehab or replacement.

I could own a Saratoga/Lance and be able to cash pay for anything that happens up to and including a surprise major overhaul. Now double that dollar amount, and I cannot maintain the funds to do that.

The conventional wisdom is that a twin costs three times as much as a single. So how do you figure that?

 

[Ted]

With all respect, Ted, that's just silly.

Try owning a twin and see for yourself.

We all know that the purchase price of an airplane is a minimal part of the overall ownership expense.

That is correct.

A Seneca will cost twice as much in fuel burn, twice as much in engine reserves, more than twice as much in insurance, well more than twice as much in maintenance, plus whatever training requirements (Flightsafety or whatever else) the insurance company requires.
Add to that significantly higher annual inspection rates, plus twice as many crucial components that may need rehab or replacement.

That is mostly incorrect. The fuel burn on two TSIO-360s will not be twice the fuel burn on one 300 hp TIO-540, nor will the engine reserves. The insurance might be twice as much. The maintenance, actually not well more than twice as much. You have two props and two engines (along with twice the alternators, vacuum pumps, etc.), but the rest of the airframe is pretty much identical.

Edit: And note that each one of those engines and props will cost less than the equivalent single. A TSIO-360s and prop is cheaper than a TIO-540 and prop. Not half the cost, but cheaper.

The Seneca/Aztec/310/Baron I wouldn't expect any FlightSafety. I didn't even need to get FlightSafety for getting on the Navajo's insurance policy, which is significantly larger than the Seneca.

I could own a Saratoga/Lance and be able to cash pay for anything that happens up to and including a surprise major overhaul. Now double that dollar amount, and I cannot maintain the funds to do that.

The conventional wisdom is that a twin costs three times as much as a single. So how do you figure that?

The conventional wisdom compares something like an Archer to an Aztec, and not a single that actually has similar systems and associated components. It doesn't actually look at a single with its comparable twin (Saratoga vs. Seneca, Twinkie vs. Comanche 250, etc.). The other issue with twins is that a lot of people will buy the cheapest one they can find, and as such it has a lot of problems, which makes it seem more. The reality (and this is through maintaining two twins for 1000 hours combined flight time), is that compared to a comparable single (i.e. one that is actually capable of performing the same mission at the same speed) is probably going to be roughly 30% higher (that is an estimate).

Let's take an example: I'm looking at new engines on the 310, which we figure is roughly $70k total (including everything). If I had a Saratoga, its one engine overhaul would end up being roughly in the $50k range. Yes, it's higher, but it's far from double. Now I'm also looking at some avionics upgrades, and those cost... wait for it... the exact same regardless of whether it's a single or a twin.

As I said, try owning for a bit, see what happens. My statement is more that if you think that in that area the one engine vs. two makes that much of a difference, your budget is probably too tight for either.

 

[PilotAlan]

Try owning a twin and see for yourself
....
That is mostly incorrect. The fuel burn on two TSIO-360s will not be twice the fuel burn on one 300 hp TIO-540, nor will the engine reserves. ...
It doesn't actually look at a single with its comparable twin (Saratoga vs. Seneca, Twinkie vs. Comanche 250, etc.)....
The reality (and this is through maintaining two twins for 1000 hours combined flight time), is that compared to a comparable single (i.e. one that is actually capable of performing the same mission at the same speed) is probably going to be roughly 30% higher (that is an estimate).

With the parameters you drew (TIO-540 vs TSIO-360s), I would tend to say you're more right.
But a Turbo Saratoga (or Turbo Lance) are some of the most expensive singles out there (short of a Cirrus GTS or Columbia 400)
When I heard that argument, I was thinking of a normally aspirated Saratoga, and that's in another league.

I would agree with a Comanche 260 Turbo vs. a Twinkie, but not with a Comanche 250 vs. a Twinkie.
The overhaul on a normally aspirated Saratoga would likely be less than half two overhauls on TSIO-360s.

The statement I have an issue with is:

My statement is more that if you think that in that area the one engine vs. two makes that much of a difference, your budget is probably too tight for either.

I guess all of us should have Barons or Navajos, then.
My overriding factor is to be able to own and maintain my airplane on a cash basis, and have the cash to be able to handle whatever happens. I can do that with a N/A Lance or a Bonanza. I can't do that with a Seneca/310/whatever (maybe with an Apache, Twinkie, or Cougar).

I guess I should sell my plane and take up boating.

 

[Ted]

With the parameters you drew (TIO-540 vs TSIO-360s), I would tend to say you're more right.
But a Turbo Saratoga (or Turbo Lance) are some of the most expensive singles out there (short of a Cirrus GTS or Columbia 400)
When I heard that argument, I was thinking of a normally aspirated Saratoga, and that's in another league.

I would agree. The issue I have with the typical argument (which I think you were falling into) is that people aren't comparing comparable singles to twins. In the case of the Aztec, for instance, there really just isn't a comparable single out there. The closest is the Saratoga, which still is smaller and holds significantly less.

But the Turbo Saratoga vs. the Seneca II is comparable.

I would agree with a Comanche 260 Turbo vs. a Twinkie, but not with a Comanche 250 vs. a Twinkie.

I'd say they're pretty close, but fair enough.

The overhaul on a normally aspirated Saratoga would likely be less than half two overhauls on TSIO-360s.

It'd probably be about half. But then you're not comparing comparable aircraft. You'd really need to compare it to a Seneca I at that point, and once you get to that, my ratio is probably still pretty close.

The statement I have an issue with is:
I guess all of us should have Barons or Navajos, then.
My overriding factor is to be able to own and maintain my airplane on a cash basis, and have the cash to be able to handle whatever happens. I can do that with a N/A Lance or a Bonanza. I can't do that with a Seneca/310/whatever (maybe with an Apache, Twinkie, or Cougar).

I guess I should sell my plane and take up boating.

Once again, this was referring to the Turbo Saratoga vs. Turbo Seneca league. You fly a Cherokee 180 (per your signature), which is one of the most economical aircraft to fly per hour. There really isn't a comparable twin that exists. You'd need to have a fixed gear twin with fixed pitch props and a pair of O-200s to be comparable.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I did not mean at all that if you can't afford a twin you can't afford to fly. I maintain a similar financial attitude with the aircraft I fly. I was looking at the Turbo Saratoga vs. Turbo Seneca argument, not a Turbo Seneca vs. a Cherokee 180. That would, indeed, be a silly comparison.

So, I'm not sure we're disagreeing, it seems more accurate that I wasn't clearly defining the box I was working within.