PA-32-300 Good/bad/ugly

Groundpounder

Groundpounder

En-Route
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
2,955
Location
New Hampshire
Display Name
Display name:
Emerson Bigguns
Might have a chance to buy a partnership in a '68 Cherokee 6, 300hp variety. I know they are tremendous load haulers that burn a lot of fuel, just wondering what else there is that might be nice to know. It will be a little bit of overkill for my needs, but its a very nice airplane, and if the math is right, it will be a very good deal.
 
GRG55 said:
"There' no such thing as too rich, too thin or too much useful load"
Click to expand...
But there is such a thing as too much fuel burn ;) - It'll prevent you from being too rich.
 
Depends on the mission. If 80% of your flights are burger runs, then it's massive overkill. If you're flying 500+ mile xc's with a few pax, then it works. I'm in a similar boat where I want something that can haul more than a 140, like say a 180 or a 235, but no bigger than that as the fuel burn would be overkill for most of my missions.
 
Rough math alert!

If you fly 100 hours a year, and you upgrade from a 172 (9gph assumed) to a PA-32-300 (16gph assumed), and fuel is $5.00/gallon, that will be $3500 more per year in fuel. That isn't chump change, but in the overall scheme of things, it isn't horrible for the added utility you get. You'll also cover a lot more ground in those 100 hours, since you have about 25 more knots.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
...YMMV
Click to expand...

Mine does.
Now that I have the plane pretty well fixed up the way I want it, fuel for the Aztec has been roughly 50% of my annual opex. By comparison I am expecting the Husky to be a dream to fly in that respect.
 
How much is the buy in and the hourly.......Big factor. I own a PA32 and it is overkill for what I do. But, there are times where I am at max gross too. Having access to a big load hauler at a fractional cost is a big plus to me. I'd own a 172 and be tickled to have access to a big six for those special times. But it all depends on what the buy in is.
 
Groundpounder said:
Rough math alert!

If you fly 100 hours a year, and you upgrade from a 172 (9gph assumed) to a PA-32-300 (16gph assumed), and fuel is $5.00/gallon, that will be $3500 more per year in fuel. That isn't chump change, but in the overall scheme of things, it isn't horrible for the added utility you get. You'll also cover a lot more ground in those 100 hours, since you have about 25 more knots.
Click to expand...

AND...you are almost certainly going to use the more capable airplane more.

I found that was a pretty consistent pattern with me...each time I upgraded to a more capable airplane it sat in the hangar less and flew more trips. There's some +'ve economics in that aspect imo.
 
GRG55 said:
AND...you are almost certainly going to use the more capable airplane more.

I found that was a pretty consistent pattern with me...each time I upgraded to a more capable airplane it sat in the hangar less and flew more trips. There's some +'ve economics in that aspect imo.
Click to expand...

Not me.... I fly less than when I had my Archer. I'm just an average dude, no big money business owner type of guy. I punch a time clock. The fuel is what kills my hours. I flew .8 yesterday because I want to get it hot every week to keep it fresh. If it was my Archer, I would have flown a couple hours and grabbed some lunch.
 
I'm a partner in a 77 Lance (300hp). There are three of us that own it together. Basically the same plane, except ours retracts. We burn 13.5 at cruise. File for 145kts. It has been better than I expected. I can load my two teenage boys, the wife and myself in with luggage / fuel and fly from SC to the Bahamas nonstop in 3.5 hrs for spring breaks. What's not to like?

Having the partners to split costs has been great. You must have an agreement and be comfortable in how the partnership works. Must clearly know cost to get in, how exit works, how costs are shared and how time is split. We have been very happy.
 
Code90 said:
I'm a partner in a 77 Lance (300hp). I can load my two teenage boys, the wife and myself in with luggage / fuel and fly from SC to the Bahamas nonstop in 3.5 hrs for spring breaks.
Click to expand...

That gets you to Freeport, which aint the Bahamas.... Jes sayin. Well, technically it is. But I wouln't stop there. o_O
 
Unit74 said:
Not me.... I fly less than when I had my Archer. I'm just an average dude, no big money business owner type of guy. I punch a time clock. The fuel is what kills my hours. I flew .8 yesterday because I want to get it hot every week to keep it fresh. If it was my Archer, I would have flown a couple hours and grabbed some lunch.
Click to expand...

I hear you loud and clear. I grew up poor, the son of immigrant parents who didn't have two nickels to rub together when they came here. I think I am pretty damn fortunate and had more than my share of good luck. But I've had to stop flying for long periods several times over the decades - changed jobs, relocated by my employer, got married, bought a house with a mortgage, all the usual stuff.

I think an airplane that is not getting flown is the most expensive one to own. I just bought a 2-place taildragger and it would not surprise me that I come to prefer that type of simple back country flying and I sell the gas guzzler.
 
it 'might' limit some shorter fields you'd like to fly into, depending on your comfort level. I flew a lance into a 2500' strip once. not my best landing, realized I'd definitely want to spend some time flying it into short strips but I personally wouldn't rule them out. not sure what your exposure or comfort level is with short strips, but maybe something to consider. two extra jugs to deal with for mx and OH's. otherwise, if you're used to piper planes, the transition should be easy. you're gonna love the extra room.
 
Unit74 said:
That gets you to Freeport, which aint the Bahamas.... Jes sayin. Well, technically it is. But I wouln't stop there. o_O
Click to expand...

Marsh Harbour, MYAM (then boat to Elbow Cay) is our usual trip. Made it down to Staniel Cay in the Exumas this past year too. Definitely agree that Freeport isnt the real Bahamas.
 
Code90 said:
Marsh Harbour, MYAM (then boat to Elbow Cay) is our usual trip. Made it down to Staniel Cay in the Exumas this past year too. Definitely agree that Freeport isnt the real Bahamas.
Click to expand...
You must get a huluva tail wind.....
 
If you fly a cherokee 140 and move up to the 6 pull the power off and it has the glide path of a brick. The same is true if you fly a Cessna 172 and move up to a C-206 another glide path of a brick without power. The 68 also has forward facing seats a little tight for those in the second row later model had club seats in the back. 68 also has the HB wing not that it is any better or worse than the taper wing just don't get slow on landings.
 
Last edited:
I've owned two straight tail Lances. Very useful airplane, and I flew them all over the country and to the Bahamas. Many hundreds of hours in them.

My biggest problem with them is that they're not really "fun" to fly. I'm a sportscar guy, and the PA32 flies like a U-haul truck. First Lance gave way to a Citabria and then Pitts. I'd probably still be in the second Lance but for my partner's misfortune.
 
brien23 said:
If you fly a cherokee 140 and move up to the 6 pull the power off and it has the glide path of a brick. The same is true if you fly a Cessna 172 and move up to a C-206 another glide path of a brick without power. The 68 also has forward facing seats a little tight for those in the second row later model had club seats in the back. 68 also has the HB wing not that it is any better or worse than the taper wing just don't get slow on landings.
Click to expand...
The straight seating can be converted to club. Club seating is much more useful.
 
I don't know all the details yet, but have a rough idea. The sticking point is if the owner decides to have partners, and I am #2 in line. Not too worried about short fields or truck like handling. The airplane I fly for work flies like a peterbilt.
 
Code90 said:
I'm a partner in a 77 Lance (300hp). There are three of us that own it together. Basically the same plane, except ours retracts. We burn 13.5 at cruise. File for 145kts. It has been better than I expected. I can load my two teenage boys, the wife and myself in with luggage / fuel and fly from SC to the Bahamas nonstop in 3.5 hrs for spring breaks. What's not to like?

Having the partners to split costs has been great. You must have an agreement and be comfortable in how the partnership works. Must clearly know cost to get in, how exit works, how costs are shared and how time is split. We have been very happy.
Click to expand...

IOW other than the shooting how was the play Mrs Lincoln?.....
 
eman1200 said:
two extra jugs to deal with for mx and OH's. otherwise, if you're used to piper planes, the transition should be easy. you're gonna love the extra room.
Click to expand...

it's not just two extra jugs, two extra ANGLED jugs. Big $$$ jump from a parallel 540. The upside is that it's Lyco, these things run forever if you don't baby them. 5 years and zero cylinder work in my angled 360.
 
Groundpounder said:
Rough math alert!

If you fly 100 hours a year, and you upgrade from a 172 (9gph assumed) to a PA-32-300 (16gph assumed), and fuel is $5.00/gallon, that will be $3500 more per year in fuel. That isn't chump change, but in the overall scheme of things, it isn't horrible for the added utility you get. You'll also cover a lot more ground in those 100 hours, since you have about 25 more knots.
Click to expand...
Another way to do the math, the distance you travel in 100 hours in a 172 will only take 84 hours in a PA32. That would be $2940 more per year in fuel.
 
ScottinIowa said:
Depends on the mission. If 80% of your flights are burger runs, then it's massive overkill. If you're flying 500+ mile xc's with a few pax, then it works. I'm in a similar boat where I want something that can haul more than a 140, like say a 180 or a 235, but no bigger than that as the fuel burn would be overkill for most of my missions.
Click to expand...
That’s not overkill.

Overkill is flying a Beech 18 on solo business trips...
 
Groundpounder said:
Might have a chance to buy a partnership in a '68 Cherokee 6, 300hp variety. I know they are tremendous load haulers that burn a lot of fuel, just wondering what else there is that might be nice to know. It will be a little bit of overkill for my needs, but its a very nice airplane, and if the math is right, it will be a very good deal.
Click to expand...
PA32s are great planes. You won’t go as fast and you have to watch the W&B a little more than on a Bonanza or 6 seat Cessna, but you have a lot more cabin and elbow room and baggage space than the other 6 seaters.

The ‘truck like’ handling is actually a nice thing for IFR. They are very stable.

Biggest caution (but not a reason to avoid them) is make sure you understand and pay attention to the fuel system. PA32s of that vintage have 4 separate tanks and many a PA32 driver has inadvertently run a tank dry by not paying attention.
 
Have a lot of 6 and Lance time. Flew the Lances at a flight school and also under 135 there. Very useful, carries a load, and fun plane. I love 'em, especially a Lance.
 
I just upgraded from an Archer to a 6. Here are some things I really love about the Six-

1. Very comfortable for you and your pax. I feel like I have elbow room and my pax are super comfortable in the rear seats. The wider cabin is really nice. Along with the comfort the rear door and cargo door make it really easy for pax to get in and out and to load cargo.
2. Stable! The plane just does what you want it to do and stays there. Flying IFR approaches is easier, everything just feels more precise and easier. It does feel heavier on the controls but you get the added stability. It is a different creature. The transition is really not hard though.
3. A little faster. You can definitely feel it when flying and the increased speed really pays off on longer trips.
4. Range - 84 gallons gets you pretty far- cutting out a fuel stop saves time (and fuel for climbing again).

Downsides -
1. Fuel burn is higher. It's in the back of my mind when I want to just go out and fly or do short hops.

If you have good partners and plan on flying some long trips or need to carry a bunch of stuff or want your pax to be more comfortable I say go for it. I really love the Six. Sure, I'd love to have something small and nimble to tool around with but the Six fits my family's mission right now. It's a great TRAVELLING MACHINE.
 
I’ll second what everyone else is saying. I have a PA32 and love it. It’s more than I need 80% of the time but I can pack up the whole family and go just about everywhere. It’s rock stable for IFR, I’ve taken it down to minimums several times.

Last year we flewKBHM to KAPA. Could have made it without stopping but the family wanted a break.

I hate the four tanks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
hindsight2020 said:
Not enough to pay for a Saratoga, you don't. :D
Click to expand...
You don’t have to pay for a new Saratoga to get the simplified fuel system.

The Lances have it. I don’t recall the year, but at some point in the late 70s, Piper realized the 4 separate tanks sucked and they simplified it by interconnecting the tanks so that you just had a simple left/right/off selector. Similar to the Barons.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You don’t have to pay for a new Saratoga to get the simplified fuel system.

The Lances have it. I don’t recall the year, but at some point in the late 70s, Piper realized the 4 separate tanks sucked and they simplified it by interconnecting the tanks so that you just had a simple left/right/off selector. Similar to the Barons.
Click to expand...
Yes, all the Lances and Saratogas have the simplified two-tank system. But the fixed-gear Six 300 had it only for its last year of production, 1979.
 
Right. I meant to say FG togas. I agree, I think lances are better values all around, but from what some owners of FG togas report, the speeds are within 5 knots of a lance. Which a a hell of an improvement from the legacy FG six. Is it worth +50-75AMUs? Not to me.
 
Anyone have experience with a 260hp PA-32? I fly on the east coast, and I really doubt that I would need to fly the thing at MTOW, so not sure how much I would miss the 40hp. There seems to be some good buys on the 260hp variants.
 
260's are good. Loaded they are doggy but they haul lots more. I liked mine.
 
Groundpounder said:
Anyone have experience with a 260hp PA-32? I fly on the east coast, and I really doubt that I would need to fly the thing at MTOW, so not sure how much I would miss the 40hp. There seems to be some good buys on the 260hp variants.
Click to expand...
One 260hp owner told me he wished he had those extra 40hp on a hot day with a full load and the density altitude was high. Like all pilots he did say he wanted More Speed :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top