Saratoga best for my flying?

Checkout_my_Six said:
If you're gonna spend $200k....I'd be looking at A36's. Faster and better loading and finish quality.

IMHO....togas are nice, but the Chevy brand.
Click to expand...

I have never regarded the A36 actual useful loads as qualifying as a true 6-place airplane. An A36 Bo is what I lusted after during my many Cherokee owning years, and when I could finally "afford" (read: rationalize) one and started looking into them closely I ended up with a true 6-place twin instead.

But with its wing the Bonanza will get up to altitudes the Cherokee 6 & derivatives, with their fat, docile airfoils have trouble achieving.
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
Unless your an A&P, which I am, that will require more care and feeding $$$.....;)
Click to expand...
More than an NA version, that’s true. But if your requirement is 170+ with 6 seats and room for bags, your options are really: a TN Saratoga, an A36 with the baggage extension, probably tips and not too heavy, or you get in to B55 or 310 territory. At that point, the Saratoga might be the most economical option.

Again, all in my dreams. But I do a lot of dreaming, in case you couldn’t tell.

On the other hand, if you can live with 150 knots, take the NA version and run.
 
bluesky74656 said:
More than an NA version, that’s true. But if your requirement is 170+ with 6 seats and room for bags, your options are really: a TN Saratoga, an A36 with the baggage extension, probably tips and not too heavy, or you get in to B55 or 310 territory. At that point, the Saratoga might be the most economical option.

Again, all in my dreams. But I do a lot of dreaming, in case you couldn’t tell.

On the other hand, if you can live with 150 knots, take the NA version and run.
Click to expand...
I doubt you'll see 170 kts in a turbo PA32....and a full load.
 
AnthonyS1 said:
How come the Saratoga seems to burn so much more fuel than the bonanza/cirrus and is still about 15 knots slower??? Can the lycoming in the saratoga not be ran LOP?
Click to expand...

Much larger cabin, big fat wing and high useful load. All of those contribute a lot to drag.
 
GRG55 said:
If you were running a NA Lycoming 540 at 18 gph its you, not the airplane, that is not very efficient. If it was a turbo, well....
Click to expand...

Agreed. People can't lean worth a damn. "65% power" around here is like Americans and their delusion about self-reporting as "middle class": Everybody swears "they're in it". :D
 
Seminole Pilot said:
What year is yours & typically what do you see as a cruising speed? Curious for our longer flights to get an idea of how long it would be flight time. Your specs are similar to a few I’ve started to look at.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Mine is an 82, that has been completely redone in the last 6 years. G500, G650, G750, new paint and new interior. I think there are 450 hrs on the engine. I see 150 knots at 65% power at 6000 feet, with 13 to 14 gph. If I go upto 75% power, the fuel burn will be 16 gph and yield about 158 knots. Like I said my useful is 1285 with AC (not that Piper air is that great).

You can very reasonably take 4 adults, luggage for a few days, and put 70 gallons in the tanks giving you 3 1/2 hrs, and IFR reserves. So a one stop flight to Florida.

I am base in central NJ. The Outer Banks is just shy of a two hour flight for me. I have never done it, but Northern Florida ( Jacksonville) on Foreflight clocks in at about 5 hrs 30 minutes, depending on the wind. Technically, I have the legs to make it there using full tanks (102 gallons) figuring 16 gph will give me about 6 hrs and 20 minutes in the air.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Much larger cabin, big fat wing and high useful load. All of those contribute a lot to drag.
Click to expand...
Plus the PA-32 airframe is more "rivety" than the Bo, the main gear is not fully enclosed when retracted, and there are some thinner skins and wider-spaced ribs that result in minor aerodynamic imperfections.

For an automotive analogy to the handling, finish and fit, the Bo is a BMW sedan and the PA-32 a Chevy Suburban.
 
Last edited:
I feel I have the perfect plane for my family. Wife and 3 kids. NA fixed gear Saratoga. 1980. Club seating. As someone stated above it will literally carry the same stuff we cram in the suburban to get to the airport. 1400 useful makes it a true 6 place airplane if needed. I’ve had 4 adults and 2 teens in it on a couple occasions with over half full tanks and was well under gross

I have a JPI 830 To really helps the fine tuning. I usually fly 6-10k feet. At 14.5gph I see 145 knots TAS. I could pour on a more fuel and HP and get close to 150 knots but it’s not worth it. 14.5 / 145 is the sweet spot that keeps everything happy.

Being fixed gear keeps my expenses down and is one less thing to think about. Personally I wouldn’t trade my useful load for a little more speed.

Have a good buddy with an A36. Great plane. Faster. Much less useful load and not quite as comfy/roomy inside. The pa32 cabin will spoil you.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Agreed. People can't lean worth a damn. "65% power" around here is like Americans and their delusion about self-reporting as "middle class": Everybody swears "they're in it". :D
Click to expand...

LOL. I used to be in the middle class. Then I bought an "economical" taildragger. Now I worry the govt. shutdown might delay my food stamps.
 
How has the 210 not already been mentioned in this thread? Need a heavy lifter with six seats that’s fast, comfortable, and not out of CG? Uh.... hello?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
A 300hp bird at 65% LOP burns 13.1 gph...
Click to expand...
Depends on the compression ratio of the cylinders and the cylinder balancing/spread, but yes that is certainly a more adequate number than the 16-17 some people proffer, for NA engines no less.
 
AA5Bman said:
How has the 210 not already been mentioned in this thread? Need a heavy lifter with six seats that’s fast, comfortable, and not out of CG? Uh.... hello?
Click to expand...
That would of been up there and I did originally look at them however with the majority of my flying with multiple people being my wife & 3 kids I’m not a fan of the seating layout of the 3 traditional rows. If it had a club seating I’d definitely consider as the bulk of my current flight time is in Cessnas.
 
I looked at a 210 as well as the Saratoga before finding my Cherokee 6-260.

Here is what I came across on my search -
1.The 210 was fast but cramped for the 5th and 6th person.
2.The Saratoga was faster than the 6 but with the retractable gear adding to the MX costs, and reducing the usaeble weight, it didn't fit our needs.
3.The 6/300 was about 7kts faster than the 6/260 version but I would burn a bit more fuel and lose about 70lbs on average of useful.
4. I could get into an older fixed gear Cherokee 6 for a lot less than a Saratoga or 210 which meant more $$ for flying.


My 6/260 is new to me as of last October. Club seating. We got into it for under $60K with a low time re-man engine. I just did it's first annual and ADSB upgrade and have spent less than $4500 combined. I can run at 65% and burn 12 gph getting about 126kts. With full fuel (84 gallons) I have a minimum of a 6 hour endurance and can carry 1000lbs.

75% gets me 133kts at 15 gph average.
 
Pilawt said:
1980 Piper ad:

View attachment 71012

Video of a 1990 family trip in the Saratoga from Medford, Oregon, home to Van Nuys, CA, with a stop at Nut Tree, CA. (Excuse the very old-school video technology)

Click to expand...


I love the photo of the 6 men in these planes, all would be over gross for any meaningful trip.
 
k9medic said:
I looked at a 210 as well as the Saratoga before finding my Cherokee 6-260.

Here is what I came across on my search -
1.The 210 was fast but cramped for the 5th and 6th person.
2.The Saratoga was faster than the 6 but with the retractable gear adding to the MX costs, and reducing the usaeble weight, it didn't fit our needs.
3.The 6/300 was about 7kts faster than the 6/260 version but I would burn a bit more fuel and lose about 70lbs on average of useful.
4. I could get into an older fixed gear Cherokee 6 for a lot less than a Saratoga or 210 which meant more $$ for flying.


My 6/260 is new to me as of last October. Club seating. We got into it for under $60K with a low time re-man engine. I just did it's first annual and ADSB upgrade and have spent less than $4500 combined. I can run at 65% and burn 12 gph getting about 126kts. With full fuel (84 gallons) I have a minimum of a 6 hour endurance and can carry 1000lbs.

75% gets me 133kts at 15 gph average.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you found a good deal that works really well for you and your family.
 
k9medic said:
I looked at a 210 as well as the Saratoga before finding my Cherokee 6-260.

Here is what I came across on my search -
1.The 210 was fast but cramped for the 5th and 6th person.
2.The Saratoga was faster than the 6 but with the retractable gear adding to the MX costs, and reducing the usaeble weight, it didn't fit our needs.
Click to expand...

When Piper added the retract to the Cherokee 6, the max gross was increased by 200# (3400 to 3600), negating the weight increase of the retract.
 
On trips that long, I'd be looking at something faster. The speed is going to be nicer over a trip of that length, especially if you're doing it regularly. A36 comes to mind if you want to stay single, but a 310 or a Baron will offer you a great value and not too much worse on efficiency and $/mile if you look at them. I wouldn't make a big deal about club seating.
 
Lotta terrain to worry about in those parts.
(Anyone who's been there will get the joke, it's flatter than Kansas in that part of the state)

I'm on the west side of the state.
 
As always when considering a turbocharged engine, realize that there are days where the winds dictate that you stay low. Today is an example of one of those days, it looks like you'd have a bit of a tailwind down low on your southeast bound leg. Going back, it looks you'd have almost a direct crosswind above 6000 feet, which we all know works as a bit of a headwind, and it's pretty fierce in the teens. Today is a day where the turbo does you no good either way.
 
k9medic said:
I looked at a 210 as well as the Saratoga before finding my Cherokee 6-260.

Here is what I came across on my search -
1.The 210 was fast but cramped for the 5th and 6th person.
2.The Saratoga was faster than the 6 but with the retractable gear adding to the MX costs, and reducing the usaeble weight, it didn't fit our needs.
3.The 6/300 was about 7kts faster than the 6/260 version but I would burn a bit more fuel and lose about 70lbs on average of useful.
4. I could get into an older fixed gear Cherokee 6 for a lot less than a Saratoga or 210 which meant more $$ for flying.


My 6/260 is new to me as of last October. Club seating. We got into it for under $60K with a low time re-man engine. I just did it's first annual and ADSB upgrade and have spent less than $4500 combined. I can run at 65% and burn 12 gph getting about 126kts. With full fuel (84 gallons) I have a minimum of a 6 hour endurance and can carry 1000lbs.

75% gets me 133kts at 15 gph average.
Click to expand...

There was a guy on the piper board that claimed his fully faired six-260 would true at 142KTAS at 75% power. He had every gap seal and most importantly, the fully enclosed pants installed. This may seem like a crzay claim, but there are folks on here who do similar speeds on a FG Toga, which is just the semi tapered version of a six. So it's doable if you're willing to sink some money into the bigger drag penalties of the airframe.
 
k9medic said:
I looked at a 210 as well as the Saratoga before finding my Cherokee 6-260.

Here is what I came across on my search -
1.The 210 was fast but cramped for the 5th and 6th person.
2.The Saratoga was faster than the 6 but with the retractable gear adding to the MX costs, and reducing the usaeble weight, it didn't fit our needs.
3.The 6/300 was about 7kts faster than the 6/260 version but I would burn a bit more fuel and lose about 70lbs on average of useful.
4. I could get into an older fixed gear Cherokee 6 for a lot less than a Saratoga or 210 which meant more $$ for flying.


My 6/260 is new to me as of last October. Club seating. We got into it for under $60K with a low time re-man engine. I just did it's first annual and ADSB upgrade and have spent less than $4500 combined. I can run at 65% and burn 12 gph getting about 126kts. With full fuel (84 gallons) I have a minimum of a 6 hour endurance and can carry 1000lbs.

75% gets me 133kts at 15 gph average.
Click to expand...

So... I'm with you on basically everything and for similar reasons have a 205 for my personal use, which is like the 6/260 version of a 206. It's technically a 210 and unless the back seats in a "real" 210 are different, they're not as cramped as you think and they're not cramped at all for kids, which is the OP's use.

I don't really have a dog in this fight - OP should buy whatever he gets most excited about - but if I had the described use, I'd really seriously consider a 210 or an A36, but I wouldn't let club seating influence the decision - the wow factor of club seating, in my experience, pretty much evaporates the first time you do the interlocking knee-hug with your opposite seatmate (ew). That's a long way... does a Saratoga really do 160kts? Seems at least 10 knots too fast to me.

They're all capable, thirsty, relatively expensive to maintain, 6-seat airplanes. Pick your poison:

Saratoga: Heavy lifting and club seating (if that's your thing) but slow, at least that's always been my understanding
210: Fast and heavy lifting but no club seating
A36: Fast and club seating, but not as heavy lifting / CG issues (and where to put the bags?).
 
Same discussion with my partner when we were looking. 205, 206, 210, PA32 (6/260, 6/300, Lance, Saratoga). We never found an acceptable 205, 206 or 210 while looking. Good luck on that search and be very ready to jump on a good one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Clip4 said:
I love the photo of the 6 men in these planes, all would be over gross for any meaningful trip.
Click to expand...

the ad didn't say "fly with 6 full sized men", it was simply showing the room it has.
 
I consider a NA 32 variant cheap to mx. Its just a stretch arrow. Probably the cheapest to mx of all three. Now add a turbo and that assumption goes out the window.
 
eman1200 said:
the ad didn't say "fly with 6 full sized men", it was simply showing the room it has.
Click to expand...

When would you need room in the rear seating for men that will never be placed in those seats? When you are marketing airplanes.
 
Seminole Pilot said:
1st post on here:
So we live in Florida most the year but have a summer home up in Michigan where we spend all summer (2-3 months). Up to this point I have always flown commercial commuting back and forth (own a business and office is in FL), however I am now entertaining flying myself. Where we live in Michigan, the closest commercial airport is about a 2 hour drive and involves connecting flights to make it to FL (total travel time of 7-8 hours) but there is a small airport where I got my PPL about 15 min from our house. The total distance from there to the airport by our house in FL is about 900nm. I've been thinking of buying a 6 seater to fly myself back and forth over the summer (probably cut my flight time down to 5 hours +/-) and as well have the room to fly the family (wife & 3 small kids) . I've been looking at the 3 main options of Bonanza A36, Saratoga, and Cessna. I really like the club seating and it seems the Saratoga (retractable) would be best for useful load and not far off speed of the A36's. Anything I'm missing or should be thinking of?

So far the majority of my flight time has been in a 182 so I have my high performance and complex endorsements and am about to start my IFR training as I definitely want that for the long commute if I do go this route.

Thanks for any input!
Click to expand...
First off: WELCOME to POA.

You have received a lot of great info. Let me add my 2 cents.
As you may know the useful load of the 6, Lance, Saratoga decreases as the age gets younger.
A 1977 lance useful load is more than any Saratoga.
A two Blade prop is faster than a three blade prop.
I have a friend with a 2 blade 77 lance and I had a 3 blade 77 lance ( same engine hours). We raced one day and he did 155 knots to my 145 kts at 65% power ROP.
Normally Aspirated (NA) will burn less fuel than a Turbo. 2.5 to 3.5 GPM on average. Also Turbo does not help with speed.
Club seats allow tall people to put there feet up in the seat and lean their seat back to stretch out and sleep. I have had many people sleep on long trips.
I currently have a 1980 Saratoga. From Texas we have traveled to Calf., Bahamas, Montana, Ohio, and many other spots. The PA-32 is a great traveling machine. Speed is not a problem, remember you love to fly, so enjoy the trip and look at the great sights along the way.
 
Scott@KTYR said:
First off: WELCOME to POA.

You have received a lot of great info. Let me add my 2 cents.
As you may know the useful load of the 6, Lance, Saratoga decreases as the age gets younger.
A 1977 lance useful load is more than any Saratoga.
A two Blade prop is faster than a three blade prop.
I have a friend with a 2 blade 77 lance and I had a 3 blade 77 lance ( same engine hours). We raced one day and he did 155 knots to my 145 kts at 65% power ROP.
Normally Aspirated (NA) will burn less fuel than a Turbo. 2.5 to 3.5 GPM on average. Also Turbo does not help with speed.
Club seats allow tall people to put there feet up in the seat and lean their seat back to stretch out and sleep. I have had many people sleep on long trips.
I currently have a 1980 Saratoga. From Texas we have traveled to Calf., Bahamas, Montana, Ohio, and many other spots. The PA-32 is a great traveling machine. Speed is not a problem, remember you love to fly, so enjoy the trip and look at the great sights along the way.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much & I appreciate your first hand knowledge. I think I’m leaning more towards an early 80’s Toga NA retractable with some updated avionics & lower SMOH. Found a few in the mid 100’s. Having 3 younger kids (8,6, almost 2) I think the club seats just are more practical for them during flight.

As you noted this post has generated a lot of input & I appreciate it all!
 
FWIW.....in 4-5 years, if not now, those kids will not want their legs touching.....that's where standard seating shines. Also, you'll get more use out of the space behind the pilot's seats with the standard arrangement.

something to think about.....;)

here are some pics of my trip to OSH a few years ago...I was a PAX in the back of a Lance. ;)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1708.JPG
    IMG_1708.JPG
    155.3 KB · Views: 73
  • IMG_1705.JPG
    IMG_1705.JPG
    204.6 KB · Views: 71
  • IMG_1706.PNG
    IMG_1706.PNG
    1.3 MB · Views: 71
  • IMG_1707.JPG
    IMG_1707.JPG
    72.3 KB · Views: 67
  • IMG_1725.JPG
    IMG_1725.JPG
    210.3 KB · Views: 66
Last edited:
And Fwiw I absolutely love the club seating in my Toga. Kids have more room and stretch out nicely. On more than one occasion I’ve added another adult to our load and had 3 adults and 3 kids (ages 7, 10, 13) in the plane. Stuffed to the gills with beach supplies in the front and rear cargo.

All smiles for the 2.5 hour trip to the beach.

I think there are folks that frown on the club seating... that don’t have club seating. But agree it’s probably not for everyone.

Checkout - how much stuff did you take with you? The front and rear cargo are very generous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top