Saratoga Drivers question.

A good pilot with a flexible schedule should be able to "outfly the wind". Go early morning and fly low into headwinds, go high and fly later with tailwinds. Choose routes with best winds. Go on days that favor a tailwind. Etc.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Go early morning and fly low into headwinds, go high and fly later with tailwinds.
Click to expand...

A flight from Truckee, CA to Las Vegas, NV wheels up 6am tomm. shows a 40kt tail wind @17k msl. Winds aloft depend on high and low pressure gradients and if high enough the direction of the jet stream. Not the time of day.
 
citizen5000 said:
Fuzzy math. 140 to 180 is 25% faster. Yet say you cut your travel time by 100%.

Real aircraft speed starts in the 300 kts mark. Or even better FL250 @ .75 mach. You need to upgrade to a turboprop or a light jet to get there. Range is more a function of fuel efficiency and fuel capacity, not just speed.
Click to expand...

If you reduce a travel time 100%, isn't the travel time zero?
 
Clip4 said:
If you reduce a travel time 100%, isn't the travel time zero?
Click to expand...

Perspective. From the old plane to the new it's a 50% decrease to fly 5 versus 10. From the new plane to the old plane it's an increase of 100% to fly 5 to 10.

So. Getting back to gsengle and his fuzzy math. The Arrow @ 140 kts for 10 hours his range is 1400 nm. The Ovation @ 180 kts for 5 hours his range is 900 nm. Is his trip 1400 nm? Or is his trip 900 nm?
 
citizen5000 said:
Perspective. From the old plane to the new it's a 50% decrease to fly 5 versus 10. From the new plane to the old plane it's an increase of 100% to fly 5 to 10.

So. Getting back to gsengle and his fuzzy math. The Arrow @ 140 kts for 10 hours his range is 1400 nm. The Ovation @ 180 kts for 5 hours his range is 900 nm. Is his trip 1400 nm? Or is his trip 900 nm?
Click to expand...

Selective hearing there. Arrow needs a fuel stop. That's an hour. Mooney climbs at double the rate. Etc etc.

You apparently just like being continually disagreeable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Also does anyone have any experience with the
Aspen 1500 PFD/MFD?

Really considering that plane now.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0043.PNG
    IMG_0043.PNG
    347 KB · Views: 15
Rebel Lord said:
Also does anyone have any experience with the
Aspen 1500 PFD/MFD?

Really considering that plane now.
Click to expand...
So much information in such a small place. I've never been a fan.

Yes, I have flown behind one.
 
Rebel Lord said:
After much consideration and research i've come to the conclusion that the Saratoga fits my long term mission needs.

How easy is this plane flying wise, as a new pilot I don't want to hop into a high performance complex monster and get over whelmed. After I get my high performance and complex training is this going to be like drinking from a firehose moving up from a 160hp cherokee, or is this going to be a smooth transition?
Click to expand...
How is the hunt for a Toga going?
 
How does everyone think about the price difference vs. speeds in the various PA 32s.

I live in Seattle, at sea level. Vast majority of missions are going to be one way distances of ~150nm with 2 a year at 500nm and maybe one that's longer.

I'm trying to decide if a solid 260 is good enough. I know I can expect 135kts or so of TAS, the ceiling is a little low, as I'd like to fly over the Cascades frequenty (I've done this in a 172 though, it's not like the big rocks out in Colorado where the "ground" is all at 10K feet).

It looks like good 260's can be had around 50k with a GNS and basic AP and 300 hours left on the engine. the 300 is a big jump (looks like you end up at 80k pretty fast) and then the Saratoga is even more (though it goes much faster?)

Is the 260 going to be good enough that I'll be happy with it? Most missions i'm going to have 600lbs in the cabin, so would be well under gross, but I do have some missions planned at gross where I need 1,100 in the cabin + fuel. I fly out of a 5,000 foot paved runway at sea level, but would like to hit up some 2,000 foot paved runways as well at the beach.

A 260 I could swing by myself, a 300 or more I think I'd need to have partners in to feel comfortable with the initial purchase and still feeling good about reserves/etc.

Also, depending on what happens with fuel, it seems like the 260 will have lower octane requirements than the 300, so it might be better in the long haul.
 
Clip4 said:
Avemco, who now will only insure 172RGs and 182RGs in flying clubs, requires 10 hours dual. So your comfort level and theirs is in disagreement.
Click to expand...

YGTBFKM. The 172RG is the dumbest, slowest, easiest to fly airplane in existence with a blue knob and a gear handle.

Back before the HP and complex endorsements were split, that airplane was my sign off, and it was a one hour flight that consisted of a bunch of pattern work at two airports, the instructor telling me that if I ever embarrassed him or myself landing it gear up, he'd come personally beat my azz, don't worry about the FAA... and he admonished that while I was pumping the gear down... LOL. Then I flew it for over 50 hours all over the place.

The 182RG later on in the logbook was "You need ten hours in 182s to fly yours and you have 8.3 and the non-RG is down for maintenance... make sure your insurer doesn't care, and we'll go do a couple hours of landings in the RG."

People actually got so dumb, that Avemco's underwriters and actuaries stopped insuring individually owned Cessna RGs?! Is this accurate?!
 
Pilawt said:
For all the Saratogas it says "100 or 100LL aviation grade fuel." Could you get by with a four-seat Cherokee 235/Charger/Pathfinder? It would probably do better in the high country, and is ok with 80 octane fuel.

(The later 235 hp Dakota requires 100LL.)
Click to expand...
I thought about the 235's, but it doesn't seem like much more $$ to get a 260 and have so much more interior room for taking the kids on longer trips, or taking more people on shorter trips. A guy at work has a 235 and says it's been a great plane with really reasonable MX costs.

If I was going four seat, I think i'd end up in a Comanche 250. same $50k price tag, good useful, but you get speed to pay off having fewer seats. 182 would be great as a four seat also, but sellers are DAMNED proud of them, looking at selling prices.
 
I loved my Six while I had it.....I just didn't need a Chevy Van after a while....so I down sized to the 4 place, 200 mph, V-tail. :D

For the reasons you mentioned, I think the Six is a much better choice over the Dakota.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top