Saratoga FG vs RG?

[jmpoplin]

Gents,
I am new to PoA and am interested in getting a Toga sometime in the future. For all those owners, are there major differences between FG and RG versions? Specifically I guess I am asking about maintenance costs (plus require maintenance), cost of an annual, recurrency requirements for insurance?

Additionally looking for the standard performance differences like gph at cruise, speed, useful load differences.

Thanks!

P.S. Any votes for a turbo vs non-turbo? My trips will be around 500-600nmish.

 

[poadeleted20]

First, welcome to PoA -- hope you enjoy the experience!

The extra maintenance and annual inspection costs aren't particularly large -- budgeting an extra $5/hour should more than cover that. Likewise, I've not seen any significant additional annual recurrency requirements for RG vs FG at this level (less than cabin-class). The biggest difference will be insurance cost, where RG's typically run on the order of $1000 more a year, or more if you lack prior RG time.

On the performance side, since they have the same engine, fuel flow for the same cruise power setting should be the same, although you should expect about 15 knots more speed with the RG at the same power setting. Useful load generally goes down 50-100 lb due to the extra weight of the RG system.

As for turbocharging, the question is where you're going. If you're headed for high country, the turbocharging is nice to have. Otherwise, I think it adds a lot of costs (higher maintenance, shorter TBO) without giving you a lot of operational advantage.

 

[dennyleeb]

The overall cost per mile of travel will be less with the RG.

 

[poadeleted20]

The overall cost per mile of travel will be less with the RG.

That depends on how many trips are flown per year. The more trips flown, the greater the advantage to the RG, but there is an initial advantage to the FG due to the lower fixed costs (lower annual and insurance costs).

 

[jmpoplin]

Thanks, that is exactly what I was looking for in the information.

 

[Joe B]

Welcome aboard!

I've been flying a normally aspirated fixed gear Saratoga for seven years. I completely agree with what Ron said.

The turbo PA32's don't enjoy a great reputation for making TBO - mostly due to poor engine cooling in the early versions (pre '94). There was (maybe still is) an aftermarket intercooler which helps hugely in engine longevity. From the pictures in online ads it looks like about 1/3 of the fleet has received this upgrade. (The non-intercooled turbo's have the "fish mouth" air inlet - easy to spot.) I'd consider the intercooler a necessity if you're looking at one of the early turbo's. Piper re-engineered the cowling in '94 which seems to have solved this problem.

Useful load generally goes down 50-100 lb due to the extra weight of the RG system.

As a general rule the PA32's put on weight over the years. Some of the early Cherokee Six's could carry their own empty weight. By the time Piper finished with the line in '08 a fully fueled Turbo Toga could carry two people and a briefcase. If you care about useful load you'll want to concentrate on the earlier aircraft. Keep in mind, though, that these aircraft were available with a large number of options (and then there are aftermarket mods.) There's a lot of variability even within one particular model and gear style. I cannot emphasize enough that when you're looking at PA32's you have to look at the empty weight of each airframe.

 

[dennyleeb]

That depends on how many trips are flown per year. The more trips flown, the greater the advantage to the RG, but there is an initial advantage to the FG due to the lower fixed costs (lower annual and insurance costs).

The annual diff. is very minimal maybe a couple hundred. (around here anyway)

 

[jmpoplin]

Joe B,

You guys talk about the Turbo versions not making TBO and I had not heard that before. I was aware of the intercoolers and just found out about LoPresti speed modifications - do you have any or hear any reviews about them?

I live in the southeastern US and summer heat/humidity are rough at times. Any experience with A/C? Needed or not? I suspect not at altitude.

 

[poadeleted20]

Air conditioning adds to empty weight -- see comments above on variations in empty weight affecting useful load, especially in newer PA32's. Other than that, it's not a significant issue.

 

[jmpoplin]

I am interested in a large useful load to load up the family, luggage, dog, etc and go on the standard vacation or $100 hamburger (or slightly higher nowadays). It seems that an average family will require about half a tank of gas to balance out the load and that will still give you a good 500-600nm range?

 

[weilke]

It seems that an average family will require about half a tank of gas to balance out the load and that will still give you a good 500-600nm range?

VFR yes.

Most people seem to notice that 'family' is rarely fond of flying for 5 hrs in a small plane anyways and that most limit their legs to 2-3hrs at a time.

In the southeast, with heat being a concern, a high-wing (205/206) may be a good option.

 

[poadeleted20]

Just how big is this family, how much luggage, and is your dog this:

or this:

???

 

[COFlyBoy]

I fly a '66 PA-32-260 in Colorado. It has a huge useful load, ~1650 lbs. With me, the fam, 5 hrs fuel and some baggage we can still be ~500 lbs under gross.

Look carefully at the useful load of whatever your thinking about. I know the older 6's are not as sexy, but it is hard to beat the useful loads.

As for turbos. I fly over mountain passes in Colorado with the 6, without problems. I take off with DAs over 9000 feet.

 

[weilke]

As for turbos. I fly over mountain passes in Colorado with the 6, without problems. I take off with DAs over 9000 feet.

That's because you are 500lbs under gross .

 

[Joe B]

... just found out about LoPresti speed modifications - do you have any or hear any reviews about them?

LoPresti makes a number of speed mods, most of which do some good or at least don't do much harm. Their "big" mod is the cowling - which makes the nose look like a New Piper product. The cowling does add a few knots. I'm not inclined to spend the $20K plus installation that LoPresti wants for it, but buying it already installed and effectively at a discount might change my mind. AOPA put one of these cowls on their "Win A Six" and had to take it back to LoPresti for unspecified "adjustments" so they wouldn't overheat. Nobody else seems to be complaining about these cowls causing overheating if the cowl flaps are managed properly so that may have been an installation foul-up. The downside of these cowls is that mechanics hate them. LoPresti added a fairing under the cowl which is held on by a bajillion screws. Getting that thing off and then on again adds 1.0-1.5 hours to an oil change. (This is not a factor with the '94 and following factory cowls which were also designed by Roy LoPresti, only the aftermarket cowls which you'll find on pre-'94 airframes.)

The air conditioning installation is famous for eating alternator belts unless the alternator is aligned just right. You'll want to examine the logs during a pre-buy and see how often the belt is being replaced. If the answer is "often" you'll want to get that sucker aligned by someone who knows what they're doing with Piper air conditioning.

The PA32's carry so much fuel that it's perfectly normal to trade off fuel for cargo or passengers. In my aircraft I can load 70 gals of fuel and our family of five - (but everyone is on luggage rations and I told the kids they can't grow any more). That'll get us three hours down the road with an hour's reserve, or about 450nm. Obviously you'd go farther in a retractable airframe.

 

[COFlyBoy]

That's because you are 500lbs under gross .

Exactly! Being under gross is like getting horsepower.

 

[jmpoplin]

Yea, the more I read the more I see the Six's do have a slightly larger useful load. How is the forward visibility in a Saratoga? Do all of the seats recline? When they talk about six-place oxygen, is it a central O2 bottle with outlets for each seat?

 

[nyoung]

I have flown a cousin of the Saratoga - the Seneca, which is very close (if not the same) interior layout.

As a passenger, I preferred the Club seating models. As a (tall) pilot, I preferred the forward facing models. This was because the seatback of the pilot side passenger would not allow me to scoot/tilt the pilots chair as far back as I desired.

Yea, the more I read the more I see the Six's do have a slightly larger useful load. How is the forward visibility in a Saratoga? Do all of the seats recline? When they talk about six-place oxygen, is it a central O2 bottle with outlets for each seat?

 

[weilke]

Yea, the more I read the more I see the Six's do have a slightly larger useful load.

Make that a couple 100 pounds more (for a six vs. a late Saratoga). The step from the fixed-gear Lance (hershey bar wing) to the FG Toga is not that great, maybe 100lbs.

How is the forward visibility in a Saratoga?

On the ground and with a properly inflated nose strut: nil In the air: normal.

Do all of the seats recline?

About 1/2 of them. On the rest, the mechanism has frozen up sometime in the last 30 years.
As mentioned, if you have club seating, yur ability to recline is limited IF all the seats are filled. As the last row is quite comfortable in the Six, pax will typically sit back there (facing forward) leaving at least one of the rear-facing seats for luggage / cooler.

When they talk about six-place oxygen, is it a central O2 bottle with outlets for each seat?

Yes.

 

[jmpoplin]

In a recent AOPA article "Keeping the family happy" they discussed a problem or rather a gotcha with the Six that is unusual to other single-engine planes. They wrote it has a zero fuel weight (sometimes called a wing bending weight). It stated the cabin load must be figured first then once the empty weight and cabin load reached a certain # (3,112 in their example) all the rest of the weight must consist only of fuel. Is this similar in the Saratoga?

 

[flyersfan31]

I just flew in a FG 'Toga a few weeks ago.

My impressions:
1) Takes a lot of dead dinos to move forward, given the limited speed (135kts at what -- 17-19gph?)
2) Not really thrilled about climbing on a warm day with a light load.
3) Probably really easy to maintain.

 

[weilke]

It stated the cabin load must be figured first then once the empty weight and cabin load reached a certain # (3,112 in their example) all the rest of the weight must consist only of fuel. Is this similar in the Saratoga?

Per the TCDS, it applies to all Sixes with the 7th seat option. Max gross is 3400lb. All this means is that you may 'only' be able to take 1300lb in the cabin.

This may be a limitation for skydiving or island-shuttle operation with very short trips and high loads, for a family of 4 or 5 with 3hr fuel it is not much of an issue.

 

[poadeleted20]

How is the forward visibility in a Saratoga?

About like that in any Cherokee type -- stinky if you're used to a Grumman, but pretty good if you're used to a Cessna.

Do all of the seats recline?

I've never seen fully-reclining seats in a PA32, but IIRC, the seatbacks of the front and middle rows have some adjustment unless it's club seating.

When they talk about six-place oxygen, is it a central O2 bottle with outlets for each seat?

Yes.

 

[COFlyBoy]

In a recent AOPA article "Keeping the family happy" they discussed a problem or rather a gotcha with the Six that is unusual to other single-engine planes. They wrote it has a zero fuel weight (sometimes called a wing bending weight). It stated the cabin load must be figured first then once the empty weight and cabin load reached a certain # (3,112 in their example) all the rest of the weight must consist only of fuel. Is this similar in the Saratoga?

Our 6 does not have a (published) zero fuel weight. Maybe that was added in later years as the empty weights started going up. I suppose since the limitation is the bending moment on the center spar, and that hasn't changed, that there is a zero fuel weight limit and its just not written in the flight manual.

I think all later PA-32s and derivatives have a zero fuel weight.

 

[COFlyBoy]

I just flew in a FG 'Toga a few weeks ago.

My impressions:
1) Takes a lot of dead dinos to move forward, given the limited speed (135kts at what -- 17-19gph?)
2) Not really thrilled about climbing on a warm day with a light load.
3) Probably really easy to maintain.

1) We get 135kts at 14gph
2) Yeah they are not balls of fire compared to a Matrix.
3) A/P assisted annuals are quite doable

 

[flyersfan31]

1) We get 135kts at 14gph
2) Yeah they are not balls of fire compared to a Matrix.
3) A/P assisted annuals are quite doable

Hell, they're not balls of fire compared to a 182! A Matrix, well, that's not even a fair comparison!!!

I don't remember the year of this FG. I think it was an early 80's model. I can't say whether it was leaned out or not, it was a test ride for the new Avidyne R9 so I wasn't really paying that much attention to the sled, other than to note what I thought was a scandalously-high fuel burn given the forward progress.

Still, compromises will be made. The cabin, IMHO, is more comfortable than a 206, which is the only real market comp. The older the better, unlike most airframes. Piper really lets their aircraft get fat and heavy. The latest edition Saratoga RG's and Seneca's can barely lift themselves, let alone pax or cargo.

 

[Joe B]

I think all later PA-32s and derivatives have a zero fuel weight.

No. The zero fuel weight limitation does not apply to any PA32's from the 1980 model year onwards. It applies to some earlier airframes.

The FG Toga isn't a dog if you fly it right. See attached for true airspeeds & fuel flows vs. altitude in mine.

 

[COFlyBoy]

No. The zero fuel weight limitation does not apply to any PA32's from the 1980 model year onwards. It applies to some earlier airframes.

I wonder if they beefed up the center spar when they created the Seneca, and put the same spar in all the 32s from then on.

Wow, you are getting 155kts+. That is super cool. What year is it? Piper did some serious work cleaning up the airframe. The 40 more horsepower would only account for 1 or 2 knots over the 6. The rest is coming from fairings and cowling, I guess. Oh and maybe you don't have a bunch of hail dimples.

 

[poadeleted20]

Wow, you are getting 155kts+.

In my experience, that's RG speed, not FG speed, for a PA32.

 

[flyersfan31]

160ktas at 8-10k? In a FG Saratoga?

Do you have pictures?? 'Cause this sounds even less likely than the 150kt Arrow....

 

[nyoung]

155-160kts is smoking for a FG Saratoga.

As a reference for comparison, my '71 Cherokee 180 has all of the K2U speed mods and regularly trues out around 130ktas WOT @ 8000. Lightly loaded, and under the right weather conditions it will do close to 135kts.

Speed increases with the cubed root of power. Shoehorning a 300HP engine into the airframe, would provide a 66% increase in power, which should translate to a 18.5% (cubed root) increase in speed. That would be right around 155-160kts.

Of course, the Saratoga is a bigger/heavier plane, so in comparison it seems Piper did a great job cleaning up the airframe. Part of this may be the hersey bar vs taper wing as well.

160ktas at 8-10k? In a FG Saratoga?

Do you have pictures?? 'Cause this sounds even less likely than the 150kt Arrow....

 

[COFlyBoy]

155-160kts is smoking for a FG Saratoga.
As a reference for comparison, my '71 Cherokee 180 has all of the K2U speed mods and regularly trues out around 130ktas WOT @ 8000. Lightly loaded, and under the right weather conditions it will do close to 135kts.

That is what our bone stock '66 Cherokee 6 does.

Of course, the Saratoga is a bigger/heavier plane, so in comparison it seems Piper did a great job cleaning up the airframe. Part of this may be the hersey bar vs taper wing as well.

I've seen folks who claim that the change from hershey bar to taper was a total wash. The tapered wing has slightly lower parasitic drag, and perhaps a slightly higher coefficient of lift, but the hershey bar wing has a longer apparant span, which makes the change a wash.

 

[Joe B]

I wonder if they beefed up the center spar when they created the Seneca, and put the same spar in all the 32s from then on.

I don't know - I think Piper might have just done more testing on the existing design and proved the envelope was bigger than they originally thought. The Sixes also used to have a limitation to use up the gas in the mains before draining the tip tanks. The Lance was introduced with a higher gross, interconnected tip tanks, and without that limitation. No one has ever suggested the Lance had a different spar. And then in '79 both the limitation on fuel use and the zero fuel weight was dropped for the Six.

Wow, you are getting 155kts+. That is super cool. What year is it? Piper did some serious work cleaning up the airframe. The 40 more horsepower would only account for 1 or 2 knots over the 6. The rest is coming from fairings and cowling, I guess. Oh and maybe you don't have a bunch of hail dimples.

True airspeed and density altitude measurements are from an Insight TAS 1000 F/ADC. It tends to agree fairly closely with my airspeed indicator - but I've never calibrated either one. I think I don't want the answer... The aircraft is an '89 with factory wheel pants.