Opinions on a Piper Saratoga PA32 ??

I can't comment on the suitibility of the aircraft but I can say with 100% reliability that that ad is suspect.

The picture of the panel most definitely does NOT have a GNS530 in it as the ad claims.

I also strongly dislike the Collins microline series, they don't fail often but when they do I've had nothing but trouble getting them repaired or finding replacements. As I've been told they weren't very succesful, most people when with the now standard Bendix/King silver crown series.

I also had to do an emergency upgrade to our DC-4 at the last minute when I found out that the TDR-950 did not have a suppression line, this became a problem when I installed a TCAS system. Again it may cause a problem if you decide to get a new piece of avionics.

Sorry to be such a downer but I haven't had a good experience with the microline series....
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I was wondering about that myself...I don't see a 530 either, and the panel just looks a bit antiquated.

Also, without knowing how many hours you have, if you are instrument rated, etc...even though the 6-300 is a fairly benign high perf. airplane, it ain't a 172 I think it's around 1,000 lbs heavier at gross, so I would imagine power control is key in landings. I would also have a good handle on engine out performance before I'd start running up the x country hours.

You're going to burn some fuel, too, and overhauls on engines of that size (IO 540, yeah?) aren't cheap. But it's certainly a cool plane if you can find a nicely sorted example!

 

I have flown the Saratoga, solid machine and good IFR platform. Plenty of room for the mission you desire and a good enough speed with a tolerable fuel burn. If your serious about purchashing a plane?, you need to do a PPI much like a Ferrari. I would not touch a plane that does not use Adlog for record keeping. Once upon a time my Father and I owned an FBO and Flight School out of KSNA and did plenty of PPIs. I have seen alot of junk. Dont buy anything with a damage history, not worth the hassle when it comes time to sell it! I would consider an original owner low time machine with a run out engine and do the engine yourself so you know what you have since there is no guarantee how the engine was operated from the previous operators? 50 hour oil analysis history would be a plus for a higher time engine. How long to you plan on keeping the machine is another consideration? Cherokee Six 260 or 300 would be a consideration too? same airframe basically with fixed gear. Lower insurance costs and higher useful load. Cessna 210 is a nice machine too!

Cheers

 

I have a Cherokee Six 300 and fly all over the eastern half of the US in it for business. Its a great plane for hauling a family, and is why its considered the SUV of the skies. You will have plenty of room and storage space for you and the family. With an auto pilot and a 530 GPS its hard to get better, more honest and easy t fly airplane. Its not the fastest plane and your will burn close to 20 gallons an hour at 75% power and do 150 mph tops (with out a tail wind). But as stated any time you buy a plane a PPI should be done by a trusted mechanic. Just because it has come out of annual does not mean its okay. My six has all of the speed mods, and total restored to new condition in 2005 with a new paint job and leather interior, expect the more you pay the less you will have to pay in the long run.

 

Have you considered one of these? One of our pilots has one of these, what a machine!

http://www.velocityaircraft.com/airplane-specifications.html

Take a look at the performance specs!

Cheers

 

Absolutely. Be skeptical, too...my plane flew (no pun intended) through a PPI, but has still cost me well over $20K in parts and labor since last July. There are things that can't really be checked on a PPI that can cost a LOT of money, so you definitely want to make sure the things that can be checked are dead on.

IMO, a big thing the 6-300 has going for it in terms of operating cost is the absence of retractable gear. Gear parts and repairs are NOT cheap.

 

Yea, look at the useful load... Only 1100 pounds. Most kit planes get hot performance numbers but often you find the useful loads are pretty meger. The Saratoga has a useful load of 1312 pounds and IIRC my 182RG had a useful load of over 1300 pounds. If you are planning on going with a full cabin and baggage, the Velocity is going pretty fast, but it isn't going very far. With the Saratoga you can fill the cabin and fly 6.5 hours. The Velocity only has tanks for 815 miles so you can see where they cut the fuel load and range to allow more weight in the cabin.

No such thing as a free lunch.

 

No doubt the examples you site have more useful load. However, with 205 KTAS in the Velocity equation you can take less fuel than your 182 RG example and get comparable useful loads and range while traveling much faster. If you go high in the Turbo Velocity you can see 250 KTAS. Going Eastbound I have seen 350+ knots over the ground, Thats pretty fast! The 816nm example you site is for the fixed gear bird. 1000 nm range for the RG and 1250nm for the Turbo.

The 182 with fuel fuel leaves a useful load of 764 lbs assuming 88 gallons of fuel and fuel burn of 13.1 GPH @75% power at 8000' and 154 KTAS.

I have flown the 182 RG, Saratoga, Lance, Cherokee 6 260 & 300 and the Turbo Velocity. The Velocity is in a league of its own. It is not a cherokee six but it aint bad either considereing its speed and spacious cabin.

Your right there is no "free lunch", but this lunch is pretty thrifty for what you get.

Cheers

 

And when it comes time to sell it look at the size of the market the Velocity appeals to, how many canard pushers do you see at the local field? How many people can work/do work on a Piper or Cessna...and how many have ever even seen a Velocity? There are decisions that go beyond useful load, range etc...serviceability, in field support, resale value should all go into the equation. If a homebuilt is what you are looking for then maybe the Velocity is worth a look...for my dollars the Lancair EVO would be the choice (piston version for this comparison). If they ever certify the turbine version I'll be first in line!

End of thread jack...back on point. PA32 is a great airplane and will serve you well. Best plan for used purchase aircraft? Pay for an annual at an agreed upon independent shop, don't let the owner dictate where you are taking the plane. Have a formal written agreement on who is responsible for issues found beyond the norm, or the deal unwinds. Yes you'll be out the cost of the annual, but it will be good money spent compared to a bottomless pit.

 

The Lance/ Saratoga is a great platform. With full fuel, the useful load is somewhere between 300- 500 pounds. You can pick up older GPS systems that are just as capable as the GNS 430/530, like the King KLN 90B or the KLN 94. I used to work for a Piper dealer back in the day as a CFI. The planes we used to compare it to in range, useful load, people carried was the A-36 Bonanza, Socata Trinidad, Rockwell Commander 114, Cessna 210, and if you aren't afraid of canvas covered aircraft, a good old bird is the Bellanca Viking.