I have a Dakota and am planning to upgrade to a Saratoga or a "6". I am having quite a time making a decision. I flew a 6X with glass panel. Loved it. I would really like to have glass panel in my next airplane. I really like the 6 but I am worried that shortly down the road I will wish I would have opted for the retract Saratoga with more speed.
What can one expect to gain going from fixed to retract in a normally asperated engine? and then how much more to go Turbo? All at altitudes under 10,000. My mission will typically be 300 miles or less but with two or three times a year 850+ and higher altitudes. I have read a lot on the forums about engine management with a turbo and see answers and post from LOP from take off to landing and running ROP all the time. It would seem to me that if managing a turbo does not take a big learning curve it could be flown on low altitudes and short trips without a lot of problem ( maybe a little more fuel?) and be there when it will shine on long trips and mountain flying. I have checked insurance and the retract turbo will only cost an extra grand per yearabove the 6. The main thing that bothers me is the useful load of the new Saratoga II TC. Fully equipped with full fuel it seems that two people and luggage are about all it will haul. What kind of experience do you owners have? Any recommendations? I would just like to hear some owner opinions based on the aircraft you fly and why you made your decision, or any advise for a novice like myself.
Thanks and have a happy and safe New Year
Buy the Saratoga. Especially if insurance is a non-issue. It goes a hell of alot faster, and you will crave speed on that 850+ NM trip. As for the turbo, you need to be flying it at least above 8k on short trips. Normally aspirated engines start losing manifold pressure at wide open throttle between 5000 and 6000 msl. So as long as you aren't fly your turbo down at 3k, your fuel burn shouldn't be too bad. But when you fly up at 17k or 18k with O2, you will be cruising with a relatively low fuel burn.
Useful loads on ALL of the new aircraft are horrible. My Seneca II can haul a heck of a lot more than a Seneca V. How much do you need to haul on a 850NM trip?
At this point I have taken just myself and my wife on the 850+ but I can see us in the future wanting four adults and some luggage. Will also take a lot of short 50 to 100 mile trips. What is turbo management like on short trips?
I fly a few 50 mile trips in my Seneca II each month. Truthfully, it doesn't burn too much more fuel at the low altitudes. Also, I can climb at 1000fpm, so I can get up to alltitude fast, cruise for 10 minutes at 165kts. Then come back down. Or, I can stay at 3k-4k, run 55% power and get 155kts. Not too bad.
Turbo management is a not a huge deal at low altitudes. It is the descent planning that occurs when you are up at FL180 and 100nm from your destination that makes it tough.
I went through a similar process (albeit looking at older birds) and decided I wanted a Six. I then looked at various examples, and failed to find one I wanted, until I finally saw a Saratoga I liked and ended up buying that, despite all my previous research. The end result is I love it. I like the speed, and the retract hasn't been a big deal on maintenance so far. I went non-turbo since I'm east coast with kids who can't use oxygen, and so far, no regrets.
These come pretty close to what my Saratoga actually does if operated the way Piper did the tests. But they did the tests at "maximum power" mixture setting and recommend that you not actually run your engine that way, so you'll see a few knots slower in real life.
The big aerodynamic change from the Six/Lance to the Saratoga is the tapered wing. Then the 6X/Saratoga II bring you the more aerodynamic cowl. It seems the new cowl doesn't help much if you can't pick up your feet.
With the exception of the Six, all of these airframes are available in turbo'd versions. Max speed for the normally aspirated occurs around 6,500' MSL so anywhere above that the turbo will go faster. Top true speeds on the turbo's are about 10 kts faster than the corresponding normally aspirated airframe. You'll be wearing oxygen to get that speed.
As you've noticed useful load is the Achille's heel of the newer planes. The Six-300 and Lance carry 1,000 pounds or better with full fuel. You loose about 100 pounds for the straight-leg Saratoga and it continues downhill from there. If you're looking in the used market you *must* ask about empty weight for each aircraft as there's lots of variability depending on options. The newer planes have many more options as standard, hence the apparent weight increase. But if you find an older plane with "all the trimmings" it'll weigh just as much as a new one, with the corresponding payload penalty.
The good news is these aircraft hold lots more fuel than you need. When I fly the family around I leave 32 gallons behind which gives me plenty of gas for three-hour legs with reserves and (loosely) another 200 pounds of payload. Nobody in my family wants to sit still in the plane for longer than three hours, anyway.
I've flown both a Dakota and my normally-aspirated Saratoga all over the West. Operating in the mountains was never a problem as far as take-off & landing were concerned. You do need to check performance, but as long as you stay away from mid-afternoon summertime departures you won't be inconvenienced. Without the turbo you're going to be flying through the mountains, not over them, so it's strictly a VFR deal. If I were based near there I'd get the turbo without question.
I don't know too much about either airplane, but I do have the following comments.
First, all the newer planes have horrible usefule load figures, but it's not just the options that are now standard that cause this undesirable phenomemna. It's the fact that all new planes have sound insulated cabins and crash-worthy seats that tend be be very heavy. Someone told me that the new Cessna seats weigh about 35 lbs more than the seats on Cessna's built in the 80's. This has been one of the biggest factors in BEW weight gain for new aircraft. It boggles my mind since the Max Zero Fuel Weight of a Seneca V only allows about 770 lbs of payload which means you will likely never get 6 adults in the plane no matter what (so why does the damn thing have 6 seats to begin with?).
Second, I think getting an older Lance or older Cherokee 6 and adding a few speed mods will get you pretty close to the performance of the newer planes without sacrificing useful load and for less insurance (since your hull value will be lower). I dream of one day stepping up to something in the PA32 series (maybe I'll win the AOPA sweepstakes plane this year if no one else on this site has already mulliganned that dream), so I am often looking at Lance's. As a 1968 Cherokee 180 owner, I'm actually a big fan of the straight wing planes.
I've thought about moving up from my Archer also since I tend to get a "new" (for me, not new) plane every 3-5 years. Has the 6x resale value kept up with the retracts? Just curious. Also, what percent of the 32 series are retract vs fixed?
The Saratoga is nice, and while that would probably be my first choice, it's priceless to be able to walk in to an airport bar and say "Hey baby, wanna see my Six?"
