Should I buy a Piper PA-32R-301 Saratoga SP ii?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: RAF Suffolk
Age: 61
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should I buy a Piper PA-32R-301 Saratoga SP ii?
Hi All
I am in dilemma. I'm fed up of flying shabby, unreliable, ill equipped club aircraft which never really fill me with confidence. I also want to go away for short breaks and of course this conflicts with my club making a profit. So, I'm considering buying my own aircraft come this September
Firstly about me; I have only just over 200hrs; 50+ as PIC mainly on PA28 Warrior and Arrow. I'm night qualified and next month I should be doing my IMC/IRR rating.
I was going to move onto twins after completing my 70hrs PIC but have decided to build up my competence and skills on a single first. The Saratoga may also fill the gap permanently as I was aiming for a Seneca V. It has a great load capability and range for my wife, our dogs and occasional other adult.
However, is the Saratoga too bigger step and will I have issues getting insurance due to my inexperience?
Thanking you all for your input - many of you will have more hours than I can ever hope for.
I am in dilemma. I'm fed up of flying shabby, unreliable, ill equipped club aircraft which never really fill me with confidence. I also want to go away for short breaks and of course this conflicts with my club making a profit. So, I'm considering buying my own aircraft come this September
Firstly about me; I have only just over 200hrs; 50+ as PIC mainly on PA28 Warrior and Arrow. I'm night qualified and next month I should be doing my IMC/IRR rating.
I was going to move onto twins after completing my 70hrs PIC but have decided to build up my competence and skills on a single first. The Saratoga may also fill the gap permanently as I was aiming for a Seneca V. It has a great load capability and range for my wife, our dogs and occasional other adult.
However, is the Saratoga too bigger step and will I have issues getting insurance due to my inexperience?
Thanking you all for your input - many of you will have more hours than I can ever hope for.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Should I buy a Piper PA-32R-301 Saratoga SP ii?
Sounds like you've made rapid progress but experience takes time to build up. Someone no longer with us once told me "I you live you learn, if you learn you live!"
Think on.
SGC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say, it depends. I have seen 200TT pilots who shouldn't even have been given a ppl and, I've seen 200TT pilots who are competent with a pressurised twin.
If you are happy in the Arrow, the Saratoga isn't that much of a leap really. You will have W&B differences to adjust too as well as the increased performance but other than that, they are very similar.
I've had an Arrow 1, Arrow IV, T Tail Turbo Lance and a Saratoga SP. All very similar, although the Turbo T Tail Lance was a different operating regime.
Insurance. I would say that the insurance company will ask for 10-20 hours on type.Dual. By that time, with your IR/R you will be approaching near to 250TT so definitely insurable. The Saratoga SP is a nice capable machine. Enjoy.
If you are happy in the Arrow, the Saratoga isn't that much of a leap really. You will have W&B differences to adjust too as well as the increased performance but other than that, they are very similar.
I've had an Arrow 1, Arrow IV, T Tail Turbo Lance and a Saratoga SP. All very similar, although the Turbo T Tail Lance was a different operating regime.
Insurance. I would say that the insurance company will ask for 10-20 hours on type.Dual. By that time, with your IR/R you will be approaching near to 250TT so definitely insurable. The Saratoga SP is a nice capable machine. Enjoy.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, don't see an issue with it. As said, with Arrow experience it shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Just ensure that the training is comprehensive - I'd build confidence at larger fields before trying something a little on the shorter side. One way of building confidence would be to actually do your IMC in it before flying her solo. However, find someone with a solid rep on the PA32 and IMC teaching.
Insurance may also dictate a minimum 'dual' time before P1 but shouldn't be too difficult to find.
Finally, unless you're doing a significant amount of over water flying - why rush to get a second engine? Not much twins can do these days that can't be done with a good high end single. (and that's from a ME Instructor!)
Just ensure that the training is comprehensive - I'd build confidence at larger fields before trying something a little on the shorter side. One way of building confidence would be to actually do your IMC in it before flying her solo. However, find someone with a solid rep on the PA32 and IMC teaching.
Insurance may also dictate a minimum 'dual' time before P1 but shouldn't be too difficult to find.
Finally, unless you're doing a significant amount of over water flying - why rush to get a second engine? Not much twins can do these days that can't be done with a good high end single. (and that's from a ME Instructor!)
It shouldn't be a drama. My first outback safari in Australia was in a Saratoga.
At the start of the trip I had about 250 hours total time. By the time we got home, two weeks later, I had 290 hours.
There were three of us on board. I was the only pilot.
At the start of the trip I had about 250 hours total time. By the time we got home, two weeks later, I had 290 hours.
There were three of us on board. I was the only pilot.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Age: 55
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maehh - maybe university air squadron. most hours are dual.
where are you based? as a stop gap if you can easily get to connington there is a guy there with a 177rg, plenty of load capacity and you could take it away for a week and I doubt he would notice. and he might not mind the dogs either!
where are you based? as a stop gap if you can easily get to connington there is a guy there with a 177rg, plenty of load capacity and you could take it away for a week and I doubt he would notice. and he might not mind the dogs either!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Saratoga and the C6 are not difficult aircraft to fly, but they are difficult aircraft to fly well, for subtly different reasons.
FWIW I found the step up from the Arrow to the Saratoga bigger than that of the Warrior to the Arrow. You do really have to start thinking some distance ahead.
The C6 has the earlier hershy-bar wing, which means it's better at short-field stuff, but does mean that fully loaded, engine off, two stages of flap, trimmed for 90 kts, the rate of sink is like that of an anvil - think 1,500ft/min, which takes a bit of getting used to.
The thing that many newbie Saratoga pilots struggle to adjust to is arriving at airfields in an orderly fashion. I.E. If you do what you do in a Warrior which is to turn up in the overhead at 2,000ft at cruise speed, you'll never get rid of enough energy to manage the speed in the circuit, which is of course what all big aircraft drivers know, but take the tyro pilot by surprise; 160kts in the circuit at most airfields is not welcome.
In adddition, they are both quite a bit bigger and more powerful that you are used to and are very unforgiving if you get low and slow, and unwelcome things can happen quite quickly.
I've owned a Cherokee 6 300 and a Saratoga, and have about 200 and 500hrs in them respectively.
Both are great aircraft, but are better at different things.
The C6 300 is a great load lifter (think 1,400lbs useful load) and will comfortably do grass strips of 450m, at circa 135-140 kts.
The Saratoga needs at least 500m and you have to think carefully about the loading and the wind direction etc to use it down to that size of strip. Useful load is at least 100lbs less (and usually more like 2-300lbs less) but is 15-20kts faster.
I've flown a C6 260 a few times - it has it's devotees, but I have to say I'm not one of them. It's a little slower, and needs a little bit more tarmac, and still has bloody carb-heat!!!
You might find that a good compromise would be a Lance I with the non-T-tail? The T-tail may be a little faster in the cruise than a Lance I, but you can forget short grass strips as the take-off distance required is 50% longer than a normal tail.
On a side note, beware of periods of inactivity in the engine logs, of anything with a Lycoming in it, as the cam-shafts have a nasty habit of rusting as a result, often precipitating an engine overhaul. The cost of an engine overhaul for an O or IO540 is £25k +, assuming that nothing significant is rogered. Much, Much more if the crank is subject to the infamous a/d or there is significant crank-case fretting.
Annual running costs are 30-50% more than an Arrow, mainly due to 15-16 USGPH fuel burn. I know that you can run them slower, and reduce the fuel burn to Arrow levels, but
a. Why own a 160kt machine and then run it at 130kts?
and
b. If you do the maths very carefully on the increased cost of the speed, verses the increased cost of a slower flight
All roads lead to rome!
Great aircraft, but go in with your eyes open on the costs.
FWIW I found the step up from the Arrow to the Saratoga bigger than that of the Warrior to the Arrow. You do really have to start thinking some distance ahead.
The C6 has the earlier hershy-bar wing, which means it's better at short-field stuff, but does mean that fully loaded, engine off, two stages of flap, trimmed for 90 kts, the rate of sink is like that of an anvil - think 1,500ft/min, which takes a bit of getting used to.
The thing that many newbie Saratoga pilots struggle to adjust to is arriving at airfields in an orderly fashion. I.E. If you do what you do in a Warrior which is to turn up in the overhead at 2,000ft at cruise speed, you'll never get rid of enough energy to manage the speed in the circuit, which is of course what all big aircraft drivers know, but take the tyro pilot by surprise; 160kts in the circuit at most airfields is not welcome.
In adddition, they are both quite a bit bigger and more powerful that you are used to and are very unforgiving if you get low and slow, and unwelcome things can happen quite quickly.
I've owned a Cherokee 6 300 and a Saratoga, and have about 200 and 500hrs in them respectively.
Both are great aircraft, but are better at different things.
The C6 300 is a great load lifter (think 1,400lbs useful load) and will comfortably do grass strips of 450m, at circa 135-140 kts.
The Saratoga needs at least 500m and you have to think carefully about the loading and the wind direction etc to use it down to that size of strip. Useful load is at least 100lbs less (and usually more like 2-300lbs less) but is 15-20kts faster.
I've flown a C6 260 a few times - it has it's devotees, but I have to say I'm not one of them. It's a little slower, and needs a little bit more tarmac, and still has bloody carb-heat!!!
You might find that a good compromise would be a Lance I with the non-T-tail? The T-tail may be a little faster in the cruise than a Lance I, but you can forget short grass strips as the take-off distance required is 50% longer than a normal tail.
On a side note, beware of periods of inactivity in the engine logs, of anything with a Lycoming in it, as the cam-shafts have a nasty habit of rusting as a result, often precipitating an engine overhaul. The cost of an engine overhaul for an O or IO540 is £25k +, assuming that nothing significant is rogered. Much, Much more if the crank is subject to the infamous a/d or there is significant crank-case fretting.
Annual running costs are 30-50% more than an Arrow, mainly due to 15-16 USGPH fuel burn. I know that you can run them slower, and reduce the fuel burn to Arrow levels, but
a. Why own a 160kt machine and then run it at 130kts?
and
b. If you do the maths very carefully on the increased cost of the speed, verses the increased cost of a slower flight
All roads lead to rome!
Great aircraft, but go in with your eyes open on the costs.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Uk
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buying my Saratoga is the best thing I ever did! I had a similar amount of experience as you. Don't rush the transition training I spent probably 15 hours with my instructor going through everything until I was totally happy including all instrument approaches. I'm based at Shoreham if you are ever down that way let me know happy to talk with you. Alex
Are you planning any long distance trips? Do you need the space?
If so the PA 32 is a nice aircraft.
Easy to fly and very stable with loads of power.
Yes the speeds are a bit fast coming from a Warrior but nothing that can not be sorted in a few hours checkout.
The PA32 is a go places aircraft...are you planning to go places?
If so the PA 32 is a nice aircraft.
Easy to fly and very stable with loads of power.
Yes the speeds are a bit fast coming from a Warrior but nothing that can not be sorted in a few hours checkout.
The PA32 is a go places aircraft...are you planning to go places?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found the Saratoga I used in Scotland very comfortable, has benign handling characteristics and good stability. Its probably fitted with an autopilot which usefully reduces workload. A great distance machine. Should not be a problem for 200 hrs and IR training.
Not an aircraft for short strips.
flyme.
Not an aircraft for short strips.
flyme.
Get non-turbo, fixed gear Saratoga. Easier, more useful load, cheaper to insure and service - and only about 10kts slower below FL100 (and how much time do you want to be on oxygen anyway, really?).
My thoughts, which is why I bought exactly that aeroplane.
My thoughts, which is why I bought exactly that aeroplane.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're ultimate goal is a twin, just get the twin to start with. I had only 200hrs when I moved to my twin. Because buying and selling a plane within a few years is always a rotten deal. Not the depreciation so much, but all the stuff you fix it for. Because we are humans, we can't help ourselves. It's like doing your house up - it always ends up twice as expensive in the end because you went for the fancy cabinets and carpets and Farrow & Ball paint…
Buy your last plane first. Get the twin to start with and put your money into that.
Buy your last plane first. Get the twin to start with and put your money into that.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: U.K.
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who needs a twin if you can get your hands on a great Saratoga. Been flying one for over ten years and it always treats me like an old friend.....probably because like all aircraft, I respect it.
There is a great example for sale through Derrick Ings right now.
There is a great example for sale through Derrick Ings right now.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Age: 55
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what about a pa24-250.
seen one on afors. what are they like to fly??, seems, on paper as an extremely good fit and if I was in the market for a 4 seat I'd bee taking a look
155kts cruise, massive payload, with aux and tip tanks you have 120 US gallons fuel and still about 190-200kg for the organic bits
750ft take of roll will get you into/out off most strips.
so, more out of interest than anything, are they complete dogs as seems to be quite inexpensive and a more flexible beast than the others mentioned here.
seen one on afors. what are they like to fly??, seems, on paper as an extremely good fit and if I was in the market for a 4 seat I'd bee taking a look
155kts cruise, massive payload, with aux and tip tanks you have 120 US gallons fuel and still about 190-200kg for the organic bits
750ft take of roll will get you into/out off most strips.
so, more out of interest than anything, are they complete dogs as seems to be quite inexpensive and a more flexible beast than the others mentioned here.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Welwyn
Age: 55
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well there are two Saratoga's on the rental fleet at Fowlmere so you could give a fixed gear and rectractable a go before you buy
www.modair.co.uk
www.modair.co.uk
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the main problem with a PA24-250 is that of age. It would be too galling for words to run to the expense of a c of a machine, and then find oneself grounded by airframe part availability problems. I reckon that Piper's appetite to produce spares for 50 year old machinery must be fading by now.
Also, I'm just not sure that I'd choose to buy another aircraft with carbs, and therefore carb-heat. It's just so much damned easier to have fuel-injection that doesn't need that kind of silliness. Given that the mission capability for that kind of aircraft is likely to be IFR, why choose an aircraft where you have to worry about carb-icing?
The bar-room chat about comanches (twin and singles) has always been that they were tedious machines to land consistently. I've never flown one, so can't confirm or deny that, and It would be interesting to hear from someone who has?
Also, I'm just not sure that I'd choose to buy another aircraft with carbs, and therefore carb-heat. It's just so much damned easier to have fuel-injection that doesn't need that kind of silliness. Given that the mission capability for that kind of aircraft is likely to be IFR, why choose an aircraft where you have to worry about carb-icing?
The bar-room chat about comanches (twin and singles) has always been that they were tedious machines to land consistently. I've never flown one, so can't confirm or deny that, and It would be interesting to hear from someone who has?
Last edited by wsmempson; 6th Jun 2016 at 21:31. Reason: feckin' illiteracy