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.

With 200 hrs total - No.

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

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.

200hrs TT but only 50hrs PIC? How did that happen?? :confused:

Other than that, if you can pilot an Arrow I don't see why you shouldn't be able to handle a Saratoga...


maehhh

And if you can manage an Arrow you can manage a Six 300 which might be better suited to your needs, and easier on the wallet. It's my favourite of the bunch.

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!)

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.

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!

How do the dogs deal with the noise?

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.

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

They're gun dogs.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Thanks Alex. I have decided to go for it and will be looking to do 15-20 hrs dual before venturing out on my own.

Hi - yes the idea is to make the most of six seats with trips around the UK and then, hopefully, further afield.

Do you do much over water and night flying...I guess that's why I'm thinking of a twin.

Many thanks to all of you who have taken time out to reply. It's evident there are many years of experience responding much of it on type, so I have the confidence that buying a Saratoga will be the right decision as long as I complete a 15-20 hour conversion course. I have see one or two good examples around the c. 2000 vintage; lets hope they're there come Autumn.

C.2000 is much heavier than older - do a good analysis of who/what you'll be carrying and for how far. Mine is a 1980s, I can (just) take six adults about 400nm with reserve. The latest versions could barely take off with six adults...

I suspect that 4 adults in comfort is my aim, but 2 plus 3 retrievers to the Channel Islands will be the norm and 200-300 miles.

An early 1980's normally aspirated Saratoga with mechanical flaps is likely to have a useful load of circa 1,300lbs. A very late Saratoga with electric flaps is likely to be 1,000-1,100lbs useful load. Full fuel is about 600lbs, and bear in mind that below 70% fuel is out of sight of the filler apertures - and you cannot dip the tanks to check what is there - so you will have to be certain of your calculations (and that no-one has stolen any fuel) to take off with little enough fuel to seat 4 people or more.

These aren't insurmountable problems, but it does mean that you are operating a 6 seater with the same useful load as an Arrow.

I'd agree with Sam R and wsmempson an 80's one will give you more flexibility mine is an 89 with elec flaps and air con which add weight but fixed gear which reduces weight and useful load is about 1250 lbs, comfortably got 5 adults and a red setter to Lands End for hols last year. The ladies were not over impressed with their luggage allowance of 7kgs each though :)

Looks like my original proposition of a Seneca V is becoming more viable.

If you've got the cash to do it I don't suspect you'll get any arguments against on here

I think that in terms of operating costs, you'll find that over a 10 year period, a Seneca V operated on the G-reg will cost you just over double what it costs to run a Saratoga. Based on 120hrs p/a, think £250-300 per hour, as opposed to £140-180 per hour for the Saratoga.

Bear in mind that the fuselage is common to the two aircraft, and there are no size differences; the major difference is that a Seneca V is likely to be de-iced and is a really good IFR machine for most weathers but, with a full fuel load, will also necessitate a number of trade-offs in terms of load when fully fuelled.


If you run the aircraft on the N-reg, you'll probably find that the regime is more proportionate to private flying, but the long term future of N-reg in EASA-land is an unknown right now.

Ok I'm really going to show my ignorance here and ask why N reg aircraft have a different operating cost to G plates? And is it not possible to reregister to G reg?

I've only ever run aircraft on the G-reg, so will let someone with direct experience of N-reg operation answer this in more detail. but the executive summary seems to be that the FAA maintenance regime is more pragmatic and proportionate and based on condition, rather than arbitrary timed life than the EASA regimes, and therefore costs less.

However, in terms of putting a N-reg aircraft on to the G-reg, whilst in theory that should be simple, needless to say it isn't always so. Many of the UK part M subpart G outfits are quite sensitive about back to birth paperwork trails, and gaps are viewed with suspicion and intransigence. Also, any work that has been done with an American STC needs EASA paperwork, otherwise it can necessitate paperwork for a major or minor mod - depending on the work.

All these things should be utterly simple, but in practice aren't.

Alles klar! Thank you.

One point I would make is that the Hershey Bar low tailed Lance offers a lot more aircraft for less money than the Saratoga.

Re your gun dogs, how do they get on in the air? Do you protect their hearing at all?

Reason I ask is I am thinking of taking the pup along sometime but not sure how she will cope (small terrier cross).

Well, first thing is to make your small terrier happy.

:-)

Good thinking. I have seen some low hour pilots going through my cockpit and one thing that registered is, that that the guys that did a lot of flying in a short period of time right after getting their license or gaining a tyeprating were in the long run the "better" ones.

So I would like to suggest that when you bought the airplane and had your conversion, do yourself a favor and plan it so as to fly a lot right after the conversion to let things sink in deeply.

Happy landings !

"how do they get on in the air?"

I imagine they love a poodle.


"Do you protect their hearing at all?

I can't imagine gun dogs wearing ear protection. I could be wrong.
I would love to see them with Ray Bans and life-jackets though. :-)

Magic 90, most trips in this particular Saratoga are down to the Channel Islands. Summer, winter - makes no odds.