buying help

[John Doe]

Hello,

I in the market for a six seater.

Could somone please help me out with a cost analysis of a single engine 6
seater vs a twin.

I would like something on the faster end of the group. Some of the models
I've looked at are chugging along at 150kts or so. I'm looking for
something closer to 190kts if possible.

Thanks,

[Darrel Toepfer]

John Doe wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I in the market for a six seater.
>
> Could somone please help me out with a cost analysis of a single engine 6
> seater vs a twin.
>
> I would like something on the faster end of the group. Some of the models
> I've looked at are chugging along at 150kts or so. I'm looking for
> something closer to 190kts if possible.

Plane & Pilot just did a review on the Saratoga. Full fuel gave +500
pounds useful. If I remember right that included the deicing system.
What a waste of money on a 6 seat, 180 knot plane...

[Jim Burns]

If you want to burn the fuel, an Aztec will true 180 knots. Figure a cost
of about $200 per hour, or 3 times the fuel burn times the fuel price. Our
current price is $2.96, so 25gph x 3 x $2.96 = $222. We've found that to be
about 10% high, so far.
Jim

[BTIZ]

might be 500# useful.. but to fill the seats of a "Lance".. watch the aft CG

BT

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
...
> John Doe wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I in the market for a six seater.
>>
>> Could somone please help me out with a cost analysis of a single engine 6
>> seater vs a twin.
>>
>> I would like something on the faster end of the group. Some of the models
>> I've looked at are chugging along at 150kts or so. I'm looking for
>> something closer to 190kts if possible.
>
> Plane & Pilot just did a review on the Saratoga. Full fuel gave +500
> pounds useful. If I remember right that included the deicing system. What
> a waste of money on a 6 seat, 180 knot plane...

[Darrel Toepfer]

BTIZ wrote:

> might be 500# useful.. but to fill the seats of a "Lance".. watch the aft CG

Well the Saratoga has an upfront luggage compartment to assist with that...

[George Patterson]

Darrel Toepfer wrote:
>
> Plane & Pilot just did a review on the Saratoga. Full fuel gave +500
> pounds useful. If I remember right that included the deicing system.
> What a waste of money on a 6 seat, 180 knot plane...

What's the useful load with 3.5 hours' fuel in the tanks?

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Darrel Toepfer]

George Patterson wrote:
> Darrel Toepfer wrote:
>
>> Plane & Pilot just did a review on the Saratoga. Full fuel gave +500
>> pounds useful. If I remember right that included the deicing system.
>> What a waste of money on a 6 seat, 180 knot plane...
>
> What's the useful load with 3.5 hours' fuel in the tanks?

I quoted wrong, full tanks yields 411 pounds useful inside the cabin,
537 lbs total (front baggage? 100# max)...

Full tanks is 102 gallons. TKS deice fluid weighs 9.2 lbs. per gallon
and carries 4.4 gallons. 75% power consumption is 16.1 gph @ 175 knots @
10k ft... 3600# gross, empty weight is 2466#, useful load 1149#. Max
ramp weight is 3615#..

So something around 3 people and not much...

The author mentions a ferry flight to down under at 25% over gross,
4500# total weight... 650 fpm climb out...

[BTIZ]

so doesn't the Lance, and Cherokee 6... all precursors to the Saratoga
BT

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
...
> BTIZ wrote:
>
>> might be 500# useful.. but to fill the seats of a "Lance".. watch the aft
>> CG
>
> Well the Saratoga has an upfront luggage compartment to assist with
> that...

[Edward Todd]

In article >,
Darrel Toepfer > wrote:

> BTIZ wrote:
>
> > might be 500# useful.. but to fill the seats of a "Lance".. watch the aft CG
>
> Well the Saratoga has an upfront luggage compartment to assist with that..


So ... all you need is 6 people that weigh 75 lbs each . And each
carrying one small 5 pound suitcase with them.




..

[George Patterson]

Darrel Toepfer wrote:
>
> I quoted wrong, full tanks yields 411 pounds useful inside the cabin,
> 537 lbs total (front baggage? 100# max)...

So. Using the figures you provided, you can put 60 gallons in the tanks and do 3
hour legs with nearly 45 minutes reserve and carry 663 pounds in the cabin (789
max). That's a little better, but not much. Leave the de-ice tanks empty, and
you get another 40 pounds. That finally gets you up to 4 FAA adults.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[[email protected]]

On 12-Aug-2005, Darrel Toepfer > wrote:

> Plane & Pilot just did a review on the Saratoga. Full fuel gave +500
> pounds useful. If I remember right that included the deicing system.
> What a waste of money on a 6 seat, 180 knot plane...


I agree that the Saratoga useful load is disappointing to say the least, but
full fuel "payload" has to be about the most USELESS parameter ever quoted
for an airplane . In fact, I would argue that any airplane that has
significant payload with full fuel has a serious design flaw -- fuel tanks
that are too small. Case in point: My Arrow IV has 72 gal (usable) fuel.
If I want to fill the four seats with "standard" FAA adults, however, I have
to restrict fuel to a still respectable 50 gallons. Older Arrow models only
had 50 gallon tanks, and most could carry four adults and full fuel. Does
that mean that Piper made a mistake when they increased the fuel capacity?
I don't think so, particularly when I can benefit from exceptional range
when the passenger load is light.

What you really want to know about an airplane's carrying capability is
payload available when fueled for a specific mission, say a 500 nm flight
into a 15 kt headwind with 1 hr reserve.

Virtually every jet from a Citation to a B-747 cannot fly with both tanks
and seats full. Does that mean they are somehow deficient?

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Jay Honeck]

> Plane & Pilot just did a review on the Saratoga. Full fuel gave +500
> pounds useful. If I remember right that included the deicing system. What
> a waste of money on a 6 seat, 180 knot plane...

I just sat in a new Saratoga that Piper brought in for the Cherokee Pilots
Association fly-in (held annually at Tan-Tar-A resort), and marveled at the
incredible plushness of, well, everything. It's like sitting in a Lincoln
Continental or Mercedes limo, especially in the "way-back"... The change
from the cheap plastic interiors of bygone years is remarkable.

I then spoke with Karl Berge, one of the original designers of the Cherokee
(who was speaking at the convention), and he went off on a long (albeit
low-key) rant about how Piper (and, actually, ALL the other manufacturers)
have gotten so "fat", and lost so much useful load.

According to Karl, in the 1960s they had one iron-clad rule at Piper: In
order to add a pound you first had to find a pound to take away. This
rule kept everything light and (as many of us have since found) not very
durable in the long run.

But, of course, they were designing them to last five years, tops. We
weren't supposed to be flying them around for decades!

Anyway, that's why a Saratoga is left with a paltry 500 useful load, while a
1960s vintage Cherokee Six has a 980 pound useful load. (Both weights after
fuel.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I agree that the Saratoga useful load is disappointing to say the least,
> but
> full fuel "payload" has to be about the most USELESS parameter ever quoted
> for an airplane . In fact, I would argue that any airplane that has
> significant payload with full fuel has a serious design flaw -- fuel tanks
> that are too small.

Well, unless you have a Pathfinder.

With four tanks, holding 84 gallons, I'm not sure where they could squeeze
in any more fuel!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

: With four tanks, holding 84 gallons, I'm not sure where they could squeeze
: in any more fuel!

Simple. Seal up the *WHOLE* wing and just start filling from the end! I'd
bet you could fly for half an oil change loaded with just fuel... :)

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[John Doe]

yea, after doing my own research I am less than impressed with the
capabilities of the Lance.


"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
...
> John Doe wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I in the market for a six seater.
>>
>> Could somone please help me out with a cost analysis of a single engine 6
>> seater vs a twin.
>>
>> I would like something on the faster end of the group. Some of the models
>> I've looked at are chugging along at 150kts or so. I'm looking for
>> something closer to 190kts if possible.
>
> Plane & Pilot just did a review on the Saratoga. Full fuel gave +500
> pounds useful. If I remember right that included the deicing system. What
> a waste of money on a 6 seat, 180 knot plane...

[John Doe]

yea, after doing my own research I am less than impressed with the
capabilities of the Lance.


"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
...
> John Doe wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I in the market for a six seater.
>>
>> Could somone please help me out with a cost analysis of a single engine 6
>> seater vs a twin.
>>
>> I would like something on the faster end of the group. Some of the models
>> I've looked at are chugging along at 150kts or so. I'm looking for
>> something closer to 190kts if possible.
>
> Plane & Pilot just did a review on the Saratoga. Full fuel gave +500
> pounds useful. If I remember right that included the deicing system. What
> a waste of money on a 6 seat, 180 knot plane...

[Newps]

He can fly for half an oil change now. I have 84 gallons in my soon to
be departed 182 and at the max range setting that is 11.5 hours of gas.



wrote:
> : With four tanks, holding 84 gallons, I'm not sure where they could squeeze
> : in any more fuel!
>
> Simple. Seal up the *WHOLE* wing and just start filling from the end! I'd
> bet you could fly for half an oil change loaded with just fuel... :)
>
> -Cory
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:HXlLe.264987$xm3.200298@attbi_s21...
>> Plane & Pilot just did a review on the Saratoga. Full fuel gave +500
>> pounds useful. If I remember right that included the deicing system. What
>> a waste of money on a 6 seat, 180 knot plane...
>
> I just sat in a new Saratoga that Piper brought in for the Cherokee Pilots
> Association fly-in (held annually at Tan-Tar-A resort), and marveled at
> the incredible plushness of, well, everything. It's like sitting in a
> Lincoln Continental or Mercedes limo, especially in the "way-back"... The
> change from the cheap plastic interiors of bygone years is remarkable.
>
> I then spoke with Karl Berge, one of the original designers of the
> Cherokee (who was speaking at the convention), and he went off on a long
> (albeit low-key) rant about how Piper (and, actually, ALL the other
> manufacturers) have gotten so "fat", and lost so much useful load.
>
> According to Karl, in the 1960s they had one iron-clad rule at Piper: In
> order to add a pound you first had to find a pound to take away. This
> rule kept everything light and (as many of us have since found) not very
> durable in the long run.
>
> But, of course, they were designing them to last five years, tops. We
> weren't supposed to be flying them around for decades!
>
> Anyway, that's why a Saratoga is left with a paltry 500 useful load, while
> a 1960s vintage Cherokee Six has a 980 pound useful load. (Both weights
> after fuel.)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Isn't the Saratoga a retractable? That is part of the difference. Was it
also a turbo with TKS? Airplanes are definatly heavier but some of that
weight is useful stuff.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

The PA32s excel in cabin room. You are not going to find lots of room and
high speed (with the same power) in the same airplane.

Mike
MU-2


"John Doe" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> yea, after doing my own research I am less than impressed with the
> capabilities of the Lance.
>
>
> "Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> John Doe wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I in the market for a six seater.
>>>
>>> Could somone please help me out with a cost analysis of a single engine
>>> 6 seater vs a twin.
>>>
>>> I would like something on the faster end of the group. Some of the
>>> models I've looked at are chugging along at 150kts or so. I'm looking
>>> for something closer to 190kts if possible.
>>
>> Plane & Pilot just did a review on the Saratoga. Full fuel gave +500
>> pounds useful. If I remember right that included the deicing system. What
>> a waste of money on a 6 seat, 180 knot plane...
>
>

[[email protected]]

Newps > wrote:
: He can fly for half an oil change now. I have 84 gallons in my soon to
: be departed 182 and at the max range setting that is 11.5 hours of gas.

I was assuming a 50-hour oil change.

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[John Doe]

Does a Turbo Lance help the performance numbers at all?


"John Doe" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Hello,
>
> I in the market for a six seater.
>
> Could somone please help me out with a cost analysis of a single engine 6
> seater vs a twin.
>
> I would like something on the faster end of the group. Some of the models
> I've looked at are chugging along at 150kts or so. I'm looking for
> something closer to 190kts if possible.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"John Doe" > wrote in message
news:JHKMe.12899$Co1.12293@lakeread01...
> Does a Turbo Lance help the performance numbers at all?
>
>
> "John Doe" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> Hello,
>>
>> I in the market for a six seater.
>>
>> Could somone please help me out with a cost analysis of a single engine 6
>> seater vs a twin.
>>
>> I would like something on the faster end of the group. Some of the models
>> I've looked at are chugging along at 150kts or so. I'm looking for
>> something closer to 190kts if possible.
>>
>> Thanks,

I had a Turbo Lance with most of the speed mods as well as an intercooler.
It usually went 170kts at around 75%.

Mike
MU-2