buying help

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,

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...

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...

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 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...

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.




..

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.

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...

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.

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