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