buying help

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"

: 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 *
************************************************** ***********************

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

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" 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

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...

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...

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...

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

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,