I never flew a 206 and only flew a PA-32 once long ago, but I still remember my reaction to it. The “truck” description is the best I can give. It doesn’t handle badly, it’s just heavy and no very quick in response. That probably makes it a great instrument platform. My Baron is so fun to fly it makes my kid puke, so take the descriptions for what they’re worth.

Well, I had quite a bit of time in a C205, and yes, the handling was similar, maybe a tad heavier. That nose sticks out a long way and gets heavy in the flare with no weight in back. But it was never work to fly, just don't expect to chase toilet paper in one.

I don't have much time in one and it was over 20 years ago but in my recollection:
It climbed like crazy
It was roomy and comfortable
I was coming from a C-172 so it seemed fast but was probably about 135K
This was before LOP was a thing so I remember 24 or 25 squared at 16 gph
Loved the forward luggage compartment
Bad for unpaved surfaces
Sunk like an anvil when power reduced
If I needed the room I'd take one in a minute. Handling and fit and finish aren't on par with the Bonanza but load hauling is better at a tolerable speed penalty.

150 hrs in a PA-32 260 owned in a partnership in NYC.
Flew to west coast and back with girl and dog. Landed <2k ft at Fisher's island, and conducted high altitude mountain operations in Santa Fe, Ogden, Truckee, and Jackson Hole.

Impressions:
1) 125 KTAS is realistic, but block fuel burns will astound you - 18gph is not uncommon. I think the 300 can safely plan for 135 KTAS. No time in those.

2) Flies off the ground in <1k ft when light and climbs >1000fpm. Totally different plane at gross. Hugs the ground for thousands of feet and barely climbs at 600fpm when heavy, even at sea level.

3) No appreciable climb when taking off from airports >6000 ft even when freezing cold outside. The 300 is reported to be better. I'm talking about sub 200 fpm requiring shuttle climbs, even when hundreds of lb below gross.

4) Annuals can be inexpensive unless you throw away the keys, in which case they can reach 10k just like with any plane.

5) Fuel system is complex. Run 2 or 3 tanks dry; or leave significant range on the table. Multiple sump points including a tough one under the belly. All of them require attention otherwise you can get water in the fuel system which may freeze, as it did to me on Thanksgiving 2 yrs ago causing partial intermittent power loss.

6) Heaviness of controls blew me away coming from warriors and 172s. However, it was a non-issue after 5 hrs of training even at 100TT at the time. Extremely stable in pitch, and quite stable in roll. No noticeable yaw.

7) Unbelievably roomy comfortable cabin, either in club or in straight-ahead configuration. Not in the same class as a 58 baron or 36 bo. Very wide, tons of baggage room and flexibility behind the seats and between the engine and panel (more useful than you might expect).

Takeaways:
1) Excellent family hauler at sea level

2) Not an insignificant step up from trainers in complexity

3) Slower than a 182 by some margin

4) Watch BT'er Eric Haase's youtube channel (socalflyingmonkey) to learn how to "do" the PA-32 right

5) Very attractive acquisition prices, not in the remote realm of the overpriced 206

Good luck with the choice. If you go this direction, e-mail me for my old checklists and operating tips / gotchas.

-J

Small correction: it’s the ‘77 and older that are slower, ‘78 and ‘79 have the wheel pant performance improvements that make them faster (can look at POH online, they have difference performance charts with the differences). The ‘79 also has the newer Saratoga fuel system with only 2 tanks, but still the Hershey wings.

Plenty of aftermarket options for wheel pants to retrofit older planes though, suspect they can reach similar performance.

Thank you everyone, this is super helpful!

Doesn’t seem like there’s many for sale (I’ve loosely followed the market for many years and have never seen so few for sale at once).

If anyone has any leads on a late model (77-79) please let me know!

I have an 82 fixed gear Saratoga which is basically is the same as a 79 Six in terms of the fuel system but the big difference is the tapered (laminar) wing vs. the Hershey bar wing. Both have their fans but most consider the toga to be an improvement over the six. I have had mine for 11 years and we love it. There are never more than a couple for sale as people tend to hang on to them because of the utility and (relatively) low maintenance costs. And you do have to love the Lyc IO-540, it is like a tractor.

I had a Six, 260 HP, for a little over 10 years. Great airplane. Reasonable maintenance costs....certainly the lowest cost of the six place airplanes. I hesitate to say cheap...cause nothing in aviation is cheap.

I'd say it's more like a Chevy paneled station wagon. Does a lot of things well....the best is the load carrying (mine 1550 useful load) and spacious cabin with lots of cargo room. Not the fastest or fuel efficient....but nice on the family amenities.

Fairly simple systems...there are a few expensive things that can bite. Corrosion at the step in the fuselage and in the tail could be costly. Fuel selector rebuilds are expensive. Torque links have an AD for the older versions.

I had the standard seat configuration. After my purchase I thought I wanted to do the club seating conversion. Once I started looking into that....it was very expensive and required newer seats for the middle row. The brackets and structure for those middle seats are not the same. And....we actually had more leg room with the standard arrangement. Club seating takes away leg room in the back and has everyone knee knocking....that's not the greatest for older kids who don't want to touch. So, we ended up liking the standard seating config. For long trips we often took the middle seats out and had loads of room to stretch out.

I have an 82 fixed gear Saratoga which is basically is the same as a 79 Six in terms of the fuel system but the big difference is the tapered (laminar) wing vs. the Hershey bar wing. Both have their fans but most consider the toga to be an improvement over the six. I have had mine for 11 years and we love it. There are never more than a couple for sale as people tend to hang on to them because of the utility and (relatively) low maintenance costs. And you do have to love the Lyc IO-540, it is like a tractor.

I have had my PA-32-300 for four years. Has hauled a family of 5 with bags to both coasts and borders. Almost always fly at max gross weight, but that is 1000 pounds in the cabin with full fuel (84 gal). That is an advantage to the older 1969 model with low back all forward facing seats, they are a bit lighter than the newer models. I see 140 KTAS regularly at 8000 MSL, 15 gph with a JPI EDM-800. I do have the Knots2U wheel pants, flap and aileron gap seals (those added 5 knots). With a full load don't expect stellar performance, 2000 ft take-off roll, 500 fpm climb, from a 1500MSL field. When it is over 85F those numbers are worse.
Density Altitude is a big deal in this plane, I have found that as a rule of thumb, figure a runway length equal to the DA when at max weight, to clear a 50ft obstacle.
I have a thousand hours in old 182's, and the Six is a dog compared to that, but the roomy cabin makes up for it as far as traveling with the family. The mx and operating cost is about the same between the two, and pennies compared to my Baron. Insurance on the 6 was 2x that of the 182 (that had 1/3 the hull value). I maintain it myself, and have never had any mx issue that prevented a flight. It is the easiest plane I have ever worked on.
The Six was my best option for the room and weight I needed to carry, without going to something that was 3x the acquisition and operating cost. With kids going off to college, I am considering downsizing back to a 182 and a short dirt strip.

I've got to be honest: that's not been my experience in the 32-300. It's been very capable even at high altitudes. How confident are you in your empty weight? If it's never been re-weighed, could be that you're heavier than you think you are...

I've got plenty of high DA takeoffs in places like KTRK, KTVL, KLAR (and the track logs to retro-actively estimate takeoff roll and 50ft) and I have no problem making POH numbers (or beating them, after installing electronic ignition).

That having been said, being under gross definitely helps a lot with takeoff performance (very different plane lightly loaded), but surprisingly barely affects cruise performance as per the POH.

No one mentioning the wing aft spar attachment corrosion issue?

Even if its a dry land airplane you have galvanic corrosion slowly eating it up.

We closed on our '77 Cherokee Six 300 in Feb 2020 after selling our Grumman Tiger (growing family!). While the Six isn't as sporty as the Tiger, I wouldn't call it bad. It's stable, which is exactly what I want in what is essentially an SUV w/wings. Still waiting to install a JPI-830 to dabble with LOP, but so far I'm seeing 135+ KTAS on 16 gph @ 65% cruising 8-10K. The cabin width and overall size is amazing for something that fits in a t-hangar. The front baggage is a game changer moving up from your typical 4-place GA airplane. No issues so far with grass strips like Gaston's. Last week we took the grandparents & kids on a lunch run to Kingsley Field, Missouri (MO9) and had no problem landing and taking off on the 1865' x 18' chip/seal portion of the strip despite being ~100 lbs below gross.

Bottom line, Cherokee Sixes weren't on my radar when the time came to upgrade. Now, my wife constantly comments on how comfortable (our seats recline), roomy, & solid it feels.

So some of them have reclining seats? Is yours club or fwd facing? How much do they recline?