I looked at Saratogas when I was looking at airplanes a few years ago. When it's among the first airplanes you've looked at, and your previous experience is in Cessnas it looks very nice. In fact if you just open the rear door and have a look at a nicely done interior it still looks nice.

But then go look at the panel. Work the controls. Look at things very hard.

Then go do the same to a Bonanza. You don't have to even fly them if you have an eye for quality construction to know which is the better airplane.

But Tom's experience is very instructive. He's flying a turbo charged version with decent speed but OMG look at the fuel required to go that fast!

As far as "moving about the cabin" that whole idea in that size airplane makes me very nervous. It's not that big. In fact it's small enough for unfortunate things to happen in the attempt. Maybe I'm wrong. Probably am. But it doesn't sound like a good idea.

For the kind of money you're talking about you could have an A36 with Turbonormalization, glass panel, better useful load, tip tanks, low time engine, etc. You could fly at 175 knots true on 16 gallons an hour or less or you can push a little more gas and go 190 knots or maybe a little more. So, the $50 or $100 per hour you save on gas (depending on price) you can spend on something else.

Of your requirements the only plus I see for the Toga is the luggage compartment. It definitely wins there. The A36 has a decent luggage area but it's limited to 70 pounds so with 4 aboard and luggage you need to figure out how to use the bags as ottomans.

I know your wife won't be "flying" the airplane and may not care about whether it flies like a Suburban or a Benz. But she will be flying in it and I'll bet if you go bouncing around in the bumps she'll feel better in a Bo.

If you want to move around the cabin you need a bigger plane.

I'd suggest heading over to SaratogaTalk and asking them about Togas, oops there is no SaratogaTalk. Wonder why?

I'm just raggin on you but in a more serious vain, once Piper's get a little age on them its very difficult to find airframe parts. They wear quickly and replacements are hard to find. Oh and one last thing they are ugly!

If you're comparing the Toga TC you should be comparing it to the A36 TN, you'll be hard pressed to match the performance of an A36 TN.

Don,
I used to fly a 1999 Saratoga HP for a publishing company. Your analysis is correct. Nicer cabin and, with the nose cargo compartment, it's very easy to load and stay within the CG envelope. The 300 hp Lycoming 540 can burn a lot of gas at most altitudes all for a minimal TAS of around 160 Kts at the lower altitudes. The Saratoga also flys like an old truck.

Other than that, it's a very close call.

I have a few hours in a toga and flew a friends cherokee 6 and it's ok but I agree the back seat headroom is not as good as my A36, the other thing I noticed is the storage compartment and cup holder between seat 3 and 4, it looks impressive from the outside but on a flight over several hours I would have to through it out, because it takes up important hip space and if you have no one beside you you cant stretch out as you can with the A36. As a side note the cherokee 6 flys with a much higher nose attitude that takes a bit to get used to.

Michael Chancey
N4198S A36
N5871L Grumman Traveler

Hi Don,

According to CAV's website, their TKS system for the Saratoga doesn't mention specifically that there is a FIKI option, and I'm pretty sure that Piper never had a FIKI boot system.

I don't know if that's a deal killer for you.

Best,
Rich

My mechanic has a Lance (non-TC'd). As others in this thread, he calls it a truck. He likes to exaggerate to make a point, but he said "This thing could haul anvils, but it burns gas to do it." He's also the one who told me to buy a Bo.

As Charles said, it can be a pain to work behind the panel. You have to access some of the wiring from the baggage compartment. I think I remember my mechanic saying that the panel folds down into your lap though.

As far as flaps go, it has a J-bar instead of electrical flaps like the Bo's and Cessnas use. For engine and prop controls, it uses a throttle quadrant instead of the vernier knobs.

His plane came with a "magic hands" system that lowers the gear at low throttle and airspeed. Problem is, it's a finicky beast that uses a separate pitot in the airstream to determine throttle and airspeed, sends that through a baffle actuator through a friction lever, which can bypass the gear hydraulics to lower the gear. And it was not working correctly. In this case, you almost had to stall it before it would lower the gear, and you almost had to reach cruising speed before it would allow the gear to be raised. Good thing it has an override.

Anyway, that gives you some idea of the controls.

Rich - that's something I didn't know. It's not necessarily a deal killer for me and to clarify, I'm not looking for FIKI because I plan to fly long missions in known ice. I think that's a bad idea. I simply prefer FIKI b/c I know the rigors of certification and that a FIKI system is going to be much more robust than a non-FIKI system.

If I do encounter ice, I want a high performing system on board. I flew through light to moderate ice in a Cirrus SR22 and although their 'inadvertent' TKS system was on the airplane, it had a hard time keeping up. We couldn't climb or descend to get out of it and although there was no serious danger, I didn't like it, especially the increasing build up on the windshield.

Thanks for the info.

You know you joke about this Rick but it's a very good point. One of the nice things about flying the C182 right now is that there is a huge network of pilots and an excellent forum with VERY knowledgeable guys who instantly answer any question you post.

The BT forum is an absolute gold mine of information and knowing that resource is there will make a huge difference in the overall ownership experience. I've heard the M/MOPA is an exceptional organization but I haven't seen a really good Piper forum yet. I found one but it had no discussions on the 'Toga and the forum didn't have a fraction of the activity of BT or the Cessna forums.

Just look at the yoke and fit and finish of any Piper. It's cheap plastic. That's all it took for me to want a Beech.

The only Beech I've sat in so far is a very old Debonair. While the Deb is too small for what I'm looking for, I couldn't believe the fit and finish and layout of the panel AND it was mostly original. It made me feel just disgusted with my C182 panel which is a comparable year model to the Deb.

[quote="Don Coburn"]
My take thus far is that if you're in the back, you'd be picking the 'Toga and if you're the one in the front left seat, the Bo is your first choice.

I'd like to offer a contrary opinion. When I fly with passengers in my 36, it's normally with my wife, 15 year old son and 12 year old daughter. Although the seat config is not the club seating of the A36, even when we're loaded with stuff, they have room to spare back there. Of course, a little extra passenger room, cargo area or useful load is always a good thing to have, as you never know when you'll need or want it. But in my view the Toga's relatively small gains on these items are not sufficient to offset the Bo's many other, more likely to really matter to you EVERY TIME YOU FLY as a pilot and owner, advantages.

Let me know when you want to come down to the Columbus area and I'll show you what a very VERY old Beech looks like.

And it has a cabin you can move around in.

I'll be at Knox County 4I3 for the next two months due to VTA's runway resurfacing.

Don,

Let me start with the disclaimer: I haven't flown either one yet. I fly a Piper Arrow today, and quite happily so, but my growing family means I need room for five, and I would very much like to fly a bit faster and higher than I can today (read: turbo), plus I would like to be able to easily carry full-size bicycles in the airplane.

The Lance/Saratoga seemed like the most natural way to step up for me as a Piper driver. The newer Saratogas look pretty nice and comfortable on the inside. I haven't flown in one, but I've sat in one on the ground, both in the front and the back seats. It felt very comfortable to me, and I'm a tall guy.

I had also started to look at the A36. A bit less room, a bit more speed, but not entirely different, at least that's what I thought when I first looked at them. But when a mechanic friend of mine took me to his shop and let me sit in three of them, I just couldn't get comfortable - there wasn't enough headroom for me. So I focused on the Pipers (for the time being).

Looking at useful loads, the Saratoga II TC doesn't have much. Fill it up with fuel, and you barely have enough left for a pilot and a passenger. The older Saratogas look better, and the Lances look even better from that perspective. So I figured I'd look into a Turbo Lance, which can be fairly cheap to buy, and bring the paint, interior and avionics up to date as needed. I went as far as trying to schedule a pre-buy inspection for one; in the end, that process was stopped before it even started.

By then I had also heard stories about thermal issues with the engine in turbo-charged Lances and Saratogas. I heard that intercoolers make things better, but still far from perfect. I heard that gas, lots and lots of gas, is what it took to keep the engine temperature under control. Trying to learn more, I signed up for the piperowner.org message forum, which brought the next disappointment. You see, by then I had become a regular visitor of the beechtalk forum, and the kind of support and fan community that exists for Beech aircraft just doesn't seem to have anything comparable on the Piper side. I feared that with any questions about my Piper aircraft I'd be pretty much alone.

There were other things that made me want to go down the Beech A36 path. Maybe the most important one is that I truly can by a relatively old airframe and engine and upgrade it as my budget allows over time to fit my needs and desires. With the Pipers, you have to make some really important decisions and trade-offs right at the start, so you have only chance to get them right. Specifically, turbo or normally aspirated is something you cannot change later. The A36, on the other hand, allows me to start with something basic, and upgrade once I figure out what I really need. Turbo charging or turbo normalizing? The guys at TAT make a fantastic product. TKS with known-ice protection? Yes, I can add that down the road if needed. If only I could fit into an A36...

Well, beechtalk came to the rescue. My attempt to contact tall A36 pilots led to a "fitting" where fellow beechtalker Steve Miles allowed me to try on his A36. With his help, I was able to adjust things to the point where it worked. I now knew that I could turn an A36 into an airplane I would be comfortable in.

I haven't bought one yet - still saving a little more money - and haven't even flown in ine yet, but I have decided that my next airplane will be an A36. I get more speed on less gas, will likely have less engine troubles, and have a platform whose capabilities I can grow over time. The downsides, as I see them, are less space in the cockpit and cabin, and certainly less space for luggage. People here on beechtalk tell me I shouldn't worry about the latter, but they haven't seen how the four women in my household pack for a trip. I know the two large baggage areas in the Lance/Saratoga would come in handy, but I guess one can't have everything.

Last but not least, from everything I've heard I expect the handling characteristics of the A36 to be much better than the Saratoga. I will probably not understand what this means until I have my own Beech. Until then, I tell myself that it won't be terribly important, because almost all of my flying is cross country, mostly with the autopilot engaged, but I'm prepared to be wowed. And my prediction is, once I get used to the nicer feel of the Beech, going back will be difficult.

- Martin

Hi all,

I'll echo Marin's observations.

The Piper on-line community is rather fractured. There are spots of of support that are excellent, such as the ICS, that have a dedicated support group. But on the whole, I've found that if you are looking for an on-line group for quality "support", you might be disappointed.

If you kind of know what you're looking for, and are dillegent, you can find someone that can help or at least point you in the right direction. But, it's not like BT here, and to some extent, the CPA, where if you throw an issue out, you'll have 20 people offering up solutions in 10 minutes, along with 5 phone numbers of shops that specialize in THAT problem.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Piper doesn't make excellent products. They do, and their airplanes are outstanding for the roles they fill. There are also great people who own them, and there are spots that they gather, but you have to be a bit more patient in finding answers. For one reason or another, they haven't coalesced into a community like BT.

I wouldn't let that stop me from owning a Piper, though. I was well on my way to Dakota ownership. As Charlie can probably attest, clean Daks are like hens teeth. They are VERY hard to find, and people who have them, hang on to them.

Unfortunately, if you are looking for an airplane less than 10 years old, you are going to have limited options in the six seat category, and everything there will be a tradeoff. Sixes and their derrivatives are great load haulers. Heck, there was an Piper ad back in the day that showed them loading a piano into a Six, but like most other airplanes, they've gained weight in their production runs and everything becomes a tradeoff.

The only piston powered, six place airplanes, that I'm aware of, that have FIKI from the factory are the 210s (later models) and the Piper Malibu line. You can get FIKI refitted via TKS on the 210s and latter model A36/G36s. CAV may have a FIKI product for Pipers, but they don't advertise it, but you can always call.

There are also new-build Cessna T206s. They might be slower than what you want, but they can get a non-FIKI installation. With TKS, you are probably looking at a 1175 useful load, or there abouts. A quick run through on Van-Bortel's site shows that later model turbo Stationairs (2006-ish) are running in your budget range of 400-500k, and come with air conditioning.

Best,
Rich

To clarify the TKS system installed on our 2008 Saratoga TC is not FIKI - it is only for encountering inadvertent or unforecast ice. However I think the system is valuable during the winter and spring considering where we base and operate (predominantly in the upper Midwest).

I believe TKS adds somewhere in the neighborghood of 75lbs weight to the airplane but not certain. I do know we had issue with it when the airplane had about 400 hrs TTAF. A line running through the underside of the floor pulled apart from a connector and it spewed fluid under the the carpet (essentially flooding both pilot and co-pilot wells - we had to have the interior torn out and entire carpet replaced. After some arm twisting Piper covered it under warranty (albeit I think we were slightly out of warranty at the time).

The system is clearly piece of mind from an operational standpoint.