Piper Saratoga vs the Cessna Stationair
The following email is reprinted below for those considering the purchase of a six-place Piper PA-32R-301T Saratoga II.
Dear Steve & Curt:
Here is the July 2007 article about the Cessna Turbo Stationair in Plane and Pilot Magazine. Also attached is supporting information about the aircraft capability.I want to highlight some important numbers comparing the Stationair and Saratoga you will not find otherwise.Useful Load (These are numbers from real airplanes with factory installed equipment as opposed to generic published information.)Turbo Stationair:1,222 lbs as delivered from factory1,385 lbs with Flint Aero Fuel Wing Extention Tanks installed (116.8 gallons usable fuel)1,428 lbs in utility configuration - with Flint Tanks but rear bench seat removedTurbo Saratoga:1,039 lbs as delivered from factoryAll Saratogas must have air conditioning, because the side windows do not open for cooling during ground operations - like taxi and holding for takeoff. This may not seem important, but in the summer, it's a major issue. The Saratoga A/C is a mechanically complex system that cannot be operated during takeoff because it robs engine power. It also has a condenser coil that drops into the airstream below the fuselage during flight. All performance specs are published with the A/C system off and the condenser coil retracted so it's not in the airstream causing drag.Factory A/C is available for the Cessna. It does not increase drag on the aircraft, but due to the abilility to open the side windows for taxi operations, most people do not opt for this option. After all, the temperature at flight altitude is 35° F less than on the ground every day of the year. A/C in flight is free for opening the vent.Legal Payload with full fuel:Turbo Stationair:700 lbs (Full Factory Tanks)684.2 lbs (With Full Flint Tanks 116.8 total gallons. - the wing extension provides a gross weight increase as well)Turbo Saratoga:427 lbs (Full Factory Tanks. This only allows 2 normal people on board!)To legally carry the same weight in the Saratoga as the Stationair, you may only take 56 gallons of fuel. Factor in reserve, and that's only 367 hours of legal range without keeping an alternate. What the advertising or magazine articles do not explain, is that the Saratoga can only carry two people, no luggage, for the maximum range that's advertised.Not only will the Turbo Stationair carry 700 lbs AND full fuel, it will carry this to 27,000 feet. The max altitude of the Saratoga is only 20,000 feet. The real truth of the aircraft's ability to carry weight is climb capability.Speed:Maximum Published Cruise Speed of the Saratoga is 185 KTAS.Maximum Published Cruise Speed of the Turbo Stationair is 164 KTAS Max Gross Weight, 177 KTAS Demonstrated normal cruise on my flight - attached. (Attached photo verification showing actual speed normal weight, normal reduced power at 177 KTAS.) Download Attachment Here
Max Published Speed of the Turbo Saratoga is 187 KTAS.Max Published Speed of the Turbo Stationair is 178 KTAS. (This is at Max Gross Weight. Attached photo proof show actual speed normal weight at 180 KTAS.) Download Attachment HereThere is a long list of reasons (that matter) why the Stationair is a superior performer to the Saratoga. Cessna is a far superior company to Piper.Please allow me an opportunity to demonstrate this fine aircraft. I've delivered two brand new 2007 Turbo Stationairs in our sales territory this year to thrilled owners. In December of 2006, a customer in Omaha cancelled his order for a new Mooney and purchased a new Turbo Stationair after I demonstrated its performance.I hope you find this information helpful.Kind Regards,Steve Wilson, New Cessna Aircraft Sales
605-310-8050 Mobile, 888-310-8050 Office, 888-310-8051 Fax
ps - The attached photo of the T206 postcard was after an actual flight of myself, on the right, with 5 grown men into a 1,000' length grass farm strip. Download Attachment Here
Steve and Curt took delivery of their new 2008 Turbo Stationair this summer after the opportunity to demo the Turbo Saratoga at Des Moines Flying Service.
Steve
That was an outstanding run. I'm sure a lot of folks would question this, but with this fine airplane it was a walk in the park. I had forgot that we had taken this picture.
Thanks Steve
J.J.
Reply to this
Its in the details! That would be my comment regarding the difference between the Stationair and the Piper Saratoga.
You can look at the specifications of each airplane, and performance may be similar, both in climb and cruise. My comments would be that the Cessna is a more refined aircraft, vs the Saratoga. In handling, the Cessna has a certain feel, whether it is in roll control, and elevator touch, it has a more harmonized touch to it. The Piper always feels like I have to keep trimming the airplane to get it right, and the roll control doesn't seem to have a linear relationship.
The best example would be as you are on approach just prior to the landing flare, and your airspeed is a little slow. In the Cessna, the airplane has a way of telling you through the flight controls, through the control effectiveness, that your speed is a little slow, and that the landing flare has to be adjusted for this. For some reason, I have never been able to develop this feel in the Piper.
Although both airplanes share the same Lycoming TSIO-540, the Cessna seems to have a better engine mount system over the Piper. Sometimes this is due to the cowl design, as the engine is cradled and held in place by the engine mounts, the cowling can transmit a rumble that you feel in the rudder pedals, and the rest of the airframe. It just seems like the Cessna engine is smoother...and to me a smooth engine is a happy engine. When they seem to make a rumble, I don't have the same confidence in the powerplant as I do a smooth feel to it.
One other manufacturing aspects, and a huge difference between the two airplanes, is the fact the Cessna has adjustable cowl flaps. I like to keep the engine in a specified operational temperature for long life, and I like the fact I can climb the T206 at Vy through 10,000 w/out any concern for cylinder head temperatures. At cruise, the CHT is between 360 degrees and 380 degrees, regardless of outside air temperature or altitude.
Regardless of your flying experience, the T206 is a great airplane to fly. I have about 1,600 hours flight instruction time, and can remember the years when I had low time student pilots flying Skyhawks. I never appreciated the Skyhawk, until I had to train someone how to fly, then I realized how the forgiving nature, and stability of the airplane, were so important in flight.
The T206 in a lot of respects, is the same forgiving airplane. Great to fly, easy to transition into, plus the performance and useful load that make it a practical airplane. I have always been able to make 155 knots at cruise, and I am not one that flies in the oxygen levels. My Bonanza time is about 1,300 hours in A36's and V35 time, and 155 knots is what I would flight plan at cruise. Considering the huge c.g. of the 206, and the fixed gear, I think this says a lot about the airplane.
Reply to this
Steven,
Thanks for writing this convincing article. I am debating between a Piper Matrix and a Cessna 206 turbo. I have been investigating the reality of flying at speeds using max continuous power settings above 30 in. hg. I have called the factory and there seems to be some confusion. The factory admits that people fly the airplane at max continuous power above 30 in. hg. all of the time and actually finds no problem with it. However, the T206H Information Manual states in several locations that maximum continuous power above 30 in. hg. is not recommended. You show flying above 30 in. hg. (at almost 39 in. hg.) at 180 knots at 32 gph with what appears to be in direct contradiction to the information manual. Does, in-fact, Cessna train its buyers and instructors to fly this plane in this manor while ignoring the information manual that it publishes? Is it safe to fly the plane above 30 in. hg. maximum continuous power?
Reply to this
Thanks for the great info. I am a new VFR pilot studying for Instrument... hope to have completed in the next 60 days. I fly some for business and the rest for family trips - travel bball - volleyball, etc. I also have a 107 acres with a 1350' grass strip that we put in last fall. I currently fly a 2007 DA40 and enjoy the visibility and easy handling. I demoed a 2008 turbo 206 10 days ago and was impressed... question is, how long would it take to get use to the heavier (less fun) airplane?
Reply to this
You definately WILL find the Cessna 182/206 a MUCH more stable and heavy (on the controls) plane than what you're used to. At first, you won't like it, because it's different. You will come to love the solidness and find you have COMPLETE and amazing control. Pilots don't realize full control travel because of the higher pressures. It's something to learn. Fun? The 206 is INCREDIBLE fun! It's the shortest takeoff and landing airplane I've flown (unless it's full). But with two people, I'll put it right there with the Maule. I recently demonstated flying a complete pattern, never leaving the imaginary box of halfway down the runway at the Tea (Y14) airport. Never crossed the line on upwind, never used more than 700 feet of runway. The plane is a hoot to fly. I bet it will become your favorite plane of all time.
Reply to this
I read an On-Line Plane & Pilot article on a 2005 turbo 206 and the performance stats mentioned in the article seemed less impressive then what I saw during the demo flight. http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/cessna/2005-cessna-turbo-stationair.html
At what flight level do you typically cruise and what kind of fuel burn do you see?
Reply to this
Bryan, please see my answer to you here:
http://stevewilsonblog.com/2009/03/17/cessna-skylane-speed-as-tested.aspx
Reply to this
To each his own. 82 Turbo Saratoga 1296 useful load. 165 kts true on 20gph at 10kft or 18o kts true on 23.5 gph. 4ft wide in front and you can't load it wrong. Cessnas are great airplanes and I've owned a few. Don't knock what you haven't flown.
Reply to this
Thanks for the comment, Randy. I have indeed flown and sold Saratogas, Sixes, and Lances, turbos and non, retracts and straight.
The above information was comparing new aircraft to new aircraft. You are correct that the 1982 Turbo Saratoga has at least a couple hundred pounds more useful load than a new Piper offers.
Reply to this