Seeking advice- Lance vs Saratoga
Hello everyone! New here, so I hope I'm not asking something that's already been asked, or asking it in the wrong area. I'm not new to aviation, but I'm pretty new to fixed wing and civilian aviation. I'm hoping to purchase my own plane in the near future and have spent a few months trying to narrow down what I want, why I want it, what would best fit my needs/wants, and what I can realistically afford. In my research, I've absolutely fallen in love with the PA-32 Lance/Saratoga SP for a number of reasons. I haven't noticed too many significant differences between the models aside from the wing redesign and Trade-A-Plane's basic performance difference claim (157 knots vs 137 knots, for the Lance and Saratoga respectively). I'm wondering first, if that's an accurate spread between the two, then second, more broadly, if anyone might be able to give me a ballpark per-hour cost of ownership (minus the initial purchase cost) of the planes, some comparison between the two, and maybe some suggestions on which you might recommend more, and why. Literally any guidance anyone might be able to offer would be super helpful, and if you're there and willing, I'd LOVE to pick the brains of a few owners. Thanks in advance!
Comments
Welcome Steve, I have a Seneca III which has a club seating layout almost identical to most of the Lance/Saratoga's.
One question on operating cost is your flying background. If you don't have significant High performance + retract time it will be expensive. Maybe 5 figures expensive.
Aside from insurance there is also annuals, oil, fuel, engine reserves, etc. Maybe $45k to overhaul an engine. Inspection cost is around $2-3k? Likely annual cost including findings is 5 to 10k additional, especially on first annuals.
Cruise is around 17 gph so $85 per hr or so + $22 for engine. If you are flying 100 hrs a year, mid time engines, $8k insurance, $6k hanger, $10k average annual, $5k misc upgrades/maint + $1k database/subscriptions = $30k fixed, ~ 11k variable = $410 per flight hr. At 50 hrs a year this is $710 per flight hour. Of course this does not include the money for the plane, etc. With plenty of time in type, a good A&P IA+ airframe and inexpensive storage your fixed costs could be half or better.
So is it worth it? Your accountant is definitely going to say no if you don't have a legit business need. Flying is much more than the cost. The skills, judgement, teamwork and go/no-go calls that flying demands will shape you as a person - a crucible for who you are and what you stand for. What is that worth?
From a mission viewpoint I would view either plane as very capable 4 seaters with room to carry significant amounts of luggage (and maybe the weight) great distances in comfort. Not as likely going to the pancake breakfast as going on vacation a couple states away.
Insurance may be your biggest hurdle. You might consider building time on a rental Lance or similar. Definitely get some time in one prior. Where are you based?
Eric Panning
1981 Seneca III
Hillsboro, OR (KHIO)
All Lance are retractable.
Saratoga is fixed gear or a Cherokee 6/300 with tapered wings.
Saratoga SP is a Lance with tapered wings.
It was a conspiracy to confuse in 80’s.
When looking at Saratoga’s make sure they are both the same, fixed vs retractable.
1973 Arrow II factory AC removed
G5’S, G275, GNX375 Still can get lost.
The retractable version was known as the Saratoga SP. Original purchase price for the SP was an additional $30K, but it was 10 KT faster, and looks way cooler.
We all know that the most important part of flying is looking cool. 🤣
Jim "Doc Griff" Griffin
PA28 - 161
Chicago area
If I had to do again, I’d buy a stiff leg PA32. I don’t find the juice worth the squeeze when I’m paying the bills. The sexiness of folding gear is long gone with me. While I have no regrets buying my T Lance, the MX cost is a small rock in my shoe.
I own and fly a 79 PA32RT-300T. Previous aircraft are a 79 Archer and 76 Arrow.
Cost is definitely a factor. That's one reason I'm still flying a '78 PA28 with fixed gear and fixed pitch. I'm yielding speed and altitude to more powerful and complex aircraft, but on the upside, it's still 3-4 times faster than driving. And way more fun.
Jim "Doc Griff" Griffin
PA28 - 161
Chicago area
I have had both, er well all 3 to say it that way, low tail lance, 1986 FG saratoga and a 1981 Saratoga SP. All the same engine. The later Saratoga have electric flaps if that makes any difference but it didn't to me.
The FG was slow and flew like a truck but it was a nice plane. The lance was exactly 155 knots and the Saratoga sp 157 all burnt the same amount of fuel. Landing gear costs can suck if the pump goes out, I have done a couple and every 500 hours you should re bushing the gear and put in new down springs. The pumps use to be 1200 bucks I hear they are now much more. Its not that bad though, most people have them last over 2K hours before it goes south.
Get a good autopilot, Saratoga's usually had better ones but even they are old now. I would buy a retract over the FG any day. Insurance may be a factor for you, check before you buy. All great planes.
If not noticed already, no huge differences in operational costs. Not even in flight characteristics between T-tal and regular tail. Yes, there are differences, but not huge unless looking to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
In terms of maintenance cost between fixed gear and retract, actually they might come out about equal once factoring in the differences in fuel and engine consumption rates. One likely real cost difference is with insurance.
The final decision will most likely come down to what is available (and in a desirable condition) when you are ready to spend. When it came my turn to go hunting, fixed gear were very rare and I would not turn down a retract that hit all the other check-marks.
Agree that useful load seems to drop over time once cabin comforts start appearing, but like the discussion of fixed versus retract, market (and condition) availability might play the larger influence.
Sorry it's taken me so long to get back here, but thanks a ton for the input guys! I can't even figure out how to quote/reply to an individual's message, so this is gonna be clunky...
@empannin - thanks for the info and the breakdown. Gotta say... holy god, I had no idea insurance would be that high
I was definitely figuring insurance would be one of the biggest fixed, frequent costs, but MAN was I not expecting that.
@OBrien Aviation - How significant is the difference in insurance between the FG and retrac planes? And did/do you have a favorite of the 3?
Steve, it would be much less depending on time in type, retract time, etc. Insurance in the last year or so has really gone up for all planes. How many hours, etc do you have?
Eric Panning
1981 Seneca III
Hillsboro, OR (KHIO)
Steve
PA32RT-300T
My insurance was $2200 this year. $115k hull, standard limits, SEL instrument rated, just under 600 hrs total, 400 hrs in PA32, EAA member, no FAA Wings discount or recurrent training discount.
It was as low as $1800-ish a couple years ago, but the industry got clobbered a couple years in a row so “we all pay our fair share” of those claims right now.
I pay $185/mo community hangar, standard annual is $2k for minor squawks and as high as $5k once. I’d say it averages $3k but that’s because I always have some upgrade I want to do. This years annual will be close to $50k. TurboPlus kit and G3X/GFC 500 being installed right now.
My turbocharged motor is at least $50k for a field OH from a reputable named builder. New prop will be $11k-ish plus labor.
Before the TurboPlus intercooler I burned 13GPH lean of peak lumbering along around 142kts down low. If I wanted to get there 10 minutes ago, 24GPH for about 160 kts. I only ran that across the water going to the out islands in the Bahamas. Once I had land in glide range, I pulled those numbers back to LOP. What it will do post-intercooler I will find out soon enough, hopefully after the 1st of the year. Hopefully.
Those are my numbers in any case.
I own and fly a 79 PA32RT-300T. Previous aircraft are a 79 Archer and 76 Arrow.
Here's what brought me to the PA-32 in the first place, to give some idea of what I'm looking for (in a perfect world, where I could afford what I wanted, of course, without much compromise):
1st and foremost, I LOVE the 6 place, club seating. I started looking in the 6 place realm with the idea of seating 4 comfortably, plus a little baggage. And I love the idea of my friends or family being able to sit in back, kick their feet up and relax with a drink or 4 in relative comfort while I drag us off to wherever we feel like spending the weekend.
Useful load is the next thing- 4 places don't much matter if I can only split 600 lbs between them, and I know the PA-32 has a reputation as an aerial SUV.
Range is the next big one- most flying I'd like to be doing is going to be in the 300-500 mile range, maybe once every month, month and a half. I live in upstate NY, and have friends and family all the way from Maine to Georgia. That's also why the retract appealed to me- not only do they look sexy (HUGE importance haha) but I was wondering if the faster speed (ie: fewer hrs in the air) and reduced overall drag would translate into fuel savings that'd offset the maintenance and insurance increase compared to a fixed gear; plus, maybe being able to get in a few extra flights between TBO times, with the same distances being covered with slightly less time logged.
And my last question for now is, @empannin (thanks for the welcome, by the way!), you mentioned the effect my time could have on insurance cost. All of my time other than the 30 hrs it took to get my PPL is in turbine rotary wing (Army, if you're curious), so while I have plenty of time in the air, my understanding is that will amount to exactly zero when an insurance company is considering me for high performance and retract, correct? Do you have a ballpark number I should be aiming for that you've noticed would be considered "significant time" and I'd see a sizeable drop in insurance costs?
Thanks again for everything guys! The way the aviation community is just generally so helpful, friendly, and loves to share experience is my single favorite part of being in it (aside from the actual flying of course). I can't wait til I can just hope in my plane- whatever it finally turns out to be- and go for a weekend afternoon cruise.
Steve
I suggest you call an aviation insurance broker for real hard numbers. They are going to want to see all your broken out hours, expect them to want an instrument rating and if you don’t have any HP/complex time I think the cards are double stacked against you. I’m sure it can be done, but don’t be shocked when they come back big number quotes.
When you add two more seats in a plane, it opens up a lot more liability for the insurance carrier. And also consider that many PA32s are actually 7 seat certified. Mine is STCed to 6 seats via Aeronautix so I could fly it under Basic Med.
I own and fly a 79 PA32RT-300T. Previous aircraft are a 79 Archer and 76 Arrow.
Let's see, for reference, in 2018 my Seneca insurance was $2,500 and in 2021 my Turbo Arrow insurance is about $1,200.
Scott Sherer
Wright Brothers Master Pilot, FAA Commercial Pilot
Aviation Director, Piper Owner Society Forum Moderator and Pipers Author.
Need help? Let me know!
Wow, a lot of awesome comments. By way of disclaimer, I have about a 750 hours in a saratoga Turbo Retract and I loved that plane. The annuals and the general maintenance was always higher than I expected. It seems like the extras, Turbo, A/C and believe it or not, the OX system needed TLC. I happily dealt with all of that, and the insurance. That plane had a great payload. I sold the Saratoga and a year later bought my lance. I now have over 750 hours in the lance. Just recently I completed a 4300 mile trip from my home base KMQJ to St Vincents island just north of Venezuela in the lance
We had it filled with 650 lbs of Disaster relief supplies for Jehovah's Witnesses whose homes and building were destroyed in a recent Volcano explosion. The Lance beats the Saratoga in Useful Payload, and we flew between 8,000 & 10,000 feet, dodged storms, flew through storms, heat, and other issues and averaged 155 kts and 18 Gal an hour. The Lance landed easier than my Saratoga with a "Full" load. One other odd thing, the fuselage on the Saratoga angles down, so more than once, with a full payload the tail hook scrapped the runway on takeoff. Yes, we our weight and balance was perfect. The Lance's fuselage does not have that same down angle so we've neve had that problem. While both planes are awesome, our insurance cost through AOPA has been about what's expected in the industry. My hours in complex make and model obviously help. Lance over Saratoga, "UNLESS" you need the A/C and Turbo. We are living great without them.
Wow...what a story, I would love to hear more...I have a Lance II and was dreaming about flying the islands...
About that insurance expectation, the hull value will drive rates as well. When I started to get serious last year, the first quote was on a Lance RG which seemed reasonable for my skill set and I got a quote right away. The final candidate was a newer Saratoga RG, one insurer had to get 'approval' for this plane, and the two quotes I received were much higher than the Lance's quote; also, one insurer would only go to $1M liability. Having instrument rating and complex sign-off helped me to at lest get insurance. Interestingly, both insurers locked-down whom I could use as a CFI (had to meet open pilot requirements) which included time-in-type minimums (and not just any PA-32); this certainly turns finding acceptable CFIs into a challenge which seems counterintuitive to me. I actually can use any CFI (below open pilot qualifications), but would have to specifically name on the policy for an additional cost.
Given where we are now, might consider renting while searching and get that instrument ticket (preferably before settlement). Bonus is if you have access to a MWR flying club.
In terms of the general purchase landscape, here is my fairly recent assessment (YMMV):
Disclaimer first: am not looking to start any wars as these are just personal observations from a limited time slice. Granted that there are always one-offs and rare examples which do not fit.
Older PA-32s have lower purchase prices. Focus areas are whether the platform meets minimum standards (ie: total time (TT), avionics (lots of them still have the original avionics), and general condition). At this level, while it is possible to find some within the 80% readiness territory, it is more reasonable to expect a bit of downtime for rehab / updating. Planes in good condition at this level sell quickly, so have money ready. There are also plenty of 'find' stories of bringing the Phoenix back from the ashes, but make absolutely sure it has good bones, expect ~18 months downtime, and have access to funds to address unknowns. As noted, many planes have the 7 seat certification which is easily fixable to 6 seat via STC. Another focus area is to evaluate whether the wing spar should have an eddy current inspection as part of the pre-purchase exam.
Newer PA-32s have higher purchase price and generally fall within the ready-to-fly as-is. Avionics might need updating, but more from wanting current technology than an actual need. As noted, useful payload tends to decrease from cabin comforts (like A/C). Aircraft in this territory are less likely to have concerns with needing an eddy current inspection but are still subject to related ADs.
Intake air. Decide on the typical mission. If it calls for regular take-offs from high density altitude locations while at gross, or regularly cruising above 10K', turbo makes sense. If the typical mission is in the lower density altitudes, normally aspirated makes more sense. As a reference point, I crossed the Rockies with N/A at gross without a lot of concern, but I did have to focus on weather conditions and made decisions that would not have effected a turbo as much. From my casual observation at the time, N/A planes sold quicker than turbo.
I considered whether to go down the project / rehab path (and based potential costs off of napkin calculations) where the all-in costs to get the plane flying again with current-ish avionics were less than purchasing a newer mission ready PA-32, but not by a huge margin. The real question here is whether the plane needs to meet the mission today, or sometime in a year or two from purchase. The risk of wing spar not passing eddy current inspection can derail the costs.
Some sellers are just unrealistic, so don't even bother with trying to talk them down. I got a good laugh at one listing which stated something like: "VRef don't sell planes, I do!" Yeah, that plane listing was still on the books after I had watched many come-and-go and was still posted after I settled on mine.
By the way, if you have read this far, Thank You for your Service!
I'm back again. Thank you all so much, you guys are awesome!! I feel bad that it's taking me so much time between replies, but my job just keeps me too busy. @jacobsja thanks a TON for the information- nothing beats hearing about people's actual experience! @Unit74 and @Scott Sherer I did finally get a chance to call an insurance broker earlier this week and even though they are willing to insure me... well, I'm pretty sure that at my current hour level a FG Cherokee 6/300 is now going to be my new focus haha at least until I can drive my insurance costs down enough to trade up to a Lance/Saratoga. Is there a certain hour level when the insurance premiums get significantly lower? Kind of like car insurance when you turn 25 and are out of the "risk pool?" I'm instrument rated in helicopters, and will get my fixed wing instrument rating this coming summer. And beyond that, PA-32 retrac type rentals are completely non-existent in my area, but I should be able to get a retrac endorsement before too long at least.
Just chiming in here in hopes my experience can be a help for you. I purchased a 1978 Lance as a 200hr PPL, without a HP or Complex endorsement (all my time was in a PA28 - Archer). I needed a sign off from an instructor and 25 hours of solo before carrying passengers, Insurance the first year was $4,300 - In the first year, I completed my IFR cert, and put about 120hr on the plane, my insurance renewal for year 2 was $2,700, and that was after increasing the hull value from $120K to 140K. Not all insurance brokers are created equal, when I was looking to begin insurance, I saw quotes as high as $6-7K, if you're looking for a referral, I'd be happy to share!
Insurance goes up and down - right now it is up with high requirements for hours and experience making it tough to transition up + $$$. I went from an SR22, zero twin time, zero high alt, zero multi to an 8 seat pressurized 421C in ~ 2007. About 12 Hrs in a Cessna 310 for the ME, 15 hrs dual, 10 hrs solo + the 5 day Simcom. I think this would be a difficult jump today.
Eric Panning
1981 Seneca III
Hillsboro, OR (KHIO)
To the question of price breaks based on experience, Yes, the insurer will start lowering premium based on meeting milestones. Simply ask the insurer / broker and they will quickly call-off the hacks.
Here is a general idea of what to expect:
As noted, the first milestone is simply allowing to carry passengers (aside from a qualified instructor). This does not effect premium though.
Single digit percent premium drop after X hours of incident-free flight. X was different across the quotes where I observed from 50 - 75 hours. IIRC, the premium drop was consistent at 5%.
Premium drops for each additional certification / endorsement (ie: commercial, glider, sea, multi, etc...). High performance will not count toward a reduction as it is a requirement to fly the plane in the first place. Do not remember if the percentage drop was single our double digit.
Again, just ask the insurer / broker.
Toward getting the additional certifications / endorsements, while they are beneficial from a safety of flight perspective by forcing a deeper understanding, it will raise the question of economics for using them as a path to lower insurance costs as, at a minimum, the instructor time is not free nor are any type specific rentals. But if there is personal interest in getting the additional certifications / endorsements anyway, then this is a no-brainer.
One item to check is whether enrollment in the WINGS program effects the premium. IIRC, WINGS got recognition by some insurers but not all. Worst case is that this does not effect the premium, but it does offer a lower cost toward improved safety.
@Piper_Pilot I'd love a referral, thank you! I've only gotten a quote from one company so far, but for the Lance it was $9k/yr and for a Cherokee 6/300 it was just over $6k. I wonder if the 170 hr difference between us accounts for the difference in premium, or if insurance overall has just gone up that much 🤔
@jacobsja yeah, I forgot to ask the first company I got the quote from, but I'll definitely ask the rest as I'm shopping around. And thanks for the heads up about the WINGS program- I didn't know that was even a thing until you mentioned it. I'll absolutely be enrolling in that, whether it helps my insurance or not!
That's incredibly expensive insurance. My Arrow is $900/year for $160k hull value and my Seneca was $2,500/year for $175k hull value, although that was 2 years ago.
Scott Sherer
Wright Brothers Master Pilot, FAA Commercial Pilot
Aviation Director, Piper Owner Society Forum Moderator and Pipers Author.
Need help? Let me know!
Turbo Lance was $2440 in April. That above quote is shocking.
I use Tom Hauge at Wings Insurance. Tom is also an active member on Beechtalk and extremely responsive, day/night/weekends.
I own and fly a 79 PA32RT-300T. Previous aircraft are a 79 Archer and 76 Arrow.
I backtracked this thread, but didn't see it discussed directly, and since a similar scenario happened to me, I'll share what I learned.
If you are a low time pilot, your rates go up.
If you earn an instrument rating, your rates go down.
If you are purchasing a complex/high performance aircraft, and have few to no complex/high perf hours (as a pilot) your rates go through the roof.
Your age will affect your rates. Older means higher.
If you put the plane on a lease back to a flight school, expect your rates to run about 5 to 8 times what you pay as an individual.
Hull value matters too, the higher the hull value, the higher your premium goes.
If you're getting into a complex/high performance plane, the biggest factors are your total hours, and complex/high performance hours.
I don't know your hours or ratings, and there's no need to divulge them unless you wish. What I've posted above is not something that I read on the internet or heard from someone else. Everything above happened to me directly, and my agent was open with me about how each of them influences premium rates.
My choice was to save money (that's an aviation oxymoron), stick with my straight leg, fixed pitch bird, and spend way more money rebuilding it than it was worth (what was that about saving money?).
On the other side, the insurance rates I was quoted were so high that I broke even with the new engine alone in 3 1/2 yrs.
Jim "Doc Griff" Griffin
PA28 - 161
Chicago area
What Griff said!
Insurance premiums (and limitations) are much different for pilots without gobs of time.
@Scott Sherer and @Unit74 , I haven't had time to shop any other companies, but I have to imagine the crazy high quote is just a product of my complete lack of time. I was hoping my rotary wing time (1600ish hrs) and RW instrument rating would help some, but I guess not. The part that sucks is it's a real Catch-22- can't afford the plane without the hours, but there's no one in my area I can rent from, so I can't really build the hours without my own plane haha
@griff390 thanks for sharing your information and experience! This thread's been a huge help in painting a pretty food picture of what to expect and what I'm getting into. I'm definitely a low-LOW-time FW pilot. Got myself a whole 34 hrs in a 172, and 0 high performance/complex time. I fly Chinooks for the Army and have about 1600 hrs doing that, with commercial and instrument ratings. I'm also an instructor, but haven't gotten around to filing the military equivalency to get CFII added. I was really hoping my RW time would make a dent in the premium, but I just think without ANY complex/hp time, there isn't much wiggle room. Was there an hr level you hit where you noticed a significant drop in your premium?
I had about 250 fixed wing, no complex/HP endorsement when I bought my Turbo Lance. If I recall correctly, my first insurance was around $2500, I had to fly with a CFI for 10 hours and get an IPC before I was allowed to fly solo. Hull at $115k. That was in 2016. My insurance went as low at $1900 but its been going up the last two quotes.
It is is bit odd that your time has no bearing on the insurance requirements. I'd talk to the broker and find out what the deal is.
I own and fly a 79 PA32RT-300T. Previous aircraft are a 79 Archer and 76 Arrow.