Quote History Quoted:
You're correct about the AC and other junk taking up the useful load in a PA32-301R.
The wing is also different between the 6/300 (PA32-300) and Saratoga (PA32-301R).
The 6 takes off in a relatively short distance; the Saratoga, on the other hand, is a ground hog.
If I were buying a 6-place low-wing single, I would skip the Saratoga and the 6 and look for a decent PA32R Lance- it combines the wing of the 6 with the retract gear of the PA32-301 and is GREAT flying airplane- except the T-tail version; it ain't so great.
Of course, if you're concerned about insurance cost- and who isn't?- a PA32-300 ain't a bad deal, though.
Then again, there's always the Cessna 206, which is a whole 'nother story...
View Quote
Thanks for the info. So the old Hershey bar wing of the 6/300 is a good performer?
How does the fixed Saratoga with semi-tapered wing perform? I have a lot of time in an Archer II with the semi-tapered wing, but have never flown a Hershey bar (maybe on my first couple of flights, but I was too new to be able to make anything of it).
The 206 — talk to me, Goose.
Useful load, lower insurance, and lower maintenance costs are important to me. Which is why I gravitate toward a fixed.
A good friend has an ‘86 Malibu in pre-buy inspection right now. It is a beautiful airplane and I can’t wait to get a ride in it. All the number crunching and comparisons really reinforces that a Malibu would check almost all of my boxes. But it is a financial commitment that does not fit my needs or my current experience level. A 6/300 will fly 95% of my missions (albeit slower) for a much reduced cost and be an easier transition I think.
I recall listening to a podcast discussing buying an airplane and one of he big points was to buy an airplane for 80-90% of your missions, not the last 5%.