Hi all,
After having flown our Arrow for almost 7 years now (and quite happily so, I might add), I feel it is time to “move on”. In recent years, I have been eyeing Saratogas – it would be a natural progression, as I’m a fan of the airframe and we would appreciate a bit more space in the cabin. I also want to step up to an IFR equipped aircraft with appropriate avionics (our Arrow is very basic and the investment to enable it for IFR does not make sense in my opinion, as I would not regain the steep cost when selling the plane), and having a bit more speed and range would be welcome side effects.
More recently, however, I have realized that early SR20 (G1) are becoming quite competitively priced on the market (at 100-150k EUR vs 200-300k EUR for a similarly aged Saratoga) and while I’m emotionally not attached to Cirrus and more so to Piper, I have to admit that opting for a more modern airframe (and the additional safety considerations that my wife maybe more appreciates than I do) should not be so easily dismissed as an option.
So here is my question: Given the competitive pricing of an SR20 G1 (also vs. its own newer generations), with a flying profile similar to what I happily did with the Arrow, do you see factors that would make an SR20 purchase NOT worth the while? Anything I might be missing? I understand of course that CAPS renewal is a cost factor depending on remaining useful life and engine overhaul cost would probably be closer to the Saratoga overhaul than the Arrow (which we had done post-covid) due to cylinder count.
Let’s not make it too much of a “mission profile” discussion SR20 vs Saratoga. Those factors are obvious. I don’t need 6 seats, though I would find appreciation for the additional space and passenger comfort. Let’s make it rather a discussion on whether changing from an older VFR-equipped Arrow I to an IFR-equipped SR20 G1 is a sound idea.
Some PA-32 airframes are allowed to be fitted with TKS, SR-20 is not.
Although at 200-300K you can buy early gen SR22 with TKS.
What a nice topic, where’s my popcorn!! 
OK my two cents. I literally feel with you. Every now and then I recheck my situation. Am I exactly where I should be? I check plane ads. Look into capabilities. I’d love to get into a DA42. And then it’s time for the annual again and last annual was all in not much more than 1 AU (not counting my own labour of course). It’s just going so well and practically all things that break easily are replaced by now, all is looked after (I hate open MX topics) and – I just step in and fly!!
I think your situation is not too different from mine. You don’t have unlimited funds but other things (i.e. family) where you have to spend time and money. So the decision for or against an aircraft is rather head-driven (looking at the numbers).
In my case: my aircraft actually still fulfils all my needs. It goes reasonably fast (more or less like yours; anyway, speed is not as important as they say, range is much more important!), it has enough payload, it is reasonably equipped for IFR flying. The engine is like new. It is good for at least the next 10 years without any significant investment (but not delaying anything).
First of all: I wouldn’t look at the airframe. I would look at the options that a platform gives.
You don’t need 6 seats? Then don’t touch the PA32. It’s so slow and consumes so much more fuel in comparison to our birds. I was seriously considering it. And sometimes I miss the space, because we can’t take along friends. I fly very seldom with less than 4 POB (2 of them are kids), so it’s really not working. (The Comanche can carry 6, but not for even an overnight trip, because it’s zero luggage). Every now and then I have 6 POB, last time 3 weeks ago, but it is no “show stopper” if it had 4 place only.
You want IFR?
If your plane is VFR-equipped only and you need more, then you got basically two routes. Either upgrade avionics (that will be costly and a lot of ha$$le) OR exchange the whole plane.
Both may open a can of worms. However it’s a serious advantage of an Arrow that you have many options with respect to avionics, and still many people around are able to do the avionics job. My guess is that you can get a reasonable package to make your plane go IFR. If your engine is good (as you say) I’d really look deeper into this. You know what you got. Buying a used aircraft can potentially initially be a nightmare. A step that you have behind you with your actual plane.
I’m personally not keen of getting into a Cirrus. I heard some interesting stories. Maintenance that you cannot do, but only may be done by certain centers. Unbelievably long times for spare parts to come. My brother had a share in an SR20 and wasn’t too happy with it. It was grounded for 1.5 years for a cylinder that didn’t come. And avionics exchanges are told to be limited. Expect annuals a lot more expensive and ask around.
So first things first, Patrick. Check thoroughly what you want and what your Arrow can’t give you.
Other than that: if you WANT something different, then there’s no rationale. I…will….one…..day….own…a…twin, I know that
You mentioned you don’t want to talk about mission profile, but I’d be careful to get into a non anti-ice aircraft like a SR20. Especially where you live, it would make the aircraft a lot less useful other than in summer.
As to the differences between both aircraft: I have co-owned a SR20 and have some hours in an Arrow. Cabin of the Cirrus is indeed a bit roomier. Speeds and fuel consumption very similar. From memory, SR20 8 gal/hr LOP, 135 KTAS at around 6.000 ft.
Patrick wrote:
Let’s not make it too much of a “mission profile” discussion
LOL 
Let’s do, and the only option is a pressurized turbine powered aircraft Seriously though, what you are comparing is a bit tomayto – tomhato, meaning it’s 99% a subjective decision. Why not something radically different? Anyway, the Saratoga is a bit more aircraft than the SR20 in my imagination.
aart wrote:
but I’d be careful to get into a non anti-ice aircraft like a SR20
You mean because the SR20 doesn’t handle ice particularly well?
An Arrow should carry quite some ice until it protests …. but I only have ice experience in Comanches, so can’t say. But given the profile it should be quite OK in ice.
Don’t get me wrong. You don’t stay in ice with any of these. But often enough you don’t get anything, and then knowing that a bit of ice doesn’t bite you can continue your flight and as soon as you do pick up something you still have time to get out.
I believe what people mean, talking about anti icing, is that if you change aircraft you are making a big step and you should seriously consider something that adds some capabilities you don’t have today and you won’t regret not having picked when you will be flying your new plane.
Getting a more IFR capable aircraft will open up ways of flying you have not done that much with your Arrow. Those new ways will make you more “hungry” for capabilities that will make that experience even better and safer, like FIKI and oxygen. The latter can always be added later, the former not always.
I have an Arrow too and I totally get your emotional attachment to it and to Piper. I have the same and can’t tell why as it’s not that great performer of an aircraft, but still I love it :). I have even invested in a whole new IFR panel and I am very happy with it. Great autopilot, nice instrumentation. Then I often fly a DA42 which is equipped with FIKI and, apart from the obvious redundancy of two engines that take away some stress when flying over water or at night, it is a better IFR platform with a much higher ceiling and it allows more flexible planning and higher dispatch rate for IFR flights.
If I decided to part ways with my Arrow and ger something else (I also don’t need more seats) I would probably go for an aircraft that adds capabilities that I don’t have in the Arrow, to simplify planning and improve dispatch rates (on top, of course, of so,e ,ore cabin comfort but that will always be what it is until you get a jet with a loo :D).
You mean because the SR20 doesn’t handle ice particularly well?
Correct, like any aircraft with laminar flow wings. And composites do not warm up that quickly, so even in the sun it takes a while to shed ice.
We have 6 seats and don’t often carry 6 people.
However it means our useful load is a bit higher and the ability to put stuff in the aircraft is easier.
We’ve stopped airfield hopping and only fly to be somewhere (more often than not multiple overnights) More IFR capability is important if getting home is important (you can cancel going but once you’re there…..) a turbo can help put you above 2 hrs of weather rather than through it, and if I’m going to be going through weather, I think a heavy tin-can like a Satatoga will feel more reassuring than an SR20. De-ice means marginal ice weather becomes a ‘well we can go have a look’ rather than stay on the ground and cancel, which for us was more than several desirable flights each season. I think a deiced Saratoga is uncommon though.
I think a heavy tin-can like a Satatoga will feel more reassuring than an SR20
Definitely.
They are in two different classes in terms of capability. Even though (if looking at NA Saratogas), the cruise speed is almost the same. Yet the operating cost will be much different. And yes, Saratogas, are also expensive to buy. Here is one that has updated avionics, but is otherwise 46 years old and shows it…
https://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=63578
Most Saratogas on the market are TC though; which another leap in operating cost. Of these, quite a few do have TKS. There are also fixed gear Saratogas, so it’s all a bit confusing. AFAIK, @mri has set up a PA32 owners group.
