Antonio wrote:
@Joe can you elaborate on your question so we understand what you actually mean?
Isn’t that crystal clear? 
It’s a bit like the other dude that wondered about a DA42 (possibly also a Cirrus) using it within a company as a kind of a company commuter aircraft. The decision is already made, it’s mostly irrational, but the result isn’t. It’s more of a due diligence kind of “investigation” to get some point here and there that the choice also can be perfectly well explained rationally. A sanity check if you will.
In the end it doesn’t matter. What matters is the plane and you becoming friends. All good pilots/owners becomes friends with their aircraft regardless. But, when in a position to choose freely, the heart is ultimately a better guide than excel sheets and facts.
hammer wrote:
I use 22"MP and 2200 rpm
JoeMama_the_Pilot wrote:
How do you know if the engine has the effective amount of vacuum for that RPM regime?
I think @Antonio got the same problem as I have. It’s not actually clear what you mean by “vacuum”.
Are you referring to the vacuum pump and want to know, whether it delivers sufficient vacuum for the instruments? Typically, the vacuum pump already got enough suction at idle or slightly above. To the contrary, it is capped at a maximum level to not suck too much.
Or are you referring to another technical aspect?
By the way: I typically fly at 1900 RPM up to about 8000 feet, above that at 2000 RPM up to maybe FL 130 or 140 depending on the day.
I’m talking about the vacuum inside the intake manifold when the piston moves down.
Inches of mercury and rotations per minute have no relationship whatsoever. Every engine RPM has an optimal amount of vacuum or MAP, which are two sides of the same coin.
When you try to come up with your own settings, for example by matching MAP and RPM odds are either you are applying too much pressure / too much air flow/ not enough vacuum so the piston doesn’t move down as much for that RPM setting which comes with its own set of problems, or you are applying not enough pressure / not enough air flow / too much vacuum so the piston doesn’t move up as much for that RPM settings which, again, comes with its own set of problems.
So, when somebody says “I do 22MP and 2200RPM” how would they know if their setting is correct? Other then interpolating the settings published in the POH.
hammer wrote:
With 50 USG you can go over 500nm with IFR reserves.
500 NM IFR in Europe is quite marginal for many trips, given that alternates are not easy to find in some places.
JoeMama_the_Pilot wrote:
So, when somebody says “I do 22MP and 2200RPM” how would they know if their setting is correct? Other then interpolating the settings published in the POH.
No need to interpolate anything, you’ll probably find this exact combination in the performance tables of the POH. And then, in cruise you have to take whatever value you’ll get for MP (unless you have a turbo). What do you mean by correct, anyway?
Sebastian_G wrote:
This is interesting as usually pilots seem emotionally driven more towards other planes and choose the Saratoga if they need the loading capability and cabin space.
Yes, I realized this as well. When reading about the Saratoga, many articles go along the lines of “decent plane, if it just had more ramp appeal…”. Well, I personally disagree. Many other aircraft (also ones that were suggested here) really just don’t appeal to me, while I find the PA28 and PA32 series pretty much cover what an “ideal” airplane should look to me. Everything is where it should be. 
Mooney_Driver wrote:
If you look at the figures of the fixed gear Cherokee 6 or Saratoga, it is not a lot slower (about 5-6 kt) and has similar weights. One has to wonder if the retracable gear is worth it.
The difference is a bit more than 5 knots, though. Nonetheless, I would not say no to an otherwise great fixed gear Saratoga, probably.
Patrick wrote:
if it just had more ramp appeal…”. Well, I personally disagree.
I had a look at some pictures and what sets it apart is probably the very box like fuselage cross section. This makes it look a little unusual but probably this also explains why the cabin offers so much space.
I’ve never set a foot into a PA32 but I’ve flown the Seneca which has the same cabin. For me the best appeal of that cabin is the fact that it is quite roomy and has usually got a club seating in the back, sometimes even with a table and separate huge doors to access the passenger cabin and baggage compartment. That has quite some appeal to those who fly in the back. I seem to recall someone who even installed a bed back there, so it can even work out as a camper of sorts… even though in Europe there are not many suitable airstrips for that kind of thing.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For some reason I have always liked the Saratoga, but only the recent ones with the Lopresti cowl and up to date Piper paint schemes. Of course, recent in aviation terms is now 30 years ago.
From certain angles, the Saratoga does look a bit ungainly, but not from the angle in this picture.
