DrBenny
New Member
In some ways the trip was a lot for me: flying a new hi-perf/complex bird combined with an IFR X-C. Still, I was surprised that I was able to absorb so much.
I'll talk about the X-C first, since it wasn't as new to me as the aircraft. We filed an IFR plan from BWI-HGR-BWI. The route is really fairly simple, and I got in two ILSs for my money. The ILSs both went quite well, thanks in part to the fact that although we were indicating 120 kts on the approach, we were roughly 90 kts over the ground for most of both approaches. That meant that my descent rates were similar to what I look for in the 172. So, on the IFR part of the trip, I did reasonably well for my level. Now, onto the aircraft:
In a word: WOWSA! What a plane! Taxiing needed strong legs. I actually liked this aspect of the plane, because the extra weight made me feel more "planted" on the ground, and I felt it was easier to taxi right on the line.
The instrumentation in this 1988 Saratoga is just great: three radios, two transponders (one with traffic reporting capability), EGT, stormscope, HSI, Garmin 430, and S-Tec autopilot. Not that we needed it, but it also had air conditioning. In addition to all of this, the paint and interior were in new condition.
For our initial climb, we flew at 80 kts and saw a climb rate that held steady at around 1400 fpm. We soon transitioned to 90 kts, then 120 kts for the cruise climb. It took me a bit to fine tune my right leg to keep ball in the cage.
At cruise, we leveled out at 6000' and 25/25. At those settings, we saw an indicated airspeed of 150-155 kts. Now, the plane is NOT sporty--more like your family SUV. But I prefer that feeling because I like good handling and rock-solid stability.
Positional awareness was a breeze in this aircraft with the HSI, the GPS (and its incredible capabilities), and the chart working together. I needed it at the speed we were seeing.
Where the Saratoga really shined was on the ILSs where she was rock solid at 120 KIAS on the glideslope and localizer (or could it just be that I am improving?--nah!). For final airspeed settings, I was advised to maintain 90 kts. My CFI later told me that I could fly a short field at 80 kts (he didn't like 75 at our weight--50 lbs shy of MTOW), but he said it would be a bit mushy, especially coming off an ILS. Take it or leave it, we chose 90 KIAS, and controls felt roughly as responsive as the Cessna 172 does at 60 or 65 KIAS.
I also wanted to comment on the fit and finish of the Saratoga. I felt that most of the instrumentation was laid out well, but that interior considerations were especially good. There was R O O M to spare in that cabin, and the carpeting and seats were all high quality.
The only disappointing aspect of the bird was the full-fuel payload which was about 600 lbs. My CFII advised me to get a Lance which apparently does better with the payload.
To sum up, I'd like to reiterate my original thesis:
W O W S A!
Ben Myers, PP-ASEL
Enjoying every minute
I'll talk about the X-C first, since it wasn't as new to me as the aircraft. We filed an IFR plan from BWI-HGR-BWI. The route is really fairly simple, and I got in two ILSs for my money. The ILSs both went quite well, thanks in part to the fact that although we were indicating 120 kts on the approach, we were roughly 90 kts over the ground for most of both approaches. That meant that my descent rates were similar to what I look for in the 172. So, on the IFR part of the trip, I did reasonably well for my level. Now, onto the aircraft:
In a word: WOWSA! What a plane! Taxiing needed strong legs. I actually liked this aspect of the plane, because the extra weight made me feel more "planted" on the ground, and I felt it was easier to taxi right on the line.
The instrumentation in this 1988 Saratoga is just great: three radios, two transponders (one with traffic reporting capability), EGT, stormscope, HSI, Garmin 430, and S-Tec autopilot. Not that we needed it, but it also had air conditioning. In addition to all of this, the paint and interior were in new condition.
For our initial climb, we flew at 80 kts and saw a climb rate that held steady at around 1400 fpm. We soon transitioned to 90 kts, then 120 kts for the cruise climb. It took me a bit to fine tune my right leg to keep ball in the cage.
At cruise, we leveled out at 6000' and 25/25. At those settings, we saw an indicated airspeed of 150-155 kts. Now, the plane is NOT sporty--more like your family SUV. But I prefer that feeling because I like good handling and rock-solid stability.
Positional awareness was a breeze in this aircraft with the HSI, the GPS (and its incredible capabilities), and the chart working together. I needed it at the speed we were seeing.
Where the Saratoga really shined was on the ILSs where she was rock solid at 120 KIAS on the glideslope and localizer (or could it just be that I am improving?--nah!). For final airspeed settings, I was advised to maintain 90 kts. My CFI later told me that I could fly a short field at 80 kts (he didn't like 75 at our weight--50 lbs shy of MTOW), but he said it would be a bit mushy, especially coming off an ILS. Take it or leave it, we chose 90 KIAS, and controls felt roughly as responsive as the Cessna 172 does at 60 or 65 KIAS.
I also wanted to comment on the fit and finish of the Saratoga. I felt that most of the instrumentation was laid out well, but that interior considerations were especially good. There was R O O M to spare in that cabin, and the carpeting and seats were all high quality.
The only disappointing aspect of the bird was the full-fuel payload which was about 600 lbs. My CFII advised me to get a Lance which apparently does better with the payload.
To sum up, I'd like to reiterate my original thesis:
W O W S A!
Ben Myers, PP-ASEL
Enjoying every minute