PlasticPilot.net

I’m a tall pilot - slightly over 1m90 - and it’s not always easy. Cockpit designers do their best, but some planes can’t simply be flown by pilots over 1m80. The Liberty XL2 is not a good memory in this respect, so I won’t even mention it.

My head did hit plane ceilings on a couple of occasions because of turbulence, and that’s no good. In most planes I have to set the seat in full backwards position, and sometimes this is not really enough. Bringing a Piper yoke to full deflection is not possible if I carry a too large kneeboard.

Here are a couple of photos taken in various planes, showing the distance left between my head and the ceiling. At first, the PA28 Archer II. The space is not that large, but the leg room is fine.

Its bigger sister PA32-Saratoga offers a bit more space for head, but this is at a price of a very low visibility over the dashboard. Not that much of an issue when flying IFR, except when it comes to flare. Because of the club seating - passengers in row 1 are flying backwards - the pilot’s seat can’t be taken backwards enough, and any kneeboard can possibly prevent to take the yoke to full deflection. On the plus side, the club seating makes possible to slip an A4 sized kneeboard between co-pilot and passenger seats.

One of the best aircraft I flew regarding overhead space it the Bonanza. There’s not plenty of horizontal space, but the cockipt it rather high, vertically speaking. Another good thing for cockpit organisation is the presence of a pocket below the pilot’s seat, very practical for checklits.

What about the plastic plane then ? The DA40 cockpit is slightly different, as the seat can’t be adjusted, and the stick is fixed into the seat. To fit (almost) all pilots, the rudder pedals can be adjusted to various depths. Once the canopy is closed, it gets quite close to my head, so I get deep in the seat when the ride gets turbulent.

I did not found a suitable picture from a C172, but regarding cockpit access and vertical space, it’s a pleasure to fly it. I don’t push the seat to the fully backwards position when flying the C172, because of the special position for boarding…

If you have personal feed-back on cockipt space, let me know in comment… particularly if you’re in the opposite situation, and fly with cushions

==============

Because of the horrible bug, no comments are allowed on this post. Here is one that Sylvia from www.fearoflanding.com sent me per e-mail:

I have the opposite problem - I’m just under 1m53. Funnily enough, I like the Saratoga too as it allows me to go further forward than most planes. It’s probably the only plane that I edge back a little bit to get the right fit. The C172 is a pain, I need a cushion behind my back to be able to comfortably reach the pedals. Really I’d like a pillow underneath as well to lift me up a bit but I end up too embarrassed.

I’ve not flown many other planes. I used a very small cushion in the Tobago - I think I have pretty much used cushions on every plane except the Saratoga.

We carry a step-ladder around with us too as I can’t check the oil without it!

* Sylvia *

Few days ago, FGC asked me via my “Any question ?” page about my experience flying the Piper PA32 Saratoga. The first answer I can give is purely quantitative: 89:56 hours, of which 64:52 PIC and 46:26 IFR, and a total of 138 landings, all on Piper Saratoga normally aspirated (sorry, no turbo…), all equipped with HSI, GNS430 and KFC150 autopilot. I’m certainly not the most experienced pilot on this type, but I know some about it.

For those who don’t know it, the PA32 Saratoga (formally known as PA32R-301) is a six seater, low wing, all metallic aircraft, powered by a 300 HP injected AVGAS engine and a 3 blades variable pitch propeller with retractable landing gear.

Outside view
One of the negative aspects in flying the Saratoga is the rather limited forward visibility. This results from a combination of the long nose and high dashboard. The version shown on this picture, with the overhead switches, reduces the visibility even more.

When climbing at 90 knots, with a pitch between 8 and 10 degrees nose-up, don’t expect to see anything in front.

Flight Planning
The Saratoga is a plane full of possibilities. The fuel flow in cruise is slightly about 17 - 18 USG per hour, but to be on the safe (and easy) side, let’s say 20. The fuel capacity is 102 USG, so the autonomy with full tanks is 5 hours. Cruising at 150 KIAS, the range with 1 hour reserve is 600 NM. Not so bad for a single engine plane.

However don’t expect to have full tanks and 6 persons on board. The weight would be way over maximum take-off weight. So the deal is long range or full load of passengers. At least options exist. The Bonanza 33 (same speed, 5 seaters) allows for full fuel and 5 passengers, but only because the autonomy is lower.

Performance
The climb performance is impressive (600 FPM up to 7′000 feet at 93 KIAS), and en-route cruising speed is usually around 150 KIAS. Take-off and climb require massive right rudder because of the strong torque of the 300 HP engine.

As all Pipers, the pitch axis requires wide amplitude action on the control column, and this one is particularly nose heavy. Hopefully the electrical pitch trim is much faster as on the PA28, so it is usable.

It is obviously not certified for flight in icing conditions, but the 300 HP makes some reserve available in case of unexpected ice encounter. Much more reserve than on a PA28 or C172, making the escape a bit more comfortable.

Avionics
The Saratogas I flew were equipped with Bendix King avionics, including a KFC150 autopilot and a GNS430. As GFC mentionned in his question, he don’t like the KFC150 and would prefer an STEC. I don’t know any reason why an STEC could not be fitted in a Saratoga

It is possible to buy a new Saratoga from Piper with a G1000 and an STEC autopilot, but unfortunately the G1000 can’t be retrofitted (as far as I know, this is the case for all types). If you want to put glass in a Saratoga, the best option is the Garmin G600. It is not as advanced as the G1000, but it’s certainly better than old steam gauges.

Click here to see more dashboard and cockpit pictures of HB-PQN, including the digital engine monitoring sytem.

In-flight handling - it’s all about speed control
As all heavy planes, the Saratoga is relatively stable and less reactive to turbulence, but requires more anticipation. Starting a rapid descent is easy, but stopping it is a different story. Stopping a 3600 lbs plane approaching at 90kts is not exactly like stopping a 2000 lbs one approaching at 70… (do you remember the law saying that energy is half mass times speed squared ?).

The yellow arc starts at 160, but Va is about 132 at maximum take-off weight. Gear extension is hydraulic, and the emergency extension mechanism is based on gravity - no handle to turn 50 times… It can be extended at any speed below 132 kts. Flaps are electrical and really required to slow down from 150 kts to 90 kts on final.

Speed reduction is not always easy, particularly as pulling the throttle back to idle creates an actual risk of cool-shocking the engine. AVGAS plays an important role in engine lubrication, and a sudden power reduction could damage it.

Personal opinion
The Saratoga is my favorite high-performance plane, as the DA40 is my favorite mid-performance plane. I like it because it is fast, complex, and demanding. I can’t imagine a flight like the Geneva - Biggin Hill in a slower plane. 3 hours 20 was long enough !

On the negative side, the forward visibility is not excellent, as the dashboard is relatively high. And… oh… the price of 18 USG per hour and insurance of a retractable gear makes it a bit expensive.

Read more
One thing I really like on the Saratoga is the extreme simplicity of the landing gear’s emergency extension system. Click here to read more about it, and how it compares to the Bonanza’s system.

If you ever wanted to know more about me but never dare to ask, this post is for you. To share more of my experience I decided to list the eight types of aircrafts I flew, in chronogical order.

At first, the swiss built AS-202 Bravo, the basic trainer on which I got my private license. A very simple two seater, 999kg maximum take-off weight (to reduce landing fees), and clearly underpowered with its 160 HP engine. It cruises at 90 knots and stalls are really… impressive. This makes it a very good basic trainier.

Next came the Piper PA28 Archer (and Warrior). A true four seater with better performance. 160 HP for the Warrior and 180 HP for the Archer, and a cruising speed around 120 knots. It’s a much better glider, and managing speed on final became a bit more of an issue. It is on this type that I also discovered autopilots !

Next step up, still in the Piper familly, the PA32R-301 Saratoga. Retractable gear, variable pitch prop, and 300 HP for six seats and a cruising speed of 150 knots ! This is the first complex plane I flew and at the time of writing the type I flew the most, and to the greater distance. I made the transition to prepare for my IFR ticket. Two axis autopilot, GNS430, HSI, … and lot of fun !

For the IFR training, I flew on a Beechcraft Bonanza F33A. It was wonderfully equipped: dual GNS430, Air Data Computer, dual needle RMI. And I’ve been truely seduced by its aerodynamics, requiring precise flying skills.

My next transition was to the first “plastic plane” with a “plastic engine”: the DA40 TDI. I wrote a lot about his in the modern aviation category. FADEC, composite body, a very easy to fly plane. The stalls are impressively stable. Not exactly rocket speed (115 - 120 kts) with the Thielert engine, but fine to fly leisurely. I also flew it IFR with a G1000… making it fully modern ! This picture is the source of the PlasticPilot logo.

I have only 19 minutes and two landings in my logbook with the PA28-236 Dakota. 235 HP, variable pitch prop, but fixed gear. I flew it when my instructor invited me to land on a frozen lake !

When I started the FADEC challenge, I needed more opportunities than the DA40, so I took a familiarization training on Cessna 172 TDI. It was my first Cessna, and first high wing plane, but after the Saratoga and the Bonanza, training on a simple airplane again was not exactly hard.

I had the opportunity to test fly the Liberty XL2 in summer 2007, and to summarize it is a funny little plane once in flight… the hard part is getting it in the air.

I don’t know yet what will be the next one, but it could be PA18 SuperCub for some glacier landing, DA50 when available, or may be a turbo Saratoga. If I get millionaire, I will probably start flying PC-12 or TBM850.