User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 4:55:55 PM EDT
[#1]
No info for you but looks nice. Looks like it has some legs.
I see a Lance and a Lance 2 with a T-tail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 5:20:35 PM EDT
[#2]
Approx 1,400 pound useful load and (with three bladed prop and wing mods) it cruises at 160-165.
My understanding is that the Saratoga with the semi tapered wing is a bit faster, but at the expense of useful load and short field performance. Most Saratogas I have seen have had 1,200-1,250 (or worse for newer models with AC etc.) useful loads. It seems like the Six/300 and Lance both can carry more with the Hershey bar wings. Is that correct? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 5:45:48 PM EDT
[#3]
No experience with the Lance, but I prefer flying a Hershey bar Arrow over the taper wing. Just feels better.
I don't wrap myself around the axle when it comes to max gross, but I am hardly ever there. Generally, if you want to fly at that number all the time, you need to look at the next bigger airplane, to get some cushion on performance, especially when high and /or hot to go with your heavy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 5:59:02 PM EDT
[#4]
I like 1,400pound UL because it gives me that cushion.
 I am looking at the Lance as a four person airplane. I am outgrowing a 4 seater I think. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 6:12:19 PM EDT
[#5]
They’re good airplanes, they’re borderline great if you treat them like 4-seaters.
Some folks will tell you they handle worse on landing because of the T-tail but that’s crap. Fly them the way they’re supposed to be flown and you’ll be just fine. The thing I don’t like about them is the gear. It’s an added expense and maintenance hog with no real benefit. A Cherokee Six would be a better choice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 6:35:25 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They’re good airplanes, they’re borderline great if you treat them like 4-seaters. Some folks will tell you they handle worse on landing because of the T-tail but that’s crap. Fly them the way they’re supposed to be flown and you’ll be just fine. The thing I don’t like about them is the gear. It’s an added expense and maintenance hog with no real benefit. A Cherokee Six would be a better choice. This is a straight tail (not T) Lance. I originally started looking at the Cherokee Six, but then a potential opportunity was presented on a Lance. The Lance cruises around 160 whereas the Six does 135, is that what people are seeing in the real world? I agree that retractable is an expense that I would rather avoid. I am also considering insurance but haven’t made any calls yet. I am working on IFR right now and will then transition to a 182 RG. But for right now I have zero complex time, and would need high performance on top of that. I don’t know what magic number hours insurance companies are looking at in terms of complex and HP time. All I do right now is continue to work my plan and build hours, but might switch to a complex airplane sooner than later. Perhaps a Six would be a lot easier to get insured on? It’s the insurance that makes this a house of cards right now. And I realize that I have a lot of flying and training to do before I would be ready for a PA32. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 6:49:28 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No experience with the Lance, but I prefer flying a Hershey bar Arrow over the taper wing. Just feels better. I don't wrap myself around the axle when it comes to max gross, but I am hardly ever there. Generally, if you want to fly at that number all the time, you need to look at the next bigger airplane, to get some cushion on performance, especially when high and /or hot to go with your heavy. I have most of my hours in taper wing Archers. I am not sure if I ever flew a Hershey bar wing and would need to look at my log book and see what that first Warrior was.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 7:48:21 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is a straight tail (not T) Lance. I originally started looking at the Cherokee Six, but then a potential opportunity was presented on a Lance. The Lance cruises around 160 whereas the Six does 135, is that what people are seeing in the real world? I agree that retractable is an expense that I would rather avoid. I am also considering insurance but haven’t made any calls yet. I am working on IFR right now and will then transition to a 182 RG. But for right now I have zero complex time, and would need high performance on top of that. I don’t know what magic number hours insurance companies are looking at in terms of complex and HP time. All I do right now is continue to work my plan and build hours, but might switch to a complex airplane sooner than later. Perhaps a Six would be a lot easier to get insured on? It’s the insurance that makes this a house of cards right now. And I realize that I have a lot of flying and training to do before I would be ready for a PA32. Insurance will love you tenderly without your IFR ticket, 15 years ago the rates would have been $1500/yr higher, who knows what it is now. Realistically you’re going to get 155 at cruise, the math on fuel burn vs. airtime and you’ll quickly find that the foldy gear and higher insurance aren’t worth it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 8:04:14 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is a straight tail (not T) Lance. I originally started looking at the Cherokee Six, but then a potential opportunity was presented on a Lance. The Lance cruises around 160 whereas the Six does 135, is that what people are seeing in the real world? Yes, +/- 10 I agree that retractable is an expense that I would rather avoid. I am also considering insurance but haven’t made any calls yet. I am working on IFR right now and will then transition to a 182 RG. But for right now I have zero complex time, and would need high performance on top of that. I don’t know what magic number hours insurance companies are looking at in terms of complex and HP time. Most insurance companies want 50 TT in type or X # of hours with a CFI. . All I do right now is continue to work my plan and build hours, but might switch to a complex airplane sooner than later. Perhaps a Six would be a lot easier to get insured on? Without a doubt. What ESA 17 said about insurance is spot on. Until you get about 200 or so hours retract time and an IR, you're gonna get raped on insurance. It’s the insurance that makes this a house of cards right now. And I realize that I have a lot of flying and training to do before I would be ready for a PA32. Not true at all. Given that the lion's share of your flying has been in Piper equipment, the transition to a higher performance Piper that ain't a Malibu won't be difficult. Your training should consist of how to handle the engine and prop and learning the landing flow to include dropping the legs. You can start developing that muscle memory now by incorporating a GUMPS check on every landing. Say out loud: GAS- BOOST PUMP ON (select fullest tank) UNDERCARRIAGE (a Brit term for landing gear): DOWN- 3 GREEN MIXTURE- IN FULL RICH PROP- FULL INCREASE (do this on short final to be a good neighbor and don't slam the prop levers forward) SEATBELTS- ON and SECURE I have 180 or so hours in the PA32 series (Lance, Saratoga, Cherokee 6 and T-tails) and if they flown by the numbers, they fly just fine. Your previous thread had a buncha good info on this subject. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 8:11:44 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Insurance will love you tenderly without your IFR ticket, 15 years ago the rates would have been $1500/yr higher, who knows what it is now. Realistically you’re going to get 155 at cruise, the math on fuel burn vs. airtime and you’ll quickly find that the foldy gear and higher insurance aren’t worth it. I should be IFR sometime this summer, perhaps as early as June. Yes, that is a prerequisite. I am squeezing in a lesson tomorrow with 600' ceilings forecast.  I was surprised to hear that the Lance burns 18 gph. Like I said, I initially started looking at Cherokee Six fixed airplanes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 8:13:45 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote History Yes, it does!I guess if I didn't let my enthusiasm get the best of me I would have put this Lance question there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 8:16:10 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have 180 or so hours in the PA32 series (Lance, Saratoga, Cherokee 6 and T-tails) and if they flown by the numbers, they fly just fine. Your previous thread had a buncha good info on this subject. Yes, you actually suggested a Lance in that thread. And while everyone airplane should be flown by the numbers, some are more tolerant of sloppy piloting. Having just learned that a Diamond will bite back if you try and force it on the runway too fast (versus an Archer), what are the things that will bite you in the PA-32 series? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 9:07:51 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, you actually suggested a Lance in that thread. And while everyone airplane should be flown by the numbers, some are more tolerant of sloppy piloting. Having just learned that a Diamond will bite back if you try and force it on the runway too fast (versus an Archer), what are the things that will bite you in the PA-32 series? -Careless loading, regardless if it's people or "stuff". A forward CG in a PA32 makes flaring way harder than it needs to be. Sometimes, you need to put your pax in the back 2 seats and your bags in the middle. -Failure to use trim when landing, especially with a forward CG. IMHO, flying with a case of oil or other 'ballast' in the aft cargo area is a crutch for a piss-poor performing pilot. -Piss-poor pilot technique, especially in the landing phase. It may be a fat wing Piper, but it needs to be flown by a competent pilot. -Sloppy power management, including leaning and RPM settings. If it ain't outfitted with 6-point EGT/CHT, do not try Lean of Peak operations unless you want to buy a buncha cylinders. If it is equipped, learn about LOP procedures before you try it. Yes, it DOES work- my partner and I used it in our Aztec with great success once we put in the JPI engine analyzer and probes on all cylinders. Ask me how I know about buying a buncha cylinders.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 9:34:09 PM EDT
[#14]
I think it’s a great next step - especially in a partnership. Insurance will be fairly steep in the current market (I’ve seen things at 6% of hull any even a little higher) but the ifr will help as well as any time in type you could get before renewing the policy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 9:34:27 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ask me how I know about buying a buncha cylinders. That sounds expensive.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 10:00:35 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think it’s a great next step - especially in a partnership. Insurance will be fairly steep in the current market (I’ve seen things at 6% of hull any even a little higher) but the ifr will help as well as any time in type you could get before renewing the policy. A PA-32 would fly most every flight I wanted to. Lots of interstate and neighboring state flights, and even the occasional long flight. The Lance I looked at today gets down to Florida, Texas, etc. a lot it sounds like. And yes, for me would be the perfect four person airplane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 1:07:13 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A PA-32 would fly most every flight I wanted to. Lots of interstate and neighboring state flights, and even the occasional long flight. The Lance I looked at today gets down to Florida, Texas, etc. a lot it sounds like. And yes, for me would be the perfect four person airplane. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think it’s a great next step - especially in a partnership. Insurance will be fairly steep in the current market (I’ve seen things at 6% of hull any even a little higher) but the ifr will help as well as any time in type you could get before renewing the policy. A PA-32 would fly most every flight I wanted to. Lots of interstate and neighboring state flights, and even the occasional long flight. The Lance I looked at today gets down to Florida, Texas, etc. a lot it sounds like. And yes, for me would be the perfect four person airplane. A tip for insurance: stipulate you will only fly with a max of 4 aboard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 6:20:33 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A tip for insurance: stipulate you will only fly with a max of 4 aboard. Does that bring down the rates? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 6:59:13 PM EDT
[#19]
It was suggested to me when I was looking at a36’s. I ended up delaying there altogether because the rates were still too high for my use and purpose so I kept my fractional ownership on an archer and bought an rv6.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 7:53:51 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was suggested to me when I was looking at a36’s. I ended up delaying there altogether because the rates were still too high for my use and purpose so I kept my fractional ownership on an archer and bought an rv6. How many complex and HP hours did it take to start to make those insurance rates reasonable? I will have a lot of missions to fly long XC’s this summer in a complex airplane on IFR flight plans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 8:03:40 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does that bring down the rates? Considerably. In fact, my flight school could not install any more than 4 seats for insurance purposes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 8:31:08 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How many complex and HP hours did it take to start to make those insurance rates reasonable? I will have a lot of missions to fly long XC’s this summer in a complex airplane on IFR flight plans. The market is fluid and there are tons of variables. I’d recommend reaching out to TJ Johnson at AirPower Insurance. He can help. From what I saw when I was looking, London was the only one quoting those risks and while the premium was high, the rest of the requirements were reasonable. I’d have wanted much more transition time than required (while my rv was the opposite - I was ready to go both in my opinion and my cfi’s after our second trip). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 8:31:52 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Considerably. In fact, my flight school could not install any more than 4 seats for insurance purposes. Cool, and that would be fine by me. The seats are easily removable. Presuming that two pilots fly it, they can come out for the pilot who needs it for insurance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 8:34:10 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The market is fluid and there are tons of variables. I’d recommend reaching out to TJ Johnson at AirPower Insurance. He can help. From what I saw when I was looking, London was the only one quoting those risks and while the premium was high, the rest of the requirements were reasonable. I’d have wanted much more transition time than required (while my rv was the opposite - I was ready to go both in my opinion and my cfi’s after our second trip). Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 8:52:18 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cool, and that would be fine by me. The seats are easily removable. Presuming that two pilots fly it, they can come out for the pilot who needs it for insurance. I doubt you'll find an insurance company that will write a policy that allows 6 seats for 1 pilot and only 4 for another. Also keep in mind that if you DO stipulate 4 only, your coverage may be voided if you put in the other 2 and have an incident or accident and you didn't tell the insurer you were putting the other 2 back in. The 4-only stipulation is a good way to get cheaper rates until you get enough time in type that it doesn't matter anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 9:00:16 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I doubt you'll find an insurance company that will write a policy that allows 6 seats for 1 pilot and only 4 for another. Also keep in mind that if you DO stipulate 4 only, your coverage may be voided if you put in the other 2 and have an incident or accident and you didn't tell the insurer you were putting the other 2 back in. The 4-only stipulation is a good way to get cheaper rates until you get enough time in type that it doesn't matter anymore. If the airplane is owned by an LLC and rented to the two pilots who own the LLC, does each pilot bring his own insurance or so they share? I would hate to be the 2,000 hour pilot getting his rates jacked by a new 300 hour one. And I guess I am trying to figure out what people have generally found to be enough "time in type" to bring the rates down to a normal level. Are we talking 50, 100, or 500? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 9:08:47 PM EDT
[#27]
OP,,Many years ago I was in your position and I found a way to buy a B36TC. IMHO it was the correct decision. I too had heard all the "chatter" about the straight tail Lance but the Bonanza turned really good numbers over the years AND it WAS a six seat mode of transportation. Granted the rear seats spent 90% of their time in the hangar but with them out of the plane the usability was phenomenal. We went through the last 600 hours on the original engine and then put a factory new engine in and kept on flying. I think I ended with just over 2000 hours in it when we sold it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 9:16:21 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OP,,Many years ago I was in your position and I found a way to buy a B36TC. IMHO it was the correct decision. I too had heard all the "chatter" about the straight tail Lance but the Bonanza turned really good numbers over the years AND it WAS a six seat mode of transportation. Granted the rear seats spent 90% of their time in the hangar but with them out of the plane the usability was phenomenal. We went through the last 600 hours on the original engine and then put a factory new engine in and kept on flying. I think I ended with just over 2000 hours in it when we sold it. Thanks, by my position do you mean low time moving into a complex/HP? I really do have to take a look at a Bonanza. My guy feeling is that they are going to be more expensive than something from the PA-32 series, but I don't know that for a fact. I am friends with a pilot who is friends with a pilot who owns a Bonanza. Might be time to make a phone call...? One of the reasons I have gravitated toward the PA-32 is the elbow room. I don't need to chase 20 knots at the expense of comfort. We would rather spend a bit more time in the air and in more comfort. But I need to sit in a Bonanza to see for myself. And I hate to say it, but an Aspen MFD or something similar will be high on my list of things that I am looking for. I now have 25% of my total hours in a G1000 airplane and am really getting use to it.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 8:47:02 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the airplane is owned by an LLC and rented to the two pilots who own the LLC, does each pilot bring his own insurance or so they share? I would hate to be the 2,000 hour pilot getting his rates jacked by a new 300 hour one. And I guess I am trying to figure out what people have generally found to be enough "time in type" to bring the rates down to a normal level. Are we talking 50, 100, or 500? Your insurance will be based on the least experienced owner (renter) experience level. For example, my airplane partner and I set up a LLC for the Aztec. The pilot requirements to fly it solo were PPL, AMEL/IFR, 500 TT, 50 in type or 25 dual. I had to show 25 dual in the plane before I could fly it solo (at least to be covered by insurance). By doing that, it allowed us to find insurance that didn't cost as much or more than the airplane mortgage. As I gained experience (time) and ratings, we were able to get reduced rates until we sold the plane. I have heard through various sources that insurance as a "flying club" is cheaper, but have not verified the claim. As far as experience goes, from my experience, the time in type breaks were in 50 hour increments. The biggest break we got was when I got a Commercial AMEL rating. That put both pilots at Commercial or higher (partner had ATP/CFIIMEI). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 9:08:59 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your insurance will be based on the least experienced owner (renter) experience level. For example, my airplane partner and I set up a LLC for the Aztec. The pilot requirements to fly it solo were PPL, AMEL/IFR, 500 TT, 50 in type or 25 dual. I had to show 25 dual in the plane before I could fly it solo (at least to be covered by insurance). By doing that, it allowed us to find insurance that didn't cost as much or more than the airplane mortgage. As I gained experience (time) and ratings, we were able to get reduced rates until we sold the plane. I have heard through various sources that insurance as a "flying club" is cheaper, but have not verified the claim. As far as experience goes, from my experience, the time in type breaks were in 50 hour increments. The biggest break we got was when I got a Commercial AMEL rating. That put both pilots at Commercial or higher (partner had ATP/CFIIMEI). Thanks. I never saw a need for a commercial rating but if it helps with insurance it is definitely worth it. Commercial would also let me do Angel Flights sooner. My CFII has already mentioned commercial to me so that might be the next logical step. It could be a big year for ratings and endorsements for me (IFR, complex, high performance, commercial). I had a great IFR training flight yesterday in actual conditions. I think we might switch to a complex/HP airplane to do two things at once. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 9:15:57 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks. I never saw a need for a commercial rating but if it helps with insurance it is definitely worth it. Commercial would also let me do Angel Flights sooner. My CFII has already mentioned commercial to me so that might be the next logical step. It could be a big year for ratings and endorsements for me (IFR, complex, high performance, commercial). I had a great IFR training flight yesterday in actual conditions. I think we might switch to a complex/HP airplane to do two things at once. Walk, then run. You’ll save money by being able to have more effective training sessions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 1:36:22 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Walk, then run. You’ll save money by being able to have more effective training sessions. This. Combine as much as you can when you train. This is what I did and what my son did after me: when we did our IR X-C, we went 300 miles at night and did full stop landings out of the approach, rather than a missed approach. This covered our commercial X-C AND the commercial night X-C requirement. During the day, we flew at least 1 100 NM X-C to satisfy the commercial DAY X-C requirement and get some time in the system under IFR. This also satisfied a big chunk of the requirements in a complex airplane and the sim instrument time (FAR 61.129) for commercial. If you can't find an instructor that is on-board with this, fire him- he's just after your money and flight time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 2:30:54 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I should be IFR sometime this summer, perhaps as early as June. Yes, that is a prerequisite. I am squeezing in a lesson tomorrow with 600' ceilings forecast. I was surprised to hear that the Lance burns 18 gph. Like I said, I initially started looking at Cherokee Six fixed airplanes. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Insurance will love you tenderly without your IFR ticket, 15 years ago the rates would have been $1500/yr higher, who knows what it is now. Realistically you’re going to get 155 at cruise, the math on fuel burn vs. airtime and you’ll quickly find that the foldy gear and higher insurance aren’t worth it. I should be IFR sometime this summer, perhaps as early as June. Yes, that is a prerequisite. I am squeezing in a lesson tomorrow with 600' ceilings forecast. I was surprised to hear that the Lance burns 18 gph. Like I said, I initially started looking at Cherokee Six fixed airplanes. I didn't realize at the time when I was doing it, but flying hard IMC in a piston single is fucking retarded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 2:42:16 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I didn't realize at the time when I was doing it, but flying hard IMC in a piston single is fucking retarded. Start another thread. I would love to follow that discussion. I recall we did something like this several years ago about open water. But even in VMC there are lots of areas underneath is that are not conducive to a forced landing (like a stretch of AL I recently flew over). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2021 12:49:50 PM EDT
[#35]
I watched one crash.
The pilot took off about 90 miles from the airport I was at with a full bag of gas but one of the main gear did not fully retract. He ended up doing tower flybys for about an hour and a half trying to manipulate the gear and burn off some fuel. Numerous passes over a 8000’+ by 150’ runway. Finally he had enough and requested to land. The tower asked him to land on the shorter more narrow runway so they wouldn’t have to close the airport to the airlines. The pilot agreed but never attempted any practice approaches on the other runway. He just went for it. I was watching from the roof of a three story building listening on a hand held. He was far enough away I saw the nose drop from the stall before I heard the engine stop. He had tried to save the engine instead of flying it to the ground. He piled it in about 200’ short of the runway in a soybean field. The plane came to a stop in one wing span of distance. He survived but broke his back. I learned many things from watching that incident. The plane was a T tail. I don’t have any time in one so I can’t relay any first hand information. I do have some Cherokee 6 time and found that to be a capable and fairly docile aircraft. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
