Piper Lance
 

Has anyone had any real-world, 1st hand experience of flying piper lances, both t-tail and non t-tail? Specifically, I'm interested to hear about handling, loading, useful load and speeds from people who have experience on type (as opposed to bar room pundits who "once heard a nasty story from a man in a bar") or fantasist trolls who witter on about mooneys or cirruses.

And before anyone points it out I realise that much of what I ask should be in the POH, but I wanted some 'real world' feedback as opposed to the party line...
:)

I have flown both types and I found the T-tailed Lance less stable and more difficult to fly in turbulance compounded by the longer fuselage. The turbocharged Lance requires a lot of rudder to keep straight on take-off and I found it easier to line up on the runway and apply the parking brake, set the power correctly, release the brakes and keep straight with large amounts of rudder. I found that to keep tracking the centreline of the runway whilst finetuning the power and trying not to overboost the engine too challenging for an old f**t.

Tony Fallows
Cheshire

I agree with DC10's comments (though I have never tried the parking brake method!).

The "T" tail is okay, as long as you remind yourself that you're flying a tiny airliner, not a STOL plane. Forget the short runways. Do not venture out without some dual instruction. If you can't get dual in the "T" tail Lance, experience in a "T" tail Arrow will be quiet similar.

If you're going to master a manual turbo engine, at least take someone along to keep a close eye on the engine guages for you during that takeoff and climb. They are easy to overboost, and expensive when you do!

Pilot DAR

Get a Seneca, solves the problems!

Havn't had a go at the Lances, but if they are anything like being just a bigger version of the conventional and t-tal Arrows, then the T's are a bucket...
Heavier, worse load, slower and peformed nowhere near as good I thought.

But like I said, I havn't flown the Lances...

Saul mate,

PM me or drop in....may solve your problems!


DD

Flown both T tail and straight tail, turbo and non turbo. Like previously mentioned the turbo T tail can be a handful. It runs hot and takes a lot of attention from takeoff to landing to ensure you don't damage the engine. The T tail is not a good airplane for short runways. Seen a lot of damaged nose gear's. You need to keep the speed up on landing and get the nose on the ground before the T tail stops flying. Problem areas, Wing attachment bolts for corrosion, Exhaust hat, Engine mounts, Nose gear. We usually had access to both a straight tail non-turbo and a T tail Turbo. Without a doubt most of the pilots took the straight tail non turbo if they had a choice. The only reason we would take the T tail was if it was a real long trip 600+, or we needed to climb above weather or the mountains. We also had a Cherokee Six, If I remember correctly it had the same load (750lbs with full fuel, 100gal) and was only 10-15 mph slower than the non-turbo.

My experiences match Slatches. The T tail is a result of what happens when the marketing weenies overrule the engineers. It took Piper a few years but eventually they admited the error of their ways and put the tail back where it belonged. However the good news is the very poor reputation of the T tail has significantly depressed the value of even quite nice examples of this airframe. While not as pleasant to fly as the low tail models, it is still has OK flying characteristics, and you can't tell the difference in cruise. I would advise staying away from the Turbocharged examples though. It is a poorly designed system

I've flown Lances for air-to-air photography work, and on long cross countries.

It is a real case of whoever draws the short straw gets to fly it on a photo shoot - lumbering, heavy, awkward, power-less, runway huggers. But, they weren't designed for that job in the first place, they just happen to have a nice big door the photo & video crew love.

On cross country, so long as you have a decent departure runway length, its stable, comfortable and steady. Not going to set a world speed record, but with good instruments and an autopilot, its not bad. I wouldn't get one myself, but did do a trip with a young family on board. Mum & the children had all the back cabin to spread themselves out in and were very comfortable.

The Lance is FUGLY!!!

I have over 500hrs parachute flying, cross country etc in a normally aspirated low tail Lance.

It was probably one of the best compromise aeroplanes I have yet flown.

We operated off 800m of grass at Doncaster, took 5 skydivers to 10,000ft in about the same time as the Cessna 206. When we did formation loads, I would send the Cherokee 6 (260hp) off first, then the 206 and then me. I would coordinate the whole thing and it would keep up no problem.

Will tolerate a lot of weight - we did 4 adults and 3 kids (had 7 seats) from Guernsey to Biarritz and back on one tank - still had IFR reserves when we got back.

Easy to fly, comfortable, reasonably quiet, happy off grass or tarmac. Engine is bulletproof provided you observe simple precautions and do regular oil changes - 4 months/50hrs max.

Would cruise up in the 140's at about 11 gph leaned at 8,000'.

If you want a simple, practical load hauler with good all round performance and space, I wouldn't fault it :ok:

Thanks Javelin, dc10, slatch and all those who answered the question - precisely the informed feedback I wanted. Fernytickles, was the one you flew a t-tail or normal tail?

It is a long time ago and in Africa but I used to fly quite a lot in the Lance, T tail and the Cherokee 6.
For the bush flying, the Cherokee 6 was a much more useful aircraft although for charter and for medical work, the Lance was a smoother piece of kit, provided that there was a reasonable amount of runway, operating,as we were, at 5,500ft pa (ish) @ sort of 20c-35c.
It would be interesting if anyone on this forum remembers the stall speeds of the Lance and the Cherokee 6.

I bought and flew a low tail 1977 from the Great Lakes to Perth in West Australia
many years ago. The Aussies warned me to not bring a T tail if I wanted to sell it later.

On rough bush strips they were right because you want to get the wheels and prop off asap to stop the grit blasting of the aircraft.

The low tail Lance still sells ok in Oz although they prefer the C206..

Back in the UK I later had a T tail...sexy looking but a pig.

My advice is that its ok for half tanks and six or four reasonable folks and full.
Be warned I fly in Asia where people are not obese:ok:

Der, not sure about the Lance but the 300HP Cherokee Six I've flown stalled at about 61KIAS with the flaps up, and about 55KIAS with the flaps down.
Don't ask me what setting 'down' is because the useless manual only says 'down' - but logic reckons its full (40 degrees).

wsmempson

They have all been normal tail.

And the nomination for the most useless post 2009 goes to:
:ugh:

I have some vague memory that the Lance stalls clean at >70kts. Anyway, comfy as it was, we ancient great barnstormers of the African bush preferred the six - quite frankly (shhh) you could abuse it.

turbo lance
 

I bought a new PA32RT300T in 1978 from the factory. The TO issues with the big 300 hp lyc are well documented and handled easily.

1. notch of flaps...line up look at the numbers...hold the bakes...advance mp to about 35 ...a little r rudder and release and watch for rotation speed.....you quickly learn to feel the need for rudder pressure as speed builds. Learn to let it fly itself off and fly with the v speeds.

i flew the bird ( turbo lance) for 2000 hrs and went with a G&N overhaul mostly for peace of mind.

i flew it another 500 hrs and sold it around 96....have had seperation anxiety ever since.

i am almost 70 now with much more horizons behind me than out in front.. i am a 3rd generation flight instructor and Army pilot. I quit logging hrs about 10 years ago but kept flying in a series of planes.... i still missed my lance

Last month I found a litter mate to my old turboII and bought it...No regrets...compare purchase costs with anything comprable in todays market...A 36? Cirrus. Some of the new stuff.....it is a great plane....for serious:......capable...cautious OLD pilots.

And the Lazarus prize for resurrection goes to?

... The guy who used the search function! Gotta like it!

If I just bought a plane when I'm 70, I'll be proud of myself ;)

fredhollaway has a fine understanding of the T tail turbo lance.

AS long as you respect it, and don't think of it as anything else , it will do fine.

But you have to be an above average pilot, with the kind of knowledge that indicates you are not just jumping into a plane of the average variety.


I have flown the T tail Turbo lance out of a 2500' strip and it worked as advertised.

I have flown the T tail NON turbo lance out of the same strip and it worked as advertised.

I have flown bank checks in the original low tail lance

I have flown bank checks in the cherokee six.

I have flown brand new Piper Saratoga SP.

They all feel a little different. Look at it this way. IF you are willing to change your personal flying to a higher level of proficiency, you can save a great deal of money by getting the T Tail Turbo Lance.

IF you want the same sort of performance and something slightly, repeat slightly easier to fly, buy a Saratoga SP. (looks like a low tail lance with tapered wing).


There are planes out there that demand a little bit more of the pilot. Fred understands and was up to the demands.

It will teach you how to be a better pilot, but take a good long time and get a good instructor to help you learn the plane.

Oh, and that 2500' strip, well I used the short field book procedures and used two notches of flaps (25 degrees)

2500ft is not exactly a strip. By UK standards its an international airport..... :p

At work I operate a 5t twin turboprop out of 1600ft.....

I have operated the Lance out of the same strip many times. Shame it got written off by someone flying it over loaded and cartwheeling through a hedge.....:p:p

Yep, same Bose. I had my Turbo Lance II in and out of 500 metres quite comfortable. You just have to keep an ever so watchful eye with airspeed as you do in all the T tail variants, as elevator authority diminishes quicker than the conventional tail. A wonderful aircraft built for the experienced pilot.

I know this is a late response to the original question , but I thought I would give my opinion because I enjoyed my PA 32 Piper Lance for 21 years. It is a high performance, complex plane with a turbocharger. As far as loading is concerned the Lance flies with 6 passengers and has plenty of room. Check your weight and balance of course. Since it holds 94 gallons in fuel you have great range, my flying area is only Florida so I always land with plenty of fuel in reserve. With a front and rear luggage compartment there is plenty of space for what ever you want to carry.

The flying characteristics are predictable and consistent. I use very little pressure on take off and landings because I keep the plane in trim (most of the time). Some say that the T tail is difficult to work with on landing but I have never experienced unusual problems in any phase of flight.

I could go on, but I am suffering from separation anxiety because I sold my Lance Two month ago. I have tried other planes but nothing is as good as my Lance so I am now in the market for another Lance.

Love my Turbo Lance, handles well in turbulence. Predictable on take off and landing.

PA32RT-300T
 

I have 2500 hours in my 1978 Turbo Lance II. The turbo Plus intercooler, Cowling and wing tips from LoPresti were well spent money. They improve take off performance, landing performance and high altitude handling. As for take off, the plane requires judicious firm and intentional yoke inputs for take off at 80Kts. Not for the ham fisted pilot. Also true for throttle at altitudes below 10K' due to the turbo wast gate. It is approved for 36"MAP for 5 minutes, but don't push it as over-boosting comes at a high price. Carry a little power into the flare to keep pitch level from over flaring and it is a piece of cake to land.

You're better off with a Saratoga... :-)