Lance vs A36

John Doe wrote:

Yes. Have you ever seen one?

No, apparently not. I ignorantly read the Lance as a Lancair.

Sorry 'bout that.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

There is a world of difference in the flying qualities of these two
airplanes. The Lance is just ugly to fly, with heavy unresponsive
controls. The A-36 is a delight, and one of the most smooth and
responsive singles in the air.

Karl

To Karl's comment: Sometimes I don't turn more than 45 degrees on a
cross country. How important are those flying qualities to your own
mission?

Lance
- huge cargo holds fore and aft
- very wide, roomy cabin
- pax like
- 1400+ useful load

A36
- really tough gear (electromechanical which is good)
- 10 kt faster
- Beech Part$
- Very late models have a cargo hold in back. Earlier ones have none!

- 1200 useful load


karl gruber wrote:
There is a world of difference in the flying qualities of these two
airplanes. The Lance is just ugly to fly, with heavy unresponsive
controls. The A-36 is a delight, and one of the most smooth and
responsive singles in the air.

Karl

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Peter R." said:
enter the cabin without climbing up onto a wing. These large doors also
makes loading cargo much easier. Does the Lance have this, too?

http://xcski.com/gallery/43977/977_bs_1

Our Lance (in the pictures) is probably going to be on sale next year with
a run-out engine. It's got more than 2000 hours on the engine and the
climb performance sucks. And we're worried about the future impossibility
of getting insurance for it in a club, so rather than spend $25k on a new
engine then lose it, we're exploring the other possibilities.

So what are your thoughts on the Lance after owning one?

In a previous article, "John Doe" said:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
Our Lance (in the pictures) is probably going to be on sale next year with
So what are your thoughts on the Lance after owning one?

I love it. It's roomy amd it carries a ton. I've never flown anything
else big, so I can't compare it to a Bo or 206. My wife loves the club
seating - she'll sit back there with her book with her feet up on the
seats in front with a cooler on the floor, passing me up a coke every now
and then. She also likes how the rear door is easier to latch, and she
can get in while I'm preflighting. I like the room (I have to sit sort of
sideways in a PA28) and the hsi, and the ego boost of flying a complex
plane.

Because of the restricted insurance, our club has to charge a premium to
those who want to be on the named pilot policy for the Lance, and I gladly
pay it. Our Dakota is almost as fast and carries almost as much, but you
can't beat the comfort of the Lance.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
please excuse my typing, but my whole left arm is in a cast. and i don't
mean _the king and i_.

To Karl's comment: Sometimes I don't turn more than 45 degrees on a
cross country. How important are those flying qualities to your own
mission?

There are pilots who like to fly airplanes and there are those who
don't. Most of the pilots I know enjoy flying. Even large corporate
jets are often selected for their flying qualities, especially if their
owners are pilots. Most pilots would love to get a ride and some stick
time in a fighter. Those who wouldn't are rare.

Other pilots like to fly their airplanes in the mountains and canyons
of places like Idaho. There, flying qualities are often high on the
list of desired qualities. That along with durability, for which the
Cherokee line has a poor record in the bush.