Lance vx. 6/300

What's the difference between these aircraft? Is one simply a continuation
of the other?

What's the difference between these aircraft? Is one simply a
continuation
of the other?

Isn't the Lance retractable? Or did they make a fixed-gear version?

If it's the latter, I can't imagine too many differences between the
birds...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The Cherokee 6 is a fixed gear, six place Piper. The Lance is retractable, but
also, for a period,was built with a T tail. The T tail stabilator is too small
and, being out of the prop wash, is relatively unresponsive at slow airspeeds
and can be a real handful for even experienced pilots. I'd recommend that you
stay away from the T tail Lance. The normal configuration Lance is a nice plane
to fly, however.

On the other hand, the Cherokee Six is a real work horse and a nice plane to
fly.

Other than that, basically the same plane.

Bridgadoon wrote:

What's the difference between these aircraft? Is one simply a continuation
of the other?

Pat Barry wrote in :

The Cherokee 6 is a fixed gear, six place Piper. The Lance is
retractable, but also, for a period,was built with a T tail. The T
tail stabilator is too small and, being out of the prop wash, is
relatively unresponsive at slow airspeeds and can be a real handful
for even experienced pilots. I'd recommend that you stay away from the
T tail Lance. The normal configuration Lance is a nice plane to fly,
however.

Why, pray tell, would you stay away from the T-tail Lance? Ever flown one?

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

"John Godwin" wrote in message
...
Pat Barry wrote in :

The Cherokee 6 is a fixed gear, six place Piper. The Lance is
retractable, but also, for a period,was built with a T tail. The T
tail stabilator is too small and, being out of the prop wash, is
relatively unresponsive at slow airspeeds and can be a real handful
for even experienced pilots. I'd recommend that you stay away from the
T tail Lance. The normal configuration Lance is a nice plane to fly,
however.

Why, pray tell, would you stay away from the T-tail Lance? Ever flown
one?

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.


Because either:

1) he flew one and wasn't trained properly on how to use the trim...
or
2) he never flew one and believes the folklore propagated by some people
who weren't trained properly on how to use the trim

If you fly a T-tail (any manufacturer) like a conventional tail, you won't
be
happy. If you trim it properly, it flies off the runway easily, just like
most
other airplanes.

I have 1,200 hours in my T-Lance, and after the first few hours of learning,
it's simply a non-issue. Of course, the fact that my initial instructor
flew a
T-tail King Air every day, could have something to do with knowing how
to operate it.

Unfortunately, Piper's flight manual did not cover the subject at all.
If you want to blame something, blame the book, which certainly is poor.

The piper T-tail trim doesn't just affect spring pressure. It affects the
aerodynamics of the tail. That means problems, when you put the trim
in the middle (what Piper notes as "takeoff"), but actually are in a very
forward CG loading. That's what you are when its just you and an
instructor, with no one in the back, the typical scenario when a prospective
purchaser tries out an airplane.

In such a CG loading, if you set the trim aft, the ship will fly itself off
the
runway at 60-65 knots. Of course, unless you plan to climb at 65 knots,
upon rotation, start retrimming forward. No surprise there, if you're
flying
anything bigger - just normal procedure.

If you had set the trim in the middle, you would need to pull the yoke
back farther, to compensate for the trim being in the wrong place. Pulling
it back farther moves the entire stabilator, creating more drag, hence
longer
takeoff distances that untrained pilots report. When that pilot finally
does
leave the ground, he's pulling back so hard on the yoke, that he over
rotates,
has to now push forward *hard*, and bobbles up and down. Not a good
feeling, so
it must be the airplane's fault, right?

Even if the pilot forcibly holds the yoke in the "correct" place, ignoring
the
pressures, he'll still roll a long way down the runway. I'm not an
aerodynamic
engineer, and I know Piper's trim is primarily a spring pressure system, but
it's
easy to demonstrate. If you have someone run the trim while you watch the
trim tab on the rear edge of the stabilator, you can see it moves when trim
is
changed. All you have to do, is run two takeoffs, one with middle trim, and
the other in more "up" trim, and the difference will be quite obvious.

Trim it correctly, use 2 notches of flaps always, and you'll rotate in 1200
to 1500 feet,
at sea level, depending on loading. Trim it wrong, and you'll be rolling
down
the runway easily twice that. You can see where the folklore comes from.
It's not that the people initially unhappy were liars, they just weren't
trained.

Just remember to use the appropriate takeoff trim position, depending on
loading, which in other loading configurations could be just the opposite.
Piper did a very poor job of communicating how to fly these things.
The operations manual explains none of this. If you truly do fly it "by the
book",
(which basically says "put it in the middle"), you'll be disappointed.

The only true negative quality, is that a soft field takeoff simply doesn't
exist. You can't raise the nose below 50 knots, because the tail is not
in the prop wash. If you fly in and out of unpaved fields, this is probably
not your airplane, but for that matter neither is the Saratoga, because
Piper's retractible gear is not particularly rugged anyway. If you use a
retractable Piper-6 in any variant on unpaved strips, you're going to spend
a lot of money repeatedly rebuilding the gear. None of these are the right
choice for grass strips. For that use, buy a Bonanza.

The positive qualities are that the T-tail airplanes experience absolutely
no
trim change with flap or gear extension. The stabilator is up in clear air,
undisturbed by flap or gear extension. That's something nice when you're
busy on instruments. When I fly a conventional tail now (rare, since I
usually
fly my own ship), I have to remember to compensate.

Of course, the other nice quality is that you can usually purchase a T-tail
for
$5k to $10k less, because of the folklore. Overall, they're neither better
or
worse, if each is operated correctly.

I usually don't sign my name in newsgroups, to keep the spam down, but
since the flames will follow this post, here you go...

don ferrario
Lance N54SS
www.donferrario.com

"CarSalesman" wrote in
:

I usually don't sign my name in newsgroups, to keep the spam down, but
since the flames will follow this post, here you go...

After many hours in the T-tail Lance also, the only irritant I can think of
was having to carry a small step stool for preflight inspection of the
stabilator. Other than that, it was a joy to fly.

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT from email address)

("CarSalesman" sig)
Lance N54SS
www.donferrario.com

Nice web site
Nice house photos
Nice wildlife photos
Nice photos of many things

Um, any plane pictures?

Looks like your plane might have gotten you to a photo shoot or two - just
guessing.

--
Montblack

Good idea. I'll have to add some of those.

Wanna buy a house?

don


"Montblack" wrote in message
.. .
("CarSalesman" sig)
Lance N54SS
www.donferrario.com

Nice web site
Nice house photos
Nice wildlife photos
Nice photos of many things

Um, any plane pictures?

Looks like your plane might have gotten you to a photo shoot or two - just
guessing.

--
Montblack

"Bridgadoon" wrote in message ...
What's the difference between these aircraft? Is one simply a continuation
of the other?

I was very pleased to see the 6X at Sun-n-Fun when Piper
(re)introduced it. But for $330K+ to get VFR only, I'd spend that
money in a mid-90's used Saratoga.

I'd been contemplating buying a PA-32 of some kind for a while and
noted that the used Lance prices were significantly lower than the
used Saratoga prices. Differences being, as mentioned he

Lance: straight wing, T-tail, retract, older(78-79)
Saratoga: tapered wing, straight tail, retract or fixed, newer(80
onward)

A LOT of pilots are against the T-tail for the alleged instability at
low speeds, and I think that's the biggest reason for the lower value.
It flies and carries roughly the same as the Saratoga, though, so all
other things considered about equal, I might have gone with a Lance,
until......

Found me a beautiful 72' 6-300 decked out with great avionics and new
leather interior for under $90K (1700 SMOH/3700 TTAF). After a 4 hour
pre-buy that revealed an overall well cared for beast, I jumped on it.

When I step inside, the first thing I and my passengers thinks is
ROOOOOOOMY! I LOVE the PA-32 airframe. And, the 1000 pound
payload(with full fuel) is fantastic. For these reasons, my next
step-up (someday) will be a Saratoga or Senecca.

"Dave" wrote in message
m...
"Bridgadoon" wrote in message
...
Lance: straight wing, T-tail, retract, older(78-79)
Saratoga: tapered wing, straight tail, retract or fixed, newer(80
onward)

A LOT of pilots are against the T-tail for the alleged instability at
low speeds, and I think that's the biggest reason for the lower value.
It flies and carries roughly the same as the Saratoga, though, so all
other things considered about equal, I might have gone with a Lance,
until......


Funny that you never hear Gulfstream pilots complaining about the location
of the tail on their aircraft, or King Air 200 pilots.

Mike
MU-2