Cherokee 6 Vs. Lance

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by AmazonChitlin, Oct 19, 2019.

  1. AmazonChitlin

    AmazonChitlin Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2013
    Messages:
    129
    Location:
    Phoenix
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    AmazonChitlin
    Hey all,

    I'm not in the market (yet), but was curious about the differences between the 6 and Lance. It looks like the main difference between the two is that the Lance has a T-tail. I also see that the Lance can be had with a turbocharged engine. Are there any models of the 6 with turbochargers?

    Is there anything that puts one ahead of the other?

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
     
  2. Bonchie

    Bonchie Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2014
    Messages:
    1,375
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bonchie
    One’s a retract. That’s a pretty big difference.
     
  3. Rgbeard

    Rgbeard Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,475
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ and Ensenada, Mexico
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    rgbeard
    Cherokee six is fixed-gear and non-turbo

    Lances are available in straight and T-tail configs
    All are retractible
    Turbo is a choice
     
    N1120A, wayneda40, Shuswap BC and 2 others like this.
  4. Rgbeard

    Rgbeard Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,475
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ and Ensenada, Mexico
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    rgbeard
    Late in the run is a piper 6TX I believe which is a turbo. Good luck finding one. I think they made a couple dozen
     
    AmazonChitlin likes this.
  5. AmazonChitlin

    AmazonChitlin Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2013
    Messages:
    129
    Location:
    Phoenix
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    AmazonChitlin
    Awesome, thanks guys! I totally missed the retract's!

    Interesting that they came with a conventional tail too...I don't think I've ever seen one. Hell, I can't remember seeing a Lance in person either.

    It seems like a pretty capable airplane!


    Edit: just looked up Lance's with a conventional tail. I think (looks wise) I prefer the T-tail. From an operational stand point, I seem to remember from my very limited time (~1-1.5hrs) in a Seminole that keeping the nose wheel up on landing was something you had to get used to with a T-tail.

    Are there any other gotchas about them? I'd imagine there'd be some differences in slow flight, stalls, etc.


    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2019
  6. Rgbeard

    Rgbeard Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,475
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ and Ensenada, Mexico
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    rgbeard
    The T-Tail needs a little "learnin'" to bring it in on short runways. It's far from impossible, but you can't treat it the same as a straight-tail.

    On the takeoff roll, you can't "mush it" off the ground like a straight-tail. It flies when it's ready. Straight-tail pilots that are used to mushing off the ground find this disturbing, and believe it translates to longer takeoff runs. Not true.

    You're in Phoenix? Wanna see one in person?
     
  7. AmazonChitlin

    AmazonChitlin Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2013
    Messages:
    129
    Location:
    Phoenix
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    AmazonChitlin
    I'm actually in Cottonwood, but I'm in Phoenix fairly regularly! I'd love to check it out!

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
     
    MonkeyClaw likes this.
  8. JEB

    JEB Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    56
    Location:
    Sunny SoCal
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    JEB
    I think the earlier Cherokee 6 had a big fat hershey bar wing and the Lance has a wing that is a bit more friendly to gain a few knots.
    Cherokee 6 flys like a School bus and Lance like a truck. Both can lift a serious load.
     
  9. IK04

    IK04 Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2018
    Messages:
    1,930
    Location:
    Copperas Cove, Texas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    LNXGUY
    I flew Cherokee 6 300s (old and new wing) and both the T-Lance and the conventional tail Lance in Southeast Alaska and landed them all on beaches and some pretty small, short strips. They all performed well and made a believer out of me!

    I was mostly a Cessna guy until getting that job. I swear by the Cherokee Six for being a heavy hauler. The Aztec is pretty much in the same truck-like category, too!
     
  10. blueskyMD

    blueskyMD Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2015
    Messages:
    328
    Location:
    Allentown PA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bigfoot297
    They did not change wing design until they converted Lance into Saratoga. I have 78 Lance and has hershey bar wings. Both wing designs have pros and cons.
     
    N1120A likes this.
  11. RussR

    RussR Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,515
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Russ
    Terminology is important here, because Piper changed the names around a lot especially in the 70's/80's.

    Specifically, the Lance was the PA-32R-300 (Turbo or not) with the hershey bar wing and the T-tail generally, although the first few years had the straight tail.
    When they went to the tapered wing in the early 80's, they called it the Saratoga, PA-32R-301 (Turbo and not) but they also had fixed-gear Saratogas PA-32-301 (Turbo and not)
    Then there was the Cherokee 6 PA-32-300 (fixed gear, non-turbo) and numerous other variants and names.

    They pretty much have any assortment of turbo or not, retract or not, hershey bar or tapered wing that you might want.

    So just be aware that the "Lance" is a specific set of years and configuration.

    It's more useful to pay attention to the model number than the name.

    R = retractable gear
    T after the R = T-tail
    260 and 300 are straight-wing
    301 is tapered wing
    T at the end = turbo

    I'm sure there are some exceptions to this, it gets rather confusing. Especially when buying things like checklists!
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2019
    wayneda40 and benyflyguy like this.
  12. AmazonChitlin

    AmazonChitlin Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2013
    Messages:
    129
    Location:
    Phoenix
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    AmazonChitlin
    A quick internet search showed that the 6's published cruise is about 145kts, while the Lance shows 158kts. Is that pretty accurate for real world numbers?

    Do any of you have a good estimate of cost per hour for each?

    Thanks!

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
     
  13. Rgbeard

    Rgbeard Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,475
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ and Ensenada, Mexico
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    rgbeard
    Those numbers are close-enough, IMO.

    I see 160 TAS at 10,000, 65% power.
     
    N1120A likes this.
  14. JEB

    JEB Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    56
    Location:
    Sunny SoCal
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    JEB
    When I was flying a 6 (PA32-300), I was seeing more like 137 to 140 Kts. Definitely more of a stable load hauler than a speed demon.
     
    Checkout_my_Six likes this.
  15. hindsight2020

    hindsight2020 En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,661
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    hindsight2020
    especially at 16gph.....
     
  16. RussR

    RussR Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,515
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Russ
    Most of my experience is in the turbo, taper-wing versions.

    In the PA-32-301T (1980's models), I'll see about 150 KTAS at 75% power.
    In the PA-32R-301T (2005? model), I'll see high 160's at 75% power, at 11,000 at about 20 gph. I can also run it LOP and get about 150 kts on 13.4 gph.
     
  17. SoonerAviator

    SoonerAviator Final Approach PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2014
    Messages:
    5,339
    Location:
    Broken Arrow, OK
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    SoonerAviator
    Not sure how familiar you are with aircraft and turbos, but it's not like turbo-charging on autos. It's main advantage is when flying at higher altitudes/density altitudes. It essentially allows you to maintain the same/similar power level at 10K' as you have at ground level. Obviously there's a point where the turbo cannot offset density altitude, but that's usually when you'd need to be on oxygen and/or rather be in a pressurized cabin. Turbo'd aircraft engines have a tough time reaching TBO because the higher pressure/heat from the turbo is just tougher on engine components than the NA-engines. If you aren't operating up in the 'teens or in/out of high-elevation airfields, the turbo may not be needed or desirable depending on mission.
     
  18. k9medic

    k9medic Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    309
    Location:
    Florida
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    ATP-H, CMEL, CSEL, CFI/CFII Airplanes and Helicopters
    I have a pa32-260. TAS is 130kts at 65% buring 12.5gph. Hauls 1000lbs up to 6 hours at altitudes up to 9K.
     
    Rein Hart likes this.
  19. Mtns2Skies

    Mtns2Skies Super Moderator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,931
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mtns2Skies
    I think you may be confusing a term here.
    Turbo CHARGED = Higher than atmospheric pressure going into the engine. Plenty of planes operate this way.

    Turbo NORMALIZED = What you're describing maintaining sea level pressure into the engine to a higher elevation. Also turbo normalized engines shouldn't be seeing any higher heat or pressure than a normally aspirated engine.

    Just because a plane has a turbo charger does not mean that it is a turbo charged engine.

    Sorry to pick nits.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2019
  20. NordicDave

    NordicDave Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,456
    Location:
    San Jose
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    NordicDave
    Not a Piper expert by any means... Doesn't the Cherokee 6 also have more fuel tanks to switch in flight? Just one more thing to have to manage.
     
  21. NordicDave

    NordicDave Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,456
    Location:
    San Jose
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    NordicDave
    I have a Turbo-normalized fixed gear 182P. Awesome. Once you fly turbo, you'll never want to go back. Just awesome making 29" MAP for take-off at max gross with crazy high density altitudes. Amazing capability here out west. Was a real joy recently flying 5000 AGL over the Sierras and Rockies.
     
  22. RussR

    RussR Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,515
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Russ
    As @Mtns2Skies writes, this is not true in all cases. The Saratogas I fly have takeoff manifold pressure of 36 and 38 inches. That's well above ambient pressure. They are true turbocharged engines.
     
    Shuswap BC and Mtns2Skies like this.
  23. SoonerAviator

    SoonerAviator Final Approach PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2014
    Messages:
    5,339
    Location:
    Broken Arrow, OK
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    SoonerAviator
    Correct, I apologize for not being specific to the variants of turbo-application. I was just trying to get across the point that the turbo's main advantage is maintaining (or in the case of turbo-charging, exceeding) sea-level performance up to a certain density altitude ceiling. There are other advantages (like pressurization) which can come from them as well.
     
    Mtns2Skies likes this.
  24. Pilawt

    Pilawt Final Approach PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    7,783
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Pilawt
    True. The fixed gear PA-32s up through the 1978 model year have the same wings and fuel system as the Cherokee 235 -- four tanks, and a four-position fuel selector.

    The Cherokee Lances (1976-79) have wings that look the same externally, and have four tanks total, but the tanks are interconnected in each wing, so the fuel selector is just left/right/off.

    The 1979 Six 300 (fixed gear) has a fuel system similar to the Lances.
     
  25. WillFly4Food

    WillFly4Food Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2016
    Messages:
    110
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    WillFly4Food
    Think of the PA-32’s like a 3/4 ton truck. Or even better: like a Chevy Suburban. Heavy haulers, with versatile loading capabilities. I once heard about a guy that built a cabin on one of the smaller San Juan islands in Puget Sound. Most of the materials: lumber, roofing, appliances, he flew in himself, in a Cherokee Six.
     
  26. Rgbeard

    Rgbeard Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,475
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ and Ensenada, Mexico
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    rgbeard
    One of our nicknames for ours is the "Chevy Suburban".
     
  27. MBDiagMan

    MBDiagMan En-Route

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    3,578
    Location:
    NorthEast Texas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Doc
    If buying aT Tail Lance, pay attention in transition training. A CFI friend sold one and warned the new owner about its characteristics but the guy didn’t listen causing him to put it in the trees. Pay attention!
     
  28. Chris@75

    Chris@75 Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    5
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Chris05
    It does have 4 fuel tanks, but because of that plumbing, according to the Owners Handbook, only 1 PINT per tank is unusable.
     
  29. Checkout_my_Six

    Checkout_my_Six Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,257
    Location:
    Maryland
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Check_my_Six
    Ok....I owned a Six for a few years....the differences as I see it.

    Six.......................................Lance
    260 Hp or 300 HP......................300Hp
    forward seating or club
    260 - 1550-1600lb useful load......150-200lbs less
    135 kts true at 15 gph................150 kts at 16-17 gph
    fixed gear...............................retract
     
    Russell likes this.
  30. AA5Bman

    AA5Bman Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    340
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MB
    Wait - did they make a turbocharged version that is fixed gear? Or is this supposed to be an “R” model? If fixed, what kind of fuel consumption and altitude is required to get 150 knots?
     
  31. Pilawt

    Pilawt Final Approach PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    7,783
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Pilawt
    PA-32-301T = turbocharged fixed gear.

    PA-32-301T_1983_bw.jpeg

    PA-32-301T specs 1.jpeg PA-32-301T specs 2.jpeg PA-32-301T specs 3.jpeg PA-32-301T specs 4.jpeg
     
    Jim K and GRG55 like this.
  32. GRG55

    GRG55 Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    7,630
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Aztec Flyer
    This, imo, was the ultimate PA-32. Not as fast as the retractable down low, but simplicity of the fixed gear combined with decent useful load + respectable performance at altitude.

    However, the T-tail, retractable Lance seems the runaway best value in today's market.
     
    Pilawt and Checkout_my_Six like this.
  33. IK04

    IK04 Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2018
    Messages:
    1,930
    Location:
    Copperas Cove, Texas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    LNXGUY
    I ferried a PA-32-301T from Opa Locka to San Jose (RHV) and It was a nice change from the Tomahawk and arrow I had done earlier. The ability to climb high and take advantage of the 100 gallons of gas made the trip easy.
     
  34. Checkout_my_Six

    Checkout_my_Six Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,257
    Location:
    Maryland
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Check_my_Six
    That's my choice if I needed a six place aircraft.....;)
     
  35. AA5Bman

    AA5Bman Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    340
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MB
  36. IK04

    IK04 Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2018
    Messages:
    1,930
    Location:
    Copperas Cove, Texas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    LNXGUY
    Th
    The hot air coming out of the top of the cowling helps with keeping the windscreen clear in cold weather...
     
  37. Pilawt

    Pilawt Final Approach PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    7,783
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Pilawt
    The SSFS (silly sucker-fish snout) was originally designed a few years earlier, in 1975, for a proposed, cleaned-up "Six II 300", with normally-aspirated or turbocharged engine. The NA version did not have the gills in the sides of the upper cowl.

    The Six II was to have been introduced in spring 1978, but Piper shelved the project in favor of the taper-winged Saratoga.
     
  38. UngaWunga

    UngaWunga Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,497
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    UngaWunga
    I thought low wing planes were supposed to be fast...
     
  39. GRG55

    GRG55 Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    7,630
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Aztec Flyer
    And I thought all high wing airplanes were supposed to be slow... ;)

    IMG_0617.JPG
     
  40. WillFly4Food

    WillFly4Food Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2016
    Messages:
    110
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    WillFly4Food
    Seems to me I saw somewhere (TCDS?) that there was also a seaplane version? If you can believe that.