Dollars to doughnuts......Lance it is!

Unit74

Unit74

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
6,992
Display Name
Display name:
Unit74
I have had a few post recently which telegraph my impending actions, in that I have a green light to sell my Archer and step into a 6 place. The CFO, read wife, is reluctantly on board in that she is not stopping me and provides to resistance other than a couple faintly dirty looks when I talk about it. More commonly a rolled eyes moment.

Anyway, I have been exploring the options and decided the Lance is where I am at. For the equipment I want and my budget, I can get the load I need and eats required for my traveling street show( kids).

But where my dilemma has me undecided is turbo or non turbo. If I go turbo, the T tail it is. If I go nonturbo, I'll be looking for a strait tail. There are excellent examples of Lances in the $100k-ish range of both pedigrees.

My longest trip,will be from AR to SoCal, where the speed and FL advantage could be used. That trip would be 5-7 times a year. AirVenture and Sun And Fun are also in the mix. Otherwise, trips of 300-500 miles are about the normal flight originated from Central AR.

Based on my projected flights, do you think the turbo is warranted? The added expense of MX and the engine management is somewhat concerning to me, but the get there sooner has me trying to over rule my logical answer that I don't really need a turbo.

FWIW... I have around 140 hours in PA28s and am very comfortable with the Pipers. Also, I don't want a Bonanza, because I know it will be suggested. I'll tAke useful load over how nice it may be to fly a Bo.

I would go Saratoga, but it just seems you can get much more plane in a Lance and the trade off is subjective handling differences and the Toga loads are less. Not to mention, the Toga has held a better value and Lance to Toga, I'll spend about $30k more for a similarly equipped Toga.

So back it the root....... Turbo T tail or NA straight tail?:yes:
 
If you are heading across the mountains frequently, I would go turbo. Long trips also allow you to take advantage of TAS increases even at non O2 altitudes. The PA-32RT series show a nice TAS around 12,500'.

The 'carp face' Saratogas with the up flow cowl also had cooling issues.

If you come across the on with a LoPresti cowl, that is a pretty valuable option. After cooler for the turbo is also good.
 
Last edited:
I have seen two so far with Howl Cowls... Some of the Turbos have an inter older mod as well.
 
Unit74 said:
I have seen two so far with Howl Cowls... Some of the Turbos have an inter older mod as well.
Click to expand...

Cowl and inter cooler are what you are looking for, both not only give you speed, but more importantly protect your engine from destructive forces.
 
Unit74 said:
My longest trip,will be from AR to SoCal, where the speed and FL advantage could be used. That trip would be 5-7 times a year. AirVenture and Sun And Fun are also in the mix. Otherwise, trips of 300-500 miles are about the normal flight originated from Central AR.

So back it the root....... Turbo T tail or NA straight tail?:yes:
Click to expand...

a 1200nm trip 5-7 times a year is quite frequent. You most certainly want the most speed you can get...that's 9 hours each way of airtime.

I would go Turbo. While your passengers might not enjoy O2, you'll have a lot more options out west, as well as speed. You're not based at a little 2,200ft strip so you will be ok with the T-tail.
 
Brad Z said:
a 1200nm trip 5-7 times a year is quite frequent. You most certainly want the most speed you can get...that's 9 hours each way of airtime.

I would go Turbo. While your passengers might not enjoy O2, you'll have a lot more options out west, as well as speed. You're not based at a little 2,200ft strip so you will be ok with the T-tail.
Click to expand...

Even below passenger O2 requirements, the turbo still shows good improvement.
 
Crossing the mountains you want a turbo. Gives you many more options.
 
my current plane has a turbo.....and cost differential is minimal IMHO.

Don't let the turbo hold you back.....
 
Henning said:
If you are heading across the mountains frequently, I would go turbo. Long trips also allow you to take advantage of TAS increases even at non O2 altitudes. The PA-32RT series show a nice TAS around 12,500'.

The 'carp face' Saratogas with the up flow cowl also had cooling issues.

If you come across the on with a LoPresti cowl, that is a pretty valuable option. After cooler for the turbo is also good.
Click to expand...

I would lean towards this response, as it carries several advantages that will not only save you some "time", but seem to provide a very good stress relief scenario by scratching out some pitfalls of your particular mission.

So my vote for you is the Turbo-T
 
Last edited:
I have owned both a straight tail No-turbo Lance and a Turbo Saratoga.

I would vote for a No-Turbo Lance.

Here are my reasons for the Lance:

I have flown in the Mountains and to the west coast in a Lance with not problems.

With a No-Turbo Lance you can fly at 75% power if you want speed. In the Turbo I had to keep the power to 65% because Turbo would over heat. Also the engine manufacturer suggest 65% if you want to reach TBO on the engine. I know others here will say you can do 75% but in mine I could not.

Here is the biggest reason – You have more Useful Load in a Lance. That is Very Important when you are packing for a trip with your family and friends.
 
only slightly off-topic, but can u send me details on your archer? you know, so I can make it easy for you to sell it to me? :) thanks!
 
Scott@KTYR said:
I have owned both a straight tail No-turbo Lance and a Turbo Saratoga.

I would vote for a No-Turbo Lance.

Here are my reasons for the Lance:

I have flown in the Mountains and to the west coast in a Lance with not problems.

With a No-Turbo Lance you can fly at 75% power if you want speed. In the Turbo I had to keep the power to 65% because Turbo would over heat. Also the engine manufacturer suggest 65% if you want to reach TBO on the engine. I know others here will say you can do 75% but in mine I could not.

Here is the biggest reason – You have more Useful Load in a Lance. That is Very Important when you are packing for a trip with your family and friends.
Click to expand...


You turbo will only overheat running ROP, run LOP and the TIT stays fine at 75%+.
 
While we're spending your money :D I will give another vote for the turbo. Besides the obvious value in the west, flying on those hot bumpy summer days in the south you will enjoy being able to get into the mid to high teens in nice cool smooth air and weave around the cumulus clouds. It just gives you more options if you can afford the extra cost. Also reduces hot and high field issues.
 
No dog in this hunt, but will the turbo add much to his primary mission of the 300-500 intra-Arkansas trips? I feel like he won't need to fly too high crossing to SoCal from Ark via NM (10,600MSL) where a non-turbo lance would be able to easily cruise. What is the time saved on those 5 trips, and is it worth the potential headaches of the turbo-engine?
 
My straight tail Lance cruises around 160 true at 75% 75 degrees ROP. I have a howl cowl and all of the other mods. I'm a bit of a speed demon, so I drop to about 150 true when I go 20-30 LOP... and don't really like the speed loss.

Great plane, BTW! I couldn't see myself owning anything different in the same class... Now a Malibu or VLJ, that's a different story.
 
I've never flown the Lance, but I've flown both the T-tail and straight tail versions of the Arrow. I HATED the T-tail! With the horizontal stab out of the prop wash and whatever other aerodynamic forces were at play, the T-tail was a nightmare to flare without electric trim. The electric trim failed on me one time and I had to use both arms on the yoke to flare the plane. That meant furtive reaches for the throttle on my touchdown. I never flew the plane again after that. If the Lance T-tail is similarly balanced, I would stay as far away from it as possible. The turbo feature would be nice, but not at the expense of good handling.
 
SoonerAviator said:
No dog in this hunt, but will the turbo add much to his primary mission of the 300-500 intra-Arkansas trips? I feel like he won't need to fly too high crossing to SoCal from Ark via NM (10,600MSL) where a non-turbo lance would be able to easily cruise. What is the time saved on those 5 trips, and is it worth the potential headaches of the turbo-engine?
Click to expand...

I have never really experienced any great turbo headaches, an not only have I owned 2 of them on an airplane, I deal with them continuously in marine and industrial applications with a very low failure rate.

I just don't see the big deal in practice.:dunno:

Will it help him on the 300-500? Yes.
 
Mods, can you merge this with the 2015 Ford F150 thread? Thanks.




:rofl:
 
ahkahn said:
My straight tail Lance cruises around 160 true at 75% 75 degrees ROP. I have a howl cowl and all of the other mods. I'm a bit of a speed demon, so I drop to about 150 true when I go 20-30 LOP... and don't really like the speed loss.

Great plane, BTW! I couldn't see myself owning anything different in the same class... Now a Malibu or VLJ, that's a different story.
Click to expand...

With the turbo you get 20-30 LOP then bring the throttle back in to get 75% power and 160kts back.;)

When you are LOP TAS is your indicator of where to enter the chart for % power, not MP or RPM.
 
Henning said:
I have never really experienced any great turbo headaches, an not only have I owned 2 of them on an airplane, I deal with them continuously in marine and industrial applications with a very low failure rate.

I just don't see the big deal in practice.:dunno:

Will it help him on the 300-500? Yes.
Click to expand...

I'm not implying the Turbo aircraft are unreliable, however there always seems to be that stigma around them that they have issue making TBO and the increased maintenance/annuals. It's a perceived risk, not a guarantee of failure of course.

On a 500nm flight, wouldn't the turbo lance only amount to ~15min savings assuming TAS of 165 vs 150 on the NA? I suppose it depends on how much "help" that is on the 500nm flight. Obviously the TAS increase over the 1200nm flight to SoCal is much more significant, due to the ability to get moving much quicker up high, especially on the way back to Ark.
 
What turbos do is open up the opportunity for ignorant operators to cause themselves problems. Every step up in capability has the same issues. Educate yourself on what is going on, and what is possible vs what is best, and turbos add $1.50 hr to the cost of maint if that.

The greatest detriment that happened to GA is ROP operations and the great LOP myths of destruction.
 
Every place I've worked for in piston engines, they made TBO, pt 91 they exceeded it, all running ROP, every owner stated NOT to run LOP.

I'm still experimenting with my new plane, but what everyone says who flys sky wagons, is to do whatever you need to with the red knob to keep below your target EGTs.

To the OPs question, I have zero experience in the lance, good amount of time in a turbo arrow and quite a few non turbo planes on the west coast, ranging from the desert to the PNW, I've done quite well with both turbo and non turbo, crossing peaks too.
 
James331 said:
Every place I've worked for in piston engines, they made TBO, pt 91 they exceeded it, all running ROP, every owner stated NOT to run LOP.

I'm still experimenting with my new plane, but what everyone says who flys sky wagons, is to do whatever you need to with the red knob to keep below your target EGTs.

To the OPs question, I have zero experience in the lance, good amount of time in a turbo arrow and quite a few non turbo planes on the west coast, ranging from the desert to the PNW, I've done quite well with both turbo and non turbo, crossing peaks too.
Click to expand...

They make TBO with a top end of at least 4 cylinders. The only people I ever see make TBO with no cylinder issues are those who run LOP. Bottom ends make TBO irrelevantly to LOP/ROP. The difference is in how many cylinders and valves you change getting there, and how much fuel you burn.

EGTs are not that relevant as a number as long as they stay below 1750°, and you'll never see that LOP. CHT and its trending is the number critical to engine operations.
 
Last edited:
Unit74 have you charted your long trip to SCAL?

From KCWS Conway AR to KLGB Long Beach CA is 1275 miles. The trip can be made at 10500 or less.

At 150 TAS it is 8.5 hours and at 160 TAS it is 8.0 hours.

Also consider the length of your legs on this trip. Will the wife and kids be able to do a 4 hour hop or will it be a 1.5 to 2 hour potty break? If it is the short hops will you be able to take advantage of the 14500 or above alt.?
 
Scott@KTYR said:
Unit74 have you charted your long trip to SCAL?

From KCWS Conway AR to KLGB Long Beach CA is 1275 miles. The trip can be made at 10500 or less.

At 150 TAS it is 8.5 hours and at 160 TAS it is 8.0 hours.

Also consider the length of your legs on this trip. Will the wife and kids be able to do a 4 hour hop or will it be a 1.5 to 2 hour potty break? If it is the short hops will you be able to take advantage of the 14500 or above alt.?
Click to expand...

I saw the same numbers (used 1200nm) but the only difference is that he'd be able to go up high on the return trip to take advantage of the tailwinds more in the upper teens in the Turbo Lance giving him much higher speed gains, but probably wouldn't be worth it to go much into the teens with the NA version.
 
Yes, I have charted it out several different ways. We usually can go three hours before whining begins. We are careful about our fluids intake before flight and during. Plus we have the gel bags if it gets nessessary. I also think it's good to just get down and stretch out a bit anyway, not to mention op im not big on sneaking up on min fuel. If I have an hour left in gas, I want to be decending for fuel.

If the turbo means we can do it in two legs, that would be awesome and a definite factor in the purchase.
 
also....when navigating around weather the turbo is a tool to be used. NA planes quickly run outta performance and climbing in lots of cases just isn't an option up high.....especially when dealing with cumulus buildups and icing conditions.

Trying to maneuver a NA aircraft above 10,000 feet ain't fun....:no:
 
Last edited:
The turbo also is nice allowing easy high altitude fuel stops for less descent and climb.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I saw the same numbers (used 1200nm) but the only difference is that he'd be able to go up high on the return trip to take advantage of the tailwinds more in the upper teens in the Turbo Lance giving him much higher speed gains, but probably wouldn't be worth it to go much into the teens with the NA version.
Click to expand...

I forgot about the west east jet stream. My numbers were for No Wind which Never happens. Yep, most of the time going west you will be fighting a head wind. This could add 1 to 1.5 hours to your trip.
 
Scott@KTYR said:
I forgot about the west east jet stream. My numbers were for No Wind which Never happens. Yep, most of the time going west you will be fighting a head wind. This could add 1 to 1.5 hours to your trip.
Click to expand...

What you do is stay down on the westbound leg, and then climb for the east bound. Even into the wind at 10,500- 12,500, you'll still be going 20+ kts faster than the NA with a turbo, and into the wind is where the extra speed pays off.

Once your primary altitude is above 7500', you have a distinct advantage available from turbos, and the advantage grows with altitude.
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
my current plane has a turbo.....and cost differential is minimal IMHO.



Don't let the turbo hold you back.....
Click to expand...

Where the turbo gets you cost-wise is when you have to overhaul. Compared to what it cost my dad to overhaul the TIO-540 on his Turbo Lance, I could almost overhaul both my IO-470s on the Baron.
 
wsuffa said:
Crossing the mountains you want a turbo. Gives you many more options.
Click to expand...

On the routes he'd be doing from AR to SoCal, he doesn't need a turbo to get over the rocks. I've never found myself wishing for turbos on the Baron and I've flown across that same stretch a few times.

In this case, the turbo gives would give him better speed to shorten the trips. He just needs to run some numbers and compare to see if the turbo is really worth it.
 
I would go with the turbo,any reason you haven't looked at the Cessna line?
 
I have some experience in both the T-Tail and Straight Tail lance. Not a ton but some experience. The lance is a great plane, has more useful load than the Saratoga that replaced the straight tail.

I was not a great fan of the T-Tail because we had to abort 2 takeoffs as we just could not get the nose off the ground. Turnsout we had to crank the trim all the way up. It was disconcerting to say the least. The turbo might make a difference with this issue but not sure.
 
My T tail turbo Lance has been phenomenal. Anything I can fit into it, it can handle! It is the first plane I owned so I can't compare to anything but a 172, but she sure is awesome!! Never have trouble getting off the ground. I haven't found the turbo that expensive but maybe I've been lucky.
She's also for sale if you're interested because I'm stepping up to pressurization. PM me if you want details.
 
Last edited:
I like the turbo option.

Last month, we took a 300 nm trip KODO - KSAF and the westerly headwinds were bad plus turbulence around KROW which my wife doesn't like.
Took 3 hrs to get to KSAF and less than two on the return.
Turbo got us higher out of the turb and was useful in fighting the wind.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Where the turbo gets you cost-wise is when you have to overhaul. Compared to what it cost my dad to overhaul the TIO-540 on his Turbo Lance, I could almost overhaul both my IO-470s on the Baron.
Click to expand...

That's as much a factor of the low cost of the IO-470. Still it works out to be a couple bucks an hour between the IO and TIO 540
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top