PA32 Lance- Call for Opinions

[SCCutler]

I am thinking in terms of possibly acquiring such a beast. I know there are several of you "out there" who have owned them in the past, and I am looking for comments and experience.

Unusual troubles, costs of annuals, whether the T-Tail is really trouble or not, how much more costly the turbo models are, that sort of thing.

I like the carrying capacity and cabin room, and am willing to sacrifice some speed for the width.

Please, do tell.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Owned a straight tail Lance for several years and about 400 hours. It's Cherokee simple to fly and hauls a ton (almost literally). But you already knew that. Annuals were typically about 2500 for me at a relatively high cost urban airport (Orlando Executive), although I did have one year when I got nailed for three times that. Can't remember off the top of my head why, though.

There are a few gotchas when doing the prebuy. One is to look at the top latch area of the left rear door. The tendency of passengers to slam the door causes the latch to bend and beat the snot out of the receiver end.

Check to see when/if the hydraulic power pack for the landing gear was replaced. Five years ago the part alone was $1500.

If it was converted to club seating by STC, check the condition of the latches on the seatbacks of the rear-facing seats. (Maybe even on factory jobs.) This was an underdesigned part and flopping seatbacks are a real annoyance.

Try to get one with good engine monitoring. Without cowl flaps, it's relatively easy to overtemp the engine as the original stock instrumentation is inadequate to monitor CHTs. Compare the cost of an EIS to six new cylinders and it's a no brainer.

I had no problems with corrosion and really only minimal repairs considering the age of the airframe.

There are a lot of these out there with junk for avionics. Try to find one that has been upgraded to at least a 430. They do come along.

 

[Henning]

I am thinking in terms of possibly acquiring such a beast. I know there are several of you "out there" who have owned them in the past, and I am looking for comments and experience.

Unusual troubles, costs of annuals, whether the T-Tail is really trouble or not, how much more costly the turbo models are, that sort of thing.

I like the carrying capacity and cabin room, and am willing to sacrifice some speed for the width.

Please, do tell.

They're good planes they came in straight and t-tail, the t-tail uses just a bit more runway since you don't get the prop wash across the tail and a slightly higher speed is needed to get the nose up. There is also a turbo version out there if you live out west, it's quite handy. As for maint costs, they are at the low end of the scale for a six place hi performance complex single, and parts are readily available for them both new and boneyard.

IIRC they were touchy about cooling on climbout. I believe the LoPresti cowl helped that a bunch as well as adding a few knots. All in all, it's a good family/business aircraft. I wouldn't buy it for a one man commuter plane, but if you have to haul people and stuff, it's a good plane. BTW I found they like to be loaded at the back of the W/B envelope, especially helpfull with the T-Tail.

 

[mike21951]

I owned a non-turbo T tail lance for about five years and loved the plane.

The T tail is usually a better value because of it's undeserved reputation of being a runway hog. (1. It requires a positive rotation to lift off rather than flying off. 2. It requires a slightly faster landing speed to maintain elevator authority. Understand those two issues and it's a better value than conventional tail lances.) I regularly operated my aircraft into strips as short as 2200' without difficulty. The T tail is generally a knot or two faster. I generally got 156 knots at 75% at 5000 or so. My plane had some of the Knots2U mods (gap seals but not cowl mod).

It carries a ton. The old adage of "If you can close the doors...you can fly" was generally true. No suprises at annuals. The general stuff you would expect with a 25 year old aircraft.

I upgraded the avionics with a Garmin 430, HSI and strikefinder. The broker I sold mine to decided to keep it as his personal airplane.

 

[Skip Miller]

BTW I found they like to be loaded at the back of the W/B envelope, especially helpfull with the T-Tail.

Yes. IIRC, the POH for the PA-32 Saratoga II recommends filling the seats: front row, back row, middle row.

-Skip

 

[Ken Ibold]

Yes. IIRC, the POH for the PA-32 Saratoga II recommends filling the seats: front row, back row, middle row.

They don't mind an aft tendency, but I routinely flew mine solo with full fuel and no bags and did not find any of the nose-thunk tendency you get with, say, a 182 under similar loading.

 

[Len Lanetti]

The T tail is usually a better value because of it's undeserved reputation of being a runway hog.

I can't really comment on the reputation of the T Tail Lance as I have less than 2 hours in the aircraft.

From observation of ads in Trade a Plane the asking prices on the T Tails don't appear to be much different from "similar" straight tails.

I think several years ago the T Tails took a hit because of reputation but I think that time has come and gone. Possibly the T Tail will take longer to sell vs. the similarly equiped straight tail.

Len

 

[Silicon Rallye]

I owned a T-tail Lance for many years and loved it. My only faults with the plane are:

1) Preflight inspection of the T-tail (I kept a 4-rung stepladder in the plane).
2) Forward CG with only front seats occupied (I kept a toolbox in the aft luggage area).
3) When we bought our plane, the landing gear sensor system was way out of adjustment. Took a mechanic flying who adjusted the unit while we flew the plane.

Contrary to what you may have heard, takeoff and landings are a piece of cake but simply require technique. I strongly recommend about 2 hours with an instructor familiar with the plane to get you comfortable with any nuances. Overall, I consider it a very safe and predictable aircraft.

 

[Henning]

They don't mind an aft tendency, but I routinely flew mine solo with full fuel and no bags and did not find any of the nose-thunk tendency you get with, say, a 182 under similar loading.

Neither did I, but I found if I shifted my load aft, my fuel economy went up nicely.

 

[Len Lanetti]

Anyone have useful load references for the T Tail vs the Straight Tail. Anecdotally, I've heard that the empty weight of the T Tail is more so useful load is less by comparison.

Thanks,

Len

 

[SCCutler]

Thanks, all, for your timely comments. It does seem as though many of these are equipped with avionics which made them "loaded" 22 years ago (lots of KX175s, Lorans, etc.).

Keep 'em coming...