Piper Turbo Lance, Turbo Arrow, Cherokee-6 & C182

DesertNomad

DesertNomad

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
2,448
Location
Northern NV
Display Name
Display name:
DesertNomad
I am looking to buy a plane. I have about 130 hours (plus about 30 more that I can't count officially because I was in Africa). I did my training in a 172, but since my PPL have been mostly flying a 182.

Today I flew a Cherokee-6/300 for the first time to another airport to look at possibly buying a Turbo Lance in great condition… 9/10 on the paint and interior, new Turbo on it, intercooler and very clean panel.

Any thoughts on the Turbo Lance? I was told the current owner gets near 200mph and 17-19gph. It's got:

Apollo MX20
Apollo GX60
Apollo SL30 (nav/com)
Apollo SL70 (transponder)

What sort of support for these will there be going forward esp with ADS-B coing up in a few more years?

There is also a Piper Turbo Arrow for sale but I think the Lance might be a better deal.
 
Last edited:
Is the lance a strait tail,or t tail ,performance is marginal on take off on the T tail. The avionics also seem dated.
 
frfly172 said:
Is the lance a strait tail,or t tail ,performance is marginal on take off on the T tail. The avionics also seem dated.
Click to expand...

Can't say the avionic are dated until the OP explains the type of flying he plans to do. Not everyone needs the latest and greatest and most expensive avionics out there. The SL30 is still one of the best nav/coms, and will continue to an excellent com radio into the future.
 
DesertNomad said:
Any thoughts on the Turbo Lance? I was told the current owner gets near 200mph and 17-19gph.
Click to expand...
First off, 173 kts (200 mph) in a PA32RT is asking a lot. If you can achieve it, seriously doubt you are doing it at 17-19gph.

From the POH of the Turbo Lance II: at16k, 75% power, book speed is 170 kts at 21.9 gph.

Now, those numbers are for the T-tail. Not sure if the straight tail is faster, but I doubt it gets 3-5 gph better.

Turbo Lances are good if you want Cherokee 6 capacity with the ability to fly high over mountains. Personally, if you don't need the turbo, I'd go for a non-turbo and save your money.
 
..thinking outside the box..

Forced Aeromotive can slap a belt driven supercharger on a 182 for about $20G's, and then you've got one heck of an airplane.

1400f.p.m. climb @ 90knots with 700lbs. on board @ 6000' Palt. is what one guy said he got.
 
Pilawt said:
Unless it's an aftermarket turbo, it would have to be a T-tail (1978-79) Lance II. Turbocharging was never offered from the factory on the low-tail (1976-77) Lances.
Click to expand...
In that case I definitely think the current owner's performance numbers are fantasy.
 
frfly172 said:
Is the lance a strait tail,or t tail ,performance is marginal on take off on the T tail. The avionics also seem dated.
Click to expand...

It is a T tail. I have not flown it yet as I Need to do some more research.
 
Last edited:
I have heard the T-tails have a reputation as difficult on t/o because the slipstream fro the prop is not flowing over the elevator. This would be based in Reno (4415') and flying in the Mountain West.

Another option is a Cherokee-6/300. Any thoughts on comparing the two? We took off today from KTRK at a DA of 8200' and three people (2 of whom are small) with about 1/2 fuel and I was still able to climb at over 500'/min
 
Consider the MX cost on a turbo. I can't see them being cost effective on a private airplane that will fly less than 200 hours a year.

When comparing a Cherokee 6 to a 182, the real question is "what's the longest thing I want to fly?" Both airplanes have good load capability, but the skiis fit in a Cherokee 6 easier.
 
DesertNomad said:
I have heard the T-tails have a reputation as difficult on t/o because the slipstream fro the prop is not flowing over the elevator. This would be based in Reno (4415') and flying in the Mountain West.
Click to expand...
No issue with takeoffs in a T-tail. The issue that a lot of folks have with the T-tail is on landing. If you get below 90 kts on final, the wing starts to block the airflow to the tail and you have some issues. My dad has 2-3000 hrs in his Turbo Lance II and has never had a problem with the tail. I've got a little less than 20 hrs actually flying the airplane, but I haven't had any problems.

From your location, it sounds like you might want a turbo. The question then becomes, do you need retractable gear and speed? The C6 is a very good hauler and the W&B envelope is a little better than the Lance. But, it is slower.
 
The T-tail Lance has a great useful load. Good plane. Be sure to have a machanic inspect the engine closely. A Turbo put a lot of stress on the engine.
 
hook_dupin said:
You absolutely can count it if this happened after your PPL or if you had a CFI providing training if this was before your PPL.
Click to expand...

Nope. This happened when I was still a student with 3.5 hours and in Africa the guy in the left seat was not a CFI (though he holds an ATP).
 
hook_dupin said:
Consider the MX cost on a turbo. I can't see them being cost effective on a private airplane that will fly less than 200 hours a year.
Click to expand...

I haven't had a turbo add much in the way of cost. Certainly a little more just like any other feature for example when it needs a rebuild. That said, my maintenance over 4 turbo aircraft has been exactly the same as NA.
 
I guess I'll have to just go fly it. My CFI is trying to get me into a wide variety of planes since most of my flying has been 172/182.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Until it comes time to overhaul...that is when the maintenance cost goes up.
Click to expand...

Not really, there are plenty of " owner produced part" options when it comes to turbos. Truth is they are dirt simple and if your turbine and compressor wheels are in good condition, it costs less than $100 in parts to overhaul a turbo in the sizes used in GA.
 
Henning said:
Not really, there are plenty of " owner produced part" options when it comes to turbos. Truth is they are dirt simple and if your turbine and compressor wheels are in good condition, it costs less than $100 in parts to overhaul a turbo in the sizes used in GA.
Click to expand...

Regardless of parts availability, it still is going to cost you more than the engine without the turbo.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Regardless of parts availability, it still is going to cost you more than the engine without the turbo.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if you want the performance at altitude and around big rocks, you don't have a bunch of options. Seneca II+ is another option and get Known Ice. Turbos don't add enough extra expense to make them worth avoiding. Same rules apply as with non turbo engines, manage your temps. LOP operation keeps turbo expenses down because it keeps them clean.
 
Piper Turbo Lance, Turbo Arrow, Cherokee-6 & C182

Henning said:
Yeah, but if you want the performance at altitude and around big rocks, you don't have a bunch of options. Seneca II+ is another option and get Known Ice. Turbos don't add enough extra expense to make them worth avoiding. Same rules apply as with non turbo engines, manage your temps. LOP operation keeps turbo expenses down because it keeps them clean.
Click to expand...

If you go back and read my other posts in this thread you will see that I actually did recommend the turbo when the OP stayed where he is based.
 
Henning said:
Yeah, but if you want the performance at altitude and around big rocks, you don't have a bunch of options. Seneca II+ is another option and get Known Ice. Turbos don't add enough extra expense to make them worth avoiding. Same rules apply as with non turbo engines, manage your temps. LOP operation keeps turbo expenses down because it keeps them clean.
Click to expand...

I'm generally inclined to believe the turbo boogeyman is unsubstantiated, but there's no way you can tell me the maintenance differential between my ArrowII and its turbo counterpart is not significant. The conti 360 plus that horrible fixed gate system and no intercooler is an unapologetic disaster of a setup.

Otherwise I agree with your point about operating philosophy. I think a lot of the turbo mx issue arises from the desire to run the engine hard at O2 altitudes in order to materialize the marketing speeds. As such, most setups in these 40 year old contraptions are simply not cooling effective (relying instead on extra gas use, which is no longer cheap) which leads to shortened lifespans and frequent RR.

I suppose if one would be willing to run below 65% at altitude the turbo lifespan issues would be significantly mitigated. There's still other components to the turbo system which require eventual attention, and that is always going to be arithmetically more expensive.
 
Yeah, but it adds up to fractions of a dollar per hour across all the hours you benefit from it. If you like to operate at advantage for TAS then leaned out at altitude is a fine way to go about it.

I agree the Seneca turbo is a bastardized system, I never figured out why they didn't use a real waste gate in that application. Remember, less fuel = less residual heat for less money. Lean that crap out.

It's more money, but if I wanted something to do that I'd be looking for a TAT A-36.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I'm generally inclined to believe the turbo boogeyman is unsubstantiated, but there's no way you can tell me the maintenance differential between my ArrowII and its turbo counterpart is not significant.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

The problem (and likely misperception) is that people try to make the turbo out to be a boogeyman. Just like some folks try to make retracts out to be not worth it compared to fixed gear.

For someone like me who rarely flies above 12k and doesn't fly out of airports where DA is much of a concern, a turbo is unecessary extra cost whereas for someone who flies where the OP is, it is probably well worth the expense.
 
+1 with FT

The mission for the plane and where I live would dictate turbo or not for me.

But, in my dreams, I still want to super charge the skywagon for the grin factor. :)
 
Part of the debate about turbos is that many pilots don't fly a profile that uses them and so they don't think they need them. I used to fly around below 10K all the time and thought it was just fine. Then when you get a turbo and really start using it the whole world changes. Even in the flat lands there is often some cool, smooth air, up there and occasionally some powerful tailwinds. Not to mention how many hours I've flown on top of some otherwise unflyable weather. That said there are some NA that will get up there as well like a PII Baron, so someone that wants higher altitude performance can pick their poison.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I'm generally inclined to believe the turbo boogeyman is unsubstantiated, but there's no way you can tell me the maintenance differential between my ArrowII and its turbo counterpart is not significant. The conti 360 plus that horrible fixed gate system and no intercooler is an unapologetic disaster of a setup.

Otherwise I agree with your point about operating philosophy. I think a lot of the turbo mx issue arises from the desire to run the engine hard at O2 altitudes in order to materialize the marketing speeds. As such, most setups in these 40 year old contraptions are simply not cooling effective (relying instead on extra gas use, which is no longer cheap) which leads to shortened lifespans and frequent RR.

I suppose if one would be willing to run below 65% at altitude the turbo lifespan issues would be significantly mitigated. There's still other components to the turbo system which require eventual attention, and that is always going to be arithmetically more expensive.
Click to expand...

I owned the turbo counterpart and now have an Arrow II. You're right, the maintenance differential is huge. It's not just the turbo, it's the whole engine.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Part of the debate about turbos is that many pilots don't fly a profile that uses them and so they don't think they need them. I used to fly around below 10K all the time and thought it was just fine. Then when you get a turbo and really start using it the whole world changes. Even in the flat lands there is often some cool, smooth air, up there and occasionally some powerful tailwinds.
Click to expand...

I agree that turbos can be very efficient flying up high, but if that is what you plan to use the turbo for, you might as well go for pressurization too. Most folks don't really want to be flying across the US sucking O2 from a mask or canula the whole way.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I agree that turbos can be very efficient flying up high, but if that is what you plan to use the turbo for, you might as well go for pressurization too. Most folks don't really want to be flying across the US sucking O2 from a mask or canula the whole way.
Click to expand...

This is what I use, the passengers seem to really like them.

http://www.rocketengineering.com/content/airboom-cannula

Nothing up the nose nothing touching your face, I love em.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Might be worth a shot. Thanks for the suggestion.
Click to expand...

The only downside is that they only have them for the Bose headsets. That and of course they use more oxygen than something like an O2 saver because the O2 is always flowing. It's really made O2 that was once a big deal a non-issue, so I'll deal with it.
 
The T tail is no big deal on takeoff or landing. I can only compare it to the C172 I learned on first, but the major difference is that the Lance is more powerful and much heavier. Once you learn how it handles, no big deal.
Again, not much to compare to, but I like having the turbo even though I live in the Northeast. That extra bit of punch when the plane is full with stuff/people gives me a better margin of comfort for takeoff. I did have to overhaul the turbo this year and it was a few thousand dollars. Bummer, but hopefully it will be a long time before I do it again.
The T tail turbo Lance is like an SUV, big, comfortable, hauls a lot, not the fastest around but fits the mission for some like me. It can actually carry 4 adults unlike many 4 place aircraft.
For maintenance, it has had some issues that I would guess are typical of a plane this age. My mechanic says the engine compartment shoves a lot of stuff into a small space which make working in there challenging, but overall he has no complaints.
I usually fly 2400 RPM and MP 24 and get 150 knots without wind at 17 gph. The book says 15.7 gph at those settings but the new turbo may still be settling in.
Sorry for the long answer, just wanted to help you decide whether this plane fits your mission. Feel free to reply with more questions if you have them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top