T-Tail Lance Approach Speed

B

boydbischke

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
21
Display Name
Display name:
Boyd
The manual for a P32RT-300T (T-Tail Turbo Piper Lance) seems to recommend a very high final approach speed (95 KIAS normal technique, and 76 KIAS short field technique). I've landed following the manual instructions for normal technique, probably 50 times, and it floats 1500-2000 feet (at elevation 4200ft).

The reason this is coming up is that I'm reading "The Thinking Pilot's Flight Manual" by Rick Durden. He has a section in the book where he emphasized that coming in with a speed well above Vso can lead to loss of control in cross-wind landings.

Some recommend 1.3 or 1.4 Vso. Vso for the plane is 52 KIAS. That would put 1.4 Vso at 73 KIAS.

Incidentally, in the POH there's also a warning that with a forward CG of 82 inches to not land below 90KIAS.

Questions:
- Why is the normal approach speed at 1.83 Vso?
- Why is there such a large spread between the short field approach speed of 76 KIAS and the normal approach speed of 95 KIAS?
- Should I be concerned with a long float that results from the POH normal technique recommendation, especially in a cross-wind?
- For anybody that flies this plane, what works well for you?


--------------------------------

For your reference, here are the relevant snippets from the POH:

NORMAL TECHNIQUE (No Performance Chart Furnished)
When available runway length is in excess of required runway length, a normal approach and landing technique may be utilized. The aircraft should be flown down the final approach course at 95 KIAS with power required to maintain the desired approach angle. The amount of flap used during approach and landing and the speed of the aircraft at contact with the runway should be varied according to the landing surface, conditions of wind and aircraft loading. It is generally good practice to contact the ground at the minimum possible safe speed consistent with existing conditions. As landing distances with this technique will vary, performance charts are not furnished.

SHORT FIELD LANDING APPROACH POWER OFF (See Chart, Section 5)
When available runway length is minimal or obstacle clearance to landing is of major concern, this approach/landing technique may be employed. The aircraft should be flown on the final approach at 76 KIAS with full flaps, gear down and idle power. The glide path should be stabilized as early as possible. Reduce the speed slightly during landing flareout and contact the ground close to stall speed. After ground contact, retract the flaps and apply full aft travel on the control wheel and maximum braking consistent with existing conditions.
CAUTION
When C.G. is forward of 82 inches, use 90 KIAS approach speed.

SHORT FIELD LANDING APPROACH POWER ON (No Performance Chart Furnished)
It may sometimes be advantageous to use this approach technique when obstacle clearance during landing is of concern. The aircraft should be flown with full flap, gear down and power sufficient for an approach path that will clear the obstacle. When obstacle clearance is assured, reduce the power and assume the 76 KIAS approach speed to landing flare. After ground contact, close the throttle, retract the flaps, apply full aft travel on the control wheel and maximum braking consistent with existing conditions. As landing distances with this technique will vary, performance charts are not furnished.
CAUTION
When C.G. is forward of 82 inches, use 90 KIAS approach speed.

4.39 STALLS
The stall characteristics of the Turbo Lance II are conventional. An approaching stall is indicated by a stall warning horn which is activated between five and ten knots above stall speed. Mild airframe buffeting and gentle pitching may also precede the stall.
The gross weight stalling speed with power off and full flaps is 52 KIAS. With the flaps up this speed is increased 5 KTS. Loss of altitude during stalls can be as great as 460 feet, depending on configuration and
power.
 
Last edited:
Maybe approach at 95kts and vref down to 72?

If you're floating your obviously too fast.

How does the plane feel at these speeds?

Short final at 95kts is hot, that's faster then cross the fence in a PC12
 
James331 said:
Maybe approach at 95kts and vref down to 72?

If you're floating your obviously too fast.

How does the plane feel at these speeds?

Short final at 95kts is hot, that's faster then cross the fence in a PC12
Click to expand...

It's very controllable, but clearly not ready to land yet. I haven't tried to land at a lower speed than the normal recommended (also what I was trained on), but I wonder if you start to lose elevator authority.

I also wonder if the the really high speed is related to an overabundance of caution for the warning "CAUTION When C.G. is forward of 82 inches, use 90 KIAS approach speed.". The weird thing is in working the numbers, the only way I can find to get the C.G. forward of 82 inches is to overload the nose compartment.
 
Found a related post:

http://www.piperforum.com/showthread.php?t=5546

The poster says:

"So in order to deal with it a good rule of thumb that I have used over the years is to fly the downwind at 110kts., base at 100 and final at 85-95 depending on weight. 1.3 x vso at gross is 79.3 kts. so this approach will keep you well on the safe side of things. Just remember that the 1.3 business is weight dependent so the lighter you are the slower you can safely fly on approach without getting into trouble."
 
I fly a non turbo t tail Lance and 80 on final has worked fine every time but I haven't been anywhere near max gross yet.
 
what about flaps?....in the Six (same airframe as the Lance)....I used 100 MPH on downwind...and 80mph on final & full flaps at short final. With full flaps (lots of drag) and idle she slows rather quickly. So, 80MPH or 70-75kts over the numbers with full flaps should be slowing nicely with enough control authority to handle cross winds....and slow enough not to float and stop reasonably.
 
I fly a straight tail 77 lance. I fly 85- 90 on approach and over the fence/ tree line, then reduce from there. I have certainly been close to max weight with that speed and felt comfortable. Have never had problems with getting it on the ground. When the power is cut, it will definitely go down. I have not flown a T-tail, but had always heard about them losing elevator authority at low speed. That may be the reason for the recommendations.
 
boydbischke said:
Questions:
- Why is the normal approach speed at 1.83 Vso?
Click to expand...
It is because when you get below around 90kts (especially with a fwd CG ), the airflow from the wing starts to mess with that T-tail.

My dad has had his Turbo Lance II since 1980. I've flown it a few times. Usually keep it about 95 on final and start to pull the power back crossing the fence. Don't recall what the exact landing distance was, but it didn't seem too bad. I've landed it at Sedona and stopped around 3000' I believe. I've never tried the short field technique.
 
I've never flown a T-tail Lance, just the normal tail configuration. Never flew that fast on final, seems like it was in the mid 70s, 75-78 kts. You're way too fast unless that's recommended in the POH. Seems too fast if you're floating.
 
mscard88 said:
I've never flown a T-tail Lance, just the normal tail configuration. Never flew that fast on final, seems like it was in the mid 70s, 75-78 kts. You're way too fast unless that's recommended in the POH. Seems too fast if you're floating.
Click to expand...
He posted the excerpts from the POH. The T-tail has different approach speeds than the straight tail Lance and it is because of the tail.
 
If the T is anything like the T-tail in the Arrow.....I'd add 5kts to what he's use to .....
 
The lightest I would ever fly is 850lbs under gross.

Sounds like it would be safe to try somewhere between 85-95kts. 85kts at 2750lbs and 95kts ant 3600. Something like that.

Obviously, when I'm heavy it doesn't float nearly as much.
 
boydbischke said:
The lightest I would ever fly is 850lbs under gross.

Sounds like it would be safe to try somewhere between 85-95kts. 85kts at 2750lbs and 95kts ant 3600. Something like that.

Obviously, when I'm heavy it doesn't float nearly as much.
Click to expand...
With the T-tail, I wouldn't slow your approach speed. A 95 kt approach speed should be should fine. I suspect your float is due to holding it too long. In other word, you probably just need to start pulling the power and beginning the flare a little sooner. I've personally only flown it about 20 hrs, but never had a problem floating with just 2 people on board.
 
A pilot who questions the POH and looks for more answers? Weird. I wish we'd see more of that on here.

*I have never flown a T-tail Lance, but like @Fearless Tower said, it's probably all has to do with the aerodynamic flow over that tail.

Take it up a few thousand feet and try various approach speeds and configurations to see how things feel and where you may or may not get into trouble.
 
Fearless Tower said:
With the T-tail, I wouldn't slow your approach speed. A 95 kt approach speed should be should fine. I suspect your float is due to holding it too long. In other word, you probably just need to start pulling the power and beginning the flare a little sooner. I've personally only flown it about 20 hrs, but never had a problem floating with just 2 people on board.
Click to expand...


I have zero time in a lance, that said

According to Google they cruise around 140kts, a 95kt approach speed seems amazingly high for a 140kt plane. In comparison a skywagon cruises at the same speed, yet has approach speed of 60kts.

Is the T tails authority at low speeds that large of a issue? I mean even compared to a T tail arrow or even a pilatus, you have more of a spread between cruise and approach speeds.
 
The manuals for the Saratoga SP and Turbo Saratoga SP (low tail, longer tapered wings, same 3600 lb MGW) likewise call for a 95 KIAS approach. I flew them a lot at heavy weights at that speed, and as I recall, floating in the flare was never an issue unless too much power was left in.

The T-tail Lance's stabilator is 25% smaller in span and area than a Saratoga's (or low-tail Lance ... or even a Warrior), so pitch authority at low speeds might be an issue. (Disclaimer: I have a lot of time in Saratogas and T-tail Arrows, but none in a T-tail Lance)
 
Pilawt said:
The manuals for the Saratoga SP and Turbo Saratoga SP (low tail, longer tapered wings, same 3600 lb MGW) likewise call for a 95 KIAS approach. I flew them a lot at heavy weights at that speed, and as I recall, floating in the flare was never an issue unless too much power was left in.

The T-tail Lance's stabilator is 25% smaller in span and area than a Saratoga's (or low-tail Lance ... or even a Warrior), so pitch authority at low speeds might be an issue. (Disclaimer: I have a lot of time in Saratogas and T-tail Arrows, but none in a T-tail Lance)
Click to expand...

Appreciate everybody's responses, experience, and knowledge. Yeah it doesn't float too much at heavy weights, it mostly floats when I'm light. It's compounded by the fact that my home airport is at 4,234 feet, and uses a 3.5 degree glide slope, so it doesn't slow as quickly when pulling power.

Here's an interesting blog post: http://www.swaviator.com/html/issueJA05/BasicsJA05.html.

I'm not sure the source of his information, or what planes it applies to, but he says

"Unless there are performance charts for specific airplane weights, POH Vref airspeeds are normally based on Maximum Gross Weight (MGW)."

"First, another rule of thumb is that Vref reduces approximately .8 knots for each 100 pounds under MGW.".

For what it's worth...

Thanks again all.
 
As an update for anybody that's interested, I had a chance to test out what happens in landing configuration at a lower airspeed (
85kts, still 1.67 Vs0) when light (about 750lbs under gross). Basically the nose gets really heavy, and it requires a ton of trim to keep the nose up.

Based on how the plane flies at this speed, I suspect the reason for 95kts approach speed is the loss of elevator authority and the heavy nose.

Moral of the story, I think is that if you're light, you pretty much just have to keep your airspeed up deal with the long float. I love the plane, but I think this is why people hate the T-Tail :)
 
boydbischke said:
Moral of the story, I think is that if you're light, you pretty much just have to keep your airspeed up deal with the long float. I love the plane, but I think this is why people hate the T-Tail :)
Click to expand...
Exactly. The T-tail really never added much to the capability of the airplane and most folks don't want to deal with the quirkiness.

My dad has owned his since 1980. He loves it. Fly it the way it wants to be flown and it is a great airplane.
 
Hate the T tail? People who "hate it" don't know how to fly it. You don't fly it like an RV, expect STOL like a Cub or demand mooney speed and Bonanza style.

It's a purpose built plane that does one thing very well...... Haul ALOT of stuff. You don't buy a Ram truck when you want Porsche GT handling. You don't buy a GT when you have 3 kids and wife unless you have finalized the divorce already.
 
Unit74 said:
Hate the T tail? People who "hate it" don't know how to fly it. You don't fly it like an RV, expect STOL like a Cub or demand mooney speed and Bonanza style.

It's a purpose built plane that does one thing very well...... Haul ALOT of stuff. You don't buy a Ram truck when you want Porsche GT handling. You don't buy a GT when you have 3 kids and wife unless you have finalized the divorce already.
Click to expand...

Yeah, best value you can get in a 6 seater, as long as you have enough runway. All the airports around here are a mile long, so we're plenty good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top