Will a Lance get in and out of somewhere like 6A9?

[Bill]

The guy I'm going to likely partner with is really thinking hard on the Piper Lance. He wants a true four human plus bags/clubs traveller, with decent turn of speed. While this is more plane than I would buy myself, I do see some advantages in owning half a Lance.

The larger size would greatly comfort my wife, and the ability to bring family/friends along on trips does sound good to me. Also knowing that with my family, 3 plus bags, we'd always have plenty of airplane to spare.

He is also trying to bring his timetable up to be ready to go seriously looking after the 1st of the year, which matches when I'll be ready to buy.

I'm still on the fence on going solo vs. partner, but there could be worse things in life than being in a partnership with a Lance.

So, will the Lance do 6A9 (ie, obstructed 2000ft grass field) with three and bags, and enough fuel to get somewhere else to tank up?

Dr Bruce? Ken? Others with PA-32 experience?

 

[Ken Ibold]

Looking at the performance charts, a short field takeoff with 2 notches of flaps at a pressure altitude of 1500 feet and 400 pounds under max gross (680 pounds of pax, 100 pounds bags and 20 gals of fuel on board) and zero headwind gives a ground roll of 1000 feet and a 50-foot obstacle clearance distance of 1600 feet. The same conditions except fully loaded to 3600 pounds gives a 50-foot obstacle clearance distance of 2,000 feet. Landings are 150 feet longer. Note: These numbers are for paved runways. I can find no adjustment recommendation in the POH for grass, and I never operated my Lance off of grass.

This is for the straight tail (and non turbo) model, which is the only Lance POH I have lying around. My experience is that the book is pretty accurate.

 

[EdFred]

I thought the general ROT for grass was increase take-off rolls by 10-15% ?

 

[tonycondon]

Ive flown a straight tail, non TC'd Lance, and unless you are putting in quite a bit of effort, I think operating in and out of 6Y9 would be quite a challenge. I was going on fairly high DA days with full tanks, and about 700 lbs in the cabin. One notch of flap for takeoff and ground roll seemed to be abot 1500 feet. Climb was about 500 fpm, maybe a little less. Note this was not with a true short field effort, normal takeoff. But I have a hard time believing you could get one off in 1000 feet on pavement.

 

[EdFred]

LOL. He said 6A9, not 6Y9.
We're working out a deal to take out all the trees (and electric pole) to the west. After that a Lance in and out of there would be pretty doable.

 

[Bill]

This is for the straight tail (and non turbo) model, which is the only Lance POH I have lying around. My experience is that the book is pretty accurate.

Thanks, Ken. As you can see, I'm still exploring the options.

 

[grattonja]

Funny, Bill. Looks like you are headed in the same direction I am going. We are pretty close to joining the Saratoga flying club. The Lances and 'togas are really nice planes. The cabin feels HUGE after skyhawks and archers. If you like archers, you'll like the lance/saratoga.

As for me, I've got training and learning ahead for myself.

Jim G

 

[Ken Ibold]

Ive flown a straight tail, non TC'd Lance, and unless you are putting in quite a bit of effort, I think operating in and out of 6Y9 would be quite a challenge. I was going on fairly high DA days with full tanks, and about 700 lbs in the cabin. One notch of flap for takeoff and ground roll seemed to be abot 1500 feet. Climb was about 500 fpm, maybe a little less. Note this was not with a true short field effort, normal takeoff. But I have a hard time believing you could get one off in 1000 feet on pavement.

Full tanks and 700 pounds in the cabin is about 300 pounds (nearly 10 percent) heavier than the performance I mapped out based on Bill's original question. You were likely within 100 pounds of max gross weight. The weight really does matter. Pluls, two notches are much different than one on takeoff.

In a Lance, it will also matter whether you have a 3 blade prop or 2. The thing climbs better with 3 blades, without the cruise speed penalty you see when you put a 3 blade on, say, a Mooney.

 

[jesse]

The thing climbs better with 3 blades, without the cruise speed penalty you see when you put a 3 blade on, say, a Mooney.

Why is that?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I thought the general ROT for grass was increase take-off rolls by 10-15% ?

If it's dry and short grass growing on a hard, smoothe substrate yes, but getting onto longer and thicker and wet grass, it can go above 50% increased roll, or not even be doeable at all. It can be a very tricky judgement call, so always be ready to abort at midfield if the plane's not gonna fly fast enough.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Ive flown a straight tail, non TC'd Lance, and unless you are putting in quite a bit of effort, I think operating in and out of 6Y9 would be quite a challenge.

Operating in and out of 6Y9 is quite a challenge anyway! It's not for the faint of heart, I had to pull up and over the trees before I hit the white arc even in a 182 that was more than 500 under gross. The plane felt like it wanted to fly though, so I let it fly. It even flew with pax.

Bill, avoid the T-tail as it's gonna kill your short/soft performance and cost more to maintain anyway. Get a straight tail and test it yourself out of a longer grass strip first, with varying conditions. Know thy airplane!

If you want to know what it'll do BEFORE you buy, well... I might be convinced to go get checked out in N1919H and fly it into a grass field for ya.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Full tanks and 700 pounds in the cabin is about 300 pounds (nearly 10 percent) heavier than the performance I mapped out based on Bill's original question. You were likely within 100 pounds of max gross weight. The weight really does matter. Pluls, two notches are much different than one on takeoff.

In a Lance, it will also matter whether you have a 3 blade prop or 2. The thing climbs better with 3 blades, without the cruise speed penalty you see when you put a 3 blade on, say, a Mooney.

Good points. And, the T-tail versus the straight-tail version makes a huge difference too. The T-tails are known for being runway hogs due to the elevator not becoming effective until you get faster.

 

[wesleyj]

The 2000 foot loaded like you want is do-able, but right on the ragged edge of safe, one burp in the engine, one wrong gust and any margin for error is gone.

Another item to keep in mind, experiance has taught me that there is only one way for a partnership to work.

All but one of the partners, has to be deceased.

 

[Richard]

Good points. And, the T-tail versus the straight-tail version makes a huge difference too. The T-tails are known for being runway hogs due to the elevator not becoming effective until you get faster.

So it really is the tail feathers which make you go up.

 

[bbchien]

Bill, you can do this but I would only go into 6A9 with pilot and 20 gallons of fuel. It's just getting to dang close. I departed 6Y9 in the Seneca II with 400+ hp (it's a "twin lance") on a 95 degree day and had enough room, but NO WAY would I want that 2000 footer as my home base (trees, too). I think somebody got it on video, too.

Three and bags- a tad too much.

 

[gismo]

Another item to keep in mind, experiance has taught me that there is only one way for a partnership to work.

All but one of the partners, has to be deceased.

Personally, I prefer live partners to dead ones. The live ones are more apt to help with oil changes and are easier to talk with and learn from.

Seriously though, what makes a partnership work is the partners. Chose the right one(s) and (assuming you were also a "right" one) and it will work well. Chose badly, and it will work... badly. I've seen too many pilots that put most of their effort in chosing a plane than chosing their partners and that leans a bit too heavily on luck for my taste.

 

[gismo]

Bill, despite my name I'm no Lance expert but given what others have said I can't see basing such a plane at a 2000 ft grass strip. If there's a bigger airport nearby, you could always fly there to pick up your pax and bags and just use the grass strip for parking. That would mean leaving the tanks unfilled most of the time though.

 

[Bill]

Bill, despite my name I'm no Lance expert but given what others have said I can't see basing such a plane at a 2000 ft grass strip.

Oh, there is some misunderstanding here! I won't be basing the aircraft at such a field, but would want to visit such a field. The plane would likely be based at 3000x50 paved to begin with (1A0), and hopefully move to a 4700 runway (3M3). There is a small chance the plane could be based at CHA, depending on hangar costs.

 

[Bill]

Another item to keep in mind, experiance has taught me that there is only one way for a partnership to work.

All but one of the partners, has to be deceased.

With Brent, it could work. We have very similar ideas on type of aircraft, equipment, maint, etc. We have also discussed incorporating, and have been verbally discussing agreements on usage, mx, etc., and how to put that into words. We're both fully on board with having legal council draw up our agreements.

The only snag is he would like to add a third to the group, and I'm not so sure about that. Yes, further cost sharing would be great, but I'm afraid it would be at the expense of access. We will both likely fly the plane a decent bit (at least 150hrs/yr each). If he really presses for three, I may bail, downgrade my expectations, and get my own plane. (3 + bags does not require a Lance)

 

[grattonja]

The only snag is he would like to add a third to the group, and I'm not so sure about that. Yes, further cost sharing would be great, but I'm afraid it would be at the expense of access. We will both likely fly the plane a decent bit (at least 150hrs/yr each). If he really presses for three, I may bail, downgrade my expectations, and get my own plane. (3 + bags does not require a Lance)

A cautionary tale of that "3rd partner". I have a friend, who was in a 4 seater with another guy. Both get on great, families are friendly, agree on flying ideology, etc. They move up to a 6 seater. The friend didn't need a 3rd partner but his partner did. They advertised and took on a 3rd. The 3rd guy took the aircraft into forecast icing conditions in the NE a winter or two ago, and had a hard landing. Lots of damage but not totalled. I THINK they are all still partners. Don't know that I would be.

Just a "cautionary tale".

Jim G

 

[Bill]

Just a "cautionary tale".

My whole reason to move from the club is to have good access to a well equipped plane. I really just want to do something with one other person. The kicker is, I know Brent can swing 1/2 no sweat, but he's lured by reduced expenses. We'll see.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Bill, you can do this but I would only go into 6A9 with pilot and 20 gallons of fuel. It's just getting to dang close. I departed 6Y9 in the Seneca II

Huh? I assume you meant 6Y9 both times?

Boy, this is getting confusing. Better look it up on airnav.

 

[gismo]

The only snag is he would like to add a third to the group, and I'm not so sure about that. Yes, further cost sharing would be great, but I'm afraid it would be at the expense of access. We will both likely fly the plane a decent bit (at least 150hrs/yr each). If he really presses for three, I may bail, downgrade my expectations, and get my own plane. (3 + bags does not require a Lance)

Adding a third person doesn't really do much for cutting costs. Let's say the total annual non-hourly expense is $10,000. By yourself you have to cough up the whole $10k. Add one partner and your share is half so you save $5000 or 50% of the orginal figure. Add a second partner and your share drops to $3333 which means you only save an additional $1667 or less than 17% if the full amount. IMO that's hardly worth the additional hassles of a third person.

 

[Bill]

Adding a third person doesn't really do much for cutting costs. Let's say the total annual non-hourly expense is $10,000. By yourself you have to cough up the whole $10k. Add one partner and your share is half so you save $5000 or 50% of the orginal figure. Add a second partner and your share drops to $3333 which means you only save an additional $1667 or less than 17% if the full amount. IMO that's hardly worth the additional hassles of a third person.

Yup, diminishing returns, and I agree, the extra savings of the third guy isn't worth the potential pain in the ass factor it will certainly add.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Yup, diminishing returns, and I agree, the extra savings of the third guy isn't worth the potential pain in the ass factor it will certainly add.

With the possible exception that combining the purchase money of three people instead of two gets you a nicer airplane.

 

[Bill]

With the possible exception that combining the purchase money of three people instead of two gets you a nicer airplane.

A mid $150's airplane will be a nice enough 1st plane for me, nice enough that I don't want to deal with a third person.

Although three all in would get us a nice late model New Piper 'toga.

 

[grattonja]

A mid $150's airplane will be a nice enough 1st plane for me, nice enough that I don't want to deal with a third person.

Although three all in would get us a nice late model New Piper 'toga.

Watch useful load on those. I understand that the newer 'togas have slid quite a bit in useful load as "stuff" has been added to the installed items list.

Jim G

 

[Bill]

Watch useful load on those. I understand that the newer 'togas have slid quite a bit in useful load as "stuff" has been added to the installed items list.

Yup, just like our '99 Archer III the club has, 536# with full tanks. Put to big guys and a flight bag in, and you're at gross!

This reminds me to put something in another thread...

 

[grattonja]

Yup, just like our '99 Archer III the club has, 536# with full tanks. Put to big guys and a flight bag in, and you're at gross!

This reminds me to put something in another thread...

The new skyhawks are the same. Every newer one the flight school has gotten has lost about 50 lbs of useful load. The G1000 is the worst.

The FG Saratoga that I am looking at right now will carry 800 lbs plus with full fuel (something like 7 hours). These planes really do appear to me to represent a real step up from the rental trainers.

Jim G

 

[Henning]

Oh, there is some misunderstanding here! I won't be basing the aircraft at such a field, but would want to visit such a field. The plane would likely be based at 3000x50 paved to begin with (1A0), and hopefully move to a 4700 runway (3M3). There is a small chance the plane could be based at CHA, depending on hangar costs.

With a T-tail and no turbo, even 3000' will be pushing the safety margins at gross on a hot day. In winter with frozen ground and the cold air I'd do the 2000' grass if I was a few hundred shy of gross, and maybe in the cool early morning hours in the summer if the ground is hard and dry and the grass short, and I would not be getting fuel there.

The T-tail really isn't that much more of a runway hog than a straight tail, it just seems like it because it takes longer to rotate the nose up. The plane still flies off at the same speed. If you fly it right you basically lift off in the same spot. None of the PA 32 series would be my choice for short field high load service. 3000 with a TC 32 would be quite adequate. You just may want to put it on a diet on those real hot days. It's amazing the difference just 200-300lbs makes.

 

[etsisk]

Operating in and out of 6Y9 is quite a challenge anyway!

And while I'm sure that's true, what do you think of his question, regarding getting a lance in and out of somewhere like 6A9?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

And while I'm sure that's true, what do you think of his question, regarding getting a lance in and out of somewhere like 6A9?

Well, I don't think there's any plane with long enough range to get to 6A9 from anywhere, because it takes a while to build a new airport and get it designated 6A9!