Piper Lance

[Renee Purner]

I have just finsihed my Instrument rating and it is about time to move up to
soemthing faster that hauls more than my wonderful Piper Cherokee 140. An
interetsing possibility is a Piper Lance or Turbo Lance. I am open to
comments and hope to get some!

John Purner
Editor - The $100 Hamburger
http://www.100dollarhamburger.com

[Chris Kennedy]

Renee Purner wrote:

> I have just finsihed my Instrument rating and it is about time to move up to
> soemthing faster that hauls more than my wonderful Piper Cherokee 140. An
> interetsing possibility is a Piper Lance or Turbo Lance. I am open to
> comments and hope to get some!

Both are not bad airplanes (although I've never been a big T-tail fan).
I was spending a fair amount of time in a turbo lance when 'Buckaroo
Banzai" was released and felt that the lines:

"...it flies like a truck.'
"Good. What is truck?"

Were somehow applicable to the lance.

Much of it comes down to your mission. It wouldn't be my choice if I
were going to be flying frequent solo trips or trips with a single pax.

Cheers,
Chris
N5524P PA24-250

[[email protected]]

On 31-Oct-2003, "Renee Purner" > wrote:

> I have just finsihed my Instrument rating and it is about time to move up
> to soemthing faster that hauls more than my wonderful Piper Cherokee 140.
> An
> interetsing possibility is a Piper Lance or Turbo Lance. I am open to
> comments and hope to get some!
>
> John Purer
> Editor - The $100 Hamburger
> http://www.100dollarhamburger.com


Hello John. Love the $100 Hamburger by the way.

The Lance is fine if you have to haul more than 4 people or a LOT of cargo.
But it is expensive and thirsty. As for handling, well, it's a BIG
airplane.

If you like your 140 you would probably love an Arrow III or IV. Similar
straightforward, reasonably light handling, but able to comfortably haul 4
adults with reasonable range. (Or 3 adults, some baggage, and astounding
range.) Also, about 35 kts faster on only about 1.5 GPH more fuel.

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Pat Barry]

The T Tail Lance is an unstable aircraft with a stabilator that flies after the
wing does, and it is unsafe.

If you want speed, look at a Mooney. If you want space and comfort in a four
place you cannot go past an Arrow. If you want a great plane for not a lot of
money look at a Comanche 250 or 260.



Renee Purner wrote:

> I have just finsihed my Instrument rating and it is about time to move up to
> soemthing faster that hauls more than my wonderful Piper Cherokee 140. An
> interetsing possibility is a Piper Lance or Turbo Lance. I am open to
> comments and hope to get some!
>
> John Purner
> Editor - The $100 Hamburger
> http://www.100dollarhamburger.com

[BTIZ]

> The T Tail Lance is an unstable aircraft with a stabilator that flies
after the
> wing does, and it is unsafe.
>

a very bold statement..

[Dave]

"Pat Barry" > wrote in message ...
> The T Tail Lance is an unstable aircraft with a stabilator that flies
after the
> wing does, and it is unsafe.

Thats why it certified. I did my PPL on a Tomahawk and had no difficulties
whatsoever.

Dont ya just love such certainty

[Dan Luke]

"Pat Barry" wrote:
> The T Tail Lance is an unstable aircraft with a stabilator that flies
> after the wing does, and it is unsafe.

Piffle.

[Jay Honeck]

> The T Tail Lance is an unstable aircraft with a stabilator that flies
after the
> wing does, and it is unsafe.
>
> If you want speed, look at a Mooney. If you want space and comfort in a
four
> place you cannot go past an Arrow. If you want a great plane for not a lot
of
> money look at a Comanche 250 or 260.

Geez, Pat -- you taking some sort of assertiveness training, or what? :-)
Excuse me while I disagree with just about everything you said...

1. I've heard the T-tail Lance is an outstanding aircraft, that -- due to
its undeserved reputation -- is a real bargain on the used market. I
believe MU-2 Mike can comment on that from personal experience.

2. For optimal space and comfort in a 4-place plane, you'll want something
other than an Arrow. It's not very fast (my fixed-gear Pathfinder, with the
same fuselage as the Arrow, is as fast), can't carry very much (my useful
load is hundreds of pounds higher) and you get the expense of retractable
gear for no apparent reason.

It's also not the most spacious plane inside. Mary, the kids, 200 pounds of
luggage, and I all fit inside Atlas just fine -- but it's not what I would
call "spacious".

3. I agree with your assessment of the Comanche, although as with all old
planes you've got to be very careful not to buy a money-pit. A friend of
mine on the field in Iowa City purchased a beautiful old Comanche 400
(admittedly a higher dollar, sexier version of the venerable Comanche) that
has cost him something in excess of $35K just to get into flying shape.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Rapoport]

The stabilator is supposed to fly after the wing stalls. If it didn't, it
would be uncontrollable.

The Turbo Lance is the best combination of speed, room and price among six
place singles.

Mike
MU-2


"Pat Barry" > wrote in message ...
> The T Tail Lance is an unstable aircraft with a stabilator that flies
after the
> wing does, and it is unsafe.
>
> If you want speed, look at a Mooney. If you want space and comfort in a
four
> place you cannot go past an Arrow. If you want a great plane for not a lot
of
> money look at a Comanche 250 or 260.
>
>
>
> Renee Purner wrote:
>
> > I have just finsihed my Instrument rating and it is about time to move
up to
> > soemthing faster that hauls more than my wonderful Piper Cherokee 140.
An
> > interetsing possibility is a Piper Lance or Turbo Lance. I am open to
> > comments and hope to get some!
> >
> > John Purner
> > Editor - The $100 Hamburger
> > http://www.100dollarhamburger.com
>

[John Godwin]

"BTIZ" > wrote in news:MFHob.117080$La.77087
@fed1read02:

>> The T Tail Lance is an unstable aircraft with a stabilator that flies
> after the
>> wing does, and it is unsafe.
>>
>
> a very bold statement..

... also untrue. I think we have a candidate as a writer for Flying
Magazine.



--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

[Tony]

Get a Piper Comanche 250.
Or a 210 (if the price is right)

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[Dashi]

Why, reason, references, sources?


"Tony" > wrote in message
...
> Get a Piper Comanche 250.
> Or a 210 (if the price is right)
>
> *** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
> Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[Tony]

Comanche 250: Safe, Fun and easy to fly, Fast, cheap purchase price,
cheap to fly, (i dont think as cheap as the arrow) Good backing from
many different company> webco, international comanche socity, Lots of
mechanics work and know there stuff about the comanche. I was even told
a story about a guy taking off from Long Beach airport in a 1964
Comanche 250 1,100 pounds over gross and flying no stop to Japan. Now if
thats true I have no idea.

Cessna 210: my dad had a 1982 T210N. He said thats been the best plane
he flew in his life. The 82 210 has a fast cruise seed of 200 or so and
can go for ever, good landing gear, High useful load (my dads was around
1,500) They also are safe, and when you go to sell them you could get
your money back and then some. But they aren't the cheapest to fly nor
to buy.
HOPE THIS HELPS
I would go with the Comanche

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[Mike Rapoport]

If he wants a Lance it is unlikely that a Comanche is going to be big
enough. An 1982 210 isn't in the same price range.

Mike
MU-2


"Tony" > wrote in message
...
> Comanche 250: Safe, Fun and easy to fly, Fast, cheap purchase price,
> cheap to fly, (i dont think as cheap as the arrow) Good backing from
> many different company> webco, international comanche socity, Lots of
> mechanics work and know there stuff about the comanche. I was even told
> a story about a guy taking off from Long Beach airport in a 1964
> Comanche 250 1,100 pounds over gross and flying no stop to Japan. Now if
> thats true I have no idea.
>
> Cessna 210: my dad had a 1982 T210N. He said thats been the best plane
> he flew in his life. The 82 210 has a fast cruise seed of 200 or so and
> can go for ever, good landing gear, High useful load (my dads was around
> 1,500) They also are safe, and when you go to sell them you could get
> your money back and then some. But they aren't the cheapest to fly nor
> to buy.
> HOPE THIS HELPS
> I would go with the Comanche
>
> *** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
> Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[Tony]

Just opening up his choices!
Cant go wrong with a Comanche

Im not going to bring the T-Tailed Lacne down but how long did they make
it. It wasnt for very long. If it is such a good airplane then why did
piper quit making it, money or something like that, I looked into buying
a turbo T-Tailed lance. But then the Comanche came along. So now we are
going to be getting a 64 comanche 250 8389P
Hope this help
Tony

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[Mike Rapoport]

Well it is not a question of what plane is best or the choice would be a
B36TC. Commanches and 210s wouldn't even be considered. I had a T-tail
Lance and had no problems flying it but neither I nor anybody else is saying
that the T-tail is superior to the conventional tail PA32s. What I and
others are saying is that the T-tail Lance offers an excellent value because
of its combination of performanc, room and price. If you want good
performance, six seats and a price under $150K, then the Turbo Lance is the
only choice.

Mike
MU-2


"Tony" > wrote in message
...
> Just opening up his choices!
> Cant go wrong with a Comanche
>
> Im not going to bring the T-Tailed Lacne down but how long did they make
> it. It wasnt for very long. If it is such a good airplane then why did
> piper quit making it, money or something like that, I looked into buying
> a turbo T-Tailed lance. But then the Comanche came along. So now we are
> going to be getting a 64 comanche 250 8389P
> Hope this help
> Tony
>
> *** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
> Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[John Purner]

Thanks to all for your comments they were insightful and I appreciate the
help. Seems like I need to do more study of the T-Tail Turbo. Time will
tell.

John Purner
Editor- The $100 Hamburger www.100dollarhamburger.com

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Well it is not a question of what plane is best or the choice would be a
> B36TC. Commanches and 210s wouldn't even be considered. I had a T-tail
> Lance and had no problems flying it but neither I nor anybody else is
saying
> that the T-tail is superior to the conventional tail PA32s. What I and
> others are saying is that the T-tail Lance offers an excellent value
because
> of its combination of performanc, room and price. If you want good
> performance, six seats and a price under $150K, then the Turbo Lance is
the
> only choice.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Tony" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Just opening up his choices!
> > Cant go wrong with a Comanche
> >
> > Im not going to bring the T-Tailed Lacne down but how long did they make
> > it. It wasnt for very long. If it is such a good airplane then why did
> > piper quit making it, money or something like that, I looked into buying
> > a turbo T-Tailed lance. But then the Comanche came along. So now we are
> > going to be getting a 64 comanche 250 8389P
> > Hope this help
> > Tony
> >
> > *** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
> > Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.
>
>
>

[John Godwin]

Tony > wrote in news:3fa67f09$0$193$75868355
@news.frii.net:

> Im not going to bring the T-Tailed Lacne down but how long did they make
> it. It wasnt for very long. If it is such a good airplane then why did
> piper quit making it, money or something like that, I looked into buying
> a turbo T-Tailed lance. But then the Comanche came along. So now we are
> going to be getting a 64 comanche 250 8389P

I'd opt for a Comanche 260 (B or C models) with the fuel-injected engine
and a little more room in the cabin. I also have a many hours in a T-
tailed Lance and it's a real sweetheart, particularly in IMC.

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

[[email protected]]

I've got a friend with a '58 Comanche 250... a good example of a
perfect balance for an aircraft. It's a step up (or two) in roominess
from the Cherokee, but will fly fine with four people and some luggage.
It hits the wall at about 155-160 kts, so more power will just burn more
fuel.

Don't know much about the Lance, except that it's a slightly
different mission. Depends on how much you want to haul and how fast, but
the Comanche is a quite comfortable, pretty quick, and a relatively good
load hauler. Won't quite get the mileage as a Mooney, but people are
happier to work on it.

FWIW
-Cory


Tony > wrote:
: Just opening up his choices!
: Cant go wrong with a Comanche

: Im not going to bring the T-Tailed Lacne down but how long did they make
: it. It wasnt for very long. If it is such a good airplane then why did
: piper quit making it, money or something like that, I looked into buying
: a turbo T-Tailed lance. But then the Comanche came along. So now we are
: going to be getting a 64 comanche 250 8389P
: Hope this help
: Tony

: *** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
: Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
John Godwin > wrote:
>> going to be getting a 64 comanche 250 8389P
>
>I'd opt for a Comanche 260 (B or C models) with the fuel-injected engine
>and a little more room in the cabin.

Just remember that the room in the cabin comes from moving the baggage
bulkhead back. The overall dimension of the plane is longer, but all
of the length is in an extended cowl which moves the propeller/spinner
farther out for CG purposes. The rear seats in the 250 are already as
far back as they can go. The front edge corresponds with the wing spar.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[John Godwin]

(Ben Jackson) wrote in news:7azpb.72820$275.187353@attbi_s53:

> Just remember that the room in the cabin comes from moving the baggage
> bulkhead back. The overall dimension of the plane is longer, but all
> of the length is in an extended cowl which moves the propeller/spinner
> farther out for CG purposes. The rear seats in the 250 are already as
> far back as they can go. The front edge corresponds with the wing spar.
>

You can get jump seats for the 260 if you aren't carrying baggage. In any
case, the cabin IS larger in the 260.


--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT from email address)

[Wayne]

I work at a repair shop and all the mechanics and even the people in the
office seem to hate them. They seem to be fuel hogs, are very tight to work
on (esp the turbo model) and people always say bad things about the T tail.
No personaly experience here, if they are disliked, they should be cheaper
and that would just make it a better buy and long as you can live with the
way it work, why not. Somebody bought the AMC Gremlins when they were new
right? Not saying the planes are Gremlins though.


Wayne

"Renee Purner" > wrote in message
om...
> I have just finsihed my Instrument rating and it is about time to move up
to
> soemthing faster that hauls more than my wonderful Piper Cherokee 140. An
> interetsing possibility is a Piper Lance or Turbo Lance. I am open to
> comments and hope to get some!
>
> John Purner
> Editor - The $100 Hamburger
> http://www.100dollarhamburger.com
>
>

[Tony]

I would look at a Cherokee 6 300. I have seen some with 7 seats in them
(one child seat) they look to be big inside. I dont know anything about
them, but i hear good things.

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.