Lance vs A36

[John Doe]

Anyone have any thoughts on the pros/cons of say a 1978 Lance vs a similar
Beech A36?

[Mike Granby]

Lance = slower, cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, carries more,
easier to load. A36 = the opposite of all those, but looks cooler.

[Mike Granby]

Oh, and a 78 is a t-tail, right? That's a whole other issue. Some
people hate 'em, and say they're impossible to fly. Others say it's
just piloting technique, and ham-fisted pilots not trimming right on
take-off. Point is, get the take-off wrong, and you'll apparently be
amazed how much runway you'll use up, although, again, others disagree.
Either way, there's enough fuss and doubt that the t-tails are much
cheaper than the non-t-tails, which is either a bargain, or a
reflection of their handling, depending on your point of view. You
will, of course, suffer when and if you come to sell it.

[Peter R.]

Mike Granby > wrote:

> Lance = slower, cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, carries more,
> easier to load. A36 = the opposite of all those, but looks cooler.

Easier to load? The A36 has a rear entry door that allows passengers to
enter the cabin without climbing up onto a wing. These large doors also
makes loading cargo much easier. Does the Lance have this, too?

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mike Granby]

The Lance does have that rear door, plus a cargo door behind that, but
that wasn't what I actually meant, although it could have been. I was
referring to ease of loading within the envelope. Sorry if I wasn't
clear.

[Peter R.]

Mike Granby > wrote:

> I was referring to ease of loading within the envelope.

Ahhh... now that's a horse of a different color.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[[email protected]]

On 18-Sep-2005, "Mike Granby" > wrote:

> Either way, there's enough fuss and doubt that the t-tails are much
> cheaper than the non-t-tails, which is either a bargain, or a
> reflection of their handling, depending on your point of view. You
> will, of course, suffer when and if you come to sell it.


Hey, you never know. T-tails may make a comeback, like the '38 Ford look
(i.e. the PT Cruiser).

-Elliott Drucker
(proud co-owner of a T-tail Arrow IV)

[Mike Granby]

> T-tails may make a comeback

I like the look of them, myself, and I'm agnostic on the handling
issues, having heard people with far more experience than I argue it
both ways.

[John Doe]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Mike Granby > wrote:
>
>> Lance = slower, cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, carries more,
>> easier to load. A36 = the opposite of all those, but looks cooler.
>
> Easier to load? The A36 has a rear entry door that allows passengers to
> enter the cabin without climbing up onto a wing. These large doors also
> makes loading cargo much easier. Does the Lance have this, too?

Yes. Have you ever seen one?

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Peter R." > said:
>enter the cabin without climbing up onto a wing. These large doors also
>makes loading cargo much easier. Does the Lance have this, too?

http://xcski.com/gallery/43977/977_bs_1

Our Lance (in the pictures) is probably going to be on sale next year with
a run-out engine. It's got more than 2000 hours on the engine and the
climb performance sucks. And we're worried about the future impossibility
of getting insurance for it in a club, so rather than spend $25k on a new
engine then lose it, we're exploring the other possibilities.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
please excuse my typing, but my whole left arm is in a cast. and i don't
mean _the king and i_.

[Peter R.]

John Doe > wrote:

> Yes. Have you ever seen one?

No, apparently not. I ignorantly read the Lance as a Lancair.

Sorry 'bout that.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[karl gruber]

There is a world of difference in the flying qualities of these two
airplanes. The Lance is just ugly to fly, with heavy unresponsive
controls. The A-36 is a delight, and one of the most smooth and
responsive singles in the air.

Karl

[Bob]

To Karl's comment: Sometimes I don't turn more than 45 degrees on a
cross country. How important are those flying qualities to your own
mission?

Lance
- huge cargo holds fore and aft
- very wide, roomy cabin
- pax like
- 1400+ useful load

A36
- really tough gear (electromechanical which is good)
- 10 kt faster
- Beech Part$
- Very late models have a cargo hold in back. Earlier ones have none!

- 1200 useful load


karl gruber wrote:
> There is a world of difference in the flying qualities of these two
> airplanes. The Lance is just ugly to fly, with heavy unresponsive
> controls. The A-36 is a delight, and one of the most smooth and
> responsive singles in the air.
>
> Karl

[John Doe]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Peter R." > said:
>>enter the cabin without climbing up onto a wing. These large doors also
>>makes loading cargo much easier. Does the Lance have this, too?
>
> http://xcski.com/gallery/43977/977_bs_1
>
> Our Lance (in the pictures) is probably going to be on sale next year with
> a run-out engine. It's got more than 2000 hours on the engine and the
> climb performance sucks. And we're worried about the future impossibility
> of getting insurance for it in a club, so rather than spend $25k on a new
> engine then lose it, we're exploring the other possibilities.

So what are your thoughts on the Lance after owning one?

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "John Doe" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>> Our Lance (in the pictures) is probably going to be on sale next year with
>So what are your thoughts on the Lance after owning one?

I love it. It's roomy amd it carries a ton. I've never flown anything
else big, so I can't compare it to a Bo or 206. My wife loves the club
seating - she'll sit back there with her book with her feet up on the
seats in front with a cooler on the floor, passing me up a coke every now
and then. She also likes how the rear door is easier to latch, and she
can get in while I'm preflighting. I like the room (I have to sit sort of
sideways in a PA28) and the hsi, and the ego boost of flying a complex
plane.

Because of the restricted insurance, our club has to charge a premium to
those who want to be on the named pilot policy for the Lance, and I gladly
pay it. Our Dakota is almost as fast and carries almost as much, but you
can't beat the comfort of the Lance.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
please excuse my typing, but my whole left arm is in a cast. and i don't
mean _the king and i_.

[karl gruber]

>>>To Karl's comment: Sometimes I don't turn more than 45 degrees on a
cross country. How important are those flying qualities to your own
mission?<<<

There are pilots who like to fly airplanes and there are those who
don't. Most of the pilots I know enjoy flying. Even large corporate
jets are often selected for their flying qualities, especially if their
owners are pilots. Most pilots would love to get a ride and some stick
time in a fighter. Those who wouldn't are rare.

Other pilots like to fly their airplanes in the mountains and canyons
of places like Idaho. There, flying qualities are often high on the
list of desired qualities. That along with durability, for which the
Cherokee line has a poor record in the bush.