A close look at a 1978 T-Tail Piper Lance and some other PA-32's

[@moriver3857]

Nice 40 + years old airplane. Back in the 80s, I transitioned from a C172, to a normal tail turbo Arrow for complex training, and I was at awe with the performance of the Arrow. Later on, flew a Cherokee 6-300 with a friend on bank checks routes. The payload on the Cherokee 6 was awesome. Nice video.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

The Big Cherokee PA-32's are great load haulers with that wide cabin and rear doors.

[@jameshoward2997]

Great videos Mark. Very interesting and informative. Keep them coming.

[@ModelAV8RChannel]

Your American accent is hilarious! I always learn something watching your presentations. Enjoyed it very much.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Glad you enjoy it!

[@12345fowler]

I always tought he had a UK based (Londoner perhaps) accent ?

[@ModelAV8RChannel]

@12345fowler He does, he uses an "American Accent" for a laugh sometimes by pronouncing the same word both ways.

[@nicklaven3912]

Just discovered your channel and am absorbed by the detailed orientated content. Keep up the great work. Looking forward to the early C180 episode having spent some time as a passenger touring south east Australia.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Thanks, will do!

[@John.Halsted]

I’m enjoying the comments as much as the video. Great video, thank you!

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Me too.

[@AV8RMike]

“There was a cooling ball of a planet and a meteorite…” that actually made me lol. 😂

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Thanks. At least one person was as amused as me by that.

[@grandolph9281]

Me too

[@envitech02]

Mark is a great guy!!

[@davidcampbell2845]

Outstanding presentation and thoughtful information as usual.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@johnmajane3731]

Nice video, looking forward to the Myers 200. I have flown the T tail Arrow both normally aspirated and turbocharged. Soft field takeoffs were difficult because you couldn't lift the nose up until you were about 50+ knots. Other then that I liked the plane. I have flown the normally aspirated Saratoga SP. Loved it, great plane, a real load hauler.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

True, You need speed to make the tail work without prop wash.

[@HoundDogMech]

I've flown both the straight 300HP lance Turbo T Tail, T-Tail Turbo had a great 3 axis coupled Autopilot but that is all I can say for it. The T tail lance you can't inspect or or clean the stablitator of ice and snow. Turbo sucks 21 gal/hr as opposed to 18 for non turbo lance, and it not faster unless you have O2 and get it up to FL190. My instructor said unless you rotate at 106 mph make sure to accelerate in ground effect as it seemed you did. Lot more time in the Non Turbo only a check-out and then flew the turbo to SRQ and back.

[@tgmccoy1556]

Love the Six had some T-tail Lance time

[@FlyingNDriving]

The shark mouth turbo saratoga was the coolest and even weirder that it cooled the rear cylinders first

[@CaliforniaFly]

I've flown the T-tail Turbo Lance and the T-tail Arrow. All I can say is that they both are not worth buying. The horizontal stabs are actually smaller than the non T-tails and they handle like dump trucks. One of the nicest flying Cherokees I've flown was the 235, later made with a tapered wing and called the Dakota. The Cherokee 6 and original Lances are great airplanes.

[@rmiller640]

Looking forward to early 180 video. Good job explaining this series

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

The early 180 video is going to be a good one because the plane is beautiful. I'll three point it and wheel and and talk about the benefits of both.

[@garyowen9044]

Great video, as always.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@andrewtaylor2067]

Love the videos keep it up!!!

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Will do. Thanks.

[@curtisccr]

Always a fan of the Lance. My dad and a partner bought a brand new conventional tailed Lance in 1977. Didn’t haul as much as the Six, but it was our flying “family truckster” compared to the 182 we had previously. We took a 78 T tailed Lance on a trip once, and Dad noted it was a little mushier, but said it was still quite flyable. I never flew the T-tail Lance so I can’t compare them. I do have some time in a T-tailed Arrow (normally aspirated) when I got my PPL and found it quite flyable - But if I was buying a four place plane I leave gear welded down in a Dakota or Skylane.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

All planes have their idiosyncrasies. A lot is personal choice for what you want to do with it.

[@Vejitasei]

Thank you, I am looking at this model for my first airplane (but worry it might be more than I need for my mission).

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

It will be difficult to insure. Six seats and a turbo.

[@charleslefort8938]

I love your videos. It’s awesome to see someone selling aircraft that loves and knows airplanes like you do

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Glad you like them!

[@lrmorrison999]

Early production models had faulty Continental engine block components (too much salt in the cam shaft metal). A friend of mine bought a newer used, 1970’s vintage, Lance in about 1985. On a trip to Palm Springs his engine began to run rough so he enriched the mixture to see if that helped. His engine blew up over Bishop, CA. Oil fire ensued at 10,000 AGL, fire came through the cabin at the right panel ventilation duct toward the right seat occupied by his golf clubs. His nylon jacket was melted on his right arm and he lost hair on his face and right side of his head from the initial flames. Black oil smoke filled the cabin and his family in the back seats were choking (wife and 2 small children). He was an ex Navy Pilot and an MD. He quickly realized he was about to pass out. He stuck his nose out the triangular vent in the left side window for breathable air. His wind screen was totally black and the fire was raging and getting worse. He declared an emergency, turned back towards Bishop about 5 miles away using the window vent to judge his direction to the large hangar at Bishop Airport. He was losing altitude rapidly and the fire was raging under the cowl and the wing roots. His thoughts became, I have to get this on the ground now or we are all dead. His passengers, family, were all vomiting in the rear seats. He attempted to land anywhere flat. He watched the desert ground come up when he saw a runway stripe and turned short short short final. He made a safe landing rolled up to a waiting fire truck, the passengers evacuated and the fire was extinguished. Aftermath: cam shaft, about 20 lbs of it had departed the aircraft. The 3,000 degree oil fire had destroyed most of the engine compartment and the wings were about to fail and were drooping significantly. He was given a cash settlement, they repaired the aircraft which he then sold, his wife refused to fly anymore. He served for a number of years afterwards as Chief Medical Flight Officer and Adversary Training Pilot at Fallon. One hell of a Pilot, one crappy airplane. I flew a Lance once on an instructional flight 4-5 hours. It flew like a brick, I was not impressed.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

That sounds like a terrible event. Glad everyone made it. Lances, all of them, have lycoming engines. I'm sure that is what you meant.

[@lrmorrison999]

@@skywagonuniversity5023 you may be correct, it was 35-40 years ago.

[@lrmorrison999]

@@skywagonuniversity5023 The Continental was used on the non-turbo models 260 vs 300 for some period of time. I’m pretty sure it was a known Continental problem at the time. They had many similar engine failures.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Lycomings were in the 260 and 300 Cherokee Sixes. The 260 was low compression and carbuetted and the 300 was high compression fuel-injected. No Continentals in any Cherokee Sixes.

[@wingleberry1]

Good looking plane

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Plus a bit of early morning light.

[@toppops22]

I enjoyed that very well presented and informative video, thanks.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Thank you.

[@1212CRMD]

I flew the Lance, conventional tail, aspirated 300hp. In my experience it is able to carry more load than most pilots can imagine in "Standard Aviation procedures". BUT beware of *adequate indicated air speed, and very careful speed control and DO NOT try *normal climbs with it heavy or overloaded, as it was in my experience. I had 7hour endurance plus approximately 1100 to 1200lbs of cargo. In this scenario I operated, it took a long rwy, no high density altitude - actually I had to take off early in the morning due to cooler temperature (*otherwise you're likely a dead man lol). So it means it can fly like that, IF, you fly low, and a favorable kinda flatish terrains. It is amazing but I could even short field land after 3hour flight using 80knot, full flaps, plus plenty power to assure my descending ramp to the point at 80knot with high precision - very short room for landing. This is a too long a story. But with my experiences I started enjoying and appreciating with respect this airplane. It can be a very capable machine if you learn its absolute limits as well as yours. Yes, I knew and felt all times it was on its absolute edge without margin for error. Once in a while other planes crashed doing the same ops. This ops taught me a great deal of things. Among many ones I learned how important it is to control precisely airspeed. Precision landing garanteed my safety in those flights. Configure your aircraft for landing, set your eyes to the touchdown point, hold precisely the speed that you are sure it is minimum and still it can garanty you won't stall as far as you keep it all the way prior to flare up. Don't be ashamed or shy for holding firmly the brakes, 'cause that is what they are there for! ...I was tought by some instructors to save the brakes lol... Forget about that lol!

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Good info. Thanks.

[@flybouy11]

I have flown the turbo lance. One problem is the T tail did not become effective until considerable speed was built up. If you fly it knowing that fact it flew fine.

[@robbyowen9107]

Thanks Mark, good stuff!

[@edb7742]

I love the drone? view on landing!

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Thanks.

[@danarami6378]

Great info, it’d be great if you had included the range or fuel burn or speed since you experienced it , Thank you

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

I did not want to get into the specifics of range and speed and fuel burn. That is a whole other video.

[@bernardanderson3758]

The long nose fuselage on the both conventional or T-Tail Piper lance makes a difference to trim that nose down to see the horizon

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Yes, they have long noses for GA planes.

[@williamisaacs6569]

Awesome !

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Thanks!

[@saadathosseini3581]

Thanks for your Video!!!!! Great Airplanes!!!! I currently own and fly one for the last five years, T tail has not been an Issue for me(Just fly 5 knots faster on takeoffs and Landings). Four adults with Luggage, and full fuel, taking off with DA of 7K+ at The Temp. of 97" climbing to 19K Feet, Cruising 150knots, not sure if any other GA plane can do it with the SAME price tag?

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

They certainly are good value.

[@bernardanderson3758]

The. T-Tails run out of elevator on approach because you can end up flaring and floating down the runway if your power settings are not set and crossing the numbers at 85-90 mph at full flaps but overall it’s a nice looking Aircraft Mark

[@TeemarkConvair]

one of my first thoughts was about the added structure in the vertical fin to support the different loads of the horizontal. what, if any, are the CG and weight load changes

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

CG and loads are about the same on high and low. Probably less loads on the high tail because it is out of the prop-wash blast. It is narrower too. Not sure why.

[@blimpcommander1337]

There were no retract Cherokee 6’s. When Piper added the Retract model the name it was the Lance. Thus there were Lances with a normal tail, and the T-tail.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

I did not say that there were retractable Cherokee Sixes. Thank you.

[@blimpcommander1337]

My mistake. I thought you said that at 2:54

[@kkiwi54]

@@blimpcommander1337 Yes, so did I ;)

[@abantuboy]

⏪🔙⌚0:35 that was Cool 😊

[@blimpcommander1337]

The width of the stabilator on the t-tail is less than the width of the stabilator on the non t-tail lance

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Interesting.

[@FlyingNDriving]

The nose is heavy on those pa32s and the combination of the T-tail makes for some good planning for flares and landings

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Yes, you have to be good on speed, Land at about 75 Kts. Tooslow and the tail feels sloppy.

[@billcoltharp]

The elevator control is very heavy

[@flyzone100]

Do the PA32s have a max. angle configuration that involves the flaps like the smaller Cherokees? They use a 20 deg. (2 clicks) setting for best angle of climb. They get the plane off the runway sooner as well. If so, are there any load or other limitations when using it?

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

It's very similar to all other Cherokee's

[@TomasAWalker53]

I learned in a PA-28-140. The Lance looks like a giant⁉️ I suppose it’s just subjective but I’d choose a low-tail over a T. Same on King Airs. Does one need a ladder to inspect the h stab?😎

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

The tail is very high, yes.

[@thewwoods4557]

There was a naturally aspirated T-tail arrow as well.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Did it have a Lycoming?

[@ryandougherty7322]

@@skywagonuniversity5023 yes lycoming io-540

[@jameslake5241]

Great video Mark, looking forward to the 180 video. Could you also clarify what the benefits are of the t-tail compared to a normal configuration?? You talk about some of the potential drawbacks, but what is it actually good for!?! P.s I enjoyed the drone shots on T/O and landing

[@davidbeattie1366]

Yes. I believe the T-tail adds 5 kts to cruise. At least by the book data.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Thanks for liking the drone shots. That is one of the hardest parts. The T Tail has the benefit of looking cool and being easy to walk around. Seriously though it is supposed to be faster because it is in clean air or something.

[@danielconte3244]

Very interesting video Mark. T Tail concepts and the dron great View of the landing Keep talking about planes wings configuración

[@ellischernoff8603]

1977 also T tail.

[@flyingphobiahelp]

I love the Saratoga TC in our flying club-get 175 kts TAS at 10,000 ft with 75% power. Course that’s with 20 gph-not exactly environmentally friendly.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

But that is six people so it's quite efficient if you fill it up.

[@flyingphobiahelp]

@@skywagonuniversity5023 good luck getting 6 American-size adults without exceeding wt-cg envelope 😂😂😂😂

[@pilotbum]

There are also fixed gear Saratoga’s.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Yes there are and non-turbos.

[@FlightRisk2010]

You're confusing two different AD's on the wing spar. The inspection panels aren't done IAW a factored number of hours. You're thinking of the eddy current inspection AD.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Thank you.

[@ZackTheCamel]

Is it badass that he’s reviewing this airplane on the side of a road or is it just me?

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

I wish I was that cool. It's an unused hangar access road on the airport. Nice backdrop.

[@markseifried3959]

I've always hated the fish mouth models. They were not cool to me. My 1976 non turbo burned about 16.5 gph at 65% and 155 knots true. It was comfortable, dependable and enjoyable to travel in. We had it for about ten years.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Acquired taste and better with the lopresti cowl. The low tail retractable non-turbo was excellent. Like a retractable Cherokee six 300.

[@bernardanderson3758]

Can I get the next flight 😀

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Where are you.

[@Franklin-pc3xd]

BTW - it's not really referred to a "square wing" because it clearly is not "squares" but is referred to as "Hershey Bar" wing.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Yes, Thank you. I know It's called a Hershey Bar wing. Not everyone on here watching these videos in in the USA where a Hershey bar is a known confection.

[@MrTp057]

Any chance you could talk to the Meyers 200D?

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Todd, If you mean talk to the owner, interview him, yes. That is what we are going to do. Talk to him and fly it with him. Much like the "intervew with a Skywagon" video we did a few weeks ago but we will fly it too.

[@MrTp057]

@@skywagonuniversity5023 You are planning on doing a video on the Meyers 200D?

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Yes, we will do one soon. I know a guy that has one. You asked "Any chance you could talk to the Meyers 200D" and I was wondering what that meant.

[@BigOleWhatchamacallit]

U fly’em power on, all the way to the ground…🤓

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Yes you do. The nose lifts at about 70 Kts.

[@mannypuerta5086]

T-tails…meh. The solution to an issue that didn’t exist for small GA aircraft. The 727 was a nice t-tail to fly, however, and pretty good short field performance for a jet. You could even do a GA style, soft field takeoff on a rough, third world, Russian built runway as long as the performance calc allowed it on a long runway. Not much chrome showing on the nose strut. On some runways you’d think the nose gear was going to break when it banged against the compression stop. Lots of pitch authority, which seems to be contrary to these t-tail aircraft. I read a few comments about the Lance being a load hauler. What’s the useful load?

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

I think they did it to look cool.

[@markseifried3959]

To me 85 mph over the fence is fast for a 2300 foot sod strip.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Yes, that would be, probably not the best off airport plane.

[@barryervin8536]

I never flew anything with a T-tail, but I could never get the point of them other than looking cool. I think it was just a marketing thing, like V-tails or gull-wing doors on cars or racing stripes on lawn tractors. They work OK, but there's no real reason for them.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

All true. Looks like a King Air.

[@loddude5706]

If it just degrades performance/handling - why a T-tail?

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

I think it was just a corporate image back in the late 70's.

[@billcoltharp]

Probably a marketing gimmick, but the elevator out of the prop wash made for smooth cruising.

[@gmonnig]

I loved the T-tail Lance and enjoyed a couple hundred hours with it. It was a load hauler and flew like a mini airliner. My Comanche is faster and flies better but if I needed six seats again, this would be my first choice. Enjoy the discount from all the “bashing” on the T-tail configuration.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Very true. They get bashed and they are cheaper and they are still very good. Own one and enjoy it.

[@CaliforniaFly]

@@skywagonuniversity5023 of course they're cheaper, nobody wants them.

[@RR-pw5nb]

Flew Turbo Arrow IVs and the T tail Lance....teh Arrow was OK, but I hated the T tail Lance. Piper was STUPID for putting the T tail on them.

[@envitech02]

Laence? Lahnce? I would have pronounced it Lahnce. But that's just me.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

It's a strange language out here in the colonies.

[@playingbadgolfwell9732]

I guess you've lived long enough in Placerville to speak almost fluent "Yank".

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

ha, maybe.

[@ohiyesa2328]

For no benefit, the T tail is ugly to me just like a V tail. I just want a normal tail

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

I prefer the low tail too.

[@mikearakelian6368]

T tails are crap!!! Longer t/o n landing distance I prefer 4 tank fuel for a visual check.otherwise a good airplane! Good night IFR platform good hauling single engine...