Cherokee 6 Vs. Lance

AmazonChitlin

AmazonChitlin

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
131
Location
Phoenix
Display Name
Display name:
AmazonChitlin
Hey all,

I'm not in the market (yet), but was curious about the differences between the 6 and Lance. It looks like the main difference between the two is that the Lance has a T-tail. I also see that the Lance can be had with a turbocharged engine. Are there any models of the 6 with turbochargers?

Is there anything that puts one ahead of the other?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
Awesome, thanks guys! I totally missed the retract's!

Interesting that they came with a conventional tail too...I don't think I've ever seen one. Hell, I can't remember seeing a Lance in person either.

It seems like a pretty capable airplane!


Edit: just looked up Lance's with a conventional tail. I think (looks wise) I prefer the T-tail. From an operational stand point, I seem to remember from my very limited time (~1-1.5hrs) in a Seminole that keeping the nose wheel up on landing was something you had to get used to with a T-tail.

Are there any other gotchas about them? I'd imagine there'd be some differences in slow flight, stalls, etc.


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
The T-Tail needs a little "learnin'" to bring it in on short runways. It's far from impossible, but you can't treat it the same as a straight-tail.

On the takeoff roll, you can't "mush it" off the ground like a straight-tail. It flies when it's ready. Straight-tail pilots that are used to mushing off the ground find this disturbing, and believe it translates to longer takeoff runs. Not true.

You're in Phoenix? Wanna see one in person?
 
I'm actually in Cottonwood, but I'm in Phoenix fairly regularly! I'd love to check it out!

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
I think the earlier Cherokee 6 had a big fat hershey bar wing and the Lance has a wing that is a bit more friendly to gain a few knots.
Cherokee 6 flys like a School bus and Lance like a truck. Both can lift a serious load.
 
I flew Cherokee 6 300s (old and new wing) and both the T-Lance and the conventional tail Lance in Southeast Alaska and landed them all on beaches and some pretty small, short strips. They all performed well and made a believer out of me!

I was mostly a Cessna guy until getting that job. I swear by the Cherokee Six for being a heavy hauler. The Aztec is pretty much in the same truck-like category, too!
 
JEB said:
I think the earlier Cherokee 6 had a big fat hershey bar wing and the Lance has a wing that is a bit more friendly to gain a few knots.
Cherokee 6 flys like a School bus and Lance like a truck. Both can lift a serious load.
Click to expand...

They did not change wing design until they converted Lance into Saratoga. I have 78 Lance and has hershey bar wings. Both wing designs have pros and cons.
 
Terminology is important here, because Piper changed the names around a lot especially in the 70's/80's.

Specifically, the Lance was the PA-32R-300 (Turbo or not) with the hershey bar wing and the T-tail generally, although the first few years had the straight tail.
When they went to the tapered wing in the early 80's, they called it the Saratoga, PA-32R-301 (Turbo and not) but they also had fixed-gear Saratogas PA-32-301 (Turbo and not)
Then there was the Cherokee 6 PA-32-300 (fixed gear, non-turbo) and numerous other variants and names.

They pretty much have any assortment of turbo or not, retract or not, hershey bar or tapered wing that you might want.

So just be aware that the "Lance" is a specific set of years and configuration.

It's more useful to pay attention to the model number than the name.

R = retractable gear
T after the R = T-tail
260 and 300 are straight-wing
301 is tapered wing
T at the end = turbo

I'm sure there are some exceptions to this, it gets rather confusing. Especially when buying things like checklists!
 
Last edited:
A quick internet search showed that the 6's published cruise is about 145kts, while the Lance shows 158kts. Is that pretty accurate for real world numbers?

Do any of you have a good estimate of cost per hour for each?

Thanks!

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
When I was flying a 6 (PA32-300), I was seeing more like 137 to 140 Kts. Definitely more of a stable load hauler than a speed demon.
 
Most of my experience is in the turbo, taper-wing versions.

In the PA-32-301T (1980's models), I'll see about 150 KTAS at 75% power.
In the PA-32R-301T (2005? model), I'll see high 160's at 75% power, at 11,000 at about 20 gph. I can also run it LOP and get about 150 kts on 13.4 gph.
 
Not sure how familiar you are with aircraft and turbos, but it's not like turbo-charging on autos. It's main advantage is when flying at higher altitudes/density altitudes. It essentially allows you to maintain the same/similar power level at 10K' as you have at ground level. Obviously there's a point where the turbo cannot offset density altitude, but that's usually when you'd need to be on oxygen and/or rather be in a pressurized cabin. Turbo'd aircraft engines have a tough time reaching TBO because the higher pressure/heat from the turbo is just tougher on engine components than the NA-engines. If you aren't operating up in the 'teens or in/out of high-elevation airfields, the turbo may not be needed or desirable depending on mission.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Not sure how familiar you are with aircraft and turbos, but it's not like turbo-charging on autos. It's main advantage is when flying at higher altitudes/density altitudes. It essentially allows you to maintain the same/similar power level at 10K' as you have at ground level. Obviously there's a point where the turbo cannot offset density altitude, but that's usually when you'd need to be on oxygen and/or rather be in a pressurized cabin. Turbo'd aircraft engines have a tough time reaching TBO because the higher pressure/heat from the turbo is just tougher on engine components than the NA-engines. If you aren't operating up in the 'teens or in/out of high-elevation airfields, the turbo may not be needed or desirable depending on mission.
Click to expand...
I think you may be confusing a term here.
Turbo CHARGED = Higher than atmospheric pressure going into the engine. Plenty of planes operate this way.

Turbo NORMALIZED = What you're describing maintaining sea level pressure into the engine to a higher elevation. Also turbo normalized engines shouldn't be seeing any higher heat or pressure than a normally aspirated engine.

Just because a plane has a turbo charger does not mean that it is a turbo charged engine.

Sorry to pick nits.
 
Last edited:
Not a Piper expert by any means... Doesn't the Cherokee 6 also have more fuel tanks to switch in flight? Just one more thing to have to manage.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
..Turbo NORMALIZED = What you're describing maintaining sea level pressure into the engine to a higher elevation....
Click to expand...

I have a Turbo-normalized fixed gear 182P. Awesome. Once you fly turbo, you'll never want to go back. Just awesome making 29" MAP for take-off at max gross with crazy high density altitudes. Amazing capability here out west. Was a real joy recently flying 5000 AGL over the Sierras and Rockies.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Not sure how familiar you are with aircraft and turbos, but it's not like turbo-charging on autos. It's main advantage is when flying at higher altitudes/density altitudes. It essentially allows you to maintain the same/similar power level at 10K' as you have at ground level. Obviously there's a point where the turbo cannot offset density altitude, but that's usually when you'd need to be on oxygen and/or rather be in a pressurized cabin. Turbo'd aircraft engines have a tough time reaching TBO because the higher pressure/heat from the turbo is just tougher on engine components than the NA-engines. If you aren't operating up in the 'teens or in/out of high-elevation airfields, the turbo may not be needed or desirable depending on mission.
Click to expand...

As @Mtns2Skies writes, this is not true in all cases. The Saratogas I fly have takeoff manifold pressure of 36 and 38 inches. That's well above ambient pressure. They are true turbocharged engines.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I think you may be confusing a term here.
Turbo CHARGED = Higher than atmospheric pressure going into the engine. Plenty of planes operate this way.

Turbo NORMALIZED = What you're describing maintaining sea level pressure into the engine to a higher elevation. Also turbo normalized engines shouldn't be seeing any higher heat or pressure than a normally aspirated engine.

Just because a plane has a turbo charger does not mean that it is a turbo charged engine.

Sorry to pick nits.
Click to expand...

Correct, I apologize for not being specific to the variants of turbo-application. I was just trying to get across the point that the turbo's main advantage is maintaining (or in the case of turbo-charging, exceeding) sea-level performance up to a certain density altitude ceiling. There are other advantages (like pressurization) which can come from them as well.
 
NordicDave said:
Not a Piper expert by any means... Doesn't the Cherokee 6 also have more fuel tanks to switch in flight? Just one more thing to have to manage.
Click to expand...
True. The fixed gear PA-32s up through the 1978 model year have the same wings and fuel system as the Cherokee 235 -- four tanks, and a four-position fuel selector.

The Cherokee Lances (1976-79) have wings that look the same externally, and have four tanks total, but the tanks are interconnected in each wing, so the fuel selector is just left/right/off.

The 1979 Six 300 (fixed gear) has a fuel system similar to the Lances.
 
Think of the PA-32’s like a 3/4 ton truck. Or even better: like a Chevy Suburban. Heavy haulers, with versatile loading capabilities. I once heard about a guy that built a cabin on one of the smaller San Juan islands in Puget Sound. Most of the materials: lumber, roofing, appliances, he flew in himself, in a Cherokee Six.
 
WillFly4Food said:
Think of the PA-32’s like a 3/4 ton truck. Or even better: like a Chevy Suburban. Heavy haulers, with versatile loading capabilities. I once heard about a guy that built a cabin on one of the smaller San Juan islands in Puget Sound. Most of the materials: lumber, roofing, appliances, he flew in himself, in a Cherokee Six.
Click to expand...

One of our nicknames for ours is the "Chevy Suburban".
 
If buying aT Tail Lance, pay attention in transition training. A CFI friend sold one and warned the new owner about its characteristics but the guy didn’t listen causing him to put it in the trees. Pay attention!
 
NordicDave said:
Not a Piper expert by any means... Doesn't the Cherokee 6 also have more fuel tanks to switch in flight? Just one more thing to have to manage.
Click to expand...
It does have 4 fuel tanks, but because of that plumbing, according to the Owners Handbook, only 1 PINT per tank is unusable.
 
Ok....I owned a Six for a few years....the differences as I see it.

Six.......................................Lance
260 Hp or 300 HP......................300Hp
forward seating or club
260 - 1550-1600lb useful load......150-200lbs less
135 kts true at 15 gph................150 kts at 16-17 gph
fixed gear...............................retract
 
RussR said:
Most of my experience is in the turbo, taper-wing versions.

In the PA-32-301T (1980's models), I'll see about 150 KTAS at 75% power.
Click to expand...

Wait - did they make a turbocharged version that is fixed gear? Or is this supposed to be an “R” model? If fixed, what kind of fuel consumption and altitude is required to get 150 knots?
 
Pilawt said:
PA-32-301T = turbocharged fixed gear.
Click to expand...

This, imo, was the ultimate PA-32. Not as fast as the retractable down low, but simplicity of the fixed gear combined with decent useful load + respectable performance at altitude.

However, the T-tail, retractable Lance seems the runaway best value in today's market.
 
GRG55 said:
This, imo, was the ultimate PA-32. Not as fast as the retractable down low, but simplicity of the fixed gear combined with decent useful load + respectable performance at altitude.

However, the T-tail, retractable Lance seems the runaway best value in today's market.
Click to expand...

I ferried a PA-32-301T from Opa Locka to San Jose (RHV) and It was a nice change from the Tomahawk and arrow I had done earlier. The ability to climb high and take advantage of the 100 gallons of gas made the trip easy.
 
Th
AA5Bman said:
Well lookie here, you learn something new everyday. That’d be my pick for Sixes. Must be kinda rare? I’m surprised I didn’t know this.

Only thing wrong with it is that it’s got that silly sucker-fish snout! Woof!
Click to expand...

The hot air coming out of the top of the cowling helps with keeping the windscreen clear in cold weather...
 
AA5Bman said:
Only thing wrong with it is that it’s got that silly sucker-fish snout! Woof!
Click to expand...
The SSFS (silly sucker-fish snout) was originally designed a few years earlier, in 1975, for a proposed, cleaned-up "Six II 300", with normally-aspirated or turbocharged engine. The NA version did not have the gills in the sides of the upper cowl.

The Six II was to have been introduced in spring 1978, but Piper shelved the project in favor of the taper-winged Saratoga.
 
JEB said:
When I was flying a 6 (PA32-300), I was seeing more like 137 to 140 Kts. Definitely more of a stable load hauler than a speed demon.
Click to expand...

I thought low wing planes were supposed to be fast...
 
Seems to me I saw somewhere (TCDS?) that there was also a seaplane version? If you can believe that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top