Piper Aztec vs. C210 vs. Cherokee 6 vs. Lance/Saratoga

Sam D said:
1976 NA Lance 155TAS 15 gph Maintenance is a bit of a sore subject as we’re currently buying a factory reman engine to replace our 2300 hour engine. Insurance is $3200
Click to expand...


Not to threadjack - but if your engine has 2,300 hr, you're 15% past TBO, and should be giving all-involved a high-five.

And, $3,200 is exactly twice what I pay.

1978 Turbo Lance II.
 
Yeah, a 414 is not in my future.

Why in the world is a lance so much more to insure?

I pay $914 for the Cherokee six and I thought that was expensive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
k9medic said:
Yeah, a 414 is not in my future.

Why in the world is a lance so much more to insure?

I pay $914 for the Cherokee six and I thought that was expensive
Click to expand...

Retractable gear. It's harder to gear up a fixed gear plane.
 
I get that but 3 1/2 times more expensive?

My partner and I both have thousands of hours in retractable gear aircraft.

Maybe that’s why our insurance is what it is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sam D said:
1976 NA Lance 155TAS 15 gph Maintenance is a bit of a sore subject as we’re currently buying a factory reman engine to replace our 2300 hour engine. Insurance is $3200
Click to expand...

Curious, why sore subject? Factory reman is not the only way to go about overhauling an engine. 2300 is a good run. Just be glad you're not overhauling a TIO-540 and associated turbo components (exhaust in particular).

Dang, insurance sounds high, must be a extra high hull value or pilot experience driven thing. I've been quoted well under 2k for a 100K hull.
 
N1120A said:
But then you forget the advantages of even higher ground speeds at altitude.

You also leave out that I didn't say the numbers are exactly the same, but the utility of the 414 leaves the Aztec in the dust when you consider purchase prices and things like avionics.
Click to expand...

It's not the same. It's not even similar. You are still delusional.

I am amazed at the number of people that think they can go higher and faster, while pretending to ignore the basic laws of physics and thermodynamics...and the inevitable associated costs.
 
N1120A said:
I nearly spit out my coffee when I saw the 181 knots for an Aztec. Forget it.

Have you considered a Cessna 414? They are available cheaper than a good 210 and will legitimately do over 200 knots in the flight levels, on gas that isn't much different from the Aztec.
Click to expand...
I fly 414's and we use 60 gph in the first hour and 42 gph thereafter for fuel planning. The leaned out cruise numbers are actually about 36 gph, but to be conservative we use the higher numbers.
 
dfisher said:
I fly 414's and we use 60 gph in the first hour and 42 gph thereafter for fuel planning. The leaned out cruise numbers are actually about 36 gph, but to be conservative we use the higher numbers.
Click to expand...

I used 50 and 30, but yeah, it's a lot more than any Aztec. I also flew economy cruise and I wasn't running a RAM variant.

On the insurance, it's not just a question of gearing it up by accident, it's also gear failures, which happen.

Also, shop around for insurance. That's the best thing you can do.
 
jonvcaples said:
Just remembered this from a CPA who divides cost per hour by GS to evaluate airplanes. His method requires good data which is hard to comeby but gives a good starting place. It also ignores considerations such as terrain but here goes a couple of examples using rental aircraft. Round up

C-172 $100 hr/110K = 0.91

C-182 $140hr/130K= 1.08

200 hp Arrow $150hr/140 K= 1.07

S-35 Bonanza $170hr/150K = 1.14

Of course you need to consider things such as terrain (here in Denver if I'm going west then 172 is out), planned cruising altitude based on terrain and flight rules (we have some tall MEAs), and comfort (172 nis ok for up to about 3 hours then gotta stretch my legs).

Let us know what you decide and why please good sir!
Click to expand...

How often does that CPA toss a 30 kt headwind on there? Run those numbers and see how it works out.
 
Last edited:
Cant believe I'm the first to throw this out there.... love my F33a bonanza! @ 8000msl I'm doing 165-170ktas at 13.5gph. This is pretty hard to beat if your mission is you and 1 or 2 pax. It's not as economical (speed/fuel burn) as the mooney or as spacious as the lance saratoga but basically a great combo of the two. Can land on grass, great climb and takeoff performence, and great owners support as well!
 
As a low-time, non-IRated pilot, I am not quite ready to jump in and buy.... but close. So this thread is really interesting. I never considered the Lance before, but it seems to be a really good mix of value, range, useful load... what am I missing? Why is the Lance not the best out there for a reasonable 4 person, descent luggage, good range, fairly good yearly mx aircraft?? I am now seriously looking at getting into one before starting IR (and using it for IR training and way beyond). Convince me otherwise...?
 
Deelee said:
As a low-time, non-IRated pilot, I am not quite ready to jump in and buy.... but close. So this thread is really interesting. I never considered the Lance before, but it seems to be a really good mix of value, range, useful load... what am I missing? Why is the Lance not the best out there for a reasonable 4 person, descent luggage, good range, fairly good yearly mx aircraft?? I am now seriously looking at getting into one before starting IR (and using it for IR training and way beyond). Convince me otherwise...?
Click to expand...

The lance/saratoga is a great plane for hauling some people/load. Out of the c210, bonanza, or cirrus its cabin wins hands down. Its downside imho is it burns quite a bit of gas 17-18gph to get into the 155-160ktas range. I chose the f33a bonanza over the lance/toga because 90% of the time im flying it's just me and my girl or a friend or two. I'm going faster on significantly less fuel burn. If you have a family to haul around get the lance/toga. Consider the A36 bonanza as well if it's in your price range but it wont have the cabin of the lance saratoga
 
AnthonyS1 said:
The lance/saratoga is a great plane for hauling some people/load. Out of the c210, bonanza, or cirrus its cabin wins hands down. Its downside imho is it burns quite a bit of gas 17-18gph to get into the 155-160ktas range. I chose the f33a bonanza over the lance/toga because 90% of the time im flying it's just me and my girl or a friend or two. I'm going faster on significantly less fuel burn. If you have a family to haul around get the lance/toga. Consider the A36 bonanza as well if it's in your price range but it wont have the cabin of the lance saratoga
Click to expand...

I’m always happy to brag about my Lance. I think this post is accurate. The Lance is not going to be the fastest or the most economical. But it’s comfortable.

5670cb3b08b25e2d7c58b39b1e306e7d.jpg
 
AnthonyS1 said:
The lance/saratoga is a great plane for hauling some people/load. Out of the c210, bonanza, or cirrus its cabin wins hands down. Its downside imho is it burns quite a bit of gas 17-18gph to get into the 155-160ktas range. I chose the f33a bonanza over the lance/toga because 90% of the time im flying it's just me and my girl or a friend or two. I'm going faster on significantly less fuel burn. If you have a family to haul around get the lance/toga. Consider the A36 bonanza as well if it's in your price range but it wont have the cabin of the lance saratoga
Click to expand...

As I mentioned above, we see 155+ at 15 gph but that may be due to to the speed mods we have (flap seals, etc but standard cowl)
 
I’m happy to brag about mine as well, but there’s lots of other great planes, too.

It fits our purpose, whether it’s a weekend with friends, a business meeting or long trip.

For high-wing, it takes a 210 to match it.
 
I loves my Lance II, but I think if I had bought a Cherokee 6/260 like the OP, I'd be happy with its performance for my purposes. For what the OP uses his for, I'm not sure you gain a lot by buying "up", so to speak. His (and his partner's) call as to what suits their needs, of course. With the Lance, I've been fortunate, but it does have more moving parts (landing gear), that can break and cost more $$$. I do get about 145kts, uses 15-16 gph. My insurance (just me, I have no partner) is about $1400/year. And it's a smooth ride. Just some more food for thought... my 2 cents.
 
Bobanna said:
Because it's not a Bonanza...fly both before you decide, any compromises are very minor, and the whole quality of the Bonanza experience will astonish you. Just my $0.02.
Click to expand...

Not only will "the whole quality of the Bonanza experience astonish you", but so will the hefty premium you have to pay over a comparable Lance for that astonishing experience. ;)
 
AnthonyS1 said:
Cant believe I'm the first to throw this out there.... love my F33a bonanza! @ 8000msl I'm doing 165-170ktas at 13.5gph. This is pretty hard to beat if your mission is you and 1 or 2 pax. It's not as economical (speed/fuel burn) as the mooney or as spacious as the lance saratoga but basically a great combo of the two. Can land on grass, great climb and takeoff performence, and great owners support as well!
Click to expand...

I bought an F33A with a partner back in February. The airplane is awesome. We have put about 150 hours on it with no major issues. The only downside I can find is the restrictive CG, but it hasn’t been an issue me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top