Saratoga best for my flying?

Since you all were so helpful on last potential plane. Here is another interesting potential option. Any thoughts good or bad? Avionics seem better than last & not a turbo so that could be good for the maintenance side of things since I really don’t need one being on the east coast.

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...TOGA+II+HP&listing_id=2329861&s-type=aircraft

That's a pretty sharp plane! And I must say, having a "baby" of an airplane myself (1997), that having a newer airframe is very nice when it comes to maintenance. I would say it probably saves in the neighborhood of 10-20% vs. having a 1970s airframe. That is, of course, assuming that the plane has been well-maintained and not neglected.

The airframe time is a bit on the high side, but that means it hasn't been sitting, so that's not a bad thing, and it's certainly not "too high" for its age. And a bonus is that the engine is fairly low time, but well out of the infant mortality zone. Avionics are mostly stock for a plane of that era, with the JPI 830 as the only thing I recognize as being aftermarket. But, the 2000s were well equipped right out of the gate.

You could be 2020-ready with nothing more than an ES upgrade to the GTX 330 (~$1500 IIRC). Or, you could swap that out for a GTX 345 to get ADS-B In as well, which would allow you to put traffic and weather on the 530W/430W. Add a FlightStream 210 to be able to send flight plans to the panel from your iPad and you'll save yourself a LOT of knob-twisting. Other than that, and maybe updating the gyros to G5s, I can't think of much I would want to do to this plane, and that's saying something because I'm a gadget freak. ;)

I see that the useful load totals 1132 pounds, but it's got 630 pounds of usable fuel so that leaves you with only 502 pounds payload with full fuel... My Mooney has more than that! :goofy: But you probably won't need to use full fuel when you've got your family along. Just figure out how much weight you'll need to carry when they are, and leave that much fuel out of it. Calculate how much time that will give you to actually fly, subtract for the reserve, and see how far you can go in one leg with them. That'll let you know whether this is the plane for you! Unfortunately, this is a demonstration of how new-ish Pipers tend to have lost a lot of their older siblings' payload over the years.

Other than that, the only thing I could think of to warn you away would be price. I ran a quick Vref and came up with a value of $251,974. Now, Vref is far from perfect, but asking below Vref in what is supposed to be a buyer's market is a good sign. So, if it's within your budget and the useful load is sufficient for your needs, I would say jump on it! There aren't a whole lot of the newer birds like this around.
 
Since you all were so helpful on last potential plane. Here is another interesting potential option. Any thoughts good or bad? Avionics seem better than last & not a turbo so that could be good for the maintenance side of things since I really don’t need one being on the east coast.

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...TOGA+II+HP&listing_id=2329861&s-type=aircraft

Looks nice. Does the 1132 useful load limit your mission?
With just the inboards filled (60 gallons) you’re down to only 770 lbs for people and stuff.

Edit:
I forgot about your 900nm mission.
So 900nm / ~160kts = 5.625 hrs
Add another hour for reserve.
So 6.5 hrs * 15 GPH = 97.5 galllons
97.5 gallons * 6 lbs = 585 lbs
1132lbs - 585lbs = 547 for people and stuff on your defined mission. Is that enough for you?
 
Last edited:
Since you all were so helpful on last potential plane. Here is another interesting potential option. Any thoughts good or bad? Avionics seem better than last & not a turbo so that could be good for the maintenance side of things since I really don’t need one being on the east coast.

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...TOGA+II+HP&listing_id=2329861&s-type=aircraft
I bought 3 of this guys planes,
http://www.aircraftsalesinc.net/
He does a great job. He will customize it any way you want.
I have no ties to him or his business.
 
Looks nice. Does the 1132 useful load limit your mission?
With just the inboards filled (60 gallons) you’re down to only 770 lbs for people and stuff.

Edit:
I forgot about your 900nm mission.
So 900nm / ~160kts = 5.625 hrs
Add another hour for reserve.
So 6.5 hrs * 15 GPH = 97.5 galllons
97.5 gallons * 6 lbs = 585 lbs
1132lbs - 585lbs = 547 for people and stuff on your defined mission. Is that enough for you?

Most families would rather have a break instead of sitting in the plane for 5.625 hours... So, figure half the fuel (300 pounds-ish) and the payload is a more reasonable 832 pounds. The useful load is clearly the main drawback of this particular bird, though.
 
...I see that the useful load totals 1132 pounds, but it's got 630 pounds of usable fuel so that leaves you with only 502 pounds payload with full fuel... My Mooney has more than that! :goofy: But you probably won't need to use full fuel when you've got your family along. Just figure out how much weight you'll need to carry when they are, and leave that much fuel out of it. Calculate how much time that will give you to actually fly, subtract for the reserve, and see how far you can go in one leg with them. That'll let you know whether this is the plane for you! Unfortunately, this is a demonstration of how new-ish Pipers tend to have lost a lot of their older siblings' payload over the years...

Not unique to Piper. Everything has suffered from that. Check out the abysmal payload of the latest generation Cessna 182s. Our Club has a 2011 SR20 and its so heavy it can't take 3 adults on a reasonable cross country without offloading fuel if it was filled the night before.
 
Last edited:
Not unique to Piper. Everything has suffered from that. Check out the abysmal payload of the latest generation Cessna 182s. Our Club has a 2011 SR20 and its so heavy it can't take 3 adults on a reasonable cross country without offloading fuel if it was filled the night before.

Everyone's planes have gotten heavier over the years... But, for example, Cessna increased their maximum gross weights as well, which helps to compensate for the heavier empty weight. Piper never did that.
 
Everyone's planes have gotten heavier over the years... But, for example, Cessna increased their maximum gross weights as well, which helps to compensate for the heavier empty weight. Piper never did that.

As I recall Piper increased the gross on the Cherokee singles when it went to the semi-tapered wing. I believe the Warrior had a 200 lb increase.

Back in the 1990s I had an original 1961 Hershey bar Cherokee 160. It had a useful load of 980 lbs. Back then our Club had two semi-taper wing Warriors. I remember their gross was 200 lbs more than my plane, but their empty weights were ~400 lbs more than mine.
 
As I recall Piper increased the gross on the Cherokee singles when it went to the semi-tapered wing. I believe the Warrior had a 200 lb increase.

Back in the 1990s I had an original 1961 Hershey bar Cherokee 160. It had a useful load of 980 lbs. Back then our Club had two semi-taper wing Warriors. I remember their gross was 200 lbs more than my plane, but their empty weights were ~400 lbs more than mine.

It varied. The old Cherokee 150 and Cherokee 140 MGW was 2,150 lb. The 150 hp Cherokee Warrior (1974-76) was 2,325 lb.

The old Cherokee 160's MGW was 2,200 lb. When the 160 hp Warrior II came out in 1977 it remained at 2,325 lb MGW for a few years, then was bumped up to 2,447 lb in 1983. Predictably, service ceiling went down (13,000' to 11,000') and takeoff distance went up (1,490' over a 50' obstacle, to 1,650 ').

But compared to the 1960s Cherokees, the Warrior is dragging around a longer airframe.
 
Last edited:
As I recall Piper increased the gross on the Cherokee singles when it went to the semi-tapered wing. I believe the Warrior had a 200 lb increase.

Yeah, but that happened in the mid-70s when the airframes were still pretty light. Cessna increased the 172's MGW in 1997.
 
Most families would rather have a break instead of sitting in the plane for 5.625 hours... So, figure half the fuel (300 pounds-ish) and the payload is a more reasonable 832 pounds. The useful load is clearly the main drawback of this particular bird, though.

Yes to give you all an example. My wife & I combined weigh 285lbs & currently our 3 kids combined weigh around 150 so all together we are 435 lbs. Now that will increase over time as they grow but I agree with your statement that especially when traveling with the kids we’ll be making 1 stop along the way which will allow us to carry larger load with less fuel.
 
That's a pretty sharp plane! And I must say, having a "baby" of an airplane myself (1997), that having a newer airframe is very nice when it comes to maintenance. I would say it probably saves in the neighborhood of 10-20% vs. having a 1970s airframe. That is, of course, assuming that the plane has been well-maintained and not neglected.

The airframe time is a bit on the high side, but that means it hasn't been sitting, so that's not a bad thing, and it's certainly not "too high" for its age. And a bonus is that the engine is fairly low time, but well out of the infant mortality zone. Avionics are mostly stock for a plane of that era, with the JPI 830 as the only thing I recognize as being aftermarket. But, the 2000s were well equipped right out of the gate.

You could be 2020-ready with nothing more than an ES upgrade to the GTX 330 (~$1500 IIRC). Or, you could swap that out for a GTX 345 to get ADS-B In as well, which would allow you to put traffic and weather on the 530W/430W. Add a FlightStream 210 to be able to send flight plans to the panel from your iPad and you'll save yourself a LOT of knob-twisting. Other than that, and maybe updating the gyros to G5s, I can't think of much I would want to do to this plane, and that's saying something because I'm a gadget freak. ;)

I see that the useful load totals 1132 pounds, but it's got 630 pounds of usable fuel so that leaves you with only 502 pounds payload with full fuel... My Mooney has more than that! :goofy: But you probably won't need to use full fuel when you've got your family along. Just figure out how much weight you'll need to carry when they are, and leave that much fuel out of it. Calculate how much time that will give you to actually fly, subtract for the reserve, and see how far you can go in one leg with them. That'll let you know whether this is the plane for you! Unfortunately, this is a demonstration of how new-ish Pipers tend to have lost a lot of their older siblings' payload over the years.

Other than that, the only thing I could think of to warn you away would be price. I ran a quick Vref and came up with a value of $251,974. Now, Vref is far from perfect, but asking below Vref in what is supposed to be a buyer's market is a good sign. So, if it's within your budget and the useful load is sufficient for your needs, I would say jump on it! There aren't a whole lot of the newer birds like this around.

Thank you very much for all your detailed info! Helps me out a ton.
 
something to think about when looking as it was not something I previously thought about until somebody on the forum mentioned it. A plane might be faster in the air but if you have to stop and get fuel, it will take more time in the long run.

Example -

My planned route is 326nm. I then have to fly about 170 nm to get back to Florida. Round that total up to 500nm and it comes out to about 4 hours of flying at 125kts GS. I cruise at 125-130kts TAS and have 6 hours of fuel on board.

I looked at buying a Mooney M20J which moves out at around 160 kts TAS. That drops my enroute time to 2 hours or so over but I would have to stop for fuel on the way back if I want to take any type of passenger or baggage load. This means I have to fly to an insland that HAS fuel and then back. Adding that total time plus the ground time puts almost 1.5 hours on the clock.

PA32- 4 hours block time

M20J - 4.5 hours block time.

My slower plane wins always if there are more than 2 people on board.
 
Early A36-TN with Osborne tips, IO550 and TAT. It'll have the same UL as a Saratoga but move faster.
 
Yes to give you all an example. My wife & I combined weigh 285lbs & currently our 3 kids combined weigh around 150 so all together we are 435 lbs. Now that will increase over time as they grow but I agree with your statement that especially when traveling with the kids we’ll be making 1 stop along the way which will allow us to carry larger load with less fuel.

Admittedly I haven’t flown with the kids for longer than 3.5 hrs. And my kids are young. But I would argue it’s more of a pain to stop. There’s a 50/50 chance somebody is going to hurl if the approach is bumpy. Then you unload everybody. Fuel up. Then the kids don’t want to get back in yet. I’d rather deal with that once than twice. When it comes to long road trips (like the 8 hour ones) we try not to stop unless somebody needs a potty break.
 
Admittedly I haven’t flown with the kids for longer than 3.5 hrs. And my kids are young. But I would argue it’s more of a pain to stop. There’s a 50/50 chance somebody is going to hurl if the approach is bumpy. Then you unload everybody. Fuel up. Then the kids don’t want to get back in yet. I’d rather deal with that once than twice. When it comes to long road trips (like the 8 hour ones) we try not to stop unless somebody needs a potty break.

I dunno... It is definitely a pain, but I want it to remain a positive experience, and being cooped up for six hours is NOT a positive experience.

My son hasn't hurled in a plane yet (probably will on the next flight now :rofl:), and I try to plan flights so that they're not too bumpy (much easier to do in the north than the south, I know).

All that said, I've never made two stops on the same day in the Mooney. One of the advantages of a fast plane is that two three-hour legs gets you a long way (about 1000nm in my case).
 
OK... Since I'm off being benched now, OP...what lingering questions do you have? I own a Turbo Lance and fly weekly.
 
OK... Since I'm off being benched now, OP...what lingering questions do you have? I own a Turbo Lance and fly weekly.

I think everyone here has really summed it up for me from all angles. Just a matter at this point of finding the right one. I’ve come up with looking for a NA, retractable version with lower hours since overhauI & newer update avionics & panel. I see the benefits of either going older timeframe for slightly larger useful load or newer for little lower ongoing maintenance. Although load I don’t think will be a problem either way as my longest trips will either be alone when commuting for business or with the family and we’ll be stopping once which will allow us to carry less fuel. My thought to non turbo is all flying will be on east coast so if cruising speed is about same on both models why get a turbo which will increase ongoing cost as well as future overhaul cost. If I’m missing something here or skipped over an important point let me know.

With any transaction, a thorough pre-buy inspection of plane & log books will be important. I guess one other question, do most use a company to do pre-buy inspection as well as broker deal, or just find a qualified inspector to look over plane & books and then deal directly with other party for sale?
 
I agree on the no turbo position. While I enjoy having the Turbo because I like to get up just sub 18k where there is zero traffic at all, I don't see where a eastcoaster really needs it at all. Buuuuuttt..... As in my case, the found a clean airframe, heluva stack Turbo lance that I just could not pass up on. I've owned it for three years and the :crazy::cryin::crazy::cryin: "turbo MX is a lot" some seem to whine about has been negligible. I've had more issue with my gear than the turbo. But I will say that running a turbo take a bit more attention as it will over boost so quick on take off that you really have to pay attention or you will roast it. I generally have to pull back the prop on the T/O roll as it all comes alive or I will overboost the turbo and overspeed the prop pretty quickly.

I flight plan 140 real knots at 14.5 GPH-ish LOP...... Yesterday I ran it ROP for a bit just to mess around at 24gph and 160 knots true at 2400/30" around 6kft. Flight was too short to get up into the teens. Really, where the turbo becomes an asset is above 12k where I can run it like a raped ape. If you don't plan on that type of flying, NA is the way to go. If I had a do-over, I'd get a stiff leg PA32 because speed is not on my mind. Hauling as this crap and the kids is. Piper gear seems to always want attention before long.

Pre-buys are ala carte deals. You tell them what you want looked at. Compressions, borescope the valves, corrosion inspection, undocumented repairs and the installed equipment actually works such as the A/P, radios, indicators and such. If you have the option, see if you can get the plane to Bartelt Aviation in Sturgis, MI. They are the PA32 kings, bar none. If not, make a few calls and ask if the APs are familiar and go from there. You should go page by page, line by line over the books before ever considering a visit to the AP. You can get the ADs off the FAA website and with that list, figure out if it is done. SB1006 requires pulling all the tanks and if it has not been done, would absolutely be negotiated before I purchased. It can be expensive in labor hours assuming no corrosion is found. If it is found, hold on to your wallet! Thus, any plane w/o it, is toeing the deal breaker line for me.

Have you actually flown a PA 32 yet? It ain't no PA28. It flies very different. I owned an Archer II before I bought the Lance and it was about on par with driving a swamp skiff, then 350 horse bass boat. They do not fly the same at all. PA32s will demand you use plenty of trim after every reconfiguration. On landing, I show probably 80% nose up trim after the roll out. As soon as the wheels chirp, I must dump the all flaps immediately and power on landings are your friend. Cutting the power over the numbers almost guarantees you will drop it on the pavement. I've still got about 18" of MP in on landing at 80 knots. Usually, its a decent landing. Usually. :aureola:

Absolutely use an escrow service for the plane. Just like a house, they make sure all is on the up and up. An liens transfer to the new owner. I had several on my plane that had to be resolved before the sale was complete. I recommend Aerospace Title out of OKC. They have an AOPA or EAA discount, but you have to ask. It's worth the expense you know it was all done right.
 
I flight plan 140 real knots at 14.5 GPH-ish LOP...... Yesterday I ran it ROP for a bit just to mess around at 24gph and 160 knots true at 2400/30" around 6kft. Flight was too short to get up into the teens. Really, where the turbo becomes an asset is above 12k where I can run it like a raped ape. If you don't plan on that type of flying, NA is the way to go. If I had a do-over, I'd get a stiff leg PA32 because speed is not on my mind. Hauling as this crap and the kids is. Piper gear seems to always want attention before long.

Interesting take. I have actually favored the PA-28/32/34/44 gear system (it's the same system) due to its mx simplicity. That said, I'm equally surprised to hear the preference for a FG 32 from a Lance owner. 140 seems a tad slow for 14gph but I suppose that's still 10kts faster than the six-300, which appears to do closer to 130true at that fuel flow (maybe 135 with post 78 wheel pants). The Lance also has bigger tanks, which granted don't pencil out for a turbo since you're cooling the engine with excess fuel, but for the NA variant that doesn't suffer that limitation, 94 useful gallons is pretty nice for the occasional solo long trip. Agreed, not a consideration for the family type trips (under 4 hours before a pax-demanded break).

To be fair, the market seems to not discount the FG -300s much at all over the Lances, which seems to be in line with your thinking.
 
I agree on the no turbo position. While I enjoy having the Turbo because I like to get up just sub 18k where there is zero traffic at all, I don't see where a eastcoaster really needs it at all. Buuuuuttt..... As in my case, the found a clean airframe, heluva stack Turbo lance that I just could not pass up on. I've owned it for three years and the :crazy::cryin::crazy::cryin: "turbo MX is a lot" some seem to whine about has been negligible. I've had more issue with my gear than the turbo. But I will say that running a turbo take a bit more attention as it will over boost so quick on take off that you really have to pay attention or you will roast it. I generally have to pull back the prop on the T/O roll as it all comes alive or I will overboost the turbo and overspeed the prop pretty quickly.

I flight plan 140 real knots at 14.5 GPH-ish LOP...... Yesterday I ran it ROP for a bit just to mess around at 24gph and 160 knots true at 2400/30" around 6kft. Flight was too short to get up into the teens. Really, where the turbo becomes an asset is above 12k where I can run it like a raped ape. If you don't plan on that type of flying, NA is the way to go. If I had a do-over, I'd get a stiff leg PA32 because speed is not on my mind. Hauling as this crap and the kids is. Piper gear seems to always want attention before long.

Pre-buys are ala carte deals. You tell them what you want looked at. Compressions, borescope the valves, corrosion inspection, undocumented repairs and the installed equipment actually works such as the A/P, radios, indicators and such. If you have the option, see if you can get the plane to Bartelt Aviation in Sturgis, MI. They are the PA32 kings, bar none. If not, make a few calls and ask if the APs are familiar and go from there. You should go page by page, line by line over the books before ever considering a visit to the AP. You can get the ADs off the FAA website and with that list, figure out if it is done. SB1006 requires pulling all the tanks and if it has not been done, would absolutely be negotiated before I purchased. It can be expensive in labor hours assuming no corrosion is found. If it is found, hold on to your wallet! Thus, any plane w/o it, is toeing the deal breaker line for me.

Have you actually flown a PA 32 yet? It ain't no PA28. It flies very different. I owned an Archer II before I bought the Lance and it was about on par with driving a swamp skiff, then 350 horse bass boat. They do not fly the same at all. PA32s will demand you use plenty of trim after every reconfiguration. On landing, I show probably 80% nose up trim after the roll out. As soon as the wheels chirp, I must dump the all flaps immediately and power on landings are your friend. Cutting the power over the numbers almost guarantees you will drop it on the pavement. I've still got about 18" of MP in on landing at 80 knots. Usually, its a decent landing. Usually. :aureola:

Absolutely use an escrow service for the plane. Just like a house, they make sure all is on the up and up. An liens transfer to the new owner. I had several on my plane that had to be resolved before the sale was complete. I recommend Aerospace Title out of OKC. They have an AOPA or EAA discount, but you have to ask. It's worth the expense you know it was all done right.

Great info and appreciate all the insight. Yes I’ve read up on Bartelt Aviation and would love to use them or even buying directly through them, so we’ll see what happens. In regards to flying a PA-32 I have not yet. I’d obviously love to before but I’ll have to find someone local willing to take me up in theirs (I’m in the Orlando area if anyone on here has one and wants to show me around one!). Thanks again and this site has been amazing with so much knowledge & recommendations.
 
Is that right - 140kts for a turbo lance? What do you get running up at 16k feet LOP (wide open? 75%?)? Very curious.
 
Is that right - 140kts for a turbo lance? What do you get running up at 16k feet LOP (wide open? 75%?)? Very curious.

Don't forget two things.... First, this is LOP. Second, it has low compression pistons. I can do 160 all day long ROP paying the price at the pump.

Interesting take. I have actually favored the PA-28/32/34/44 gear system (it's the same system) due to its mx simplicity. That said, I'm equally surprised to hear the preference for a FG 32 from a Lance owner. 140 seems a tad slow for 14gph but I suppose....

It may be simple, but that does not mean it doesn't have issues. Yes, 140 is slow. Two problems to deal with. First is heat. Without the Turbos Plus mod, you either have to be well ROP or deep LOP to run it. There is little in between I have found. I have heard of some guys running 19 gph ROP for 160 kts, but I would like to know what the CHTs are at and off what indicator. 24 GPH is what this TIO-S1AD needs or else the CHTs are above 400. The red box is yuuuge on the updraft Lyc. On the LOP side where I run, 375 is the hottest cylinder. I do run Turbo GAMIs though, and the big pull from climbs power to LOP is all it takes.
 
Here’s some numbers from yesterday’s flight.
ROP. I followed the power chart for 65% but without compensation for air temp, so it was running at 55%
This is a stock fish mouth turbo Lance.

4fb111328be86d056b6b15cc68db486d.jpg

edef64df60e42d84bb7e3d67b1d249d7.jpg

42a80b14b6decf1df12ef7f6db9f2240.jpg
 
What’ll it do at 81% for you? You are not even into the turbo at 21”. What were you showing on the steam gauge ASI?
 
What’ll it do at 81% for you? You are not even into the turbo at 21”. What were you showing on the steam gauge ASI?

120 indicated.
Not sure what the speed would be. I ran it at 31 - 33” all the way up to 15k

Here’s a question. The 430 asks for CAS to do the calculation. Is that the same as IAS or is it IAS compensating for temperature (ie the window on the airspeed indicator).
 
120 indicated.
Not sure what the speed would be. I ran it at 31 - 33” all the way up to 15k

Here’s a question. The 430 asks for CAS to do the calculation. Is that the same as IAS or is it IAS compensating for temperature (ie the window on the airspeed indicator).
CAS at standard day and sea level is the same as TAS and KIAS generally. CAS is a correction for installation error. Generally, cas is within a knot or three of Indicated and it not so much of an important number unless you are over 10k and pushing serious speed aka turbo prop or better... Or a Lancair!

Next time you are up, run it 2400/30” and lean of peak if you can and rich of peak so we can compare notes. I have found this setting to be where my plane likes it for speed vs economy. If I start to get hot, I’ll push in 50 more rpm and pull back the throttle a half inch. When I gotta get there now....2575 and 29” gets my 160 true above 10k. I saw just over 200ks GS once and it was very satisfying to see on the display!
 
Wow, these planes are hot commodities! Just heard back on 2nd plane and it's already under contract. Guess you have to jump on them quick....the search continues.
Good PA32's at the right price have never been hard to move. It is an extremely popular airframe.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
What’ll it do at 81% for you? You are not even into the turbo at 21”. What were you showing on the steam gauge ASI?

@ 15,000 feet indicated? Std Ambient pressure at 15K is circa 15" Hg. I'd say he's loafing it, but certainly well "into the turbo".
 
@ 15,000 feet indicated? Std Ambient pressure at 15K is circa 15" Hg. I'd say he's loafing it, but certainly well "into the turbo".

Agree - 21” is about What I can get at wide open at 9,500’.

Okay, so I’m still struggling here. Looks like you’re getting 150 knots indicated at 15,000’ in a turbo lance running 16.6 gallons an hour. That must be ROP? All lances are retract, right?

I guess what I’m surprised by is that this is actually less efficient on a per-mile basis than my NA, fixed-gear, draggy-@ss 205. Granted, I’m going slower, but you have the benefit of retracts, high altitude, and the turbo, so I’m surprised the per-mile fuel burn isn’t relatively lower.
 
FWIW.....in 4-5 years, if not now, those kids will not want their legs touching.....that's where standard seating shines. Also, you'll get more use out of the space behind the pilot's seats with the standard arrangement.

something to think about.....;)

here are some pics of my trip to OSH a few years ago...I was a PAX in the back of a Lance. ;)
Nice Lance... :)
 
You can have mine, but I want top retail for it.
 
You can have mine, but I want top retail for it.
Yeah but a turbo lance crashed yesterday, I want 40K off those death traps! (too soon?:eek:)

LOL hurry up, this offer won't last long.....:D
upload_2019-1-29_8-55-25.png
 
Back
Top