Tell me why I don't want a t-tail turbo lance

[cowman]

I'm window shopping... and probably will continue to be window shopping for some time for something with a larger cabin and preferably a little more speed over my Archer. The Archer works for pretty much all the flying I'm doing now, but can't do a lot of the trips I'd like to do. It's frequently come up that other couples are interested in going to some of the places we go and I get their weights, do the math, and have to find a polite way of telling them they're too fat. Well actually fuel to tabs and no bags and we could.... but that's a hell of a way to try to travel across the country. Also their kids couldn't come which is an issue.

There's also a space issue. We take our dogs some places we go and with their crates and our bags, the cabin is FULL. Weight isn't an issue here but volume is. We're talking about having a baby in the next year or two.... there'd be no place for a car seat and baby accessories so either the dogs stay home or we do without crates(which I don't feel is safe with dogs that like to try to crawl in your lap at inconvenient moments). I wouldn't mind being able to throw full size bikes in the back either which I think is possible in a PA-32...

So I'd been looking at the six 260... mainly because it's the cheapest six to get into and for the days when I didn't use the extra capacity they fuel burn isn't too much worse than what I have. Then I had to look... for not much more money I could be in a Lance instead and go faster. Then of course we get to the topic here... I see some T-tail turbo lances for sale for maybe $10-20k more than the 260 and I could be cruising at 170kts instead of an optimistic 130.

2 issues that worry me though... the T-tail and the turbo. I have been told that turbo aircraft break down frequently. I know TBO is shorter, I'm less worried about that than getting stranded on ramps in the middle of nowhere on a sunday evening or having to drop a lot more cash on maintenance in a typical year. I guess how unreliable are they is the question.

Then there's the T-tail. My reading says the biggest issue is poor elevator authority on takoff/landing and longer ground rolls. Hard for me to get a feel for what that is like without having flown one. I guess I'll frame it in a question for those who have- I frequently fly to K15, this field is a 3200x60 runway with obstacles within around 300' off each end of the runway- trees on one end and the town on the other, light-moderate crosswinds are common. Not hard to get in/out of in the Archer.... still plenty of runway if I come in a bit fast or something. I know any PA-32 can operate here but how challenging would it be? Is it a you need to be totally on airspeed and touchdown point or go-around situation or do you still have some decent fudge factor still?

 

[Ted]

Those engines have a lot of issues. Most of it is that they tend to run hot (poor cooling and power settings used). They'll also burn a lot of fuel, around 20 GPH. The engines become more MX hogs (again, turbo). The 170 kts also sounds a bit optimistic, unless you're running it pretty hard. I could be wrong, but I thought that it was more common to see somewhere in the 160s.

I realize that Ted saying "buy a twin" is about as reliable as the sun rising, but if you want the space of a turbo Lance, there are twins you can buy that would have a likely equal or lower purchase price, and I'd expect operating costs not much different. Short nose 310, Aztec, Baron, even a Seneca (granted you get into turbos with a Seneca II+) all represent good aircraft with decent examples available at under $100k. Twinkie might also be a contender, but may be a bit small. Getting 20 GPH on any of those is very doable.

 

[Mistake Not...]

Go ahead, laugh... but I wouldn't want to wash it.

 

[James331]

Why not get a U206

 

[DGlaeser]

The T-tail does takeoff and land differently. It is smaller and not in the prop wash, so it doesn't become effective on takeoff until something like 85-90 kias (working from memory - a chancy proposition at best). Once you are in the air, there is no difference. It is a nice flying plane. Don't recall cruising speed.
On landing, if you touch down too slow, the nose comes down 'right NOW' due to the lack of elevator authority. You can fly the approach at normal and even slow speeds just fine, it is the post touchdown nose plant that is different. Come in and touch down around 90, no problem - but that does take more runway.
The turbo engine does need to be operated properly. The one I flew (a 'few' years back) was fairly low time so never encountered any issues. Unless you routinely fly high, a turbo is not a great choice for efficiency (fuel burn).

 

[AdamZ]

Aborted three take offs in a T-Tail Lance as the nose did NOT want to come off the ground. Required a heck of a lot of aft trim. We saw about 150kts in cruise. Other than that I agree with pretty much everything Dennis said.

 

[eman1200]

I have a very small amount of time in a non-turbo t-tail lance. it is close to a 150kt traveling beast. cruise fuel burn was around 16ish, I know you can do better but I never went LOP. if I had the cash it's a no brainer between an archer and the lance. I was a bit nervous getting into that thing with all the t-tail hate talk but I didn't notice any major difference in 'normal' flight. but I didn't get to test it out on shorter runways. I always took off and landed on rwys that were plenty long. that being said, I never had any issues making the turnoff that I just measured at 2600'. I love being able to open those back doors, throw in a set of golf clubs or two without even thinking about it and freaking blasting off somewhere.

 

[eman1200]

btw, have you sat in one yet?

 

[Fearless Tower]

The T-tail does takeoff and land differently. It is smaller and not in the prop wash, so it doesn't become effective on takeoff until something like 85-90 kias (working from memory - a chancy proposition at best). Once you are in the air, there is no difference. It is a nice flying plane. Don't recall cruising speed.
On landing, if you touch down too slow, the nose comes down 'right NOW' due to the lack of elevator authority. You can fly the approach at normal and even slow speeds just fine, it is the post touchdown nose plant that is different. Come in and touch down around 90, no problem - but that does take more runway.
The turbo engine does need to be operated properly. The one I flew (a 'few' years back) was fairly low time so never encountered any issues. Unless you routinely fly high, a turbo is not a great choice for efficiency (fuel burn).

Agree with most of this. The T-tail gets a bad rap, but just needs to be respected. You can still get into a 3000' runway fine. It's really not hard to fly, but it isn't a Bonanza.

The turbo is handy if you fly in the mountains out west. Otherwise, it isn't worth the extra fuel burn and overhaul cost (the TIO-540 is one of the more expensive engines to overhaul). That said, I'm not familiar with the maintenance issues that Ted refers to. My dad has had his PA32RT since 1980 and never had an issue with the engine. But you probably won't be flying LOP. The engine needs all that fuel for cooling.

It's a great airplane, and don't let the T-tail rep scare you off. Bigger question is do you really need the turbo? I think 160, maybe 165 in cruise burning around 20 gph is what you should expect.

If you are seriously interested, shoot me a PM. My dad is going to be selling his soon.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Aborted three take offs in a T-Tail Lance as the nose did NOT want to come off the ground. Required a heck of a lot of aft trim.

That sounds strange. The nose is heavy, but I've never had that experience flying my dad's.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Why not get a U206

They're a lot more expensive.

 

[mulligan]

Because you can buy my T206H instead

 

[Unit74]

If you want to fly one, come down to Coastal GA. I was gonna fly today but, uh, well, um, let's just say something better landed in my lap. Literally.


I flight plan for 155kts, burn about 20 gph, rotate at 80kts, come across the fence at 80kts. It does like some runway for sure. It does run hot all the time. Heat management is my biggest challenge. On take off, lots of nose up trim is required. It likes to jump into the air. Climb out I look for about 500-700 to keep the CHTs down

In the air it feels like a Piper. It handles the bumps much better that the Archer does. The cockpit is very wide and spacious. My wife loves it over the Archer.


Having been in your exact situation, and having to do it again, I'd buy the non turbo. I won't say I regret it, but I really struggle with temp management and am paranoid about roasting the engine.

I will say this though. I don't usually putts around. When I fly, it's XC. Once I get into some cool air, I can point it to the moon and climb 1k min. I haven't had it over 13k, but the turbo performance is very, very nice to have. After my annual in Dec, I plan on buying a Mtn High O2D2 and seing what I can really do.

Like I said, if you want a no pressure opportunity to see if it's for you, C'mon out and we will get you in the left seat of a turbo T tail Lance.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I realize that Ted saying "buy a twin" is about as reliable as the sun rising, but if you want the space of a turbo Lance, there are twins you can buy that would have a likely equal or lower purchase price, and I'd expect operating costs not much different. Short nose 310, Aztec, Baron, even a Seneca (granted you get into turbos with a Seneca II+) all represent good aircraft with decent examples available at under $100k. Twinkie might also be a contender, but may be a bit small. Getting 20 GPH on any of those is very doable.

A Twinkie isn't going to hold the load a Lance will.

But, Ted does have a point. The reason I bought my Baron instead of inheriting the Lance is that I could haul just as much stuff 20 kts faster for just a few gallons more per hour, plus I had twin redundancy.

That said, I won't try to pretend that maintenance or insurance cost for a Baron is as cheap as it is for a Lance.

 

[Unit74]

Go ahead, laugh... but I wouldn't want to wash it.

That's what IMC is for silly. But, I do have a 10 ft ladder in the hangar. Only use WashWax though. Plane hasn't seen a hose this year.

 

[James331]

If you want to fly one, come down to Coastal GA. I was gonna fly today but, uh, well, um, let's just say something better landed in my lap. Literally.


I flight plan for 155kts, burn about 20 gph, rotate at 80kts, come across the fence at 80kts. It does like some runway for sure. It does run hot all the time. Heat management is my biggest challenge. On take off, lots of nose up trim is required. It likes to jump into the air. Climb out I look for about 500-700 to keep the CHTs down

In the air it feels like a Piper. It handles the bumps much better that the Archer does. The cockpit is very wide and spacious. My wife loves it over the Archer.


Having been in your exact situation, and having to do it again, I'd buy the non turbo. I won't say I regret it, but I really struggle with temp management and am paranoid about roasting the engine.

I will say this though. I don't usually putts around. When I fly, it's XC. Once I get into some cool air, I can point it to the moon and climb 1k min. I haven't had it over 13k, but the turbo performance is very, very nice to have. After my annual in Dec, I plan on buying a Mtn High O2D2 and seing what I can really do.

Like I said, if you want a no pressure opportunity to see if it's for you, C'mon out and we will get you in the left seat of a turbo T tail Lance.

If he's a normal sized human, a 185 will match those cruise numbers, with MUCH lower takeoff and landing numbers, if it fits it ships, and they'll do anything you ask them to do.

But again, more spendy, maybe even a hair over a 206, but they are quick on the 8.5 mains, and open up lots of options when you don't need a "airport".

Also a 185 has a lot less mx compared to a turbo lance

 

[Unit74]

Aborted three take offs in a T-Tail Lance as the nose did NOT want to come off the ground. Required a heck of a lot of aft trim. We saw about 150kts in cruise. Other than that I agree with pretty much everything Dennis said.

Yep. Take off trim is absolutely required. You will needs 4 hands on the yoke and feet firmly planted otherwise. It's in the POH.

 

[Unit74]

Why not get a U206

I was on the fence. Dollars to doughnuts, just don't like the looks of the high wings, club seating is very nice and ease of entry for Pax. Otherwise I actually looked at both and hummed N hawed for a bit over it.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Having been in your exact situation, and having to do it again, I'd buy the non turbo. I won't say I regret it, but I really struggle with temp management and am paranoid about roasting the engine.

Out of curiosity, considering where you are based, why did you opt for the turbo?

 

[Ted]

That said, I'm not familiar with the maintenance issues that Ted refers to. My dad has had his PA32RT since 1980 and never had an issue with the engine. But you probably won't be flying LOP. The engine needs all that fuel for cooling.

My observations with most single engine turbo Lycomings is that there seem to be a decent number of issues that occur. I don't know why this tends to be related to singles in the Lycoming world. One theory could be that most Lycoming twins are Navajos. Not only are those probably the best engines Lycoming ever built, but they are typically operated by professionals and on a "fuel is cheap, engines are expensive" mantra. I suspect that most people who are operating these turbo singles are operating them at 75% power and either not enough ROP, or not properly LOP.

Your dad probably is operating his very well, hence the good reliability.

A Twinkie isn't going to hold the load a Lance will.

But, Ted does have a point. The reason I bought my Baron instead of inheriting the Lance is that I could haul just as much stuff 20 kts faster for just a few gallons more per hour, plus I had twin redundancy.

That said, I won't try to pretend that maintenance or insurance cost for a Baron is as cheap as it is for a Lance.

I wouldn't expect the Twinkie to be a serious contender for that particular mission, just pointing out the light twins that could do a similar job potentially. I tend to think the 310/Baron/Aztec are the best choices.

Regarding MX, when I compare the Aztec and 310 to turbo singles of my friends, it seems that the Aztec and 310 tend to cost about the same per mile. I've typically attributed it to LOP operation vs. ROP on fuel burn, and then also pretty strict management of the shop who does the work with a decent amount of owner involvement. Having never owned a piston single myself, though, it is harder to do a full apples to apples comparison for me. When I compare my numbers to others with the same planes, my numbers tend to be lower, too.

 

[denverpilot]

Can't speak to the mx issues, but the t-tail thing is no big deal. I don't LIKE the t-tail on the Seminole when loaded nose-heavy, but you get used to it. Just yank and it'll go wherever you want it to in pitch. Just feels wrong until you do it a bunch.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I suspect that most people who are operating these turbo singles are operating them at 75% power and either not enough ROP, or not properly LOP.

Your dad probably is operating his very well, hence the good reliability.

You are probably right. The thing about the TIO-540 in the Lance is that it kind of forces you to operate it sufficiently ROP in order to keep the CHTs cool enough. I could see how if you tried to follow some arbitrary POH power setting numbers without paying attention to what the engine was trying to tell you, it probably wouldn't translate to long engine life...

 

[cowman]

Hmm, didn't think about the extra fuel burn... but yeah more air in would mean more fuel duh. I think I prefer an NA straight tail but I cruise trade a plane and the other sites a lot and it's clear being flexible on these things gives me more options. Don't need more speed but... who doesn't like more speed? I haven't really ruled out anything but I'm about 90% sure a PA-32 is the right direction. I've thought about a twin but then not only do I have the twin mx and fuel burn I've also got to get a new rating.... which I guess could be fun but IDK if it really makes sense.

No, I haven't had the chance to sit in one, would be nice. I've seen them on the ramp and been nosy but never closer than that. I gotta find more local or semi-local flying friends who have access to these sorts of things. All my time is either in my Archer or one of two rental skyhawks.

Not ready to put down any cash today but I recently got some good financial news that will mean I'll have it at some point in the next few months. I still want to finish my IFR in the Archer and since I have a perfectly workable airplane there's no rush.. but I want to be ready when the perfect one comes along. I saw a possibly perfect one listed a month or so ago and now it's gone... I wasn't ready

My general requirements are that it be low-mid time and have a certified garmin WAAS gps... probably a 430w/530w but one of the new gtn series is fine too and that it has gps steering and at least a wing leveler autopilot. I also think I'd prefer the club seating. Beyond these requirements and the extra space/people carrying ability I'm just looking for the most speed and reliability for the $ I can get. If a gorgeous fixed gear PA-32 with everything shows up for the right price... I'm not opposed.

 

[weilke]

'cause its ugly as sin.

 

[Unit74]

Out of curiosity, considering where you are based, why did you opt for the turbo?

Cuz I had a transfer to Grand Junction, Co and was just waiting till the kids got out of school. Then these sum beeches promoted me (foolish them) and we moved to GA last month.

I was looking for the right airframe and this one popped up. I really didn't want to go Turbo, but the price and my pending new locale sold me.

Once up over 6k or so, this plane will get with it. Last week I was climbing out to 11.5 from 7 and was seeing about 1300fpm at 105kts with fuel fuel and 80lbs in aft baggage for balance. I was like, yea buddy. Let's do this. Grabbed a 30kt tailwind in cruise and had 190kts ground speed at 2300/24" or so. I was messing with configurations to see where I'd like to run it. I have not cruised it above 65% as of yet.

I dumped $20k into it this year in MX and mostly avionics upgrades so I'm feeling the pinch in the flight account. its against the rules to upgrade a plane, I know, but I decided this was going to be my long term plane. I am considering buying a C150 to piddle puddle around with. Just don't tell her because she will be ****ssssed.

I have a Icarus SAM GPSS on the shelf waiting to be installed as well, but me thinks that will be in spring. Currently, it has a GTN 650, PMA 450A, GTx345, FS210, SL30, EDM830 and WX10A

Cowboy..... Where you lay your head? Might be going to MO next week for a meeting.

 

[cowman]

I'm based at UIN, what part of MO you headed to?

 

[Unit74]

Right now Springfield. There are like 10 of us going so I may be forced into commercial, but I'm gonna play the card and see.

 

[cowman]

PM me if you end up going. I could grab a friend and make a $100 hamburger run out of it.

 

[Pilawt]

Never flew a Lance, but I have a lot of Saratoga time, turbo and NA. The interior (see below) is wonderful for big families and long trips, as we experienced. Mrs. Pilawt often says that if money were no object, that's what we would own. (Of course, she is quick to remind me that money is an object.)

Handling is not as crisp as a Bonanza -- more like a Buick station wagon, a big, sloppy, friendly St. Bernard of an airplane.

If you're interested in a Turbo PA-32R, look for one with the TurboPlus intercooler STC mod.

 

[pigpenracing]

My neighbor has a non turbo Lance he may sell...

 

[Dr. O]

Tell me why I don't want a t-tail turbo lance
uuuh, maybe because you would like to remain solvent?
My mechanic worships the turbo owners in this area.
Says he prays every night for more turbo airplanes - something to do with a $100 an hour for shop time

 

[pigpenracing]

Tell me why I don't want a t-tail turbo lance
uuuh, maybe because you would like to remain solvent?
My mechanic worships the turbo owners in this area.
Says he prays every night for more turbo airplanes - something to do with a $100 an hour for shop time

Glad my mechanic isn't a crook.

 

[DGlaeser]

One other recommendation for all the Piper 6 place singles: put a 100 lb bag of sand in the baggage area (unless you are filling the plane up with other things obviously). With just 2 up front you are at, or in some cases even forward of the forward CG limit (a/c specific of course). Takeoffs and landings are MUCH different if you do this - for the better.

 

[labbadabba]

Why not get a U206

If he's looking in the range of a PA32-260 I'm not sure any of the 206's that are in decent shape would fit the bill. There's a pretty good $$ premium on the 206's.

 

[Cavorter]

I don't really understand all the turbo hate. I've only ever owned planes with turbos. I've never had any expensive issues. I always fly ROP with CHT's at below 380 F and fly the recommended power settings or lower and let the turbos cool before shutting off. Maybe those who have issues are abusing the engine?

 

[GRG55]

...I wouldn't expect the Twinkie to be a serious contender for that particular mission, just pointing out the light twins that could do a similar job potentially. I tend to think the 310/Baron/Aztec are the best choices.

Regarding MX, when I compare the Aztec and 310 to turbo singles of my friends, it seems that the Aztec and 310 tend to cost about the same per mile. I've typically attributed it to LOP operation vs. ROP on fuel burn, and then also pretty strict management of the shop who does the work with a decent amount of owner involvement. Having never owned a piston single myself, though, it is harder to do a full apples to apples comparison for me. When I compare my numbers to others with the same planes, my numbers tend to be lower, too.

I had a series of naturally aspirated Piper singles before the Aztec. The fixed gear singles were less expensive, but MX for the Arrow is comparable to what I am dealing with in the Aztec - however, the fuel burn/useful load/range and speed were measurably less than the Aztec.

My Aztec seems considerably less expensive to maintain than every one of the turbo singles flown by the folks I know that own them at my regional airport. I am stunned at the huge bills they all seem to have incurred for engine work over the years (it does not seem to matter - Mooney, Piper, Cessna) but the overwhelming majority of these including the T-Arrows are equipped with Continentals. I think your point about the way they are flown has a lot to do with it.

Hmm, didn't think about the extra fuel burn... but yeah more air in would mean more fuel duh. I think I prefer an NA straight tail but I cruise trade a plane and the other sites a lot and it's clear being flexible on these things gives me more options. Don't need more speed but... who doesn't like more speed? I haven't really ruled out anything but I'm about 90% sure a PA-32 is the right direction. I've thought about a twin but then not only do I have the twin mx and fuel burn I've also got to get a new rating.... which I guess could be fun but IDK if it really makes sense.

...

That extra speed in a Piper comes at a significant cost. Piper (and Cessna) airframes are not that clean, parasitic drag increases with the square of velocity, so that extra speed is a real fuel consumer. In most GA planes the turbochargers are good for high altitude climb (getting over the rocks in the west, for example), not so much for increased speed. If you really want speed stick with a cleaner aeroplane with a narrow fuselage like a Mooney or perhaps a Bonanza. If you must have that speed at high altitude get one of these with a turbocharger (Tornado Alley is one of the more common Bo retrofits).

But before you make that decision, run some tabletop sample cross country flights at the different real world cruise speeds of these different aeroplanes and you will find the total in transit time isn't a whole lot more for a plane that travels 15 or 20 knots slower. Range to avoid fuel stops is more important to me for minimising transit time on long cross country flights, and that translates into a need for high useful load - can you carry full tanks and still have enough left over for a decent people/baggage payload?

To Ted's point, even though I live in the west and regularly cross the Rockies (and other ranges) to the coast, I decided on a naturally aspirated Aztec to keep the maintenance and fuel costs manageable and have absolutely no regrets with that decision (except secretly I would really, really like to go higher and fly faster )

 

[Ted]

To Ted's point, even though I live in the west and regularly cross the Rockies (and other ranges) to the coast, I decided on a naturally aspirated Aztec to keep the maintenance and fuel costs manageable and have absolutely no regrets with that decision (except secretly I would really, really like to go higher and fly faster )

When I bought the Aztec, I bought naturally aspirated figuring I wouldn't use the turbos. Seeing how my flying worked out, I was mostly right. There were times where turbos would've been helpful, but really for the most part I didn't need them. Turbo Aztecs are not great examples of turbo planes anyway and are known for their own issues, plus very high fuel burns. I felt similarly with the 310.

The move to the 414 was driven by proximity to the Rockies (and wanting to be able to do trips that a naturally aspirated twin was not as well suited for relating to them big rocks) and also the extra space. Really, the extra space was the big driver, but it's hard to get extra space in this situation without going to turbocharged engines. And to me, it's silly to have turbos without pressurization if you're going into that size class.

 

[Cpt_Kirk]

I have no T-tail Lane experience, but I do have straight-tail NA Lance and turbocharged Saratoga experience and if I needed an airplane to haul a load in as well a travel a distance, it would be a Lance/Saratoga. Like the great USPS once said, "If it fits, it ships" and that was pretty much my approach to W&B in that airplane. I was never close to having any issues with either when I ran the numbers.

-With full tanks (100 gal), I planned on a 5-hour flying limit with a landing occurring at a maximum of 4 hours, if I needed any reason to go that far. Believe it or not but the fuel gauges were really accurate in this particular airplane.
-I never once had any issues related to the turbocharging system (I only have about 100hours in the airplane).
-Even with the airplane being based in the SE, I used the turbocharger on every flight to get me above most weather and to go fast.
-I'd push it and true out at 160-170 with approx. 20gph on the burn depending on load (I believe it had all of the LoPresti speed mods...)
-It was equipped with O2 and I would use it when I needed.
-I would see approx. 1,500fpm on the initial climb with full tanks and just myself using climb power (limited to 5 mins).
-Using max. continuous power and with varying loads, I would plan on 500-1000fpm all the way up to altitude.
-This particular Saratoga was equipped with an intercooler.
-I had bad temperate probes, but no overheating issues in climb or cruise.

I don't know the intricacies of the T-tail, but I can tell you that I wouldn't have any problems making a 3,000' field in the Saratoga. I didn't have any issues taking off and landing at KFUL in the NA Lance either. If you want to land it slow and with the stall horn, you will lose sight of the runway with the long nose and high approach attitude. Because of this, you will, unfortunately, see a lot of pilots landing fast and flat and using more runway than they really need (in Saratoga's).

If you do want the turbocharged option, be sure you have the engine properly tuned and within all tolerances as well as proper engine instruments in the panel. You'd definitely want a JPI or EI engine monitor. On top of that, you would need to do a lot of research and educate yourself on proper engine management. It's not difficult once you truly know what you're doing but take care of your engine because it's what's taking care of you.

The tapered wing flies a lot better than the "Hershey bar" wing. Not sure if the T-tail lance has two different models.

Yeah, it flew like a truck but I sure loved that airplane. The space was wonderful.

*This is only coming from someone who's flown a similar model. I don't own, nor have owned and airplane either. Feel free to disregard anything I've written.

 

[N747JB]

I don't really understand all the turbo hate. I've only ever owned planes with turbos. I've never had any expensive issues. I always fly ROP with CHT's at below 380 F and fly the recommended power settings or lower and let the turbos cool before shutting off. Maybe those who have issues are abusing the engine?

Two 414A's and a 421B, I never spent a dime on the engines other than routine maintenance. A lot of engine issues are caused by the operator, turbo or not.

 

[Pilawt]

The tapered wing flies a lot better than the "Hershey bar" wing. Not sure if the T-tail lance has two different models.

The T-tail was only sold on the '78-'79 Lance II, with Hershey-bar wings. Piper did fly a prototype PA-32RT-301T "Turbo Lance III" with T-tail and tapered wing, planned for the 1980 model year. But they decided to return to the low tail instead, and renamed it "Saratoga".