Used Twin Price

[hindsight2020]

You're doing something wrong, or something is wrong with your plane, if you're only getting 135kts TRUE airspeed out of a Turbo Lance.

That's after pulling back to 29"/2400rpm and LOP at 14gph - his point is that you don't have to run it balls out (160 knots) if you're not in a hurry.

It's actually pretty crappy, that's fixed gear -300 speeds on similar gas. The real reason for the differential has to do with the cylinder compression ratio differences between the turbo and NA 540 engines, plus the bonehead move of using fuel to cool the engine. The NA Lance does 145-150KTAS on 14GPH by comparison, a power setting that can be sustained to 10Kish density altitudes at even sedate (2400RPM) prop settings. Similar dynamics exist with the Turbo Arrow and NA Arrow. Basically, turbo boosted (not to be confused with normalized) cylinders are much less efficient than the NA variants.

This is overcome in the turbos by going high enough to compensate for the poor fuel usage. In the aggregate a Turbo Lance is faster than a NA Lance. But it's not faster on a per gallon basis at altitudes where the NA engine can attain the selected power setting. This is compatible with what @Unit74 is witnessing with his Turbo Lance. I still think his is on the slower side of things for a Turbo Lance, compression ratio issues notwithstanding.

 

[Unit74]

What’s the actual useful load on your T-Lance?

Just curious. Never flown one. But I like trucks. Ha.

1254

 

[denverpilot]

1254

Interesting. You’re only a little over 100 lbs higher than our 182. We’re 1133. 653 if we fill the long range tanks.

 

[Unit74]

But I have 6 seats!

 

[denverpilot]

But I have 6 seats!

That’s what I found interesting!

I can also get a 150 lb increase in MGTOW for a few hundred bucks.

You must have to be pretty conscientious of fuel loading to get six adults on board, eh? Will it stay in CG?

 

[Fearless Tower]

Will it stay in CG?

That’s a trick question, right?

It’s a high performance Piper. They go out of CG just sitting on the ramp!

 

[hindsight2020]

That’s a trick question, right?

It’s a high performance Piper. They go out of CG just sitting on the ramp!

Huh? Lance/Six CG shift is pretty stout. The only place where they get marginal is two fatties up front and nothing else but fuel on board, especially the T-tail. Other than that you'd be hard pressed to throw a Lance out of aft CG.

 

[GRG55]

That’s a trick question, right?

It’s a high performance Piper. They go out of CG just sitting on the ramp!

I've owned 5 Pipers. With the notable exclusions of the Super Cub (at one end of the flight envelope) and the Meridian/M600 (at the other end) the words "high performance" and "Piper" do not belong in the same paragraph.

As for CG envelope I never found any of my Cherokees or the Aztec particularly CG sensitive to loading. The biggest issue in all of mine was/is flying solo means having to throw some weight in the aft baggage to move the CG back a bit.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Huh? Lance/Six CG shift is pretty stout. The only place where they get marginal is two fatties up front and nothing else but fuel on board, especially the T-tail. Other than that you'd be hard pressed to throw a Lance out of aft CG.

I was exaggerating slightly. But overall, that has not been my experience in PA32s (turbo lance or Cherokee 6 300). The Piper W&B envelopes are some of the most restrictive I’ve come across. I can load a Cessna or Beech and if it fits, it’s probably within CG, but you have to be more mindful with Pipers.

But the PA32s aren’t as bad as the PA46 envelope. That thing is downright stupid. You can load a Malibu with the CG out of the forward limit on takeoff and be outside of the rear limit on landing if you aren’t careful.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I've owned 5 Pipers. With the notable exclusions of the Super Cub (at one end of the flight envelope) and the Meridian/M600 (at the other end) the words "high performance" and "Piper" do not belong in the same paragraph.

As for CG envelope I never found any of my Cherokees or the Aztec particularly CG sensitive to loading. The biggest issue in all of mine was/is flying solo means having to throw some weight in the aft baggage to move the CG back a bit.

I was mostly referring to the PA32 and PA46

 

[denverpilot]

Ha. I didn’t know Lance CG was a hot topic.

Apologies for hijacking the thread. I’ve just always been curious about them.

Seem popular when you need more seats and there’s not a lot of options for that many seats at lower price points.

 

[mtuomi]

I was exaggerating slightly. But overall, that has not been my experience in PA32s (turbo lance or Cherokee 6 300). The Piper W&B envelopes are some of the most restrictive I’ve come across. I can load a Cessna or Beech and if it fits, it’s probably within CG, but you have to be more mindful with Pipers.

But the PA32s aren’t as bad as the PA46 envelope. That thing is downright stupid. You can load a Malibu with the CG out of the forward limit on takeoff and be outside of the rear limit on landing if you aren’t careful.

A36 Beech is probably one of the trickiest planes to load... Put 2 people in the back before anyone in the front and things get expensive.

 

[Fearless Tower]

A36 Beech is probably one of the trickiest planes to load... Put 2 people in the back before anyone in the front and things get expensive.

True, but the Malibu is even worse.

I recently had a trip where I had the ‘Bu loaded and I was pulling chocks before getting in. Seeing the nose strut fully extended and knowing I still needed to climb into the airplane was a bit unnerving.

 

[GRG55]

True, but the Malibu is even worse.

I recently had a trip where I had the ‘Bu loaded and I was pulling chocks before getting in. Seeing the nose strut fully extended and knowing I still needed to climb into the airplane was a bit unnerving.

I can just imagine that situation. Only the thin and svelte (and agile!) can squeeze into those two front seats. Whereas that right rear is perfect for Bubba.

 

[GRG55]

A36 Beech is probably one of the trickiest planes to load... Put 2 people in the back before anyone in the front and things get expensive.

I've always been under the impression the Bo 36's were trickier to W&B load than any of the Cherokee Six derivatives. But must confess have never ever been responsible for loading the latter.

 

[mtuomi]

I've always been under the impression the Bo 36's were trickier to W&B load than any of the Cherokee Six derivatives. But must confess have never ever been responsible for loading the latter.

Cherokee Six/derivatives are very easy to load. Only thing is that you can load them out from the front with 2 heavy guys in the front and full fuel. Case of oil in the back, and you can load it with whatever you can fit in there. Bo's are very finicky in that respect.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Cherokee Six/derivatives are very easy to load. Only thing is that you can load them out from the front with 2 heavy guys in the front and full fuel. Case of oil in the back, and you can load it with whatever you can fit in there. Bo's are very finicky in that respect.

Having flown both ai disagree. You have to be mindful with both, but the forward slope of the PA32s is more restrictive than the BE36. It’s easier to load a PA32 out of forward CG than a 36

 

[Ken Ibold]

That's after pulling back to 29"/2400rpm and LOP at 14gph - his point is that you don't have to run it balls out (160 knots) if you're not in a hurry.

There's still something off here. My two NA Lances would do 150+ kts on 14 gph at about 65% power at 8000 ft.

 

[Fearless Tower]

There's still something off here. My two NA Lances would do 150+ kts on 14 gph at about 65% power at 8000 ft.

Yes, but those are NA Lances. The Turbo is a fuel hog.

 

[Unit74]

Having flown both ai disagree. You have to be mindful with both, but the forward slope of the PA32s is more restrictive than the BE36. It’s easier to load a PA32 out of forward CG than a 36

I don't know what your flying resume looks like, but my first thought when I read this last string was you have no idea what you are talking about. I load to gross quite often and with nose baggage, full fuel, it's simple to balance. Not to mention that as the bo burns gas, you run out of aft CG quickly with no way to solve. That is the only reason I did not buy one. The Beech is a 4 place with bags a full fuel.

 

[Unit74]

There's still something off here. My two NA Lances would do 150+ kts on 14 gph at about 65% power at 8000 ft.

What will it do at 17k feet?

 

[Unit74]

Cherokee Six/derivatives are very easy to load. Only thing is that you can load them out from the front with 2 heavy guys in the front and full fuel. Case of oil in the back, and you can load it with whatever you can fit in there. Bo's are very finicky in that respect.

That's what I do.....oil, jumper cables, misc cleaning stuff in aft baggage. Does require about 2/3 nose up trim for take off too.

 

[Unit74]

Huh? Lance/Six CG shift is pretty stout. The only place where they get marginal is two fatties up front and nothing else but fuel on board, especially the T-tail. Other than that you'd be hard pressed to throw a Lance out of aft CG.

Word.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I don't know what your flying resume looks like, but my first thought when I read this last string was you have no idea what you are talking about. I load to gross quite often and with nose baggage, full fuel, it's simple to balance. Not to mention that as the bo burns gas, you run out of aft CG quickly with no way to solve. That is the only reason I did not buy one. The Beech is a 4 place with bags a full fuel.

My dad owns a Turbo Lance II (had it since 1980). I’ve flown that and I used to fly my family around in fixed gear PA32-300s.

The singles I currently fly for work are SR22s, PA46s and a G36.

Here is the CG envelope for a Turbo Lance II:

The forward CG slope is steeper than any of the other airplanes I’ve flown. At gross weight, you only have a 3.5 inch range for CG and it’s all aft.

Here is CG envelope for a recent G36 trip I did.

The forward slope is not as significant and you have 6.4 inch (almost double the Lance) available range in CG at GW.

I’ve been in several situations in the PA32 where I literally couldn’t put anything in the nose baggage because it would have put me too far forward out of CG.

Don’t be offended. I’m not saying Pipers are bad airplanes or the BE36 is better (if you see my comments in another recent thread, you’ll see I’m not a huge fan of the 36). Just pointing out that the CG envelopes for Pipers like the PA32 and PA46 are not as generous as other manufactures.

 

[Unit74]

Im not offend as I can't be, as I fully researched before I bought a Lance. Actually, I had to force myself to buy a Lance and not cave into a Bo. My load out was not possible in any of the sub $150k exemplars. When I tried to load both planes, the nose baggage on the Lance meant I could pull the aft CG in quite nicely where as the Bo meant people or bags left behind.

As to the turbo, I really didn't want one, but I was looking at moving to Grand Junction with regular flights to SoCal and this plane fell in my lap. The panel sold the plane. Well, that move didn't pan out and I still have the plane, so I gotta "run what I brung" and those are my numbers. I'm not surprises an NA is faster down low because those low comp pistons gotta push more fuel to get the same results. But my XC up high is awesome. Very little traffic and ground speed makes up for the lack of being a bonanza. Just sucks peter pudding around and I don't really do any patch work unless I have to.

Kinda like waliking in to look at a Lexus IS350 but ending up with a Toyota Sienna........yes, that's a true story too.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Im not offend as I can't be, as I fully researched before I bought a Lance. Actually, I had to force myself to buy a Lance and not cave into a Bo. My load out was not possible in any of the sub $150k exemplars. When I tried to load both planes, the nose baggage on the Lance meant I could pull the aft CG in quite nicely where as the Bo meant people or bags left behind.

As to the turbo, I really didn't want one, but I was looking at moving to Grand Junction with regular flights to SoCal and this plane fell in my lap. The panel sold the plane. Well, that move didn't pan out and I still have the plane, so I gotta "run what I brung" and those are my numbers. I'm not surprises an NA is faster down low because those low comp pistons gotta push more fuel to get the same results. But my XC up high is awesome. Very little traffic and ground speed makes up for the lack of being a bonanza. Just sucks peter pudding around and I don't really do any patch work unless I have to.

Kinda like waliking in to look at a Lexus IS350 but ending up with a Toyota Sienna........yes, that's a true story too.

Understand. If I had to choose between a PA32 and a BE36, I’d take the PA32. Everyone has more elbow room and at least you have the option of the nose baggage. In the Bo, unless everyone is bringing small backpacks, you are guaranteed to be sitting on your luggage.

 

[Unit74]

I just ran the numbers for my flight this weekend and my CG at gross using 50 lbs in the nose CG as ballast moved less than 1/2 inch aft take off to min fuel. 91.6 at MGW take off and 91.3 bingo fuel.

 

[hindsight2020]

I just ran the numbers for my flight this weekend and my CG at gross using 50 lbs in the nose CG as ballast moved less than 1/2 inch aft take off to min fuel. 91.6 at MGW take off and 91.3 bingo fuel.

This.

I haven't fully researched (don't really care to) the BE36, but something that is a factor for 33/35 Bos that isn't for sixes/lances, is that the fuel loss shifts the CG more dramatically (and in the wrong direction imo) in Bos, whereas Pipers have the fuel dead smack in the middle of the envelope, so they get away with a narrower published CG range at gross. Bigger moment arm in fuel stations means you have to have wider CG bands. So wider CG bands are not compliments by default, if they get cancelled out by fuel burn. Gotta look at the proper context.

 

[Unit74]

Full load to the Bahamas this weekend....... Had to get crafty cuz mamma had some" I GOTTA bring this" moments. I am loading the plane later today.

 

[Fearless Tower]

This.

I haven't fully researched (don't really care to) the BE36, but something that is a factor for 33/35 Bos that isn't for sixes/lances, is that the fuel loss shifts the CG more dramatically (and in the wrong direction imo) in Bos, whereas Pipers have the fuel dead smack in the middle of the envelope, so they get away with a narrower published CG range at gross. Bigger moment arm in fuel stations means you have to have wider CG bands. So wider CG bands are not compliments by default, if they get cancelled out by fuel burn. Gotta look at the proper context.

True, you can see the fuel shift in the BE36 W&B I posted. But, it isn't that bad. The above WB is with just me up front and the majority of the weight in the far rear seats/baggage. (4 year old in the middle).

It's not anywhere near as bad as the CG shift in the PA46.

 

[Unit74]

True, you can see the fuel shift in the BE36 W&B I posted. But, it isn't that bad. The above WB is with just me up front and the majority of the weight in the far rear seats/baggage. (4 year old in the middle).

It's not anywhere near as bad as the CG shift in the PA46.

Sure wish I could get that full 350hp the 46 has though....... 37"/2575 sounds like a screamer!

 

[Twin_Flyer]

Interesting twins you guys are talking about. Don’t think I’ve ever them...

 

[Unit74]

Twins......the UN-safer airplane.

At least in a single, your not fooled into thinking you can make it.

 

[denverpilot]

Twins......the UN-safer airplane.

At least in a single, your not fooled into thinking you can make it.

Some twins do better than others in that regard. Some are even verified and certified to make it across entire oceans on one mill turning.

Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim !

 

[Twin_Flyer]

Twins......the UN-safer airplane.

At least in a single, your not fooled into thinking you can make it.

At 15k and one still turning, well... I just might be able to do just that...

 

[Fearless Tower]

Sure wish I could get that full 350hp the 46 has though....... 37"/2575 sounds like a screamer!

The extra speed is nice, but even with the turbo and 350hp it climbs like a dog.

I’ll probably get called crazy for this, but honestly the Matrix (unpressurized) is a more capable airplane. Without the pressurization, you get a lot more useful load. The problem with the Mirage is it that if you have a heavy load, it takes 45 min (while burning 32 gph) to climb up to the high teens/lower Flight Levels. By the tine you get up there, you get about 30 minutes of extra speed before you have to come down because you need a fuel stop.

In the Matrix, at 11-12k, you go 10-15 kts slower, but range and fuel burn is better.

Both airplanes handle nicely though.

 

[Jeff Cutler]

So back to twins...

Been seeing a few 55’s mention wing spar inspection. I knew there was a list of twin Cessnas that fell into that, but first I’ve seen or realized Beech has similar issue? Minor inspection at annual or is this a major under taking? Is there a permanent fix to eliminate?

 

[Fearless Tower]

So back to twins...

Been seeing a few 55’s mention wing spar inspection. I knew there was a list of twin Cessnas that fell into that, but first I’ve seen or realized Beech has similar issue? Minor inspection at annual or is this a major under taking? Is there a permanent fix to eliminate?

The BE55 is a fairly simple spar web inspection with dye penetrant IIRC. Basically just looking for cracks. Usually done at annual and it’s not like an every year thing. I think it was something like every 500 hrs.

Biggest challenge is you need to remove the seats and pull back the carpet. Not hard at all.

 

[GRG55]

Twins......the UN-safer airplane.

At least in a single, your not fooled into thinking you can make it.

As a pilot you only get fooled by what you foolishly allow yourself to be fooled into.

Apparently flying a very capable single, and even having considerable experience in such single, does not make one immune from being fooled, or acting foolishly. At least in a single you don't have the excuse you were flying a twin.

https://airfactsjournal.com/2018/06...rrus-stall-scenarios-offer-important-lessons/

"...Three fatal Cirrus accidents in late 2015 and early 2016 caught my attention, since all three involved low-level stalls. Two occurred with flight instructors on board and one with an experienced Cirrus pilot at the controls..."

 

[hindsight2020]

So back to twins...

Been seeing a few 55’s mention wing spar inspection. I knew there was a list of twin Cessnas that fell into that, but first I’ve seen or realized Beech has similar issue? Minor inspection at annual or is this a major under taking? Is there a permanent fix to eliminate?

I wouldn't consider it easy peasy, say like my recurring 100 hr eddy current prop hub inspection is. Dye Penetrant is more involved, more expensive and in your case, there is no terminating action for it on the Beech. There's a very convoluted list of repair options in that AD as a function of the length of the crack they find. Then there is the doubler kit that is supposed to be installed if the crack exceeds potato. That installation is not cheap, nor to be done by just any ol AP, if the fanatics over at the beech forums are correct. It also doesn't terminate the AD!

I have no idea if people have found cracks post-installation as I don't follow that AD closely. My C33A owner friend gave me the impression these things are semi-pencil whipped the way the Comanche 1000 hr gear ADs are. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but after reading the AD and knowing the variance of people out there in piston maintenance land, I can totally see it.

For people dead set on getting a Beech, none of this would be a show stopper. But it's not as simple or cheap as a visual inspection included in the price of a flat rate annual. These airframes are just flat out old, and as such these fully depreciated contraptions will take a lot of money to keep up in nominal condition. The engines are really not the inflection point, even though they gather the most immediate attention because they carry the majority of the resale value these days. As has been said before, no modern options like them exist that beat the yearly expenditure, so they still have a place in GA. Caveat emptor and all that jazz.