BT is a great group, no doubt, but I think you must be referring to the Piperowner Forum which got so out of control, Piper afficianados started another one, piperforum.com. I think you BT'ers will find some kindred spirits and lots of help there. I know for a fact the PA32 series is the subject of a lot of posts.

Charles,

Jeff's experience with his T-Tail Lance mirror my operating experience.

As with many aircraft, such as the Duke, P58 Baron, MU-2, C421, T-Tail Lance, etc., there are "myths" spread, regarding the aircraft handling, engines and/or costs to operate and maintain, that are often far from reality or, at least, exaggerated.

Having flown both straight and T-Tail Lance models, turbo and normally aspirated, I can tell you from my own experience, there are differences between the two models, but nothing that I would consider as negative. There are advantages and disadvantages to each aircraft. You need to decide, based upon the facts and your personal preferences.

The T-Tail, or Lance II, flight manual notes, "CAUTION: T.O. DISTANCE IS INCREASED BY APPROXIMATELY 25% AT C.G.'S FWD OF 85 INCHES". This is due to the tail location above the propeller wash. The Empty Weight C.G. of the Lance II that I currently fly is 85 INCHES. Most operators, including me, simply carry 100 lbs. in the aft baggage when operating with just the 2 cockpit seats occupied and leave the forward baggage area empty.

There are "stories" of how the Lance II handles "funny" when flaps and or landing gear are reconfigured. This is not true, since the tail is located above the disturbed air flowing over the wing, flaps and gear. In my opinion, it handles better, compared to the straight tail Lance. Another way to look at it is, they each handle differently.

Once airborne, the T-tail location, in undisturbed air, creates less vibration in the cabin and the trim tab is more effective. Pilots who are used to the trim effectiveness in a conventional tail aircraft often over trim when initially flying the T-tail Lance. Does not mean this is "bad" by comparison, just different.

Have taken pilot friend's unfamiliar with the T-tail and demonstrated the true capabilities of the aircraft. One thing I demonstrate to them is, after lowering the nose upon landing, I pull the yolk back as we decelerate and raise the nose and hold it off until the airspeed drops and the nose slowly drops back to the runway.

The negative "myths" attributed to the T-tail Lance, make them a bargain to an educated consumer, in my opinion.

Wish you success in your search.

If you wish to discuss more details, feel free to PM me.

Don

Charles
I've got a late model PA32R-301T that might be for sale. PM me if you'd like to hear about it.
Chris Bradburry

Charles,

Keep in mind the number one cause of accidents in Turbo Lance's/Togas is engine failures. Bad design from the start. Look into this before considering. A Cherokee six is a load hauler. Well built airplane also. The normally aspirated versions are much preferred. Although you can get A36's and 210's with similar useful loads they do not have the nose baggage. That space makes a difference.

The nose baggage is great. Don't know how we would take it all without. I am flyin with 6 so the bags add up

And the tips just keep coming.
Great info all. I'll continue to shop and I'll probably be shooting out some PMs.
Thanks!

I would like to know where you got this info. If you have the source where you got this, please post, I would be interested.

The Turbo Saratoga is no more prone to engine failure than a Turbo Bonanza, Turbo, Mooney, or Turbo anything.

Todd,

I would differ from your opinion. The core engine TIO 540 series on the Lance/Saratoga is a robust engine and beyond the exhust system I would say less prone to engine failure than some of its competitors.

Any turbo engine installation is under great stress, running cherry red, a leak in the system can cause 1600 degree exhuast under pressure to cut through aluminum structure like a hot knife through butter.

The exhaust system on the Turbo Lance is one of the most trouble prone I know of, they frighten me as do the stories of their failures.

I think the Six and Saratoga are fine airplanes, build quality not on par with Beech but a fine airplane with great load hauling ability.

Being eaten alive and burning to death are way down on my list as ways I want to go.

I have owned 4 of them and never had a problem. The exhaust is on top where you can see it. I had a bad exhaust elbow at annual and it was visible since it was on top. Just check your exhaust every year and you will be fine.

Todd and Cliff,

You can easily find this info in the Aviation Consumer UAG for the Piper Saratoga. I could post the link but then that would take away all the fun. A lot of great info in Aviation Consumer.

Bonanzas do not have a particular vice except maybe fuel exhaustion.

The exhaust and cooling design is terrible. The new Saratoga's TC's from the late 1990's on had a different engine designation and design. It is better.

We all think that the airplanes are all the same. They are not.

Leading cause of accidents in most airplanes are RLOC. Not so in a Turbo Toga.

Alright I gave in. I will post the link.

Pay attention ladies and gents-- school is in session.

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/ ... 243-1.html

Go to bottom and read link to safety history. Anyone wanna give me their POS 'Toga?

You guys are playing in my favorite sandbox---6-place singles.

Not a subscriber - cannot read it.

DITTO.......

It says that engine failures are the most common cause of accidents, which is highly unusual. This airplane does not like to sit idle and allow its owners to kill it. It makes frequent preemptive strikes.