The market appears to consider it a slight issue based on higher values for straight tail Lance's.

Love the Six. Was the plane that I was able to convince the wife to join the GA adventure in. First family trip was in a lance from TKI to Niagra to Stowe,VT and back.

Not a real fan of the lance. I would stick with the six personally.

The market appears to consider it a slight issue based on higher values for straight tail Lance's.

I agree T-tail is an issue for resale value. But that has already taken a hit. It's a 100% non-issue when flying the airplane.

That’s true like DH or lost logs. Still harder to sell

I agree the T-tail is a non issue for 99% of the pilots. Unless your standard fare is short unimproved airfields the pitch authority issue, isn't. As far as the difference in re-sale, that isn't an issue unless you purchased it new. Now you won't be paying as much in the first place so the lower resale is to be expected.

Personally I would choose a Lance over the Six unless I was going to be using it off-airport where the additional ruggedness of the fixed gear is a consideration. Cost wise, the RG version is about the same as the fixed gear due to the higher speed. When all the costs of ownership are added up, the 10% increase in miles covered for the same time the additional cost of the folding feed is pretty much a wash.

I also prefer the RG due to the increased flexibility and safety it provides. The RG is a good 25 kts slower with the gear down due to the additional drag from the holes in the wing, lack of pants, etc. on the fixed gear model, this translated into more flexibility on approach; gear up you can go like stink, gear gown you can come down like a rock.

Lets also not forget in the ice or in the event of a forced landing the RG is a real plus.

Both are great planes, for rough runways get the stiff leg, but for smooth runways I give the nod to the swing leg. And the RG simply looks a lot better

Jeff

That’s true like DH or lost logs. Still harder to sell

I own a T tail Turbo Lance. I get a real chuckle out of the whole T tails ar garbage chatter. Run the real numbers and ignore the internet know it alls, most of which have never owned or flown one and are just regurgitating some BS they read and bought it as gospel.

The 78-79 Lance needs slightly more runway as the stabilator is 28% smaller than the low tail Lance. The shortest patch I've been into was 3k feet with no issues.

As mine is a Turbo, either fly it sub 18k ish and enjoy the TAS or stay away if you are not willing to go that high as it sucks gas like it's free. The NA version will go almost as fast with a much lower fuel burn under 12k. The cockpit is roomy, the back passengers are comfortable and CG is never an issue given the 100 lbs nose baggage compartment. 94 gallons of fuel, 1254 UL and either 14 LOp around 140kts or 24 ROP and 160 kts TAS around 12k is what I saw last week to/from the Bahamas. I left my O2 at home to get more bags in or I would have been up around 17k, same TAS but killing that ground speed.

If you do go Turbo, find one with the inter cooler mod and cowl. Adds 15 knots, runs the motor cool and will cost you $20k installed if you do it after you buy. Ouch!

If you want to fly a Lance, I'm out of BQK. Swing in and let's go.

Given this is beechtalk, I'm surprised no one has suggested a baron instead of a cherokee six.
I was looking for a cherokee six for my growing family a few years ago, and found I could get a similiar condition 55 baron for far less than a cherokee six. I bought mine with high time well running motors, had it five years with minimal expenses and sold it for 10k less than purchase when I needed 7 belts. I realize I was fortunate, but I don't think I could have owned a cherokee 6 for the same costs, and the 55 baron was really nice in many ways
YMMV

I'm also playing with the idea of buying a C6 or a Lance. My mission is 4 adults with luggage, 500ish miles once a month or so. Good passengers so 4-5 hours in a plane is not an issue (plus destination is with no airline service in a 100 mile radius). Plus me + wife somewhere close 1-2 times a month.

I have to say, every time I hear people say how a Baron is "the same" to maintain as a Cherokee 6, I get excited about a Baron. But then another guy comes and says no-one without a trust fund account can afford one.
I'd like the idea of a second engine...

https://classifieds.ksl.com/listing/51979670

I echo what has been said here already. I love the C6!

Most people are surprised to see how crummy the performance of the 260 is when loaded up. It would be ok as a coastal cruiser but high DA's are the rule around here and they (260's) are truly lethargic with a load. YMMV

No way are two Continentals the same to maintain as one Lycoming. The second engine is an ongoing debate.
I shopped hard for a 6-place airplane a few years ago. For my at-the-time mission the PA-32 was 90% the plane for 60% the price of an A-36 and would cost me 7-10 minutes per flight and a couple of gph while carrying more stuff.

Oddly enough true for the Six. I flew one that could carry its empty weight. I believe it mostly comes down to a difference in empty weight with less equipment on the 260s and a lighter engine. If you fly a 260 loaded to capacity, you are going to take a while get into the air and to cruise.

My dad had a 300 when I was in law school. That sucker would true almost 150 knots with mid fuel and two people, or both the ASI and DME were liars.

Incredible room and solid as a rock in IFR. The only time I flew it at gross, full fuel and six people, was in June, 1973, on a 95 degree day and had an engine failure on take off. Made it back to the airport with the engine trying to shake out of its mounts and 50' to spare.

And yes, Charles, the 260 had a higher useful load that was pretty useless due to climb performance.

I would buy one today if it fit my needs, but I would want a pristine example or none at all.

Jg

I have a 68 6-300, 145 KTAS(light)/140 KTAS(heavy) on 14-15 gph at 8000-9000 MSL.
Useful load is 1565 lbs. (That is full fuel 84g - 4 hrs + reserve, and still 1000 lbs in the cabin)
Insurance is $1200/yr on $100K hull value.
I have read the statements about a flying suburban or school bus, we refer to it as flying a 50's era dump truck.
For reference, we sold our 58P and bought the Six because our family of 5 and bags ran out of room and UL in the Baron. Gave up speed, pressurization, air conditioning, radar, and deice capability, but also a lot of cost. I am an A&P/IA and do all my own mx, the Six has only required oil changes, tires/brakes, and inspections - The 58P required a LOT more than that. (owned both airplanes for 3 years) I know and understand the differences in capability but for our mission requirements and the associated costs it is worthwhile for us.