Saratoga vs. Turbo Lance
Joe Bloe
to whom I've spoken warned me away from the turbocharged versions, Lance or
Saratoga. They said they were prone to cooling problems that led to poor
durability of the engine and turbo.
Maybe owners of these aircraft can weigh in on the relative pluses and
minuses of the turbo Lance and Saratoga?
"David Ingersoll" <david.i...@sap.com> wrote in message
news:f07d06a6.01072...@posting.google.com...
> It seems that a lot of the used prices I'm seeing on various web sites
> for late 70'/early 80's Saratogas are SIGNIFICANTLY higher than a
> Turbo Lance from 78-79. Why might this be, since they are roughly
> equal. The Turbo Lance is actually a faster plane without the worries
> of Density Altitude, so I'm befuddled.
Alex Osadzinski
line in some detail. I read several opinions on the Lance, criticizing
the T-tail versions, which apparently are hard to handle on
takeoff/landing. In addition, the early turbo installations were
apparently quite problematic. I flew a rental T-tail Lance and,
frankly, couldn't tell any difference in handling because of the tail.
It was, however, the most beaten-up, ratty rental that I've ever
encountered, which was quite an achievement :-)
The more recent (and, I'm sorry, I can't recall the year) turbo
installations seem to have a good track record. I finally plumped for
a brand-new 2001 Saratoga TC, and really like the 'plane. There are 8
or 9 new Saratogas at PAO, SQL and RHV (I'm based at SQL) and the
owners exchange email on a Yahoo! group. They all love flying their
'Togas. They're all turbos, AFAIK. The turbo doesn't let you
completely forget about density altitude, but pretty close. As long as
the density altitude is below the 'Toga's critical altitude, 14000'
(which it usually is!), you'll get the full 300hp. It's definitely a
plus in the California/Nevada region.
Depending on your planned missions, watch out for weight and balance;
it's quite involved. Of course, you can't top the tanks and fill the
seats. But, if I'm flying solo, I can top the tanks (102 gallons
usable). If there's a copilot, I can only use 80 gallons, or more if I
put something heavy in the very back. The Saratogas (at least, the new
ones) are nose-heavy.
The 'Toga is a great IFR platform: the handling is very solid and
stable and, depending on the year, the avionics make it a
mini-airliner. The newer ones have a dual Garmin 530/430 installation,
coupled to an S-Tec 55X autopilot. Magic.
Hope that helps.
Peter Shurman
on take-off and landing with that tail is a bitch and cost me a lot of tires
in year one. But, like anything else, you get the hang of it and it's a
wonderful cross country airplane.
Mine had aall the Knots-2-U speed mods and, with the intercooler, there's no
discernible heat issue. I added Gamijectors last Fall and got all cylinders
peaking simultaneously so I run 50 deg. LOP for a fuel burn of 13.2 gph at
65%. No turbo issue, no engine degradation issue.
In summary, tally me under the "happy" column. The Turbo Lance is a fine
aircraft and a keeper for me.
Peter Shurman
C/FBWH
Toronto, Ontario
Joe Bloe
"Peter Shurman" <pshu...@home.com> wrote in message
news:NPp87.96129$2V.21...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
Peter Shurman
"Joe Bloe" <j...@bloe.com> wrote in message
news:UVJ87.121808$l%.13701351@typhoon2.gnilink.net...
Peter Shurman
"Peter Shurman" <pshu...@home.com> wrote in message
news:oNV87.110453$2V.25...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
Alex Osadzinski
"Peter Shurman" <pshu...@home.com> wrote in message news:<oNV87.110453$2V.25...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>...
Jay Honeck
I thought one begat the other? What's the difference between the two?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Warrior N33431
acrophile
T-tail Lance values are depressed because they're pigs on the runway. The
Saratoga handles it much better.
"Jay Honeck" <jjhonec...@home.com> wrote in message
news:yafa7.208669$Q9.52...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
Mark S. Jennings
>
> I thought one begat the other? What's the difference between the two?
You're correct, the Saratoga replaced the Lance (and the Cherokee Six).
The history is that the Lance came out in 76 as a replacement for the
Comanche, whose tooling was lost in a flood. It was a retract version of
the fixed gear, six-place Cherokee Six and had the old "hershey bar" wing.
It was produced for two years.
The Lance II and turbo Lance came out ih 78 and were also produced for two
years, alongside the fixed-gear Six. The Lances got the t-tail. This tail
is not well regarded on this airplane (or the Arrow for that matter). The
turbo also had an updraft cooling system that had problems.
The Saratoga, Saratoga SP, and turbo Saratoga SP came out in 80 and replaced
both the Six and the Lance. They were produced until 84 when Piper ceased
production. They had the tapered wings and the tail went back down to the
convetional position on the retract An improved version is being produced
now. These airplanes are highly regarded, although they have nowhere near
the load-hauling capability of the earlier airplanes, especially the
Cherokee Six. The early Six's are probably the ultimate load-hauler with
useful loads on most airplanes.in the 1500-lb range, even better than most
206s.
The resale dogs in this lineup are the 78-79 t-tail airplanes which are not
well regarded. The tail lacks authority, particularly on takeoff. The
updraft cooling system on the turbo is also troublesome. For this reason, a
79 turbo Lance retract is worth much less than a 80 Saratoga fixed gear.
Pilots much prefer the conventional tail, tapered wing, and the reliability
of the normally aspirated powerplant.
And to apease all the people who are going to say "the Lance II is a great
airplane," yes, you can find nice Lance IIs and turbo Lances that fly fine
and provide great service; if you can work around their idiosyncracies, they
are a good buy. But the marketplace likes the Saratogas MUCH better.
- Mark
Jay Honeck
a
> 79 turbo Lance retract is worth much less than a 80 Saratoga fixed gear.
Piper made a fixed gear Saratoga? I've always thought that plane went by
the moniker "Cherokee Six" if it had fixed gear.
Mark S. Jennings
> the moniker "Cherokee Six" if it had fixed gear.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the 1980-onward planes were
all Saratogas. Saratoga for the fixed gear, Saratoga SP for the retract,
with "Turbo" on the front of both for the turbo versions. I don't know
what Saratoga versions are in current production.
- Mark
Joe Bloe
in '80 it's a Saratoga with tapered wings.
"Mark S. Jennings" <mark...@NOSPAMdizzle.com> wrote in message
news:99678583...@yabetcha.sttl.drizzle.com...