kirschair
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2013
- Messages
- 37
- Reaction score
- 5
Fellow pilots,
I am a 1500 hour IR pilot who has owned a 1978 T-Tailed lance since 1994. I have read any number of posts by pilots who, for a variety of reasons, dislike the plane. The purpose of this post is not to attempt to persuade pilots one way or another, but rather to share my experience with the plane.
There are 2 primary complaints that pilots seem to have. The first is that the Lance II has a longer takeoff roll. The second is increased approach speeds.
As to the former, all T tail planes, from King Airs to Lances, have a longer take off roll then their low tail counterpart because the tail is above the prop wash and so it takes the tail a little longer to "fly". So if you need to regularly fly out of a 2500 strip with lots of fuel and people, when its warm , this plane does not fit your mission profile. On the other hand, with 1/2 tanks (50 gal.) I have flown out of such fields with my wife without issue. It is really about understanding AND APPLYING, the POH as applied to this(or any ) plane. The plane truth is that all planes have design compromises, and the trade off for the T tail is that there is no pitch change with gear/flap extension, a clear positive(as opposed to what you get in a mooney or 210). Also, there has never been a structural in flight failure to the T tail.
Now, Mooneys are pretty cool performers also, but land one at VREF +10 kts. and you might float 1500 feet down a runway. Probably not good if you only have 2500 ft. So do Mooneys have a design flaw? Of course not. The pilot needs to be the pilot and if he is not proficient, bad things will happen. Thats a pilot issue, not a plane issue.
Approach speeds in the T-Tail are normal and are a function of weight. The heavier it is the higher the approach speed. But even at gross, 95 over the fence with full flaps works fine. At 300 under gross 85 works fine, but 95 will make it longer then needed. Remember, every corporate/commercial flight calculates approach VREF, and it is always a function of weight. GA pilots should be no less precise.
The T Tail cruses well (160 TAS)( you can check Flight tracking under my tail # (N31641) to check that out), handles a wide CG range , has a full fuel(98 gal) payload of 700lbs, lands well in high cross winds , is an excellent IFR platform and rewards good pilot technique and proficiency.
I am a 1500 hour IR pilot who has owned a 1978 T-Tailed lance since 1994. I have read any number of posts by pilots who, for a variety of reasons, dislike the plane. The purpose of this post is not to attempt to persuade pilots one way or another, but rather to share my experience with the plane.
There are 2 primary complaints that pilots seem to have. The first is that the Lance II has a longer takeoff roll. The second is increased approach speeds.
As to the former, all T tail planes, from King Airs to Lances, have a longer take off roll then their low tail counterpart because the tail is above the prop wash and so it takes the tail a little longer to "fly". So if you need to regularly fly out of a 2500 strip with lots of fuel and people, when its warm , this plane does not fit your mission profile. On the other hand, with 1/2 tanks (50 gal.) I have flown out of such fields with my wife without issue. It is really about understanding AND APPLYING, the POH as applied to this(or any ) plane. The plane truth is that all planes have design compromises, and the trade off for the T tail is that there is no pitch change with gear/flap extension, a clear positive(as opposed to what you get in a mooney or 210). Also, there has never been a structural in flight failure to the T tail.
Now, Mooneys are pretty cool performers also, but land one at VREF +10 kts. and you might float 1500 feet down a runway. Probably not good if you only have 2500 ft. So do Mooneys have a design flaw? Of course not. The pilot needs to be the pilot and if he is not proficient, bad things will happen. Thats a pilot issue, not a plane issue.
Approach speeds in the T-Tail are normal and are a function of weight. The heavier it is the higher the approach speed. But even at gross, 95 over the fence with full flaps works fine. At 300 under gross 85 works fine, but 95 will make it longer then needed. Remember, every corporate/commercial flight calculates approach VREF, and it is always a function of weight. GA pilots should be no less precise.
The T Tail cruses well (160 TAS)( you can check Flight tracking under my tail # (N31641) to check that out), handles a wide CG range , has a full fuel(98 gal) payload of 700lbs, lands well in high cross winds , is an excellent IFR platform and rewards good pilot technique and proficiency.
Last edited:
