Gotya,,, what about a Piper Lance?

[GusMcRae]

Flew to KSWI this weekend and there was a Lance in the shop, owner was helping with an owner assisted annual.  He was talking about how much it would haul, luggage and full fuel, etc...
I did a little looking today at specs b/c I was not familiar with a Lance,,, looks like it is the predecessor to the toga. 

For your family hauler someday, why not a Lance?  The one with 300 hp, low tail, retract gear.  Looks like they are reasonably priced.  Not quite as fast as I would like though. 

[gotyacovered]

i think they are pretty sweet... same type of deal as the A36... the A36 is a be58 with one engine as the lance/toga is a single senaca....

wonder what the useful is compared to a toga (bvillepig?) the PA-32 line is confusing... is the Lance just a toga with a T-Tail? also most you see are lance II's...

[GusMcRae]

i think they are pretty sweet... same type of deal as the A36... the A36 is a be58 with one engine as the lance/toga is a single senaca....

wonder what the useful is compared to a toga (bvillepig?) the PA-32 line is confusing... is the Lance just a toga with a T-Tail? also most you see are lance II's...

AOPA doesn't have the Lance in their Aircraft reviews and specs, but you can get a little info about the Lance in the review for a Cherokee Six:  "Piper also made the Six a retractable in 1976, calling it the Lance. Two years later, the Lance would sport a T-tail — which contributed to comparatively lackluster runway performance — and plummeting sales numbers.

By 1980, the whole widebody Cherokee line became Saratogas."


But it looks like there are quite a few Lance's out there in circulation with the low tail, and with a 300 hp engine. 

Very similar useful load to the pre-94 Saratogas.  Around 1600lbs.

[gotyacovered]

looks like a specific set of year models were very good, esp with that useful... the ttail would be interesting to fly

[bvillepig]

I have never flown a Lance but I do know the evolution of the model series. 

First came the Cherokee 6 fixed gear with the 260 HP engine. It has a usefull load somewhere in the hood of 1600  lbs. Then came the 6 with the 300 Hp which has a better climb rate than the 260. They had what was called  hershy bar wing which looks exactly like a hershy bar. You have to keep power in on that plane all the way to the flare because when you pull the power it quits flying and drops like a rock.

  Then came the Lance with the T tail and retract. Piper thought because of the success of the Cheyenne with the T tail that they would copy the design.It was not a success so they changed to the regular tail like the 6 . The T tail from what I hear has some landing quirks especially cross wind from what I was told but don't hold me that.

The useful in the straight tail Lance is still around 1600. From what I have been told it is a great load hauler at a re sonable speed.  Around 1981 Piper decided to change the wing on the Lance to a tapered wing.
It became known as the Saratoga. With the wing change came increases in speed and very docile landing characteristics.  They turbo charged it and offered the 2 models. They ended up changing the cowl and picked up a few more knots.

The C6 Lance and Saratoga are very wide planes.  All of the models are 49 " wide and have a huge side door with a baggage door that also opens.  There is a front baggage department that is between the engine and instrumentation that will hold 100 lbs and the rear also is rated for 100 lbs. Baggage loading is very easy and has a lot of cubic feet.

Hope this helped. Sorry to be long winded. If there are any specific questions let me know. I think a straight tailed Lance would be quite a nice machine.
Here is a link on the 6 and other planes. http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/piper/piper-cherokee-six-300.html

[MDH]

I've flown both the T Tail lance and the straight tail.  Like any piper T tail I've flown (ok so only a TArrow besides the lance), I didn't like the TLance.  The straight tail is a nice bird. 

One of my favorite airplanes that I've flown is the 6-300 and the lance is an extension of that (or retraction if you want to get technical ).

In my opinion, you can't get more bang for your buck than with a Saratoga.  That bird is just a workhorse and far cheaper than getting into a 36 Bonanza.
I lieu of a 'toga the straight tailed lance would be the next best thing, imo.

One thing about the older pipers- the electric trim.  The PET (piper electric trim) was not the best design.  As they have aged it's incredibly hard to adjust the clutch to the point where the electric trim works and you can still turn it relatively easily by hand.  The other issue is that the trim cable rides in v shaped grooves on the servo.  These grooves are machined into the aluminum.  Over time the grooves will wear out and the electric trim will begin to have intermittent operation.  It isn't a huge deal (for someone who knows what they are doing) to change out the cork for the clutch or the assembly with the grooves, however it does take around 4 hours at whatever shop rate plus parts.

I'm sure there are other quirks to look for when purchasing one, I only speak from my area of expertise.

[gotyacovered]

I have never flown a Lance but I do know the evolution of the model series. 

First came the Cherokee 6 fixed gear with the 260 HP engine. It has a usefull load somewhere in the hood of 1600  lbs. Then came the 6 with the 300 Hp which has a better climb rate than the 260. They had what was called  hershy bar wing which looks exactly like a hershy bar. You have to keep power in on that plane all the way to the flare because when you pull the power it quits flying and drops like a rock.

  Then came the Lance with the T tail and retract. Piper thought because of the success of the Cheyenne with the T tail that they would copy the design.It was not a success so they changed to the regular tail like the 6 . The T tail from what I hear has some landing quirks especially cross wind from what I was told but don't hold me that.

The useful in the straight tail Lance is still around 1600. From what I have been told it is a great load hauler at a re sonable speed.  Around 1981 Piper decided to change the wing on the Lance to a tapered wing.
It became known as the Saratoga. With the wing change came increases in speed and very docile landing characteristics.  They turbo charged it and offered the 2 models. They ended up changing the cowl and picked up a few more knots.

The C6 Lance and Saratoga are very wide planes.  All of the models are 49 " wide and have a huge side door with a baggage door that also opens.  There is a front baggage department that is between the engine and instrumentation that will hold 100 lbs and the rear also is rated for 100 lbs. Baggage loading is very easy and has a lot of cubic feet.

Hope this helped. Sorry to be long winded. If there are any specific questions let me know. I think a straight tailed Lance would be quite a nice machine.
Here is a link on the 6 and other planes. http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/piper/piper-cherokee-six-300.html

i think the toga's are the way to go... there are some nice ones out there. my wife rode in an older toga last week for work and she loved it, especially the roominess... she say rear facing, behind the pilot and had no problems. i was kinda surprised. i sent a text to my wifes boss that read something like this:  "thanks for spoiling Erin in that saratoga... 6 seats with air conditioning... come on man." she wants to upgrade as bad as i do now. the difference is i understand how much it cost and she doesnt. never htought i would be telling HER that we need to wait a few years and not visa-versa!!!!

i also have ridden in and flown a 2004 Piper 6X. one time it was fully loaded (pax and fuel - 40lbs under gross) and its performance coming off the ground and climb was poor. i was shocked. its slightly like flying a dump truck. like gross weights in most new airplanes, what advances they make in technology is eaten by leather, a/c, etc

[gotyacovered]

I've flown both the T Tail lance and the straight tail.  Like any piper T tail I've flown (ok so only a TArrow besides the lance), I didn't like the TLance.  The straight tail is a nice bird. 

One of my favorite airplanes that I've flown is the 6-300 and the lance is an extension of that (or retraction if you want to get technical ).

In my opinion, you can't get more bang for your buck than with a Saratoga.  That bird is just a workhorse and far cheaper than getting into a 36 Bonanza.
I lieu of a 'toga the straight tailed lance would be the next best thing, imo.

One thing about the older pipers- the electric trim.  The PET (piper electric trim) was not the best design.  As they have aged it's incredibly hard to adjust the clutch to the point where the electric trim works and you can still turn it relatively easily by hand.  The other issue is that the trim cable rides in v shaped grooves on the servo.  These grooves are machined into the aluminum.  Over time the grooves will wear out and the electric trim will begin to have intermittent operation.  It isn't a huge deal (for someone who knows what they are doing) to change out the cork for the clutch or the assembly with the grooves, however it does take around 4 hours at whatever shop rate plus parts.

I'm sure there are other quirks to look for when purchasing one, I only speak from my area of expertise.

good insight... out of curiouity, can you expand on the reasons you didnt like the ttail? i have not read much but what i did see where it has some funky characteristics in landing config and that it is not a good xwind bird... does that sum it up pretty good?

[MDH]

I dont recall landing the lance in any kind of crosswind, but on the t tail arrow and lance it would dump the nose on landing because you lose elevator authority.  Probably something you could overcome with practice, I dont have a ton of time in either.

[GusMcRae]

i think the toga's are the way to go... there are some nice ones out there.

It just looks like to me there is better value in a low tail Lance.  Big difference in prices for comparable equipment when you look on Controller or Trade a Plane.  I definitely would not get a newer Toga that gives up so  much of its useful load to a fancy (heavy) interior.

It's going to be way on down the road before i'm able to upgrade anyway,,, but it's fun to shop around and discuss it.

[bvillepig]

It just looks like to me there is better value in a low tail Lance.  Big difference in prices for comparable equipment when you look on Controller or Trade a Plane.  I definitely would not get a newer Toga that gives up so  much of its useful load to a fancy (heavy) interior.

It's going to be way on down the road before i'm able to upgrade anyway,,, but it's fun to shop around and discuss it.

The older straight tail Lance has phenominal load hauling ability.  I also know that my Toga "well I won't say it here but it has been tested to" xxxx safely

Gus I have an 04 Toga. The book says 1190 usefull on mine. We have 102 gallons of fuel so it is very easy for me to offload and still have nice range. I have had 4 men their luggage and 4 sets of golf clubs and still been quite a bit under.

The key is to not get a 300 lbr in any of the back seats. I have had a 360 lb man in the front with me and have been comfortable.


My Saratoga is a pig climbing when loaded to Gross in the summer. I know this and set it at 500 ft a minute @ 120 knots. No problem on take off at gross although I would not take it out of a short field. 

With just my wife and I and 60 gallons of fuel I climb at a 1000 feet a minute for the first 2000 and then taper it down . I climb @ 120 knots and whatever fpm I get is what I get normaly 500-1000.

Mine is a normaily asperated Toga and see 162 with no winds in the summer and 167 in the winter. At 11,000 ft I have around 6.5 hours of fuel. 

A straight tail Lance with updated avionics would do you right.

[bvillepig]

My wife rode in an older toga last week for work and she loved it, especially the roominess... she say rear facing, behind the pilot and had no problems. i was kinda surprised. i sent a text to my wifes boss that read something like this:  "thanks for spoiling Erin in that saratoga... 6 seats with air conditioning... come on man." she wants to upgrade as bad as i do now. versa!!!!

Ha Ha   I had an Archer III that I flew to get my private and instrument. I put 380 hours on it mainly by myself or with a friend.  Deb my wife only flew with me to Sikeston and once to Okie City in the year and half I had it.

I had   jokingly   asked them a year and half before that if they would fly me and my family to Razorback basketball game I would consider stepping up. Then KCAC brought a demo 6xt down to Blytheville. Deb was hooked.

I could,t lose but I had planned to step up to a Cirrus and had already done a demo flight twice.  I wanted a Cirrus Deb wanted a six seater.

KCAC had a Saratoga and one of my friends that had a 182 was going to sell his and we were going to partner in a Saratoga. They flew it down and we demoed it. We talked about it for the next 4 months and did not pull the trigger. For some reason he decide to trade his Cessna on a Turbo 182. He told me he thought the Saratoga was to much plane (HP Speed Retract) for him.

I was approved to but the Cirrus and was going to sign papers and Deb stepped in and said you really need to get the six seater instead of the 4. You see I have Son, Daughter in law, 2 grandbabies by then = 6.  Rather than argue about never having 6 in there and most of our missions being with two I gave in.  The kids moved to NW Arkansas and now it is mostly the 2 of us. 

I have put 1380 hours on the Toga and sometimes still wish I had the 4 seater but it the only argument I was ever over ruled on that I don't have any regrets.  I do get told from time to time that she wishes that she had listened to me.  HA

You are so in trouble !!!!

[gotyacovered]

Ha Ha   I had an Archer III that I flew to get my private and instrument. I put 380 hours on it mainly by myself or with a friend.  Deb my wife only flew with me to Sikeston and once to Okie City in the year and half I had it.

I had   jokingly   asked them a year and half before that if they would fly me and my family to Razorback basketball game I would consider stepping up. Then KCAC brought a demo 6xt down to Blytheville. Deb was hooked.

I could,t lose but I had planned to step up to a Cirrus and had already done a demo flight twice.  I wanted a Cirrus Deb wanted a six seater.

KCAC had a Saratoga and one of my friends that had a 182 was going to sell his and we were going to partner in a Saratoga. They flew it down and we demoed it. We talked about it for the next 4 months and did not pull the trigger. For some reason he decide to trade his Cessna on a Turbo 182. He told me he thought the Saratoga was to much plane (HP Speed Retract) for him.

I was approved to but the Cirrus and was going to sign papers and Deb stepped in and said you really need to get the six seater instead of the 4. You see I have Son, Daughter in law, 2 grandbabies by then = 6.  Rather than argue about never having 6 in there and most of our missions being with two I gave in.  The kids moved to NW Arkansas and now it is mostly the 2 of us. 

I have put 1380 hours on the Toga and sometimes still wish I had the 4 seater but it the only argument I was ever over ruled on that I don't have any regrets.  I do get told from time to time that she wishes that she had listened to me.  HA

You are so in trouble !!!!

Haha... Well I am financially incapable of getting in too much trouble for a few years!

When it's time I can't wait to gain from your experiences!!!

[gotyacovered]

new dream plane of the week... Cessna 340... payload kinda sucks, but look at the other stats. most importantly... honest 230-235ktas airplane on 28-30gph...  there are also several on controller that have ~1850 payload

General characteristics

    Crew: One pilot
    Capacity: Five passengers
    Length: 34 ft 4 in (10.46 m)
    Wingspan: 38 ft 1 in (11.62 m)
    Height: 12 ft 7 in (3.84 m)
    Wing area: 184 ft² (17.1 m²)
    Airfoil: NACA 23018 (root) NACA 23015 (tip)
    Empty weight: 3,921 lb (1,780 kg)
    Max. takeoff weight: 5,990 lb (2,719kg)
    Powerplant: 2 × Continental TSIO-520-NB 6-cylinder piston engines, 310hp (231 kW) each

Performance

    Maximum speed: 244 kts (279 mph, 452km/h)
    Stall speed: 82 knots (94 mph, 153 km/h)
    Range: 1,406 nm (1,606 mi, 2,603 km) at economy cruising speed
    Service ceiling: 29,800 ft (9,085 m)
    Rate of climb: 1,650 ft/min (8.38 m/s)
    Wing loading: 32.55 lb/ft² (159.0kg/m²)
    Power/mass: 9.66 lb/hp (0.12 kW/kg)

Fuel consumption (est. gph):
   
75% power:   30
65% power:   28
55% power:   26

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/340Aext.jpg

[bvillepig]

new dream plane of the week... Cessna 340... payload kinda sucks, but look at the other stats. most importantly... honest 230-235ktas airplane on 28-30gph...  there are also several on controller that have ~1850 payload

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/340Aext.jpg

I had a chance a couple of years ago to get a mint 340 that had been maintained by a steel company gurus son that now has a Pilatus and an embrear 100.  It was a buy . I flew in it a couple of times and had the controls for awhile. Decided to pass and could kick myself.

Fuel burn though is more in the neighborhood of 36-40 gallons @ 75%. Speeds are around 205-210 at 15,000-18,000 which is the sweet spot for those engines. He had Ram -7 on it and they were low time. Pressurization was great and easy.

  I am like you I have looked at 340s and looked at them. I have 3 people very close in our mfg world that have owned them and now have moved on to other things.  They have been my mentors because they have owned a bunch of different planes.

The issue that has always bothered me is the fuel management system is a bear.  Its not difficult but it is one more demand on the pilot in a single pilot IFR situation where things can get awfully busy. The other was the engine management issues if you are at 15,000 and atc keeps you high and you have to lose a few thousand feet quick. Manifold Pressure needs to change about an in lb a minute or you are looking at a top section every 300-800 hours. Very expensive so I passed .

It would be a very hard decision for me on what plane to buy if I had the means above my Toga.    A 340 would be on the list though . 

[MDH]

I had a chance a couple of years ago to get a mint 340 that had been maintained by a steel company gurus son that now has a Pilatus and an embrear 100.   

Speaking of dream planes, if I had the money the Phenom 100 would be one of those.  I've worked on them when I was in LA (we were a Phenom service center) and it's a hell of a plane.  It's not super fast, as jets go, but the DOC is comparatively low on it- around $800/hr iirc.  Jet Suite was running about 50 of them out of LA and doing shorter range charters- LA/Vegas, LA/Seattle, etc.  Heck of a lot cheaper to operate those rather than the Lear 35's that we were doing the same trips with and not much of a enroute time difference between the two.

[gotyacovered]

I had a chance a couple of years ago to get a mint 340 that had been maintained by a steel company gurus son that now has a Pilatus and an embrear 100.  It was a buy . I flew in it a couple of times and had the controls for awhile. Decided to pass and could kick myself.

Fuel burn though is more in the neighborhood of 36-40 gallons @ 75%. Speeds are around 205-210 at 15,000-18,000 which is the sweet spot for those engines. He had Ram -7 on it and they were low time. Pressurization was great and easy.

  I am like you I have looked at 340s and looked at them. I have 3 people very close in our mfg world that have owned them and now have moved on to other things.  They have been my mentors because they have owned a bunch of different planes.

The issue that has always bothered me is the fuel management system is a bear.  Its not difficult but it is one more demand on the pilot in a single pilot IFR situation where things can get awfully busy. The other was the engine management issues if you are at 15,000 and atc keeps you high and you have to lose a few thousand feet quick. Manifold Pressure needs to change about an in lb a minute or you are looking at a top section every 300-800 hours. Very expensive so I passed .

It would be a very hard decision for me on what plane to buy if I had the means above my Toga.    A 340 would be on the list though . 

as always... good stuff bvillepig.

[GusMcRae]

Ran across this on AOPA's classifieds:

For Sale - Production Single Engine
1978 PIPER LANCE II 300HP approx. 2443 TT, 712 SMOH, 605 SPOH. IFR, NDH, orig int in good cond. paint in orig scheme. 1400 lb useful, 97 g. fuel GNS 430 WAAS, KX165 w/ GS, GT327 Xpndr, Century III A/P w/ GS lock Garmin 396 w/ data link, 6 place intcom w/music. 53" cargo door. 155kts @14gph. Rated for 7th seat, 6 installed. ALL ADs complied. Great IFR cross-country flyer. Always hangared. $105,000 Based at KASG - Bill Keathley 501-960-3333 iflyarkansas@gmail.com (Ad submitted on 02/12/2014)

Right in some of y'alls back yard.  Doesn't say but I'm guessing it's a T-tail.

[Pistol Pete]

It is a T-tail if I remember right, and that's my wife's cousin. I've only seen it from a distance so I can't comment on condition.

[GusMcRae]

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/1712586.html

I think I could overlook the damage history on this Toga. 

[gotyacovered]

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/1712586.html

I think I could overlook the damage history on this Toga. 

me too, happened in 90 and complete logs... one thing i would like to see though, the original logs to spot check for omissions. if we had a place i could take me logbooks to here and have them scanned and documented in a nice organized fashion, i would do it in a heart beat, and just add that to the annual process to have it updated yearly, post-annual.

[GusMcRae]

First came the Cherokee 6 fixed gear with the 260 HP engine. It has a usefull load somewhere in the hood of 1600  lbs. Then came the 6 with the 300 Hp which has a better climb rate than the 260. They had what was called  hershy bar wing which looks exactly like a hershy bar. You have to keep power in on that plane all the way to the flare because when you pull the power it quits flying and drops like a rock.

With the wing change came increases in speed and very docile landing characteristics. 

bvillepig, or anyone that might have some insight to these eventual questions:

The Arrow that I flew the other day for my complex endorsement was an older model with the Hershy bar wings.  CFI's instruction on landing was spot on with the quote above about "keep power in on that plane all the way to the flare because when you pull the power it quits flying and drops like a rock".  I had to keep easing off of the power gradually until it sat down on the runway,,, unlike the cessnas, that is more of pulling power back to a certain setting at a certain point in the approach, the 150 you pull it all the way off once you know you've made the runway and let it float on down, and the 182 you leave a slight amount of power there and leave it there until touching down, then pulling the rest of the power off after touching down.  Less of a diffference, but still a definite difference in managing power during the landing between the 182 and the Arrow. 
So, I have 2 questions:
1) With the new wing style, and the docile landing characteristics quoted above, is landing more like landing a cessna, or is it still a matter of managing power throughout the flare, gradually easing it back all the way down?

2) If you have an engine out landing with a PA-28 or 32 with Hershey bar wings, is it going to be manageable, or a lot tougher to handle than same plane with new style wings?

The only other PA-28s I've flown had the same style wings, and handled the same way the older Arrow did.

[john c]

My limited experience:
Have you ever flown a Tri-Pacer?  Talk about drop like a rock.  Go fly those a while and everything else will seem like it floats.  I switched back and forth between Cessna and Six without much problem.  A little power on either always seemed good for landing if you had decent runway.  To me the Six was a little more stable, more like driving a Suburban.  The Saratoga has better handling and is, IMO, a very nice family/traveling plane with or without retrac.  Now, I never flew a Six with any LoPresti type mods but there are mods that would probably change the low speed characteristics.  I did put a lot of speed mods on our Seneca and it was a very nice flying airplane.  That said, nothing is going to fly like a Cessna but a Cessna.  On calm summer evenings Cessna landings are just fun.

Both are easy to fly and neither will cause a problem for a solid pilot, again, in my experience.  I've never had an emergency engine out but I have picked up "pucker" ice on both but it was gone by the time I landed so I can't speak to that.

For me, choosing between a 182/Six would involve normal block time analysis and passenger loading.  Hard choice.  For retrac, I would probably pick the Piper.  A regular tail Lance was the next plane on my list to modify.  These are fun things to discuss.

[GusMcRae]

I have never flown a tri-Pacer.  I was approached very early in the game by a guy (whom I would NEVER consider partnering with on anything) to partner with him on a cheap tri-pacer that would have been very convenient to at least go look at. 

When I did get to fly a C210 left seat with a CFI when I had less than 10 hrs time, it had the "drop like a rock" feel to me. 
Even my 182 had that heavy/drop like a rock feel when I first transitioned into it.

But the PA-28s I've flown just seem to be even more so. 

I know it is a matter of just getting used to what you fly.  Limited time in make and model makes it feel uncomfortable,,,, but is really more about being unfamiliar. 

[john c]

And, I think, that is the point.  At one time none of us were familiar with anything but looking up in the sky and wanting to be there.  Learn on high wings and you are a high wing man (rough adage) and vice versa.  Think about clubs where there can be an assortment of types and you get qualified to fly all of them. The old straight tail C150 I had flew different than the '72 C150 we had.  Maybe more is how high off the floor the seats are or how confined you feel - C182 vs a Mooney.  I guess that's what makes it fun.  Familiarity can come pretty quickly.  Preference after flying numerous is a different story.  For low cost, four full seats and decent speed the 182 is just real hard to beat.  However, that modified Lance would be fun.  And a Six/Sara would be nice. and ...

[gotyacovered]

I have never flown a tri-Pacer.  I was approached very early in the game by a guy (whom I would NEVER consider partnering with on anything) to partner with him on a cheap tri-pacer that would have been very convenient to at least go look at. 

When I did get to fly a C210 left seat with a CFI when I had less than 10 hrs time, it had the "drop like a rock" feel to me. 
Even my 182 had that heavy/drop like a rock feel when I first transitioned into it.

But the PA-28s I've flown just seem to be even more so. 

I know it is a matter of just getting used to what you fly.  Limited time in make and model makes it feel uncomfortable,,,, but is really more about being unfamiliar. 

of the PA28-180's ive flown and the piper 6x (PA-32-301FT) and bvillepigs 'toga (both of those right seat, one hands on, one as a pax) i saw a common practice/consistency... much flatter approach paths, less flaps and power into the flare and even right before touch down and faster over the fence numbers. my cousin flys his 180 onto the surface. he was surprised at my full flap landings. its funny. i dont go to full flap until rnwy is made and that can result in a very steep decesnt on final.   

bottom line i like em all... if i had to choose based on the airplanes i have flown hands on... the F33A would be my choice based on how it flys... or the jag edition baron

And, I think, that is the point.  At one time none of us were familiar with anything but looking up in the sky and wanting to be there.  Learn on high wings and you are a high wing man (rough adage) and vice versa.  Think about clubs where there can be an assortment of types and you get qualified to fly all of them. The old straight tail C150 I had flew different than the '72 C150 we had.  Maybe more is how high off the floor the seats are or how confined you feel - C182 vs a Mooney.  I guess that's what makes it fun.  Familiarity can come pretty quickly.  Preference after flying numerous is a different story.  For low cost, four full seats and decent speed the 182 is just real hard to beat.  However, that modified Lance would be fun.  And a Six/Sara would be nice. and ...

and on and on and on haha....

[bvillepig]

I had an Archer before the Saratoga and both of them with the new wing were very docile.
I kept a little power in on the Toga because it helped to squeak them on. (LoL) When I could.  The thing that was different was the sight picture on the Toga. If you kept the nose up like a Cessna and flared as high as some of my buddies do in their 182 you drop like rock when the wing quits flying and the stall horn starts blaring. Archer was the same way.
So I flew a little flatter to the runway and a foot or so before the runway would start raising the nose and let it settle down. It was a lot of fun keeping that  long nose off the nose gear like a jet fighter for as long as I could. Pretty easy to do the more hours I flew. My instructor who flew with me a lot of those hours had a lot of time in the Hershey bar wing. He said there is a huge difference between the two wings.

Engine out on the Archer was very benign. Not sure of the glide ratio but it was really nice. I put 385 hours on mine. I bought with only 15 hours total time and went through my private and instrument in it. I loved that plane.  It was bought by a lady in Scotland and ferried over. I would have loved that flight. Look up N586SE and a picture will pop up of it landing on a grass strip in Scotland before they changed the N number.

I have not been around much lately although I do check in and read from time to time. Just to depressing. I sold my Saratoga to a guy in Houston and flew it down the first week in January. I thought about you Gotcha as I went over Hope.
I almost convinced myself to get out completely but have had a change in heart the last couple weeks.   Just to spoiled. (lol) Will let you know the direction I am headed.

[GusMcRae]

I have not been around much lately although I do check in and read from time to time. Just to depressing. I sold my Saratoga to a guy in Houston and flew it down the first week in January. I thought about you Gotcha as I went over Hope.
I almost convinced myself to get out completely but have had a change in heart the last couple weeks.   Just to spoiled. (lol) Will let you know the direction I am headed.

Thanks for the input bville. 
I had no idea you were even considering departing with the toga.
Please do keep us posted with your new direction. 

[Brownstreak]

Many check haulers used Lances back in the day because they were durable and could carry plenty of cancelled checks.  I never had the opportunity to fly one, but they certainly sound like a great bang for the buck.