Anyone have any good insights on the pros/cons of the Seneca vs the 310?
I've seen several for sale in about the same price range.

Thanks.

John Doe wrote:

> Anyone have any good insights on the pros/cons of the Seneca vs the 310?
> I've seen several for sale in about the same price range.

Check into the spar issues with the Cessna 3xx (not 377 which has its
own issues), 4xx line, and its off and on and off again SB/AD that can
potentially doom the fleets value...

Seneca goes a lot slower (smaller engines). Also, you should take a look at
insurance costs if you are low or no-time multiengine.

If you're looking for a solid plane that holds six pax and luggage and also
goes fast and far, a B-200 King Air or a Citation X should be about right.

("Darrel Toepfer" wrote)
> Check into the spar issues with the Cessna 3xx (not 377 which has its own
> issues), 4xx line, and its off and on and off again SB/AD that can
> potentially doom the fleets value...


AvWeb had it maybe a month ago. Found it ...

<http://www.avweb.com/newswire/11_25a/briefs/190002-1.html>

June 20, 2005
FAA Issues Final Cessna Wing Spar ADs

By Mary Grady
Newswriter, Editor

After much back and forth between the FAA and owners of affected Cessna
twins, two final Airworthiness Directives about wing spars were issued last
week. The final ADs require a spar-strap modification, but allow most owners
up to 800 flight hours to comply -- that's four to eight years of flying for
most owner-operators. The modification then is good for another 5,500 to
12,000 hours, with no further inspections required. The initial cost to
comply is still high -- aviation columnist Mike Busch told AVweb he
estimates it will cost $40,000 to $60,000 per airplane, and up to two months
of downtime. However, he said, the market value of Cessna 300/400 twins
should start increasing now that the AD is on the streets. "It has long been
my feeling that the uncertainty of the impending rulemaking was depressing
the market more than the certainty of a known AD," Busch said. "Furthermore,
the spar-strap mod will instantly increase the market value of the aircraft
by very nearly 100 percent of the cost of the modification, so the
modification cost will largely be recaptured if and when the aircraft is
sold."

Yea, that's what I'm trying to explain to the wife.

How about a B60 Duke?


"Jim N." > wrote in message
...
> Seneca goes a lot slower (smaller engines). Also, you should take a look
> at insurance costs if you are low or no-time multiengine.
>
> If you're looking for a solid plane that holds six pax and luggage and
> also goes fast and far, a B-200 King Air or a Citation X should be about
> right.
>

There's a big difference between a used Seneca and a Citation. If you can
afford it, buy the Citation along with the training and pilots to fly you
around.

A Duke still won't carry six pax and much luggage very far, and the engines
are pretty rare (I've been contemplating them versus a 340 or 414 myself).
Figure over 100K for two engines when it comes time for overhaul.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:34:54 GMT, "Jim N."
> wrote:

>Seneca goes a lot slower (smaller engines). Also, you should take a look at
>insurance costs if you are low or no-time multiengine.
>
>If you're looking for a solid plane that holds six pax and luggage and also
>goes fast and far, a B-200 King Air or a Citation X should be about right.

Seneca II should be more affordable to insure than a 310.

If you are able to fly high the Seneca II (which is turbo'd) is
probably not that much slower than a non-turbo 310.

There are a few 310s on my field, and the early models do not have
much baggage room behind the 5/6th seats. They also do not have a
nose baggage section.

The Seneca does have space behind the 5th/6th seats, and a nose
locker.

-Nathan

Landing gear is much better in the Seneca II
Seneca II is easier for the passengers to enter (club seating)
Seneca II will give you a good honest 165 knots and burn a total of 21
to 23 GPH.
Seneca II has counter rotating propellers.
Seneca II has a user friendly fuel system compared to a C-310.

The C310 dumps its exhaust over the back of the wing resulting in a
wing that always looks dirty. Just my $.02 from my very small amount of
C310 time.

-Robert

My choice would be the Seneca.



"John Doe" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Anyone have any good insights on the pros/cons of the Seneca vs the 310?
> I've seen several for sale in about the same price range.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>