Piper Seneca

[Frode Berg]

hi all!

This might be a silly question, but I am dreaming of owning, or co-owning a
Piper Seneca.
Not this year or next, but maybe within the next 10 years.

I have been browsing the aircraft for sale sites, and found planes from the
70's (Seneca II) selling for as low as $139K with about half time remaining
on the engines and props.

Anyone care to share the pro's and con's of the different models? (I-V)
Obviously, I will not be able to afford a V, so far, only the II's seem
accessible sort of.
Anything worth knowing about this model? Bad things?

Also, I understand maintenance will be about double of what I have now
(Arrow 180).
Any other traps to consider cost wise going for a twin?

Any other aircraft in the same price range that might be better choices?

I'm looking for a piston certified for Icing conditions.
I also want a twin, as I'll be flying over mountains and have nightmares
about engine out's in IMC and icing conditions over mountain terrain.....

Thanks for any hints,

Frode

[BTIZ]

I fly a Seneca II on a regular basis. The II has 200HP Turbos, so it takes a
little getting used to the sensitivity of the throttle with the turbo. I
flight plan 30gph total, but it averages out to about 26gph or about 13
gallons per side per hour, with 110 gallon tanks, that's about 4hrs to dry
tanks.

Not all IIs are have deicing or are cleared for flight in known icing
conditions.

Double the cost of fuel, oil changes, engine maint. Not sure how your
insurance will stack up.

I flight plan at 165KTAS at 12,000ft, no O2 on board, so I don't plan on
higher. What can I say, it's a rental.

Still need to watch the W&B, 6 seats, but you can't always fill them up with
6 adults and take on full fuel. Except for the care and feeding of two
engines, it's is essentially a Cherokee 6 or Lance. But it sure is nice to
have those turbo's spin up to 40in MP for take off, and cruise at 12,000ft
pulling 30in of MP.

BT

"Frode Berg" > wrote in message
...
> hi all!
>
> This might be a silly question, but I am dreaming of owning, or co-owning
> a Piper Seneca.
> Not this year or next, but maybe within the next 10 years.
>
> I have been browsing the aircraft for sale sites, and found planes from
> the 70's (Seneca II) selling for as low as $139K with about half time
> remaining on the engines and props.
>
> Anyone care to share the pro's and con's of the different models? (I-V)
> Obviously, I will not be able to afford a V, so far, only the II's seem
> accessible sort of.
> Anything worth knowing about this model? Bad things?
>
> Also, I understand maintenance will be about double of what I have now
> (Arrow 180).
> Any other traps to consider cost wise going for a twin?
>
> Any other aircraft in the same price range that might be better choices?
>
> I'm looking for a piston certified for Icing conditions.
> I also want a twin, as I'll be flying over mountains and have nightmares
> about engine out's in IMC and icing conditions over mountain terrain.....
>
> Thanks for any hints,
>
> Frode
>

[Ronnie]

Frode,

I know you asked specifically about a Seneca and if you
want a Seneca, a Seneca you should get. However, in the
meantime, you might consider another Piper twin, the Aztec.

Older versions can be had for much less and would let you
fly a twin and accumulate multi-engine time before ultimately
getting the Seneca that you want. I admit I'm a bit biased
since I've been flying 1964 C model Aztec for the last 7 years.
There was a very, very nice Seneca III hangared in the same
hangar as my Aztec and it made me conside trading for a Seneca,
stricly on apperances. However, when I began comparing useful
loads, single engine rate of climb, and over-all performance versus
cost to aquire, I decided the Aztec fit my needs much better. At
first, the blub seating and left side, low entry door looked like a plus
for the Seneca that make getting passengers and big items in and out easier
However, after taking a couple of trips the club seating turned out to
be problematic for my family with the kids bumping knees. In our case,
we like the forward facing seats and two large cargo areas fore and aft.
better.

Just food for thought.

Ronnie


"Frode Berg" > wrote in message
...
> hi all!
>
> This might be a silly question, but I am dreaming of owning, or co-owning
> a Piper Seneca.
> Not this year or next, but maybe within the next 10 years.
>
> I have been browsing the aircraft for sale sites, and found planes from
> the 70's (Seneca II) selling for as low as $139K with about half time
> remaining on the engines and props.
>
> Anyone care to share the pro's and con's of the different models? (I-V)
> Obviously, I will not be able to afford a V, so far, only the II's seem
> accessible sort of.
> Anything worth knowing about this model? Bad things?
>
> Also, I understand maintenance will be about double of what I have now
> (Arrow 180).
> Any other traps to consider cost wise going for a twin?
>
> Any other aircraft in the same price range that might be better choices?
>
> I'm looking for a piston certified for Icing conditions.
> I also want a twin, as I'll be flying over mountains and have nightmares
> about engine out's in IMC and icing conditions over mountain terrain.....
>
> Thanks for any hints,
>
> Frode
>

[Frode Berg]

hi!

Thanks for your input.

As I stated, this is not a short term consideration, as I do not currently
hold an IR license, but will be getting one starting this summer.

My wife and I have been toying with the possibilities of getting a
vacational house in southern Europe, and I've been saying ok, but we'll need
a de-iced twin, and she agrees, so a lot of the job is done....

:-)

However, the Aztec idea is interesting.

What are the figures for this plane?

Loading capabilities? Speeds? Endurance/range?

Thanks,

Frode


"Ronnie" > skrev i melding
. com...
> Frode,
>
> I know you asked specifically about a Seneca and if you
> want a Seneca, a Seneca you should get. However, in the
> meantime, you might consider another Piper twin, the Aztec.
>
> Older versions can be had for much less and would let you
> fly a twin and accumulate multi-engine time before ultimately
> getting the Seneca that you want. I admit I'm a bit biased
> since I've been flying 1964 C model Aztec for the last 7 years.
> There was a very, very nice Seneca III hangared in the same
> hangar as my Aztec and it made me conside trading for a Seneca,
> stricly on apperances. However, when I began comparing useful
> loads, single engine rate of climb, and over-all performance versus
> cost to aquire, I decided the Aztec fit my needs much better. At
> first, the blub seating and left side, low entry door looked like a plus
> for the Seneca that make getting passengers and big items in and out
> easier
> However, after taking a couple of trips the club seating turned out to
> be problematic for my family with the kids bumping knees. In our case,
> we like the forward facing seats and two large cargo areas fore and aft.
> better.
>
> Just food for thought.
>
> Ronnie
>
>
> "Frode Berg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> hi all!
>>
>> This might be a silly question, but I am dreaming of owning, or co-owning
>> a Piper Seneca.
>> Not this year or next, but maybe within the next 10 years.
>>
>> I have been browsing the aircraft for sale sites, and found planes from
>> the 70's (Seneca II) selling for as low as $139K with about half time
>> remaining on the engines and props.
>>
>> Anyone care to share the pro's and con's of the different models? (I-V)
>> Obviously, I will not be able to afford a V, so far, only the II's seem
>> accessible sort of.
>> Anything worth knowing about this model? Bad things?
>>
>> Also, I understand maintenance will be about double of what I have now
>> (Arrow 180).
>> Any other traps to consider cost wise going for a twin?
>>
>> Any other aircraft in the same price range that might be better choices?
>>
>> I'm looking for a piston certified for Icing conditions.
>> I also want a twin, as I'll be flying over mountains and have nightmares
>> about engine out's in IMC and icing conditions over mountain terrain.....
>>
>> Thanks for any hints,
>>
>> Frode
>>
>
>

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Frode Berg" > writes:

> [...] However, the Aztec idea is interesting.
> What are the figures for this plane?

Numbers like this area available widely on the web:
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/

> Loading capabilities? Speeds? Endurance/range?

For my model E: 1900lb useful load, 1000lb with full fuel (6+ hrs),
165kt @ 22gal/hr, 1000nm range.

- FChE

[The Visitor]

Don't plan on staying in icing conditions, just because you are have a
known icing package. Some do, I suppose it is a personal choice. Not all
icing conditions are the same.

I would not consider a I but a II or III. My understanding is the IV and
V have gained too much weight in fiberglass and jazz. Anybody have any
basic operating weights?? So most twin for dollar a 2 or 3.

My Seneca III (3250, deiced, a/c and colour radar). I think air
conditioning added 70 pds about. 1500 pound usefull load. Full long
range fuel, 750 pds.
I fly at 65 percent power, do not fully lean out the engines, 25 gph and
get 167 kts at 8 or 9 thousand feet. After two hours 176 kts. Typically
300 pds under gross at take off.

When you own the engines you really treat them nice.

An Aztruck is also a serious consideration.



Frode Berg wrote:
> hi all!
>
> This might be a silly question, but I am dreaming of owning, or co-owning a
> Piper Seneca.
> Not this year or next, but maybe within the next 10 years.
>
> I have been browsing the aircraft for sale sites, and found planes from the
> 70's (Seneca II) selling for as low as $139K with about half time remaining
> on the engines and props.
>
> Anyone care to share the pro's and con's of the different models? (I-V)
> Obviously, I will not be able to afford a V, so far, only the II's seem
> accessible sort of.
> Anything worth knowing about this model? Bad things?
>
> Also, I understand maintenance will be about double of what I have now
> (Arrow 180).
> Any other traps to consider cost wise going for a twin?
>
> Any other aircraft in the same price range that might be better choices?
>
> I'm looking for a piston certified for Icing conditions.
> I also want a twin, as I'll be flying over mountains and have nightmares
> about engine out's in IMC and icing conditions over mountain terrain.....
>
> Thanks for any hints,
>
> Frode
>
>

[Clay]

I fly a Seneca II and an Aztec (F).
The Seneca gives an honest 165 Kts at 65% and burn just under 23 gph.
The Aztec gives and honest 160 Kts at 65% and burns just under 30 gph.
Both are great airplanes.
We just put on LoPresti wing tips on the Seneca II and have not had a
chance to see how much increase in speed. Another Seneca II I have
flown has both the wing tip and cowling mods. It does 175 kts.
Seneca II has counter rotating propellers which helps in single engine
operations.
Seneca II has 200 hp/ engine. Aztec has 250 hp/ engine.
The aft baggage compartment in the Aztec is much easier to load than
the Seneca.
Either the Seneca or Aztec will make you a very nice twin. Also
concider the twin Commanche.

[Montblack]

( Frode Berg wrote)
> I have been browsing the aircraft for sale sites, and found planes from
> the 70's (Seneca II) selling for as low as $139K with about half time
> remaining on the engines and props.

> Any other aircraft in the same price range that might be better choices?


If the dream is still ten years out, that will give you some time to do a
couple of things:

1) Size up the Diamond DA42 Twin Star DIESEL after a decade in customers'
hands (like people are doing these days with Cirrus planes)

2) Find more partners to share the costs of owning a [used] DIESEL DA42 Twin
Star. :-)


Montblack
$139K per partner (x3) would get you a new DA42 plane, today - with
warranty. <g>
http://www.diamond-air.at/en/products/DA42/

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=403

[Ronnie]

Frode,

For my 1964 C model, non-turbo Aztec:

Gross Weight: 5,200 lbs Empty Weight: 3,120 lbs Useful Load: 2,080 lbs
Payload w/ Full Fuel 1,240 lbs

Total Fuel: 144 gallons Usable Fuel: 140 gallons
Payload with full fuel: 1,240 lbs



Normal cruise Performance: 160 KTAS @ 7,000 MSL @ 24 GPH
Endurance: 5.8 hours
Range: 928 NM



The flight manual indicates that the maximum cruise speed is 178 knots at
7,000' to 8,000' and 75% power.

I have found this to be optimistic. I flight plan for 160 knots with a fuel
burn of 25 GPH. In flight, I see

true airspeeds ranging from 160 to 165 knots and at the pumps the fuel
consumption normally turns out

to be around 22 GPH. Using 160 knots and 25 GPH is conservative and it is
easy to do the math for fuel

burn in your head.



If you'd rather save fuel, extended your range and endurance, and log more
multi-engine hours, just pull

the power back. On a recent flight at 3,500', I decided to use 2,000 RPM
and 18" of manifold pressure and

see what the speed and fuel flow would look like. The true airspeed was
around 135 knots and the fuel flow

was 15 gallons per hour. On a 425 NM trip, the calculated difference in
time en route was 30 minutes, turning

what would have been a 2 hour, 40 minute trip into a 3 hour, 10 minute trip.
The difference in the calculated

fuel consumption was 58.4 gallons versus 47.2 gallons, or a savings of 11.2
gallons. An added benefit of lower

power settings is that the airplane is quieter and the engines are loafing
along and running very cool.




Flight Speeds and Characteristics:



SPEED MPH
KTS

Vso 68
59

Vs 72
63

Vmc (Red radial line) 80 70

Vr (Vmc + 5) 85
74

Vxse 97
84

Vyse (Blue radial line) 102 89

Vx 107
93

Vy 120
104

Vfe 125
109

Va (@ 4800 lbs) 145 126

Vle 150
130

Vcruise 184
160

Vne 249
217




You have to look at the flight manual to get the various performance
figures, but on average

you will experience climb rates of between 1,400 to 1,900 FPM on a standard
day from 4,000 lbs

up to full gross weight. With my normal load and on a hot summer day
leaving a 782' MSL field

using a cruise-climb airspeed of 130 MPH, I'll average 750 to 1,000 FPM as
the initial rate of

climb. At light weights and under cool conditions, using Vyse, it is not
hard to peg the

+2,000 FPM limit on the vertical speed indicator. This is of course with
both engines running.

A healthy rate of climb provides a quicker trip up to the cooler, smoother
air where you and

your passengers will be more comfortable.



The single-engine rate of climb is much less. Rate of climb is dependent on
power in excess

of that necessary for level flight. When you lose an engine, you lose 50%
of your total power,

but in the order of 80% of your excess power. Therefore your climb
performance also suffers

by that same 80% figure. The flight manual shows a single-engine rate of
climb of between

225 and 625 FPM depending on weight for sea level, standard day conditions.
Many people

are afraid of twins because of this poor single engine performance and the
potential for loss

of control after an engine failure on take-off. But consider the climb
performance of a single

engine airplane after loosing one engine! I'll guarantee you it will be
less! The most critical

time period in a twin for losing an engine is the few seconds between
rotation and getting to

a safe maneuvering altitude. There is an elevated risk of losing control of
the airplane during

these critical few seconds of flight. This risk it managed by good initial
training, good recurrent

training, and by proper planning and preparation before each and every
take-off. If you are well

trained, well practiced and have thought through the possibilities before
each take-off, you

should have no difficulty executing the manufacturer's engine-out checklist
procedures and

maintaining control of the airplane.



For other phases of flight, an engine failure is a non-event. Assume you
are cruising along at

8,000' and you lose one engine. Yes, it will get your attention, but there
is no emergency.

Identify which engine failed, verify you have identified the correct engine
as the failed one,

and then go through the steps to either fix the problem or to feather the
prop and secure the

engine. If you end up securing the failed engine, you continue to fly on
the remaining engine

and will only slowly drift down to the single-engine service ceiling. This
is the altitude where

the rate of climb is less than 50 FPM. For the Aztec, the lowest
single-engine service ceiling is

5,000' and goes up to over 17,000' depending on initial take-off weight and
remaining fuel load.

In short, unless you are in the mountains, the single-engine service ceiling
will not likely be a

concern. Simply find an airport where repairs can be made and head that
way.



Similarly, a single-engine approach and landing is also a non-event. Fly
the airplane at Vyse

throughout the pattern, fly a bit wider than normal pattern to give yourself
a little extra time,

and defer the use of full flaps until the landing is assured. Once full
flaps are deployed, don't

attempt a go around. If you need to go around, make the decision early in
the approach. If you

attempt a "low and slow" go around, you've put yourself back into a single
engine takeoff phase

of flight which should be avoided.



I am a firm believer that a twin-engine airplane is safer than a
single-engine airplane, hands-down,

assuming a well trained, competent pilot in command in each airplane. The
benefit to you is that

you will fly safer as will your family and other passengers.



All the data above is for a non-turbo model. Turbo-charged Aztec are also
common and will

of course post higher speeds up high and associated higher fuel burns.
Maybe Kyler will

post the data for his turbo Aztec.



Ronnie





"Frode Berg" > wrote in message
...
> hi!
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
> As I stated, this is not a short term consideration, as I do not currently
> hold an IR license, but will be getting one starting this summer.
>
> My wife and I have been toying with the possibilities of getting a
> vacational house in southern Europe, and I've been saying ok, but we'll
> need a de-iced twin, and she agrees, so a lot of the job is done....
>
> :-)
>
> However, the Aztec idea is interesting.
>
> What are the figures for this plane?
>
> Loading capabilities? Speeds? Endurance/range?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Frode
>
>
> "Ronnie" > skrev i melding
> . com...
>> Frode,
>>
>> I know you asked specifically about a Seneca and if you
>> want a Seneca, a Seneca you should get. However, in the
>> meantime, you might consider another Piper twin, the Aztec.
>>
>> Older versions can be had for much less and would let you
>> fly a twin and accumulate multi-engine time before ultimately
>> getting the Seneca that you want. I admit I'm a bit biased
>> since I've been flying 1964 C model Aztec for the last 7 years.
>> There was a very, very nice Seneca III hangared in the same
>> hangar as my Aztec and it made me conside trading for a Seneca,
>> stricly on apperances. However, when I began comparing useful
>> loads, single engine rate of climb, and over-all performance versus
>> cost to aquire, I decided the Aztec fit my needs much better. At
>> first, the blub seating and left side, low entry door looked like a plus
>> for the Seneca that make getting passengers and big items in and out
>> easier
>> However, after taking a couple of trips the club seating turned out to
>> be problematic for my family with the kids bumping knees. In our case,
>> we like the forward facing seats and two large cargo areas fore and aft.
>> better.
>>
>> Just food for thought.
>>
>> Ronnie
>>
>>
>> "Frode Berg" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> hi all!
>>>
>>> This might be a silly question, but I am dreaming of owning, or
>>> co-owning a Piper Seneca.
>>> Not this year or next, but maybe within the next 10 years.
>>>
>>> I have been browsing the aircraft for sale sites, and found planes from
>>> the 70's (Seneca II) selling for as low as $139K with about half time
>>> remaining on the engines and props.
>>>
>>> Anyone care to share the pro's and con's of the different models? (I-V)
>>> Obviously, I will not be able to afford a V, so far, only the II's seem
>>> accessible sort of.
>>> Anything worth knowing about this model? Bad things?
>>>
>>> Also, I understand maintenance will be about double of what I have now
>>> (Arrow 180).
>>> Any other traps to consider cost wise going for a twin?
>>>
>>> Any other aircraft in the same price range that might be better choices?
>>>
>>> I'm looking for a piston certified for Icing conditions.
>>> I also want a twin, as I'll be flying over mountains and have nightmares
>>> about engine out's in IMC and icing conditions over mountain
>>> terrain.....
>>>
>>> Thanks for any hints,
>>>
>>> Frode
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Jim Burns]

My real world '66 C, non turbo Aztec numbers are identical to Ronnie's.
Recent 25 hour round trip flight from WI to Las Vegas and back yielded an
average of 22 gph fuel burn at TAS between 160 and 165. I also flight plan
on 160 TAS at 25gph.

Jim

"Ronnie" > wrote in message
. com...
> Frode,
>
> For my 1964 C model, non-turbo Aztec:
>
> Gross Weight: 5,200 lbs Empty Weight: 3,120 lbs Useful Load: 2,080
lbs
> Payload w/ Full Fuel 1,240 lbs
>
> Total Fuel: 144 gallons Usable Fuel: 140 gallons
> Payload with full fuel: 1,240 lbs
>
>
>
> Normal cruise Performance: 160 KTAS @ 7,000 MSL @ 24 GPH
> Endurance: 5.8 hours
> Range: 928 NM
>
>
>
> The flight manual indicates that the maximum cruise speed is 178 knots at
> 7,000' to 8,000' and 75% power.
>
> I have found this to be optimistic. I flight plan for 160 knots with a
fuel
> burn of 25 GPH. In flight, I see
>
> true airspeeds ranging from 160 to 165 knots and at the pumps the fuel
> consumption normally turns out
>
> to be around 22 GPH. Using 160 knots and 25 GPH is conservative and it is
> easy to do the math for fuel
>
> burn in your head.
>
>
>
> If you'd rather save fuel, extended your range and endurance, and log more
> multi-engine hours, just pull
>
> the power back. On a recent flight at 3,500', I decided to use 2,000 RPM
> and 18" of manifold pressure and
>
> see what the speed and fuel flow would look like. The true airspeed was
> around 135 knots and the fuel flow
>
> was 15 gallons per hour. On a 425 NM trip, the calculated difference in
> time en route was 30 minutes, turning
>
> what would have been a 2 hour, 40 minute trip into a 3 hour, 10 minute
trip.
> The difference in the calculated
>
> fuel consumption was 58.4 gallons versus 47.2 gallons, or a savings of
11.2
> gallons. An added benefit of lower
>
> power settings is that the airplane is quieter and the engines are loafing
> along and running very cool.
>
>
>
>
> Flight Speeds and Characteristics:
>
>
>
> SPEED MPH
> KTS
>
> Vso 68
> 59
>
> Vs 72
> 63
>
> Vmc (Red radial line) 80 70
>
> Vr (Vmc + 5) 85
> 74
>
> Vxse 97
> 84
>
> Vyse (Blue radial line) 102 89
>
> Vx 107
> 93
>
> Vy 120
> 104
>
> Vfe 125
> 109
>
> Va (@ 4800 lbs) 145
126
>
> Vle 150
> 130
>
> Vcruise 184
> 160
>
> Vne 249
> 217
>
>
>
>
> You have to look at the flight manual to get the various performance
> figures, but on average
>
> you will experience climb rates of between 1,400 to 1,900 FPM on a
standard
> day from 4,000 lbs
>
> up to full gross weight. With my normal load and on a hot summer day
> leaving a 782' MSL field
>
> using a cruise-climb airspeed of 130 MPH, I'll average 750 to 1,000 FPM as
> the initial rate of
>
> climb. At light weights and under cool conditions, using Vyse, it is not
> hard to peg the
>
> +2,000 FPM limit on the vertical speed indicator. This is of course with
> both engines running.
>
> A healthy rate of climb provides a quicker trip up to the cooler, smoother
> air where you and
>
> your passengers will be more comfortable.
>
>
>
> The single-engine rate of climb is much less. Rate of climb is dependent
on
> power in excess
>
> of that necessary for level flight. When you lose an engine, you lose 50%
> of your total power,
>
> but in the order of 80% of your excess power. Therefore your climb
> performance also suffers
>
> by that same 80% figure. The flight manual shows a single-engine rate of
> climb of between
>
> 225 and 625 FPM depending on weight for sea level, standard day
conditions.
> Many people
>
> are afraid of twins because of this poor single engine performance and the
> potential for loss
>
> of control after an engine failure on take-off. But consider the climb
> performance of a single
>
> engine airplane after loosing one engine! I'll guarantee you it will be
> less! The most critical
>
> time period in a twin for losing an engine is the few seconds between
> rotation and getting to
>
> a safe maneuvering altitude. There is an elevated risk of losing control
of
> the airplane during
>
> these critical few seconds of flight. This risk it managed by good
initial
> training, good recurrent
>
> training, and by proper planning and preparation before each and every
> take-off. If you are well
>
> trained, well practiced and have thought through the possibilities before
> each take-off, you
>
> should have no difficulty executing the manufacturer's engine-out
checklist
> procedures and
>
> maintaining control of the airplane.
>
>
>
> For other phases of flight, an engine failure is a non-event. Assume you
> are cruising along at
>
> 8,000' and you lose one engine. Yes, it will get your attention, but
there
> is no emergency.
>
> Identify which engine failed, verify you have identified the correct
engine
> as the failed one,
>
> and then go through the steps to either fix the problem or to feather the
> prop and secure the
>
> engine. If you end up securing the failed engine, you continue to fly on
> the remaining engine
>
> and will only slowly drift down to the single-engine service ceiling.
This
> is the altitude where
>
> the rate of climb is less than 50 FPM. For the Aztec, the lowest
> single-engine service ceiling is
>
> 5,000' and goes up to over 17,000' depending on initial take-off weight
and
> remaining fuel load.
>
> In short, unless you are in the mountains, the single-engine service
ceiling
> will not likely be a
>
> concern. Simply find an airport where repairs can be made and head that
> way.
>
>
>
> Similarly, a single-engine approach and landing is also a non-event. Fly
> the airplane at Vyse
>
> throughout the pattern, fly a bit wider than normal pattern to give
yourself
> a little extra time,
>
> and defer the use of full flaps until the landing is assured. Once full
> flaps are deployed, don't
>
> attempt a go around. If you need to go around, make the decision early in
> the approach. If you
>
> attempt a "low and slow" go around, you've put yourself back into a single
> engine takeoff phase
>
> of flight which should be avoided.
>
>
>
> I am a firm believer that a twin-engine airplane is safer than a
> single-engine airplane, hands-down,
>
> assuming a well trained, competent pilot in command in each airplane. The
> benefit to you is that
>
> you will fly safer as will your family and other passengers.
>
>
>
> All the data above is for a non-turbo model. Turbo-charged Aztec are also
> common and will
>
> of course post higher speeds up high and associated higher fuel burns.
> Maybe Kyler will
>
> post the data for his turbo Aztec.
>
>
>
> Ronnie
>
>
>
>
>
> "Frode Berg" > wrote in message
> ...
> > hi!
> >
> > Thanks for your input.
> >
> > As I stated, this is not a short term consideration, as I do not
currently
> > hold an IR license, but will be getting one starting this summer.
> >
> > My wife and I have been toying with the possibilities of getting a
> > vacational house in southern Europe, and I've been saying ok, but we'll
> > need a de-iced twin, and she agrees, so a lot of the job is done....
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > However, the Aztec idea is interesting.
> >
> > What are the figures for this plane?
> >
> > Loading capabilities? Speeds? Endurance/range?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Frode
> >
> >
> > "Ronnie" > skrev i melding
> > . com...
> >> Frode,
> >>
> >> I know you asked specifically about a Seneca and if you
> >> want a Seneca, a Seneca you should get. However, in the
> >> meantime, you might consider another Piper twin, the Aztec.
> >>
> >> Older versions can be had for much less and would let you
> >> fly a twin and accumulate multi-engine time before ultimately
> >> getting the Seneca that you want. I admit I'm a bit biased
> >> since I've been flying 1964 C model Aztec for the last 7 years.
> >> There was a very, very nice Seneca III hangared in the same
> >> hangar as my Aztec and it made me conside trading for a Seneca,
> >> stricly on apperances. However, when I began comparing useful
> >> loads, single engine rate of climb, and over-all performance versus
> >> cost to aquire, I decided the Aztec fit my needs much better. At
> >> first, the blub seating and left side, low entry door looked like a
plus
> >> for the Seneca that make getting passengers and big items in and out
> >> easier
> >> However, after taking a couple of trips the club seating turned out to
> >> be problematic for my family with the kids bumping knees. In our case,
> >> we like the forward facing seats and two large cargo areas fore and
aft.
> >> better.
> >>
> >> Just food for thought.
> >>
> >> Ronnie
> >>
> >>
> >> "Frode Berg" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> hi all!
> >>>
> >>> This might be a silly question, but I am dreaming of owning, or
> >>> co-owning a Piper Seneca.
> >>> Not this year or next, but maybe within the next 10 years.
> >>>
> >>> I have been browsing the aircraft for sale sites, and found planes
from
> >>> the 70's (Seneca II) selling for as low as $139K with about half time
> >>> remaining on the engines and props.
> >>>
> >>> Anyone care to share the pro's and con's of the different models?
(I-V)
> >>> Obviously, I will not be able to afford a V, so far, only the II's
seem
> >>> accessible sort of.
> >>> Anything worth knowing about this model? Bad things?
> >>>
> >>> Also, I understand maintenance will be about double of what I have now
> >>> (Arrow 180).
> >>> Any other traps to consider cost wise going for a twin?
> >>>
> >>> Any other aircraft in the same price range that might be better
choices?
> >>>
> >>> I'm looking for a piston certified for Icing conditions.
> >>> I also want a twin, as I'll be flying over mountains and have
nightmares
> >>> about engine out's in IMC and icing conditions over mountain
> >>> terrain.....
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for any hints,
> >>>
> >>> Frode
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

[Frode Berg]

Hi!

Thanks to all the replies!

I'm going to seriously look into the Aztec.

How is the baggage loading compared to the Seneca?

Is it easy to get bukjy items into the plane?
Easy to remove seats if I need to carry something big?

I ask, because I am a double bass player......

:-)

Frode

"Jim Burns" > skrev i melding
...
> My real world '66 C, non turbo Aztec numbers are identical to Ronnie's.
> Recent 25 hour round trip flight from WI to Las Vegas and back yielded an
> average of 22 gph fuel burn at TAS between 160 and 165. I also flight
> plan
> on 160 TAS at 25gph.
>
> Jim
>
> "Ronnie" > wrote in message
> . com...
>> Frode,
>>
>> For my 1964 C model, non-turbo Aztec:
>>
>> Gross Weight: 5,200 lbs Empty Weight: 3,120 lbs Useful Load: 2,080
> lbs
>> Payload w/ Full Fuel 1,240 lbs
>>
>> Total Fuel: 144 gallons Usable Fuel: 140 gallons
>> Payload with full fuel: 1,240 lbs
>>
>>
>>
>> Normal cruise Performance: 160 KTAS @ 7,000 MSL @ 24 GPH
>> Endurance: 5.8 hours
>> Range: 928 NM
>>
>>
>>
>> The flight manual indicates that the maximum cruise speed is 178 knots at
>> 7,000' to 8,000' and 75% power.
>>
>> I have found this to be optimistic. I flight plan for 160 knots with a
> fuel
>> burn of 25 GPH. In flight, I see
>>
>> true airspeeds ranging from 160 to 165 knots and at the pumps the fuel
>> consumption normally turns out
>>
>> to be around 22 GPH. Using 160 knots and 25 GPH is conservative and it
>> is
>> easy to do the math for fuel
>>
>> burn in your head.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you'd rather save fuel, extended your range and endurance, and log
>> more
>> multi-engine hours, just pull
>>
>> the power back. On a recent flight at 3,500', I decided to use 2,000 RPM
>> and 18" of manifold pressure and
>>
>> see what the speed and fuel flow would look like. The true airspeed was
>> around 135 knots and the fuel flow
>>
>> was 15 gallons per hour. On a 425 NM trip, the calculated difference in
>> time en route was 30 minutes, turning
>>
>> what would have been a 2 hour, 40 minute trip into a 3 hour, 10 minute
> trip.
>> The difference in the calculated
>>
>> fuel consumption was 58.4 gallons versus 47.2 gallons, or a savings of
> 11.2
>> gallons. An added benefit of lower
>>
>> power settings is that the airplane is quieter and the engines are
>> loafing
>> along and running very cool.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Flight Speeds and Characteristics:
>>
>>
>>
>> SPEED MPH
>> KTS
>>
>> Vso 68
>> 59
>>
>> Vs 72
>> 63
>>
>> Vmc (Red radial line) 80 70
>>
>> Vr (Vmc + 5) 85
>> 74
>>
>> Vxse 97
>> 84
>>
>> Vyse (Blue radial line) 102 89
>>
>> Vx 107
>> 93
>>
>> Vy 120
>> 104
>>
>> Vfe 125
>> 109
>>
>> Va (@ 4800 lbs) 145
> 126
>>
>> Vle 150
>> 130
>>
>> Vcruise 184
>> 160
>>
>> Vne 249
>> 217
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You have to look at the flight manual to get the various performance
>> figures, but on average
>>
>> you will experience climb rates of between 1,400 to 1,900 FPM on a
> standard
>> day from 4,000 lbs
>>
>> up to full gross weight. With my normal load and on a hot summer day
>> leaving a 782' MSL field
>>
>> using a cruise-climb airspeed of 130 MPH, I'll average 750 to 1,000 FPM
>> as
>> the initial rate of
>>
>> climb. At light weights and under cool conditions, using Vyse, it is not
>> hard to peg the
>>
>> +2,000 FPM limit on the vertical speed indicator. This is of course with
>> both engines running.
>>
>> A healthy rate of climb provides a quicker trip up to the cooler,
>> smoother
>> air where you and
>>
>> your passengers will be more comfortable.
>>
>>
>>
>> The single-engine rate of climb is much less. Rate of climb is dependent
> on
>> power in excess
>>
>> of that necessary for level flight. When you lose an engine, you lose
>> 50%
>> of your total power,
>>
>> but in the order of 80% of your excess power. Therefore your climb
>> performance also suffers
>>
>> by that same 80% figure. The flight manual shows a single-engine rate of
>> climb of between
>>
>> 225 and 625 FPM depending on weight for sea level, standard day
> conditions.
>> Many people
>>
>> are afraid of twins because of this poor single engine performance and
>> the
>> potential for loss
>>
>> of control after an engine failure on take-off. But consider the climb
>> performance of a single
>>
>> engine airplane after loosing one engine! I'll guarantee you it will be
>> less! The most critical
>>
>> time period in a twin for losing an engine is the few seconds between
>> rotation and getting to
>>
>> a safe maneuvering altitude. There is an elevated risk of losing control
> of
>> the airplane during
>>
>> these critical few seconds of flight. This risk it managed by good
> initial
>> training, good recurrent
>>
>> training, and by proper planning and preparation before each and every
>> take-off. If you are well
>>
>> trained, well practiced and have thought through the possibilities before
>> each take-off, you
>>
>> should have no difficulty executing the manufacturer's engine-out
> checklist
>> procedures and
>>
>> maintaining control of the airplane.
>>
>>
>>
>> For other phases of flight, an engine failure is a non-event. Assume you
>> are cruising along at
>>
>> 8,000' and you lose one engine. Yes, it will get your attention, but
> there
>> is no emergency.
>>
>> Identify which engine failed, verify you have identified the correct
> engine
>> as the failed one,
>>
>> and then go through the steps to either fix the problem or to feather the
>> prop and secure the
>>
>> engine. If you end up securing the failed engine, you continue to fly on
>> the remaining engine
>>
>> and will only slowly drift down to the single-engine service ceiling.
> This
>> is the altitude where
>>
>> the rate of climb is less than 50 FPM. For the Aztec, the lowest
>> single-engine service ceiling is
>>
>> 5,000' and goes up to over 17,000' depending on initial take-off weight
> and
>> remaining fuel load.
>>
>> In short, unless you are in the mountains, the single-engine service
> ceiling
>> will not likely be a
>>
>> concern. Simply find an airport where repairs can be made and head that
>> way.
>>
>>
>>
>> Similarly, a single-engine approach and landing is also a non-event. Fly
>> the airplane at Vyse
>>
>> throughout the pattern, fly a bit wider than normal pattern to give
> yourself
>> a little extra time,
>>
>> and defer the use of full flaps until the landing is assured. Once full
>> flaps are deployed, don't
>>
>> attempt a go around. If you need to go around, make the decision early
>> in
>> the approach. If you
>>
>> attempt a "low and slow" go around, you've put yourself back into a
>> single
>> engine takeoff phase
>>
>> of flight which should be avoided.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am a firm believer that a twin-engine airplane is safer than a
>> single-engine airplane, hands-down,
>>
>> assuming a well trained, competent pilot in command in each airplane.
>> The
>> benefit to you is that
>>
>> you will fly safer as will your family and other passengers.
>>
>>
>>
>> All the data above is for a non-turbo model. Turbo-charged Aztec are
>> also
>> common and will
>>
>> of course post higher speeds up high and associated higher fuel burns.
>> Maybe Kyler will
>>
>> post the data for his turbo Aztec.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ronnie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Frode Berg" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > hi!
>> >
>> > Thanks for your input.
>> >
>> > As I stated, this is not a short term consideration, as I do not
> currently
>> > hold an IR license, but will be getting one starting this summer.
>> >
>> > My wife and I have been toying with the possibilities of getting a
>> > vacational house in southern Europe, and I've been saying ok, but we'll
>> > need a de-iced twin, and she agrees, so a lot of the job is done....
>> >
>> > :-)
>> >
>> > However, the Aztec idea is interesting.
>> >
>> > What are the figures for this plane?
>> >
>> > Loading capabilities? Speeds? Endurance/range?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Frode
>> >
>> >
>> > "Ronnie" > skrev i melding
>> > . com...
>> >> Frode,
>> >>
>> >> I know you asked specifically about a Seneca and if you
>> >> want a Seneca, a Seneca you should get. However, in the
>> >> meantime, you might consider another Piper twin, the Aztec.
>> >>
>> >> Older versions can be had for much less and would let you
>> >> fly a twin and accumulate multi-engine time before ultimately
>> >> getting the Seneca that you want. I admit I'm a bit biased
>> >> since I've been flying 1964 C model Aztec for the last 7 years.
>> >> There was a very, very nice Seneca III hangared in the same
>> >> hangar as my Aztec and it made me conside trading for a Seneca,
>> >> stricly on apperances. However, when I began comparing useful
>> >> loads, single engine rate of climb, and over-all performance versus
>> >> cost to aquire, I decided the Aztec fit my needs much better. At
>> >> first, the blub seating and left side, low entry door looked like a
> plus
>> >> for the Seneca that make getting passengers and big items in and out
>> >> easier
>> >> However, after taking a couple of trips the club seating turned out to
>> >> be problematic for my family with the kids bumping knees. In our
>> >> case,
>> >> we like the forward facing seats and two large cargo areas fore and
> aft.
>> >> better.
>> >>
>> >> Just food for thought.
>> >>
>> >> Ronnie
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Frode Berg" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>> hi all!
>> >>>
>> >>> This might be a silly question, but I am dreaming of owning, or
>> >>> co-owning a Piper Seneca.
>> >>> Not this year or next, but maybe within the next 10 years.
>> >>>
>> >>> I have been browsing the aircraft for sale sites, and found planes
> from
>> >>> the 70's (Seneca II) selling for as low as $139K with about half time
>> >>> remaining on the engines and props.
>> >>>
>> >>> Anyone care to share the pro's and con's of the different models?
> (I-V)
>> >>> Obviously, I will not be able to afford a V, so far, only the II's
> seem
>> >>> accessible sort of.
>> >>> Anything worth knowing about this model? Bad things?
>> >>>
>> >>> Also, I understand maintenance will be about double of what I have
>> >>> now
>> >>> (Arrow 180).
>> >>> Any other traps to consider cost wise going for a twin?
>> >>>
>> >>> Any other aircraft in the same price range that might be better
> choices?
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm looking for a piston certified for Icing conditions.
>> >>> I also want a twin, as I'll be flying over mountains and have
> nightmares
>> >>> about engine out's in IMC and icing conditions over mountain
>> >>> terrain.....
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for any hints,
>> >>>
>> >>> Frode
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[Jim Burns]

Seats are easy to remove. 66 and newer have a larger rear baggage door.
150 lbs in the rear, 150 lbs in the nose. I think there is an STC for a
removable cabin door setup, I know guys that have used Aztec's for ambulance
service that have had a removable cabin door. There's also a coffin door
STC if you really want to get elaborate.

The forward wall of the rear baggage compartment is the seat back of the
rear bench seat, so pull the rear bench and it opens up into the rear
baggage compartment.

Standard seat rails extend from the spar rearwards to the baggage
compartment, however they are not drilled under the rear seat. There is
also a mod to drill the rails, pull the rear bench and install a second set
of chair's similar to the center seats.

Jim

"Frode Berg" > wrote in message
...
> Hi!
>
> Thanks to all the replies!
>
> I'm going to seriously look into the Aztec.
>
> How is the baggage loading compared to the Seneca?
>
> Is it easy to get bukjy items into the plane?
> Easy to remove seats if I need to carry something big?
>
> I ask, because I am a double bass player......
>
> :-)
>
> Frode
>
> "Jim Burns" > skrev i melding
> ...
> > My real world '66 C, non turbo Aztec numbers are identical to Ronnie's.
> > Recent 25 hour round trip flight from WI to Las Vegas and back yielded
an
> > average of 22 gph fuel burn at TAS between 160 and 165. I also flight
> > plan
> > on 160 TAS at 25gph.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > "Ronnie" > wrote in message
> > . com...
> >> Frode,
> >>
> >> For my 1964 C model, non-turbo Aztec:
> >>
> >> Gross Weight: 5,200 lbs Empty Weight: 3,120 lbs Useful Load:
2,080
> > lbs
> >> Payload w/ Full Fuel 1,240 lbs
> >>
> >> Total Fuel: 144 gallons Usable Fuel: 140 gallons
> >> Payload with full fuel: 1,240 lbs
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Normal cruise Performance: 160 KTAS @ 7,000 MSL @ 24 GPH
> >> Endurance: 5.8 hours
> >> Range: 928 NM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The flight manual indicates that the maximum cruise speed is 178 knots
at
> >> 7,000' to 8,000' and 75% power.
> >>
> >> I have found this to be optimistic. I flight plan for 160 knots with a
> > fuel
> >> burn of 25 GPH. In flight, I see
> >>
> >> true airspeeds ranging from 160 to 165 knots and at the pumps the fuel
> >> consumption normally turns out
> >>
> >> to be around 22 GPH. Using 160 knots and 25 GPH is conservative and it
> >> is
> >> easy to do the math for fuel
> >>
> >> burn in your head.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If you'd rather save fuel, extended your range and endurance, and log
> >> more
> >> multi-engine hours, just pull
> >>
> >> the power back. On a recent flight at 3,500', I decided to use 2,000
RPM
> >> and 18" of manifold pressure and
> >>
> >> see what the speed and fuel flow would look like. The true airspeed
was
> >> around 135 knots and the fuel flow
> >>
> >> was 15 gallons per hour. On a 425 NM trip, the calculated difference
in
> >> time en route was 30 minutes, turning
> >>
> >> what would have been a 2 hour, 40 minute trip into a 3 hour, 10 minute
> > trip.
> >> The difference in the calculated
> >>
> >> fuel consumption was 58.4 gallons versus 47.2 gallons, or a savings of
> > 11.2
> >> gallons. An added benefit of lower
> >>
> >> power settings is that the airplane is quieter and the engines are
> >> loafing
> >> along and running very cool.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Flight Speeds and Characteristics:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> SPEED MPH
> >> KTS
> >>
> >> Vso 68
> >> 59
> >>
> >> Vs 72
> >> 63
> >>
> >> Vmc (Red radial line) 80
70
> >>
> >> Vr (Vmc + 5) 85
> >> 74
> >>
> >> Vxse 97
> >> 84
> >>
> >> Vyse (Blue radial line) 102 89
> >>
> >> Vx 107
> >> 93
> >>
> >> Vy 120
> >> 104
> >>
> >> Vfe 125
> >> 109
> >>
> >> Va (@ 4800 lbs) 145
> > 126
> >>
> >> Vle 150
> >> 130
> >>
> >> Vcruise 184
> >> 160
> >>
> >> Vne 249
> >> 217
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> You have to look at the flight manual to get the various performance
> >> figures, but on average
> >>
> >> you will experience climb rates of between 1,400 to 1,900 FPM on a
> > standard
> >> day from 4,000 lbs
> >>
> >> up to full gross weight. With my normal load and on a hot summer day
> >> leaving a 782' MSL field
> >>
> >> using a cruise-climb airspeed of 130 MPH, I'll average 750 to 1,000 FPM
> >> as
> >> the initial rate of
> >>
> >> climb. At light weights and under cool conditions, using Vyse, it is
not
> >> hard to peg the
> >>
> >> +2,000 FPM limit on the vertical speed indicator. This is of course
with
> >> both engines running.
> >>
> >> A healthy rate of climb provides a quicker trip up to the cooler,
> >> smoother
> >> air where you and
> >>
> >> your passengers will be more comfortable.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The single-engine rate of climb is much less. Rate of climb is
dependent
> > on
> >> power in excess
> >>
> >> of that necessary for level flight. When you lose an engine, you lose
> >> 50%
> >> of your total power,
> >>
> >> but in the order of 80% of your excess power. Therefore your climb
> >> performance also suffers
> >>
> >> by that same 80% figure. The flight manual shows a single-engine rate
of
> >> climb of between
> >>
> >> 225 and 625 FPM depending on weight for sea level, standard day
> > conditions.
> >> Many people
> >>
> >> are afraid of twins because of this poor single engine performance and
> >> the
> >> potential for loss
> >>
> >> of control after an engine failure on take-off. But consider the climb
> >> performance of a single
> >>
> >> engine airplane after loosing one engine! I'll guarantee you it will
be
> >> less! The most critical
> >>
> >> time period in a twin for losing an engine is the few seconds between
> >> rotation and getting to
> >>
> >> a safe maneuvering altitude. There is an elevated risk of losing
control
> > of
> >> the airplane during
> >>
> >> these critical few seconds of flight. This risk it managed by good
> > initial
> >> training, good recurrent
> >>
> >> training, and by proper planning and preparation before each and every
> >> take-off. If you are well
> >>
> >> trained, well practiced and have thought through the possibilities
before
> >> each take-off, you
> >>
> >> should have no difficulty executing the manufacturer's engine-out
> > checklist
> >> procedures and
> >>
> >> maintaining control of the airplane.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> For other phases of flight, an engine failure is a non-event. Assume
you
> >> are cruising along at
> >>
> >> 8,000' and you lose one engine. Yes, it will get your attention, but
> > there
> >> is no emergency.
> >>
> >> Identify which engine failed, verify you have identified the correct
> > engine
> >> as the failed one,
> >>
> >> and then go through the steps to either fix the problem or to feather
the
> >> prop and secure the
> >>
> >> engine. If you end up securing the failed engine, you continue to fly
on
> >> the remaining engine
> >>
> >> and will only slowly drift down to the single-engine service ceiling.
> > This
> >> is the altitude where
> >>
> >> the rate of climb is less than 50 FPM. For the Aztec, the lowest
> >> single-engine service ceiling is
> >>
> >> 5,000' and goes up to over 17,000' depending on initial take-off weight
> > and
> >> remaining fuel load.
> >>
> >> In short, unless you are in the mountains, the single-engine service
> > ceiling
> >> will not likely be a
> >>
> >> concern. Simply find an airport where repairs can be made and head
that
> >> way.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Similarly, a single-engine approach and landing is also a non-event.
Fly
> >> the airplane at Vyse
> >>
> >> throughout the pattern, fly a bit wider than normal pattern to give
> > yourself
> >> a little extra time,
> >>
> >> and defer the use of full flaps until the landing is assured. Once
full
> >> flaps are deployed, don't
> >>
> >> attempt a go around. If you need to go around, make the decision early
> >> in
> >> the approach. If you
> >>
> >> attempt a "low and slow" go around, you've put yourself back into a
> >> single
> >> engine takeoff phase
> >>
> >> of flight which should be avoided.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I am a firm believer that a twin-engine airplane is safer than a
> >> single-engine airplane, hands-down,
> >>
> >> assuming a well trained, competent pilot in command in each airplane.
> >> The
> >> benefit to you is that
> >>
> >> you will fly safer as will your family and other passengers.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> All the data above is for a non-turbo model. Turbo-charged Aztec are
> >> also
> >> common and will
> >>
> >> of course post higher speeds up high and associated higher fuel burns.
> >> Maybe Kyler will
> >>
> >> post the data for his turbo Aztec.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ronnie
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Frode Berg" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > hi!
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for your input.
> >> >
> >> > As I stated, this is not a short term consideration, as I do not
> > currently
> >> > hold an IR license, but will be getting one starting this summer.
> >> >
> >> > My wife and I have been toying with the possibilities of getting a
> >> > vacational house in southern Europe, and I've been saying ok, but
we'll
> >> > need a de-iced twin, and she agrees, so a lot of the job is done....
> >> >
> >> > :-)
> >> >
> >> > However, the Aztec idea is interesting.
> >> >
> >> > What are the figures for this plane?
> >> >
> >> > Loading capabilities? Speeds? Endurance/range?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > Frode
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Ronnie" > skrev i melding
> >> > . com...
> >> >> Frode,
> >> >>
> >> >> I know you asked specifically about a Seneca and if you
> >> >> want a Seneca, a Seneca you should get. However, in the
> >> >> meantime, you might consider another Piper twin, the Aztec.
> >> >>
> >> >> Older versions can be had for much less and would let you
> >> >> fly a twin and accumulate multi-engine time before ultimately
> >> >> getting the Seneca that you want. I admit I'm a bit biased
> >> >> since I've been flying 1964 C model Aztec for the last 7 years.
> >> >> There was a very, very nice Seneca III hangared in the same
> >> >> hangar as my Aztec and it made me conside trading for a Seneca,
> >> >> stricly on apperances. However, when I began comparing useful
> >> >> loads, single engine rate of climb, and over-all performance versus
> >> >> cost to aquire, I decided the Aztec fit my needs much better. At
> >> >> first, the blub seating and left side, low entry door looked like a
> > plus
> >> >> for the Seneca that make getting passengers and big items in and out
> >> >> easier
> >> >> However, after taking a couple of trips the club seating turned out
to
> >> >> be problematic for my family with the kids bumping knees. In our
> >> >> case,
> >> >> we like the forward facing seats and two large cargo areas fore and
> > aft.
> >> >> better.
> >> >>
> >> >> Just food for thought.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ronnie
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Frode Berg" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >>> hi all!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> This might be a silly question, but I am dreaming of owning, or
> >> >>> co-owning a Piper Seneca.
> >> >>> Not this year or next, but maybe within the next 10 years.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I have been browsing the aircraft for sale sites, and found planes
> > from
> >> >>> the 70's (Seneca II) selling for as low as $139K with about half
time
> >> >>> remaining on the engines and props.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Anyone care to share the pro's and con's of the different models?
> > (I-V)
> >> >>> Obviously, I will not be able to afford a V, so far, only the II's
> > seem
> >> >>> accessible sort of.
> >> >>> Anything worth knowing about this model? Bad things?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Also, I understand maintenance will be about double of what I have
> >> >>> now
> >> >>> (Arrow 180).
> >> >>> Any other traps to consider cost wise going for a twin?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Any other aircraft in the same price range that might be better
> > choices?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I'm looking for a piston certified for Icing conditions.
> >> >>> I also want a twin, as I'll be flying over mountains and have
> > nightmares
> >> >>> about engine out's in IMC and icing conditions over mountain
> >> >>> terrain.....
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks for any hints,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Frode
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

> I also flight plan on 160 TAS at 25gph.

Now that fuel prices are near $5/gal that's $125/hr in gas. I"m sure
the oil companies love you. I'll continue to do 160 knots on 9.5 gal/hr
in my Mooney. If fuel prices keep going up, I may need an RV. :)

-Robert

[The Visitor]

In Canada it is even more It is over 5/gal in CDN dollars!

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>I also flight plan on 160 TAS at 25gph.
>
>
> Now that fuel prices are near $5/gal that's $125/hr in gas. I"m sure
> the oil companies love you. I'll continue to do 160 knots on 9.5 gal/hr
> in my Mooney. If fuel prices keep going up, I may need an RV. :)
>
> -Robert
>

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:13:03 -0400, The Visitor
> wrote:

>In Canada it is even more It is over 5/gal in CDN dollars!

$1.38 a litre at CYCE today

[Frode Berg]

$2 pr litre in most of Europe at least, so stop whining...

:-)

Last year, I paid NOK 19.80 per litre at Gronningen in the Netherlands.
That amounts to close to $3 pr litre, something like $11 pr Gallon....

Frode


"Drew Dalgleish" > skrev i melding
...
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:13:03 -0400, The Visitor
> > wrote:
>
>>In Canada it is even more It is over 5/gal in CDN dollars!
>
> $1.38 a litre at CYCE today
>