If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
I am going to do it again! A Piper Seneca?
Hi all,
Several of us have been renting twins are seriously looking into buying one. We have been renting a Seminole but are looking at a Seneca. I understand the Seneca I is to be avoided. The Seneca II is better and the III is the best in the batch. Our budget appears to be no more than 200K, but prefer the upper 100s. I would be interested in hearing any thoughts good or bad on the Airframe and engines. We are particularly concerned about the turbo charged Continentals. Thanks in advance, Michelle -- Michelle P CP-ASMEL-IA, and AMT-A&P "Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike) Volunteer Pilot, AirLifeLine Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Not much difference between many 2s and 3s. Many 2s have been legally
modified to have the single piece windshield, long range tanks and club seating of the 3. VG kits up the weight carrying ability of the 2 to match that of a 3, and look for an upgrade of the E engines to the EB version, 1400 tbo vs. 1800 tbo. What is more important now is TTAF and the features of specific planes. You'll pay full retail for any changes you make, whereas if you find one that has everything you want already, you'll pay the used price and not have to go through the time and hassle of upgrades. I've put about 1200 hrs on my 2 since 1998, and gone through having the engines overhauled. No particular concerns about the engines. "Michelle P" wrote in message ... Hi all, Several of us have been renting twins are seriously looking into buying one. We have been renting a Seminole but are looking at a Seneca. I understand the Seneca I is to be avoided. The Seneca II is better and the III is the best in the batch. Our budget appears to be no more than 200K, but prefer the upper 100s. I would be interested in hearing any thoughts good or bad on the Airframe and engines. We are particularly concerned about the turbo charged Continentals. Thanks in advance, Michelle -- Michelle P CP-ASMEL-IA, and AMT-A&P "Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike) Volunteer Pilot, AirLifeLine Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Michelle,
The Seneca I is no more to be avoided than the Seminole. Neither one has much of a single-engine ceiling. The Seneca I flys just fine. As long as you don't think you need turbos, then you should at least consider it. The Lycoming engines are a bit less problematic than the Conts. in the IIs and IIIs. (mainly because no turbos.) As others have said, there isn't that much difference between the IIs and IIIs. I got my ME in a Seneca I and my CFI ME in a turbo Seminole. I used to work at Piper (not as a pilot, though) and got the full factory checkout in Seneca III and thereafter rented the 2 that were in the company fleet. So, based on that, here is my impression: Think of a Seneca I as a retractable Cherokee 6 that will come down more slowly than the Cherokee 6 if the engine fails. The Seminole is just delightful to fly. Just like flying an Arrow, but with extra power (as long as both mills are turning). The Seneca III flys a lot more like the Seminole than a Seneca I. The handling was much less truck-like, especially with full flps on landing. The difference in power and engine smoothness between the I and III is striking. Best regards, Steve Robertson N4732J 1967 Beechcraft A23-24 Musketeer Super III Michelle P wrote: Hi all, Several of us have been renting twins are seriously looking into buying one. We have been renting a Seminole but are looking at a Seneca. I understand the Seneca I is to be avoided. The Seneca II is better and the III is the best in the batch. Our budget appears to be no more than 200K, but prefer the upper 100s. I would be interested in hearing any thoughts good or bad on the Airframe and engines. We are particularly concerned about the turbo charged Continentals. Thanks in advance, Michelle -- Michelle P CP-ASMEL-IA, and AMT-A&P "Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike) Volunteer Pilot, AirLifeLine Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Michelle P wrote in message ...
Hi all, Several of us have been renting twins are seriously looking into buying one. We have been renting a Seminole but are looking at a Seneca. I understand the Seneca I is to be avoided. The Seneca II is better and the III is the best in the batch. Our budget appears to be no more than 200K, but prefer the upper 100s. I would be interested in hearing any thoughts good or bad on the Airframe and engines. We are particularly concerned about the turbo charged Continentals. Seneca I is non-turbo'd, so take off performance, cruise, and engine-out performance are a bit doggish. The Seneca II and up are turbo'd. I have never flown a III, but have spent about 50 hrs in a Seneca II and enjoy it. Easy to fly, land, and engine out procedures are straight-forward. Long-range tanks are a must. If any of the pilots are tall, beware that front seat room is compromised by the club seating. At 6'3", I find the legroom very uncomfortable in the one club-seat Seneca I've flown. The normal 6pax configuration is fine. My in-laws have a Seneca II and it always seems like they replace a few cylinders each annual... Not sure if this is par for the course, or just reflective of that particular plane. -Nathan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I just wanted to thank you all for your responses. They were quite helpful.
At this time it appears that we are going for a well equipped Seneca III. Michelle Michelle P wrote: Hi all, Several of us have been renting twins are seriously looking into buying one. We have been renting a Seminole but are looking at a Seneca. I understand the Seneca I is to be avoided. The Seneca II is better and the III is the best in the batch. Our budget appears to be no more than 200K, but prefer the upper 100s. I would be interested in hearing any thoughts good or bad on the Airframe and engines. We are particularly concerned about the turbo charged Continentals. Thanks in advance, Michelle -- Michelle P CP-ASMEL-IA, and AMT-A&P "Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike) Volunteer Pilot, AirLifeLine Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity -- Michelle P CP-ASMEL-IA, and AMT-A&P "Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike) Volunteer Pilot, AirLifeLine Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Michelle P wrote in message k.net...
I just wanted to thank you all for your responses. They were quite helpful. At this time it appears that we are going for a well equipped Seneca III. You might want to take a look at Aero Commanders before you commit to the Seneca. A nicely equipped 500 or 600 piston Commander is well within the price range that you are looking at. Geared engines are not that big of a thing on them except at overhaul time. Commanders are also hard to beat on load capacity....generally 2500-3500 pounds usefull. Rock stable handling and engine outs are pretty ho-hum...dial in a bit of trim. The 680 that I just bought to rebuild will get off the ground in 1600 feet at 7000 pounds gross and burn about 35 gallons an hour total at cruise. Check www.aerocommander.com for complete specs. I know of one really nice one that is for sale right now. Craig C. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: Piper J3 Cub Parts | BFC | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 24th 04 03:20 PM |
Want to purchase PA34-200 Seneca | Grasshopper | General Aviation | 11 | July 7th 04 05:09 PM |
Piper 6.00x6 Nose Wheel and Fork? | mikem | General Aviation | 5 | March 5th 04 11:34 PM |
Piper Cub: "A Reflection in Time"... fine art print | highdesertexplorer | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | January 13th 04 03:47 AM |
The Piper Cubs That Weren't | Veeduber | Home Built | 5 | August 28th 03 04:38 AM |