The Seneca I is similar in cockpit/panel layout and appearance to the PA-28R-200 (Piper Arrow) of its day. If you have any time in the Arrow (I was instructing in the Arrow when I 1st flew the Seneca) you'll see what I mean. It's a good multi trainer. As with all light twins, not much single engine performance. For thrills, read up (if you haven't already) on what is and isn't required of light twins, performance-wise, when an engine fails. Even at well under gross, you'll notice the difference in SE performance (i.e., ROC) on cold days vs. hot days, if you have occasion to do SE work in the airplane in winter and in summer. It is possible to demo the difference between published Vyse/blue line, which is a gross weight speed, and Vyse for a given weight, if you will. I recall my ATP examiner (did Commercial multi add-on in Seneca I, and also did initial ATP in Seneca I) demo'd how the lighter than gross weight airplane climbed faster SE at several knots below blue line, and SE performance wasn't too bad on that cold day at that lower speed. Now, that was with zero thrust, rather than fully feathered, if I remember correctly, so that's a factor, too. But still instructional on weight to Vyse relationship. Could go on, but enough of that. It's a good training airplane. The later turbocharged and higher horsepower (220 hp ? starting with III, I think; II is 200hp turbocharged) versions are decent transportation machines for unpressurized piston twins. Oh, I bought a standard POH and studied it before I took the course; I think the course provider sent it to me. One bit of trivia: I think it has a max landing weight of 4,000, vs. max takeoff weight of 4,200 lbs, for the standard airplane. Check me on that. Good question for oral.