Looking 4 info on Piper seneca II

[momalley81]

For personal use, I'd go with the twinkie. Did my multi in one, burns less gas, more "user friendly" engines, and can carry 4 people and 5 hours of gas easy. Seneca II will (theoreticly) hold altitude at 13k on one, but it won't climb all that well. There is a recurring AD to inspect the nose gear and associated linkage every 100hrs.

 

[avbug]

What is a "twinkie?"

 

[Shiny Side Up]

Lots of great info and a few guys that own/fly Seneca II's here: piperchat.com

 

[Rally]

I think a twinkie is a "twin comanche"

 

[Vik]

Yes, a "twinkie' is a Piper PA-30/39 Twin Comanche. It is the most economical light twin ever built. Nothing can match its figures even today. It has excellent type support even though its been out of production since 1972. I just sold mine and its one of my favorite planes and out of all the light twins I've flown -- Baron, Seneca, Seminole, Duchess, Aztec, Apache, etc., its the best .. its the Ferrari of light twins.

I just sold mine, but in a year or two I'll be in the market for one. AOPA gave a fully refurb'd one away last year.

 

[gfvalvo]

How does the inevitable payload verses range compromise work out in a “twinkie”?

Yes, a "twinkie' is a Piper PA-30/39 Twin Comanche. It is the most economical light twin ever built.
.
.
I just sold mine and its one of my favorite planes and out of all the light twins I've flown -- Baron, Seneca, Seminole, Duchess, Aztec, Apache, etc., its the best .. its the Ferrari of light twins.

 

[momalley81]

It's been a while, and I don't have the book with me, but, if I recall there are 6 tanks; 30 gallon mains, 15 gallon aux's and optional 15 gallon tips tanks. I think total usable capacity was either 113 or 117 gallons.

IIRC, 4 FAA standard pax and 4 hours of fuel wouldn't be unreasonable, might even be more. Bottom line, unless you're hauling boxes, you'll have way more gas than is comfortable with a full cabin. IIRC as well, fuel in the optional tip tanks is "free" with regards to takeoff weight.

 

[NuGuy]

Heyas,

I have a fair bit of experience with the II. You might do better with a III...one piece windshield, autowastegates on the turbos. The engines tolerate ham-handedness a bit better, but they'll still set you back a fair bit on the OH reserve.

In either case, the engines DO NOT tolerate careless pilots...if you have a bunch of guys into "renter's cruise" and "chop and drop" you'll be paying for top overhauls every 500 hours

If you have low timers, and don't need the performance, I'd suggest sticking with something normally aspirated...a Twinkie works very well for that, but if you're not into speed, PA-44s, BE-76s or Grumman Cougars work too, but finding clean examples of any of those for less than top dollar is getting very difficult.

Nu

 

[Lead Sled]

You might do better with a III...one piece windshield, autowastegates on the turbos. The engines tolerate ham-handedness a bit better, but they'll still set you back a fair bit on the OH reserve.

In either case, the engines DO NOT tolerate careless pilots...if you have a bunch of guys into "renter's cruise" and "chop and drop" you'll be paying for top overhauls every 500 hours

If you have low timers, and don't need the performance, I'd suggest sticking with something normally aspirated...a Twinkie works very well for that, but if you're not into speed, PA-44s, BE-76s or Grumman Cougars work too, but finding clean examples of any of those for less than top dollar is getting very difficult.

It's been more years than i care to remember since I flew a Seneca, But I believe that both the II and III had fixed wastegates. There is a Merlynn wastegate STC for them. I was at an AOPA Plantation Party one time and heard a Continental tech rep give a presentation on engine operation. He made a comment that probably bares repeating here (since the Seneca II is frequently used for training) - everytime you shut a turbocharged piston engine down in flight it knocks 50 to 100 off of the life of the engine. Personally, I thought that the Seneca was just OK; but then I was coming out of a Baron 56TC at the time and there isn't a twin that flys as nice as a Baron or a light twin that has better single-engine (or twin engine) performance than a 56TC.

LS