Looking 4 info on Piper seneca II

[darien]

I'm looking into joining a partnership in a pa 34-200t cr turbo seneca II. Where can i find performance info specs on fuel burn etc. Anywords of advise are also greatly appreciated.
Darien

 

[avbug]

Go grab the aircraft manual and study it. No better source for the performance. Then grab the maintenance manuals and study those. No better source for systems.

The Seneca II is a forgiving airpalne with some of the best single engine performance in a light piston twin. Most of my time in them was spent operating off rough dirt airstrips in some harsh conditions, and they performed well.

The door, like most of the piper cherokee line of doors, is junk, and the latch is prone to wear and breakage. Take care with it.

Baby the engines. Take care of them, they'll take care of you.

The landing gear is strong. The spar box where the gear turnion attaches is not. I can say that from experience.

The spar is not excessively strong. Don't test it. Trust me on that.

For a light piston twin, it's a nice flying airplane. Have a good prebuy done on it, using someone you really trust...your mechanic, not theirs.

 

[darien]

We have the same mechanic and I trust him. Was wondering if there is a website with the numbers for a quick reference to see if this plane would be an option for my purpose.

 

[darien]

what i'm looking for is the fuel burn per side and avg cruise speed

 

[momalley81]

I average 12-13/hr per engine running freight. At 9k (boss is too cheap for oxygen) that gives 165-180 true. Depending on the plane (some are more twisted than others).

Either 92 or 123 gal. usable total capacity, the short range models you'll actually reach max zero fuel weight before you reach max t/o weight, even with fill fuel, unless you have deicing equipment installed.

Average empty weights I've seen are 3020-3180lbs. With the 93 gal. tanks (or 3 1/2 hours of go-juice) that'll give you around 700-800 lbs of payload, not including the 200lb pilot and his gear.

Big cabin, plenty of room for 4 people and bags, might be kind of cozy if you try and squeeze 6 and bags though.

 

[darien]

thanks momally My largest hurdle may be the ins. premium partners are currently paying 2500 each 2 of them I would be the third but prob larger premium. Depending on cost may be going with a used twinkie Lower all around cost

 

[Vik]

I just sold my PA-30. Go w/ the PA-30. The Seneca guzzles gas. PA-30 .. 14-15gph .. 155 - 160 KTAS .. 16gph .. 165 KTAS. Operating costs of a single w/ a twin.

 

[darien]

Vik you had that for a while. I rember talking to you about that about a year ago. If you run across a good one let me know. I could use some help. I may find a partner and buy one. I have a partnership in other planes and it works out well.
D

 

[deadstick]

Look long and hard at the engines. Those 6 cyl 360 Conts are not owner-friendly. If there are more than 700 hours on the cylinders, expect to do a top OH soon. I believe that is about $1300/clyliner + labor. A factory engine with a OH turbo is about $31,000 each + about 25-30 hrs labor per side

One thing I seem to recall is that the Seneca has to get to altitude to get the speed the Baron 58 gets down low.

Also, have a very good inspectipon of the fwd bulkhead and A-frame. I've seen several nose gears and A-frames shear and break due to bad landings. Makes them look like low-riders.

The greatest cost of ownership is not the purchase price. It's the mx. I love the PA30 except you are looking at a 40-50 year old airframe and all the issues asociated with 40-50 year old parts.

...and then you have to worry about selling it.

Best of luck.

 

[avbug]

I believe we always flight planned for 170 true, and it worked out fairly close. 15=17 gph was a good fuel burn, and we had 123 gallon tanks. Same speed high or low, fuel burn got better with height. The one thing that stuck out in my mind about that airplane was it's single engine service ceiling. Practically speaking, we were able to hold about eight thousand on one engine with several people and full fuel. For a light twin, that's pretty good.

Our engines made TBO. We traded for remains, I installed those. The weren't cheap, and they're not getting any cheaper. Those airplanes were hard workers off rough fields and rough conditions, and held up quite well, all things considered.

 

[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