SR22 or Seneca II?

Racerx said:
Mall never reopened. Movie might have helped with the demolition
Click to expand...
Mall was long closed prior to filming I believe. They had to put stores in to film the movie. “This place has get everything”. “The new Oldsmobiles are in early this year.” Are my fav quotes just from that scene.
 
Be aware the Seneca 1 only has a demonstrated x wind component of 12 knots due to ailerons. The Seneca 2 has longer ailerons and a greater x wind.
 
Flying only 60 hours a year in a twin is a recipe for killing yourself. If you understand how to properly maintain airspeed in the pattern, the Cirrus is a much safer bet in that situation. And I have never been a Cirrus guy.

Also, Senecas need to be flown high - as in O2 altitudes - to really get speed out of them.

RyanB said:
Only a 530lb useful load? How do you figure? It has to be more than that.
Click to expand...

That has to be with gas.
 
I may be wrong, but I think you are overestimating Seneca’s realistic cruise speed. Unless you are really planning on going to 25000ft or wherever that 190kts is. I’m also fairly sure 22TN is faster than pa34 or at least as fast @ lower fuel burn. Cirrus is going to be a cheaper plane to rent with fuel factored in at about the same cruise speed. Cirrus will also need a lot less fuel to make this trip saving some of the UL disadvantage which is it’s primarily issue for you. In the end, a fuel stop is not that big of a deal. Loaded pa34 range is probably uncomfortably close to your distance anyway(not sure about this actually).

I’d stick with 22. 60h is plenty if used wisely.
 
Last edited:
I am curious how is a 172 safer than SR22 for a 60 hour a year pilot?

Both are fixed gear. Both only have two levers for the engine (throttle and mixture)...

The SR22 is slightly faster in the pattern, otherwise the real difference is only in the cruise speed.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
 
tspear said:
I am curious how is a 172 safer than SR22 for a 60 hour a year pilot?

Both are fixed gear. Both only have two levers for the engine (throttle and mixture)...

The SR22 is slightly faster in the pattern, otherwise the real difference is only in the cruise speed.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Psssst. Don't give away the secret. We pilots want to be seen as super human. That piloting is so hard that the average being can't do it.

Is flying more better? Absolutely. Is it necessary to be proficient for most aircraft? Depends on the pilot. For most? I doubt it.
 
genna said:
I may be wrong, but I think you are overestimating Seneca’s realistic cruise speed.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing, anyone who's trying to push a Seneca II at 190kts is going to be eating cylinders like popcorn.
 
tspear said:
I am curious how is a 172 safer than SR22 for a 60 hour a year pilot?

Both are fixed gear. Both only have two levers for the engine (throttle and mixture)...

The SR22 is slightly faster in the pattern, otherwise the real difference is only in the cruise...
Click to expand...

A 172 is slower and things happen slower when you travel like that. It's far easier to lose altitude in a 172, just side slip it down. It's landing distance over 50ft is comparable to It's take off roll, too. The 22 can take off in places it can't land.

Basically the 22 can get ahead of you and requires you to plan ahead while the 172 is about as forgiving a plane as you could want.
 
wheaties said:
A 172 is slower and things happen slower when you travel like that. It's far easier to lose altitude in a 172, just side slip it down. It's landing distance over 50ft is comparable to It's take off roll, too. The 22 can take off in places it can't land.

Basically the 22 can get ahead of you and requires you to plan ahead while the 172 is about as forgiving a plane as you could want.
Click to expand...

22 slips quite well. All other things you said are true, but it does not require many hours to get used to. It's a pretty easy plane to fly once you account for a few things. Many of the proficiency issues revolve around more complicated avionics(vs non G1000 172). This can easily be practiced on a computer. Otherwise be on your numbers, don't get slow, learn emergency(kind of more complicated and easier at the same time), and plan ahead. Just like any other plane.

I'll also add that I personally find 22 very easy to land. Easier than 172 or anything else I have flown that does not have OLEO struts which is admittedly not that much.
 
Last edited:
I think you guys with 10,000 hours don't remember what it's like to have 210 hours. 60 hours a year is not much to stay proficient flying a slippery, high performance turbo aircraft when it's 30% of your entire experience. Probably is plenty when it's 0.3% of your experience. And if you're doing 4, 6 hour trips a year, that's half the hours right there.
 
wheaties said:
A 172 is slower and things happen slower when you travel like that. It's far easier to lose altitude in a 172, just side slip it down. It's landing distance over 50ft is comparable to It's take off roll, too. The 22 can take off in places it can't land.

Basically the 22 can get ahead of you and requires you to plan ahead while the 172 is about as forgiving a plane as you could want.
Click to expand...

You can the SR22 slower, that is the pilots prerogative. There is nothing that says you have to fly fast. For example when i went for my IFR rating, I flew almost the whole thing at 110 KTAS in an SR20 where my usual cruise is normally 140 KTAS.

Not sure how descent rate matters, I can come down at 2000+ FPM in the Cirrus SR22 just fine, my sinuses do not like it. At typical descent rates of 500fpn to 750fpm there is no difference in either plane.

In terms of takeoff versus landing, every pilot should know how to read performance charts. I have no idea what your point is here.

Tim
 
Salty said:
I think you guys with 10,000 hours don't remember what it's like to have 210 hours. 60 hours a year is not much to stay proficient flying a slippery, high performance turbo aircraft when it's 30% of your entire experience. Probably is plenty when it's 0.3% of your experience. And if you're doing 4, 6 hour trips a year, that's half the hours right there.
Click to expand...

I state the following to a lot of IT people, because I hear it a lot. I have 25 years of experience. When actually dig into it, they have had one year of experience twenty five times.
10K hours is meaningless without context, and actually doing something more than the same flight every day.

I also trained in an SR20, Cirrus has also been very successful with new pilots training in SR aircraft. They are used at many flight schools.
Slippery teaches good energy management. The rest is just learning when to use the tools provided, e.g. do you open it up and go fast?

There is no reason to over think this. You can fly a Cirrus very conservatively, just pull the power back and let the Cessna 172 pass you.

Among the OPs choices, the only bad one would be a twin at such a low number of hours annually. The number of hours currently is immaterial.

Tim
 
I honestly wonder how many hours the typical twin-owner flies annually. I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear 60-80 hours each year for a Seneca or 310 owner. I'm certainly not friends with a lot of twin owners, but I just don't see a ton of them flying around that makes me think they are getting up in the air more than once or twice a month for a few hours. Whether anyone here considers that enough to be "safe" is another matter.
 
genna said:
....Many of the proficiency issues revolve around more complicated avionics(vs non G1000 172). This can easily be practiced on a computer...
Click to expand...
Interesting. My instrument check ride DPE expressed similar sentiment -- he's finding pilots fly the plane and approaches fine but struggle more with the electronics. I mentioned earlier using XP11 to gain initial familiarity with the 22, but, it seems I could also use it routinely for ongoing electronics proficiency. Hmmm....
 
SoonerAviator said:
I honestly wonder how many hours the typical twin-owner flies annually. I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear 60-80 hours each year for a Seneca or 310 owner. I'm certainly not friends with a lot of twin owners, but I just don't see a ton of them flying around that makes me think they are getting up in the air more than once or twice a month for a few hours. Whether anyone here considers that enough to be "safe" is another matter.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised either. But, I'm familiar with the concept of "normalization of deviance" so I'd judge that fact to be irrelevant. There's a whole lot of people making craters with twins under circumstances that shouldn't have had that result. I'm not going to be one of them. If I fly a twin, I'm going to fly it enough to stay proficient. Which is why I'm not flying a twin.
 
Salty said:
I wouldn't be surprised either. But, I'm familiar with the concept of "normalization of deviance" so I'd judge that fact to be irrelevant. There's a whole lot of people making craters with twins under circumstances that shouldn't have had that result. I'm not going to be one of them. If I fly a twin, I'm going to fly it enough to stay proficient. Which is why I'm not flying a twin.
Click to expand...

I get that. I just mean that there are likely lots of guys flying twins for 60 hours a year and not making craters. Are those guys proficient/safe? Hard to say since we don't know what they are practicing/doing in that 60-80 hour time span. Is there something magic that happens if you fly a twin 100-hours a year that makes it better?
 
MICHAEL MAHN said:
Thanks for the thoughts everyone. Several have weighed in 60/year is even too little for a SR22. It was at least nice dreaming about a SR22 for a brief moment. If I end up flying well north of 60/year I'll reconsider.
Click to expand...

My two cents: Nonsense. 5 hours per month is fine if its productive. Hire an instructor to do engine out drills every few months. Otherwise its just a faster airplane. I'd go Seneca.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I get that. I just mean that there are likely lots of guys flying twins for 60 hours a year and not making craters. Are those guys proficient/safe? Hard to say since we don't know what they are practicing/doing in that 60-80 hour time span. Is there something magic that happens if you fly a twin 100-hours a year that makes it better?
Click to expand...
Actually, there is a little bit of magic that happens by doing something repeatedly. Now, if you get in 10 times and fly 10 hours and land once each time, and that's it, no you aren't going to get much out of that. That's why I say 60 hours is maybe enough to stay proficient if you're actually training for that 60 hours. But that doesn't leave him any time for his mission.
 
Salty said:
Actually, there is a little bit of magic that happens by doing something repeatedly. Now, if you get in 10 times and fly 10 hours and land once each time, and that's it, no you aren't going to get much out of that. That's why I say 60 hours is maybe enough to stay proficient if you're actually training for that 60 hours. But that doesn't leave him any time for his mission.
Click to expand...
I agree. I was just saying that the hours flown may or may not be meaningful depending on what was being done in that time span.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk
 
Up thread someone said people in Europe only fly 10-12 hours per year.. is this true? They're logging barely 1 hr per month? Why?

The flying clubs in Hungary charge about $150 EUR/hr for their 172 and around $200 - $220 for a 182/182RG. Instruction is another $30 Eur per hr.

Even if the costs work out in some cases to $400/hr (which I've heard can be true in other parts of Europe for even PA-28 rentals) that seems like a seriously low amount of hours to be flying.. 10-12
 
I don't know much about flying twins so I will deffer to others for how many hours/year is enough to be proficient. But 60 hours is an average time to get a PPL in a single, is it not? From 0 experience. I would think that you do not need to do the same every year to retain all those skills. I bet most flying private pilots who are not training fly under that amount.
 
Tantalum said:
Up thread someone said people in Europe only fly 10-12 hours per year.. is this true? They're logging barely 1 hr per month? Why?

The flying clubs in Hungary charge about $150 EUR/hr for their 172 and around $200 - $220 for a 182/182RG. Instruction is another $30 Eur per hr.

Even if the costs work out in some cases to $400/hr (which I've heard can be true in other parts of Europe for even PA-28 rentals) that seems like a seriously low amount of hours to be flying.. 10-12
Click to expand...

Airspace and landing fees maybe?

Oh, and y'all better take note of this. I'm recommending the Cirrus.
 
genna said:
I don't know much about flying twins so I will deffer to others for how many hours/year is enough to be proficient. But 60 hours is an average time to get a PPL in a single, is it not? From 0 experience. I would think that you do not need to do the same every year to retain all those skills. I bet most flying private pilots who are not training fly under that amount.
Click to expand...
I strive to be better than I was when I got my ppl. A lot better.
 
Last edited:
I'm a twin lover, but for the OP, I'd say go with the SR22 unless you plan/are able to spend regular time flying the Seneca in order to get/stay proficient. Both airplanes require proficiency to fly well, but the Twin is more likely to kill the non-proficient pilot.
 
Tantalum said:
Twin.

Useful load
Safe - if you are competent and practice procedures often

I was a Cirrus obsessive for a long time, still think they're great planes, but after getting my multi I'm not going back to SE....
Click to expand...
Racerx said:
Off the Cirrus bandwagon?! Say it ain't so!!
Click to expand...
I'm waiting for Tantalum to go full circle and start jonesing to fly 182's again!
 
Arnold said:
My two cents: Nonsense. 5 hours per month is fine if its productive. Hire an instructor to do engine out drills every few months. Otherwise its just a faster airplane. I'd go Seneca.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. It may take some effort, but if you were to allot enough of that time to recurrent training, do some sim work, and are dedicated to building your knowledge of your aircraft and aviation in general, 5 hours a month would be fine.
 
I've flown a Seneca and a few SR22s; none of them turbo. Unless everyone is happy to wear a cannula then a turbo is not that helpful on the eastern half of the country.

Do they keep them full? That's often the case when rented dry. That hurts your payload in a SR22TN.

Both are good IFR platforms. What avionics are in each? The avionics can make a big difference though. A good autopilot makes long trips nicer, as well as approaches at the end. WAAS gives you more options. It's easy to get FIS-B/XM weather via portables.

Neither is a bad option. I own a share in a SR22, so I'm biased towards that. The Seneca has a bigger cabin (slightly wider and seats for six) and can haul more. The front seats in the SR22 feel bigger with no yoke in front of either person.

At 210 hours and around 60 hr/year I'd give simpler a slight advantage, which is the SR22 in this case. Not a huge preference. I started my multi training at just over 280 hours. For a year I flew both an Arrow and a Seneca I. Their avionics were very similar, which made IFR flying easier going back-and-forth between them.

Flying faster could reduce your hours, or kick them up as you can do more. It will make those 500-600nm trips nicer. You can knock that out in one leg if you can carry enough fuel with the amount of payload you are carrying; headwinds can change that though.
 
PaulS said:
That sounds like full fuel remaining load.
Click to expand...

Yes.

My normally aspirated G1 SR22 can take off with 555 lbs of passengers & cargo, with full tanks (81 gal) and full non-FIKI TKS fluid (26 lbs). Three adult occupants are no problem.

The OP mentioned a TN model —the turbocharger reduces the useful load. If it has A/C that will cost even more useful load. And FIKI is a further hit on useful load.
 
tspear said:
I am curious how is a 172 safer than SR22 for a 60 hour a year pilot?

Both are fixed gear. Both only have two levers for the engine (throttle and mixture)...

The SR22 is slightly faster in the pattern, otherwise the real difference is only in the cruise speed.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

A 172 is much more forgiving of a lack of speed discipline at pattern speeds.

Bill said:
I was thinking the same thing, anyone who's trying to push a Seneca II at 190kts is going to be eating cylinders like popcorn.
Click to expand...

I mean, if the airplane is set up right and has good engines, and you fly it with a mask on in Class A, you can get those speeds. That is a bunch of ifs though.

genna said:
22 slips quite well. All other things you said are true, but it does not require many hours to get used to. It's a pretty easy plane to fly once you account for a few things. Many of the proficiency issues revolve around more complicated avionics(vs non G1000 172). This can easily be practiced on a computer. Otherwise be on your numbers, don't get slow, learn emergency(kind of more complicated and easier at the same time), and plan ahead. Just like any other plane.

I'll also add that I personally find 22 very easy to land. Easier than 172 or anything else I have flown that does not have OLEO struts which is admittedly not that much.
Click to expand...

As a Tiger owner, I find flying a Cirrus much easier and more pleasant to fly than a Cessna dump truck.

Tantalum said:
Up thread someone said people in Europe only fly 10-12 hours per year.. is this true? They're logging barely 1 hr per month? Why?

The flying clubs in Hungary charge about $150 EUR/hr for their 172 and around $200 - $220 for a 182/182RG. Instruction is another $30 Eur per hr.

Even if the costs work out in some cases to $400/hr (which I've heard can be true in other parts of Europe for even PA-28 rentals) that seems like a seriously low amount of hours to be flying.. 10-12
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think that's not really as common as the poster suggested. My friends who fly in Europe are flying more like 30-50 hours minimum. Not even close to what you or I fly, but definitely not 10-12 hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top