denverpilot
Tied Down
“And if you’re bi-curious in a different way, we have Bi-Planes at Bubba’s, too! We’re working on getting a bi-plane bi-engine airplane so you can be quad-curious too! Or is that bi-bi-curious? We don’t know!”
Buying A Piper Seneca II
- Thread starter TheHulk
- Start date
cowman
Final Approach
Hey I'm only interested in the flying, I'm not making out with it. Which, by agreement at KY dam is... well.. nm.
Yeah so how hard are twins to handle again?
Yeah so how hard are twins to handle again?
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
It's not that difficult. It requires one to be more systematic, consistent and disciplined in the way the airplane is flown, simply because there are more things going on and all of it happening a bit faster.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,724
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Yes and no. The Seneca I is powered by two NA Lyco angle IO-360s (200HP).... and they're pretty much in the hands of flight schools getting the living snot hard landed and inflight engine shutdown out of them. They're considered poor OEI performers in the twin realm, but they retain the simplicity and costs savings of the the Cherokee six airframe (doesn't even have a gas heater in the case of the Seneca I), which just like the seminole (also accused of poor performance), are universally favored by the flight training market. As such, they're difficult to procure for private use and when they do come up in the market they're not worth having privately (run out wings in the case of the seminole). So good luck fetching one worth having. As far as I know, no STC to retrofit NA Lycos into the much more prevalent Seneca II exists (powered by the Turbo Arrow's fixed gate turbo conti 360). The cost to upkeep those engines is substantially higher, making the aggregate costs of upkeep between the Seneca I vice its turbo counters not worthy of comparison. They share the same fuselage and gear, but that's as far as the comparison goes, both on cost and OEI performance, to be fair to the turbo'd senecas.
The Lances and Saratogas offer that cabin at a capital premium; only you can decide if it's worth paying the premium for the mx and fuel savings. If I was truly in need for useful load, I'd personally look at other NA applications like the C-310 or PA-23-250 to bridge that gap. The Aztec actually gets you a competitive cabin when compared to the -32 series. The airframe will be harder to maintain than a seneca by a good clip, the latter's engine costs notwithstanding of course.
A twin Comanche might be a good compromise if you're just looking for simpleton powerplant redundancy without the need for high usefuls. Basically a 320HP single comanche. Flies about the same, also shares the aging orphaned mx nuances of the PA-24 line. No free lunch. But the speed on 16-17gph is pretty decent for an airplane carrying the drag penalty of an extra engine and three noses around. These are very proliferate in the market, both on NA and turbo, so I think it would be orders of magnitude easier to procure since flights schools don't use them. People say is the touchy landing characteristics of the smooth wing and big nose tire, but imo it's due to the aging aircraft issues of a high parts count orphaned airplane and the impact procuring parts and inspections has on the dispatch rate. If someone tells you the twinkie has the same dispatch rate as a seminole, you know they're fanatical about their choice; go talk to the people who make money renting twins. I digress.
So those are your choices. Ya pays yer money ya take yers chances. Personally I'm still very much on the fence. I'm looking for a 15 year airplane and frankly I'm very skeptical of the outlook on these older, less supported ships. You can kinda tell as the boomer population leaves the avocation how these communities continue to shrink in support. Trainer commonplace airplanes don't have that problem, but it's hard finding good airframes. So I go back and forth. In the end, depends on what level of involvement and inclination towards taking an active role in the curation of these birds you're able and/or willing to put on, which also is largely dictated by the stage in life you're on. If I had more time and nowhere to be, I'd be more inclined to own something more demanding, and use my time to save on labor. As it is, I'm stuck in lower performance land in order to preserve dispatch and in-and-out mx (Arrow). Where you fall on that continuum can shape your choices beyond just price point. As to the training piece, yeah it requires a rating and insurance qualifying flight time, with a personal commitment to keeping OEI proficiency and recency in your selected airframe. Nothing new there.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Ooh sounds just lovely in climates where we have real winter. LOL.
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
Twins can be a handful. More than that is really a waste.
Radar Contact
Pattern Altitude
You should have told me you were thinking about twins in KY...I'd have taken you up for a ride.
They aren't hard to handle. They do require training to ensure you deal with failures correctly. They are faster and more complex so if you transition up from your PA28 you will feel behind things for a bit but with good training and time in type, it will all become second nature.
@hindsight2020 did a good job of explaining the non-turbo Seneca issue. I got my multi and MEI in a Seneca I and when I began my search for a NA twin, they weren't close to being in my mind to buy.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yes, the Seneca I (1972-1974 models). All of the newer ones (II through V) are turbocharged.
"Basically, a 320hp single Comanche" that requires twin proficiency, but where only half your engine can fail at a time.
There is a small nosewheel STC for the Twinkie, and I've heard that adding the Knots2U wing fillet kit dramatically improves the landing characteristics. They're pretty well supported for old birds.
The difference in the ownership experience now that I own a 1997 airplane has definitely dampened my desire to own a Twin Comanche. They were only built from 1964 through 1972, when Piper's Lock Haven factory was flooded, so they're all older than me, and I'm sure they require more mx than the younger birds.
cowman
Final Approach
It was really KY and seeing actual twins in use that got me thinking about it again.
The thing is I know on paper the PA-32 makes the most sense for what I need and want to do. The only justification I can think of for going twin for my purposes is the redundancy but I think I remember reading stats that say the increased chances of making a mistake tend to balance that out.
The thing is I know on paper the PA-32 makes the most sense for what I need and want to do. The only justification I can think of for going twin for my purposes is the redundancy but I think I remember reading stats that say the increased chances of making a mistake tend to balance that out.
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
Ya might wanna rephrase that just a bit...
cowman
Final Approach
So I was looking at prices for a rebuilt engine last night, somewhat limited to what I can find on google and nobody seems to want to list their prices "call for quote". However what little I found makes it seem like the IO-540s in the PA-32 series can run $45k or more... and the prices for the TSIO-360 in the Seneca were a lot lower... I was finding low 30s. I am also finding as I look at the Lance/Saratoga/Six models for sale with the kind of panel/condition/hours I'm looking for vs the Seneca the Senecas can be had tens of thousands cheaper.
Overall the number I keep coming up with is to get the panel and engine situation I want in a PA-32 I'm probably looking at around $120k. I can probably shop around and say settle for a T-tail or a fixed gear -260 and get that down a bit towards $100 but not without compromise. A run-out $50k expense time bomb of an engine makes that look worse...
OTOH I can find Senecas with everything I need and at least one engine with more than half it's TBO left.... if I can really get one engine done in the $30k-ish range that's not as scary and being a twin the prospect of going beyond TBO is a lot more palatable, I'd probably just keep running it until there was a problem. Obviously there are two engines but the odds of eating two in the short timespan seem low enough to not get too worked up over. Fuel burn is higher but so is the cruise speed... still higher fuel cost but low 20s fuel burn vs the 15-18 range I see on the PA-32 doesn't seem like that much of a leap. What I think could still bite me is all the additional stuff that I've always understood twins to have to go wrong and rack up the maintenance costs.
My general impression is I can probably acquire a Seneca for $15-30k less than I can find a comparable condition PA-32 but the question is how fast(not even if) the maintenance, fuel, insurance, etc will eat that savings up. If I can save $20,000 now and that gets spread out over the next 5-10 years in higher ownership cost that still seems like a bargain for having a twin. If the first annual ends up eating the whole thing though... hmmph.. and even with a good pre-buy it's always a gamble to some extent.
My Archer has been so kind in that regard... I've become used to $1,000 annuals a couple of typically less than $500 repairs every year. Maybe a fixed gear six would almost be that good... pretty sure a retractable twin turbo will be significantly worse.
Overall the number I keep coming up with is to get the panel and engine situation I want in a PA-32 I'm probably looking at around $120k. I can probably shop around and say settle for a T-tail or a fixed gear -260 and get that down a bit towards $100 but not without compromise. A run-out $50k expense time bomb of an engine makes that look worse...
OTOH I can find Senecas with everything I need and at least one engine with more than half it's TBO left.... if I can really get one engine done in the $30k-ish range that's not as scary and being a twin the prospect of going beyond TBO is a lot more palatable, I'd probably just keep running it until there was a problem. Obviously there are two engines but the odds of eating two in the short timespan seem low enough to not get too worked up over. Fuel burn is higher but so is the cruise speed... still higher fuel cost but low 20s fuel burn vs the 15-18 range I see on the PA-32 doesn't seem like that much of a leap. What I think could still bite me is all the additional stuff that I've always understood twins to have to go wrong and rack up the maintenance costs.
My general impression is I can probably acquire a Seneca for $15-30k less than I can find a comparable condition PA-32 but the question is how fast(not even if) the maintenance, fuel, insurance, etc will eat that savings up. If I can save $20,000 now and that gets spread out over the next 5-10 years in higher ownership cost that still seems like a bargain for having a twin. If the first annual ends up eating the whole thing though... hmmph.. and even with a good pre-buy it's always a gamble to some extent.
My Archer has been so kind in that regard... I've become used to $1,000 annuals a couple of typically less than $500 repairs every year. Maybe a fixed gear six would almost be that good... pretty sure a retractable twin turbo will be significantly worse.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Just going by roughly double the fuel cost, and probably 1.5X the cost of the annual of the single, and early insurance costs until you had the hours to lower it again, you’d be looking at the low end of that 5-10 range right off the bat.
Fuel prices jump by a buck or more a gallon and it’d be 2-3 years.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,724
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Your pricing research is all FUBAR imo. A NA 540, even angle valve with its retarded priced cylinders, is cheaper to overhaul than a single TSIO-360, (new cylinders on both). Two TSIO-360 vs one NA 540? No contest. Your pricing seems more in line with a TIO-540, if you include ancillary accessory/engine mount/cabling overhaul due to high heat in the compartment creating collateral damage (installation aka make/model specific).
I agree with you, PA-32(x)-nnn pricing right now is a bit forthy. I don't think they're worth what they're asking. That's why it's called haggling and low-balling.
If you're gonna go twin to save on -32 capital savings, as much as I'm critical of Comanche legacy mx costs and hassle, it'd have to be a twinkie over the seneca. But you lose the cabin, and even more so with the pre-66 models (I wouldn't own one with my family mission, due to the bench seat). So you're right back at fixed gear 32s.I don't know why Vero twins are so heavy empty weight, but they sure are compared to the Lockhaven offerings, especially considering their lower parts count and admittedly lighter weight gear components. But That's why their SE specs suck @zz compared to their predecessors on similar power. I have no idea what the dry weight of a turbo conti 360 is compared to a na 540, but even the seneca I is a fat piggy empty (circa 2.9k) on just two angled 4 bangers. A seminole is damn near the gross weight of my arrow just empty, on two parallel O-360s mind you. At any rate, that's how the cookie crumbles on these choices. I wouldn't pick a turbo'd seneca to save on cherokee six acquisition. An Aztec powered Seneca would be a nawce chariot if it existed. But so would be a Dakota RG, Comanche powered Arrow, oh pretty much anything not powered by siamese mags, and all other assorted pipe dreams from the common sense pile that Piper decided to forego.
BGF_Yankee
Line Up and Wait
Did you ever buy the Seneca? I'm casually shopping for one at the moment. If I do decide to buy, I would have a decent PA32R for sale...
jaybee
Cleared for Takeoff
Went from flying helicopters commercially to time building in a Cessna 150, got the needed hours, did my 10 hours in an Arrow for the regs, did my checkride, hopped in a Seminole the next day, instructor sent me for the CMEL ride after 3 hours, flew to Dallas, did a 1 hour check out in a Seneca, paired up with time building partner from Australia and flew to NYC and back all at night.
I'll go back to when I met my instructor to finish my PSEL and Commercial HELI ratings with. I got into the 150 with him for the first time - pre solo student, he asks me to do a dirty stall, I pull out this checklist I had from previous instructor (I had a check list for everything), do it slowly, methodically and awkwardly. He says "that's a nice checklist, can I see it" me beaming with pride I hand it over to him aaaaaannddd... out the window it goes. "just fly the fawking thing"
I'm not all that talented in my own reckoning. I was a little shocked that my MEI wanted to send me for the ride after 3 hours but since I was super poor at the time I wasn't going to argue as it would save me money not riding around with him at 65 an hour. I showed up prepared for the Seminole and the Seneca. Knew all the limitations and speeds, etc, etc and then I "just flew the fawking thing"
So, is a Seneca advanced? more than a PA28 sure but it ain't no type rated jet so just "fly the fawking thing"
I'm curious - what are your main reasons for considering the upgrade?
- Fellow 32R driver
- Joined
- May 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,318
- Display Name
Display name:
Kayoh@190
Me too. I love a twin as much as the next guy, but I feel like buying a Seneca would be a marginal increase in capability for quite a bit more money in operating costs.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
I’ll tell you what. When you are flying a single and you start to have engine problems, that added expense of the second engine seems well worth the money!
- Joined
- May 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,318
- Display Name
Display name:
Kayoh@190
You're preaching to the choir, man. I'm doing everything I can to be responsible and forgo the twin and instead buy a nice single. But it's posts like yours, or rides in @Radar Contact 's sweet 310 that keep dragging me to the dark side!
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
You're preaching to the choir, man. I'm doing everything I can to be responsible and forgo the twin and instead buy a nice single. But it's posts like yours, or rides in @Radar Contact 's sweet 310 that keep dragging me to the dark side!
Some of us twin owners have developed some sort of genetic anomaly.
Others are addicts, for which there may remain some faint hope of rehabilitation.
And then there's @Ted DuPuis who changes twins every time his latest needs a wash, or so it seems.
Ryan F.
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,307
- Display Name
Display name:
Ryan Ferguson 1974
That's not why most of us own a twin, but the capability is actually quite a bit greater if you are a student of risk mitigation. In the <5000 lb. category most singles are faster, cheaper to operate and can carry similar (usually) loads. We fly twins for redundancy and safety, and mission capability. Fast singles are great, but to me they are not serious traveling machines. With a light twin I can tackle combinations of weather, terrain, over-water and night flying with greatly reduced risk.
You'll see me cavorting about the country in my Twin Comanche in all kinds of weather, with my family aboard. If I owned a Cirrus, it would sit on the ground quite a bit of the time that I'd otherwise be flying the twin, so my 50 year old light twin pretty much dominates any modern high-performance piston single from my perspective.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
Not sure what your mission details are, but you might want to consider a short body Baron 55. The Pipers are roomier, and haul a load, but slower (exception the Twinkie). The 55 might be enough "increased capability" to make it a more attractive option for some.
gsengle
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,099
- Display Name
Display name:
Gsengle
I have a high performance Mooney at home that outperforms the twin I fly at work in speed and range. Both are FIKI.
But boy the Mooney would sit out weather and terrain that I wouldn’t think twice about in a twin.
Widespread low IMC? No go.
Far over the water? No go.
Far from roads and airports over mountains? No go.
Twin burns more than twice the fuel. And yet I daydream about having one.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But boy the Mooney would sit out weather and terrain that I wouldn’t think twice about in a twin.
Widespread low IMC? No go.
Far over the water? No go.
Far from roads and airports over mountains? No go.
Twin burns more than twice the fuel. And yet I daydream about having one.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ryan F.
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,307
- Display Name
Display name:
Ryan Ferguson 1974
You nailed it.
BGF_Yankee
Line Up and Wait
FIKI (because of two icing scares), turbo (for mitigating some weather and airspace), and the redundancy for open water ops (thinking of some Caribbean flying in the future). Also, the older I become and the more I start flying my family around, I realize that nighttime, in weather, and over the mountains in a single is not as comfortable a place to be as it used to be when I was young and foolish. I did my multi in a Seneca many years ago and loved it then...already gives me time in type. Missed out on a really good one this week, and now it has me casually shopping some more. Don't get me wrong...I LOVE my Lance. It's especially difficult too since I really just kind of got it where I want it with avionics and so forth.
Sluggo63
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,897
- Display Name
Display name:
Sluggo63
Necropost alert. I figured I'd use this instead of creating a new one.
I was wondering if @cowman or @BGF_Yankee ever got their Seneca IIs.
After my "what should I buy" thread, I think the Seneca II or III is at the top of my list (although my wife and I went to look at a nice NA 310R and she softened a bit on the club seating).
The biggest issue I'm seeing right now is the 4,000 lb MZFW limit. Any of you Seneca owners (@bbchien) able to chime in with what a realistic EW for your airplane is? How about maintenance costs?
Thanks!
I was wondering if @cowman or @BGF_Yankee ever got their Seneca IIs.
After my "what should I buy" thread, I think the Seneca II or III is at the top of my list (although my wife and I went to look at a nice NA 310R and she softened a bit on the club seating).
The biggest issue I'm seeing right now is the 4,000 lb MZFW limit. Any of you Seneca owners (@bbchien) able to chime in with what a realistic EW for your airplane is? How about maintenance costs?
Thanks!
- Joined
- May 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,318
- Display Name
Display name:
Kayoh@190
Of course you had no way of knowing this, but @Sluggo63 flies for a living, so he'll likely be good to go after the initial checkout.
His plane purchasing journey also perfectly illustrates the state of our respective sides of the industry. I'm home asking my wife if we can start buying off-brand cereal while Sluggo is out shopping twin Cessnas.
denverpilot
Tied Down
His plane purchasing journey also perfectly illustrates the state of our respective sides of the industry. I'm home asking my wife if we can start buying off-brand cereal while Sluggo is out shopping twin Cessnas.
Not to be too mean but I think you’ll laugh. I joked with a young aviation guy chasing the Dream...
“Who would have thought flying crapped out Metroliners for Key Lime was going to be a stellar career decision four months ago?”
LOL. Ouch. The aviation industry is all whacked right now.
“Remember when there was a pilot shortage? Pepperidge Farm remembers...”
Sorry to hear you’re in the side that’s doing beans and rice. Ugh.
I had hints that a couple of old timers I know were thinking about taking the early retirement packages but both went silent on the topic, so I haven’t figured out yet what changed for them.
One more senior domestic guy had a major budget overhaul and seems to be hanging in right after buying a big new house and a new truck in two months prior to this.
A large group of young guys I got asked to hang around with in a private group seem generally disappointed but haven’t seen any completely drop yet — three have been furloughed flat out and two have “the letter” warning of Sept or Oct layoffs but not knowing their personal status yet. 4 of the 5 took the old school advice to have a backup skill / business to fall back on outside of aviation. One is struggling doing delivery work on the ground but he’s single and hanging on. One girl is right at the edge of CFI and deciding whether it’s going to be worth it in her area. FedEx feeder guy hasn’t had much of a schedule change. Two at UND are just plowing thru wondering if there’s a point right now.
The cards dealt were wildly different for passenger vs cargo on this one for sure.
Shades of the 90s all over again but sharper and steeper “ouch” numbers. Maybe the other way around, 90s on steroids. Way too much stuff parked.
Someone in that group posted a photo of United’s “Ted” livery and joked “will this be making a comeback?” Lol. Ouch. Tough crowd.
- Joined
- May 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,318
- Display Name
Display name:
Kayoh@190
As the old cliché goes - you'll only be able to tell how smart your decisions were on the day you retire! I'm out of the line of fire that's coming in October, but if things stay this bad well into 2021 that can easily change. I've been very lucky to have been able to ride this last wave (and mentors that beat the cyclical nature of the job into my brain!), so the war chest is ready to go if needed. But this is definitely an ugly one, and all the uncertainty that comes from its unprecedented nature doesn't mix well with a typical pilot personality.
Anyway, didn't mean to hijack Sluggo's thread with my gallows humor, so just to keep it on topic - he needs to buy that NA 310R!