Piper Seneca Models

jdwatson

jdwatson

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
943
Location
Cary, NC
Display Name
Display name:
JDW
Is there a good resource has all the specifications and differences between models of the Piper Seneca ?

After all, we have Seneca I thru V. I presume there are sub-models within years of offerings as well.
 
jdwatson said:
Is there a good resource has all the specifications and differences between models of the Piper Seneca ?

After all, we have Seneca I thru V. I presume there are sub-models within years of offerings as well.
Click to expand...

jd,

I used to have a reference, but it'll take some searching to find it.

Basically, what I recall is this:

The Seneca I is non-turbocharged, and pretty doggy.
The II got turbos (200 HP - fixed wastgate) and some aerodynamic changes that made it a bit better.
The III got 220 HP turbos (fixed wastegate), but time-limited on 100% power
The IV got some aerodynamic changes and some interior changes, with a longer duration rating on the full power
The V is virtually the same as the IV, but got an automatic upper-deck controller on the wastegate, and improved 100% power rating.

I'm sure someone will correct any mistaken information....

That's the basics I recall off the top of my head. Bruce is the Seneca expert....
 
Thanks, Bill...

I find myself seduced by twins. Twin engines that is. ;-)
 
wsuffa said:
jd,

I used to have a reference, but it'll take some searching to find it.

Basically, what I recall is this:

The Seneca I is non-turbocharged, and pretty doggy.
The II got turbos (200 HP - fixed wastgate) and some aerodynamic changes that made it a bit better.
The III got 220 HP turbos (fixed wastegate), but time-limited on 100% power
The IV got some aerodynamic changes and some interior changes, with a longer duration rating on the full power
The V is virtually the same as the IV, but got an automatic upper-deck controller on the wastegate, and improved 100% power rating.

I'm sure someone will correct any mistaken information....

That's the basics I recall off the top of my head. Bruce is the Seneca expert....
Click to expand...

That sounds about right to me. I would add that many folks have added an automatic wastegate by STC (Merlin) to the older turbo'd models that didn't come with it from the factory.
 
Bill's pretty much got it right. The Merlyn upper deck controller ($2500 per set) pretty much relieves the system of it's "twitchy" bootstrapping but it's not perfect. The Mooney M20 TSE oil controlled "set and forget" wastegate is really the way to go. Too bad there's no STC'd for it.

Tonight my Seneca II (KIce) got me in and out of Columbus OH. But I miss my Mooney!
 
Dr. Chien,
Why did you choose the II over the other models ? Why not a Aztec, or Twin Commanche ? Was it opportunity ?
 
wsuffa said:
The Seneca I is non-turbocharged, and pretty doggy.
The II got turbos (200 HP - fixed wastgate) and some aerodynamic changes that made it a bit better.
The III got 220 HP turbos (fixed wastegate), but time-limited on 100% power
The IV got some aerodynamic changes and some interior changes, with a longer duration rating on the full power
The V is virtually the same as the IV, but got an automatic upper-deck controller on the wastegate, and improved 100% power rating.
Click to expand...

III and IV both are limited to 220hp (2800 RPM) for 5 minutes, 200 (2600 RPM) after. V has no limitation on the 220 (which is only at 2600 RPM). Max RPM is 2700 on the I, 2575 on the II.

Early I's were limited to 4000 lbs MGTOW, there is a mod for 4200 but landing weight is still 4000. II's can take off at 4570, land at 4342, and have a zero fuel weight of 4000. III's and IV's take off at 4750, land at 4513, zero fuel 4470. V's add 9 pounds to the zero fuel weight.

One of the interesting things I found when looking at the TCDS is that the Seneca I was certified with 7 seats. II and III can have 6 or 7, and the IV and V are only certified with 6.

I'm sure there's more...
 
Thanks Ken !
What is TCDS ? and is that you on skis ?
 
 
Last edited:
wsuffa said:
The Seneca I is non-turbocharged, and pretty doggy.
The II got turbos (200 HP - fixed wastgate) and some aerodynamic changes that made it a bit better.
Click to expand...

Didn't the II introduce the counter rotating engines, or am I dreaming?
 
Great links !!! Thanks so much. I've got my propeller cap on and readin' my eyes red ! :)
 
Bill Jennings said:
Didn't the II introduce the counter rotating engines, or am I dreaming?
Click to expand...

According to Aviation-Consumer:
To Piper’s credit, a lot of effort went into making the Seneca user-friendly for both pilots and mechanics. It had counter-rotating props, thereby eliminating the “critical engine”—a bonus for training and overall safety. Maintenance access was considerably improved over the Twin Comanche, which had been designed in the 1950s. The fuel system was simplified, with only “on,” “off” and “crossfeed” to deal with.
Click to expand...
 
jdwatson said:
Thanks Ken !
What is TCDS ? and is that you on skis ?
Click to expand...

Others answered the first question... And no, that's not me on skis, that's the airplane. I'm the one in the green coat. :rofl:

But yes, that is me in my avatar, next to a Super Cub on skis. Read all about it here.
 
I like Twins too, prefer blondes,

Biggest differance between Seneca models is about 15 grand each, performance not that great as far as I am concerned, but more than that, cowlings are too high on the wings, and too fat, block entirely too much area,
 
wesleyj said:
I like Twins too, prefer blondes,

Biggest differance between Seneca models is about 15 grand each, performance not that great as far as I am concerned, but more than that, cowlings are too high on the wings, and too fat, block entirely too much area
Click to expand...

Which twin do you prefer ?

I try to make my 'dream' as real as possible, so I pretend as if I was going to purchase a twin. Setting up the mission profile is where I am now. I would be transitioning from a single with minimal multi-engine time. I fly would want to fly into the northeast year-round so I'm thinking I would want a KI aircraft. I'm thinking turbocharged is a good idea for those trips westward. 4 people with modest luggage. I'd like to have ~800nm range with IFR reserves. Some of the fields I fly to now around in the 3000'+ range.

I'm trying to construct a range of prices, operating expenses & etc for several planes that might fit the mission. Considering I'll probably get only one bite at the apple and the mission is unlikely to change much, choosing wisely is very important.
 
jdwatson said:
Which twin do you prefer ?
Click to expand...

Between my brother and me I prefer me, but most folk can't tell the difference.

Airplanes are a different story, he does not fly. I prefer Aerostars the more HP the better - airplanes should go fast. This coming from someone who owns a PA-12 on floats - 90 mph per downhill yeeehaaa. Some airplanes are just for fun.

Arnold
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Others answered the first question... And no, that's not me on skis, that's the airplane. I'm the one in the green coat. :rofl:

But yes, that is me in my avatar, next to a Super Cub on skis. Read all about it here.
Click to expand...

Great write-up. I stay out of Hangar Talk, which is why I missed it. Great photos, loved the sunset.
 
jdwatson said:
Great write-up. I stay out of Hangar Talk, which is why I missed it. Great photos, loved the sunset.
Click to expand...

Yeah... I always fret about where to post flights like that. Lots of people don't read HT, lots of people *only* read HT. :dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top