Seneca II

[Aztec Driver]

So what can I expect for performance and handling of a Seneca II? I may have an opportunity to fly one for a while. It is really loaded full of very nice avionics as compared to what I am used to. I hope I don't start to enjoy them too much, I might have to spend a lot to upgrade the others I fly.

Bryon

 

[bbchien]

So what can I expect for performance and handling of a Seneca II? I may have an opportunity to fly one for a while. It is really loaded full of very nice avionics as compared to what I am used to. I hope I don't start to enjoy them too much, I might have to spend a lot to upgrade the others I fly.
Bryon

Bryon, it is indistinguishably faster than an Aztec- 160-170 kts in real life. It burns about 22 gph as opposed to the AzTruck and if you have an Aztec I would not expect ANY difference. It has a little better range/payload profile owing to the higher consumption of the larger engines. The only thing distinguishing it is (1) modern manufactured parts are available (Seneca V still being built) and (2) Known Ice is available, and (3) turbos (unless you have a Turbo F).

Seneca II-V have better longitudinal stability tha the Aztecs- trim them and they stay put. But have a genteel deft hand on the throttles. When the overboost lights go on you have FOUR (4), FOUR, count 'em seconds to get them off or you go visit the mechanic. Boost piles up behind the throttle plates as the turbos spool up so always move levers to about 5" MP below where you want it to settle.

1000 hrs in Seneca II.

 

[Aztec Driver]

Thanks Bruce.


I don't think it is a turbo. I haven't had the opportunity to fly behind (beside) turbos yet. It sounds like a lot to oversee.

Bryon

 

[bbchien]

Oh. If it doesn't have turbos it's a Seneca I. Terrible airplane. Ponderous in roll. Does NOT make book climb on OEI. Shakes like crazy. Piper altered the ailerons when they make the II and thereafter.

 

[Aztec Driver]

It does have turbos. Guess I really will have to do some studying and get a bunch of dual hours in it.


Bryon

 

[Ed Guthrie]

When the overboost lights go on you have FOUR (4), FOUR, count 'em seconds to get them off or you go visit the mechanic.

Is there some form of tattler to warn that a >4 sec. overboost event has occurred?

 

[Len Lanetti]

Is there some form of tattler to warn that a >4 sec. overboost event has occurred?

Ed,

There is no recording device or external physical indication that an overboost took place after the fact that is standard equipment that I'm aware of. There are two warning lights, one per engine, at the top of the panel right in front of the pilot's face to alert the pilot that an overboost is occuring.

Len

 

[wsuffa]

Is there some form of tattler to warn that a >4 sec. overboost event has occurred?

I think there's a light that illuminates in the Seneca.

On my Commander single, there is no indication other than the manifold pressure gauge.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

I think there's a light that illuminates in the Seneca.

On my Commander single, there is no indication other than the manifold pressure gauge.

I was inquiring about a device that would record/indicate that the 4 second elapsed time overboost had occurred sometime in the past, versus the light that signals an overboost is currently happening. Bruce mentioned that >4 sec. required a visit to the shop. I wondered how a clueless pilot (or hapless owner) would know that >4 sec. had elapsed.

 

[wsuffa]

I was inquiring about a device that would record/indicate that the 4 second elapsed time overboost had occurred sometime in the past, versus the light that signals an overboost is currently happening. Bruce mentioned that >4 sec. required a visit to the shop. I wondered how a clueless pilot (or hapless owner) would know that >4 sec. had elapsed.

You don't as far as I know on the Seneca. I know on my plane there's no device, but the manual calls for an inspection in the event of overboost. There is a pop-off valve that should protect the engine, but do you really know if it worked??? The pop-off closes after it relieves the excess pressure.

One more reason to use an engine monitor.

 

[poadeleted20]

Bryon, it is indistinguishably faster than an Aztec- 160-170 kts in real life. It burns about 22 gph as opposed to the AzTruck and if you have an Aztec I would not expect ANY difference. It has a little better range/payload profile owing to the higher consumption of the larger engines.

As you didn't post the numbers on the range/payload of the Seneca II, I can't compare, but after 900 hours in Aztec C/D's, I can say the speed you posted is accurate, fuel flow at that speed is 28 gph (rather more than the Seneca, but 250 HP eats more than 200 HP), and with the full 140 gallons of usable fuel (just under 6 hours to silence), the Aztecs I flew could carry 1160 lb in the cabin.

 

[Condor73]

hello, I am trying to find how much different is the Seneca II from the Seneca I. Is Seneca II a better plane (handling characteristics) Thanks

 

[Henning]

hello, I am trying to find how much different is the Seneca II from the Seneca I. Is Seneca II a better plane (handling characteristics) Thanks

Handling is the same, the engines and accessories are the difference. The I is powered by Lycoming IO-360s, the II is powered with Continental TSIO-360, so they are turbocharged and typically rigged for known Icing conditions. The II is a much more capable airplane.