nycPILOTshop
Filing Flight Plan
WTB a seneca or dutchess for training purposes in NY. Budget is 80k.
seneca or dutchess
- Thread starter nycPILOTshop
- Start date
JHW
En-Route
Travel air is a better plane than duchess but for training you need a de qualified in the model
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Also better parts availability with the TA since they share a lot with Bo's and Barons. Duchesses are great trainers, but I've been told that parts support can be a pain.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
Offhand, I'd say the Duchess makes a better trainer. All but the earliest Senecas are turbocharged with fixed wastegates and require significant attention anytime you open the throttles (e.g. on takeoff, when an engine "quits", or on a go around) to avoid overboosting.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
I always liked knowing the Duchess has successfully been spun and un-spun OEI.
It's hard to imagine worse ergonomics than a Travel Air, especially for training. Owners who fly them regularly can acclimate but new twin pilots struggle.
It's hard to imagine worse ergonomics than a Travel Air, especially for training. Owners who fly them regularly can acclimate but new twin pilots struggle.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,904
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
I'd agree on Travel Air ergos.
Personally, I think the Aztec made a great multi trainer. Fuel burn is higher, but that way you can actually come away with high performance time. The market favors cheap over good, though.
Personally, I think the Aztec made a great multi trainer. Fuel burn is higher, but that way you can actually come away with high performance time. The market favors cheap over good, though.
JHW
En-Route
along that same line I like the apache. It teaches that you probably can't actually fly on one engine. Someone who learns in a baron or 310 might be left with the impression that OEI flight is always possible, a dangerous idea if they later find themselves in a navajo.
davidm767
Pre-takeoff checklist
All agreed with these statements. I got my ppl and comm multi in the Seminole. The aircraft is a great trainer. The best part is since they are still cranking them out by the dozen, parts procurement is easier. Plus the Seminole is a really easy ppl multi aircraft to initially learn on. I got my MEI in a 310R... And I cringe at the thought of learning on a 310 as a really low time PPL, to many systems for a newbie to get smart on in less than 25 hours. I can't speak for the TA.
Just some thoughts.
Just some thoughts.
Skylane81E
Final Approach
Parts are a real pain, flew our old one a couple times, great in the air, not so great in the shop.
Beyond that call me old fashioned, but I like real locks on my landing gear, I know that the over center arms will hold it up, but it still gave me the willies to watch the gear cycle.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
This. Only the Seneca I should even be considered for training purposes.
These airplanes don't really have the same mission, either - Why did you choose those particular models? Maybe we can help you more if we have better information.
JHW
En-Route
Exactly. Seneca goes with 310 baron aztec. Duchess goes with seminole travelair apache.
nycPILOTshop
Filing Flight Plan
The decision for this aircraft is basically operating cost, with fuel being the major factor. We were considering a seneca II but scrapped that idea because of it being turbocharged, plus also the insurance company had a say.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Okay, great! So you're looking for a twin trainer that doesn't burn too much fuel, you could add a few items to the list... But I still probably wouldn't put the Seneca I on it:
Piper Apache
Piper Twin Comanche
Beech Duchess
Beech Travel Air
Grumman Cougar
ja_user
Pattern Altitude
What is wrong with a Seneca 1? I have one that will be available here.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Well, a Seneca 1 WILL TEACH YOU never to expect to climb at marketing dept. gross weight.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
I'd be real nervous about adding an Apache to the list. Four friends (including two A&Ps) bought one to fast-track their twin training. The mechanics said all four of them stayed busy for the entire time they owned it. The mechanics were busy working on it every night during the week so they could fly it on weekends, while the other two guys were busy writing checks for parts and fuel.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Well, a few things that are non-ideal from a training standpoint:
1) They have higher HP engines than the ones I mentioned, and thus will burn more fuel which was listed as a primary factor.
2) Six-seat airplanes are more expensive to insure - In fact, in the recent checks I did for the club, the cost of insuring a fairly equivalent 6-seater (IE 206 vs. 182) was 80% higher.
Those are the main ones... But I've also heard that Seneca I's have pretty terrible handling qualities. They didn't even have Frise ailerons. There were enough complaints that Piper changed the control surfaces in the Seneca II.
So, a Seneca I is just fine if you have a use for the last two seats and don't mind spending more on gas, but they aren't really ideal for the OP's stated mission of training.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
The same could probably be said for many examples of every type on the list. Do your due diligence, buy a good one and be proactive about maintenance and it'll be fine. Tom Brady does quite well with his.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
My M/E rating was in a Seneca I. They don't have much to commend them, as Piper quickly learned.
JHW
En-Route
again, you will struggle to find a DE qualified to administer a ride in a twin comanche, cougar, or travel air. The PA30 and D95 had their day as trainers but DE's wearing huge collars and bell bottoms are scarce these days.
you will find commonly find DE's who can give a rode in a baron or seneca but those will eat you alive on fuel and engine MX for training.
your choices for any volume of training boil down to seminole or duchess.
you will find commonly find DE's who can give a rode in a baron or seneca but those will eat you alive on fuel and engine MX for training.
your choices for any volume of training boil down to seminole or duchess.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
I was thinking an Apache would be a good choice because they're so cheap they are almost disposable. But you'd still be flying an airplane that if sold today would probably cost over a million bucks and the annual maintenance bills could be a noticeable fraction of that especially when you consider that previous owners tend to slide as much as possible with maintenance on old worthless airplanes. You could get lucky and complete the training without any costly repairs but you'd probably be just as likely to end up spending more on maintenance in the first year than you paid for the airplane.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Apaches too. And IIRC the DPE just needs 5 hours in type to qualify, I bet you wouldn't have to twist their arm too hard to let them go fly it for 5 hours...
BTW, I think we need one more clarification from the OP: Are you buying this plane for a flight school to train others, or are you buying it for your own training? If the latter, are you going to keep it for a while, or sell it when you're done?
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,904
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
The rules changed for DPEs a few years ago, so Kent is correct - the DPE must only have 5 hours in type. It's probably not too hard to find a DPE with 5 hours in any of the models listed.
As far as twisting the DPE's arm to get a free 5 hours, well that depends on the DPE and the specific situation.
nycPILOTshop
Filing Flight Plan
Buying it both for a flying club and to get my MEI. The seneca was a group decision, and we also asked around on the field. A lot of people are comfortable with the Seneca. In the northeast here, it's pretty much the duchess or seneca that the flight schools use.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Okay, that makes somewhat more sense then - Surely some of your members are interested in taking more people.
I would suggest that you make sure to do the following, though:
1) Find someone that will let you (and everyone else who is pushing the Seneca) fly a Seneca I before buying. I'm sure Piper didn't get all those complaints (and address them with the II) for no reason... But if you're all OK with it, then great!
2) Make sure you check the weight and balance, and specifically what the full-fuel payload will be. On the local Seneca II, the useful load is 1488 but they've got the long-range 123-gallon tanks so the full-fuel payload is only 772 pounds - It's really not a six-person airplane, unless they're all under 130 pounds.
JimNtexas
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,259
- Location
- Austin, Texas
- Display Name
Display name:
Jim - In Texas!
I've flown a Seneca 1 and a Dutchess. There is no comparison. The Dutchess is a thousand percent better airplane in every respect.
The Seneca 1 isn't a six seat airplane, all you get is higher fuel bills in exchange for flying a sluggish boring airplane.
The Dutchess has really nice push rod controls, it's a dream to fly. It's impossible to beat the 180hp Lcy for training and personal transportation.
The Dutchess probably has unfeathering props, which the Seneca probably doesn't. You want these.
My favorite feature of the Dutchess is that it has a permanently installed physical fuel level gage in each tank. This is a huge safety benefit that every light airplane ought to have.
As far as Apaches or Travelairs go, if you want cheap upfront costs buy an antique, you'll just pay latter.
The Seneca 1 isn't a six seat airplane, all you get is higher fuel bills in exchange for flying a sluggish boring airplane.
The Dutchess has really nice push rod controls, it's a dream to fly. It's impossible to beat the 180hp Lcy for training and personal transportation.
The Dutchess probably has unfeathering props, which the Seneca probably doesn't. You want these.
My favorite feature of the Dutchess is that it has a permanently installed physical fuel level gage in each tank. This is a huge safety benefit that every light airplane ought to have.
As far as Apaches or Travelairs go, if you want cheap upfront costs buy an antique, you'll just pay latter.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
A club for training? The Seneca will eat you out of house an home. The only reason mine is affordable is the same hand on the controls. One ham fisted guy and your club will be crying.
Duchess for sure....and I you have a DPE with the Duchess LOA that's what you want!
Duchess for sure....and I you have a DPE with the Duchess LOA that's what you want!
dans2992
En-Route
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,895
- Display Name
Display name:
Dans2992
I'm looking at getting my multi, and I have two schools that do their training in Seneca II's (on leaseback).
What do I need to do in order not to be "that ham-fisted guy" ?
As a side note, it's amazing how _slow_ the seneca II seems to be. I fly a single Comanche, NA and it's just as fast as a twin, turbocharged Seneca from what I can tell, at least based on some Flightaware data at 12k, plus what the instructor is saying "ie. 150kts realistic cruise speed."
What do I need to do in order not to be "that ham-fisted guy" ?
As a side note, it's amazing how _slow_ the seneca II seems to be. I fly a single Comanche, NA and it's just as fast as a twin, turbocharged Seneca from what I can tell, at least based on some Flightaware data at 12k, plus what the instructor is saying "ie. 150kts realistic cruise speed."
Skylane81E
Final Approach
I'm looking at getting my multi, and I have two schools that do their training in Seneca II's (on leaseback).
What do I need to do in order not to be "that ham-fisted guy" ?
As a side note, it's amazing how _slow_ the seneca II seems to be. I fly a single Comanche, NA and it's just as fast as a twin, turbocharged Seneca from what I can tell, at least based on some Flightaware data at 12k, plus what the instructor is saying "ie. 150kts realistic cruise speed."
Do much training and you will be hamfisted.
However, taxi at low power, give the turbos time to spool down before killing the engine and taking away their oil. Makes airborne shutdowns and starts problematic.
JHW
En-Route
12 k doesn't cut it. Senecas can be reasonably fast but you have to go high. And there is a whole lot more fuselage to push through the sky than your comanche. Comfort doesn't come free.I'm looking at getting my multi, and I have two schools that do their training in Seneca II's (on leaseback).
What do I need to do in order not to be "that ham-fisted guy" ?
As a side note, it's amazing how _slow_ the seneca II seems to be. I fly a single Comanche, NA and it's just as fast as a twin, turbocharged Seneca from what I can tell, at least based on some Flightaware data at 12k, plus what the instructor is saying "ie. 150kts realistic cruise speed."
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
On departure, stand on the brakes until you get to 28" MP, then move the throttles the least amount that you can hear. Eyes out.I'm looking at getting my multi, and I have two schools that do their training in Seneca II's (on leaseback).
What do I need to do in order not to be "that ham-fisted guy" ?
As a side note, it's amazing how _slow_ the seneca II seems to be. I fly a single Comanche, NA and it's just as fast as a twin, turbocharged Seneca from what I can tell, at least based on some Flightaware data at 12k, plus what the instructor is saying "ie. 150kts realistic cruise speed."
You get TWO glances down to the MP gauges after that-
One to do one more minimally audible increment of throttle- it'll eventually end up at about 35" MP (from 28), then one throttle more and look to confirm it's settled at about 39-40". At that point you'll be rotating. If you go above 40" you have FOUR seconds before the engines need to go to the shop to make sure the conrods are still where they need to be (See POH).
Don't be porky pig.
Power reductions are 3" per minute. Not from 40" to 29". Can't you hear those turbos moaning?
JHW has it right. I routinely clock 180 knots at 65% power LOP at FL 19, 18 gph total. That's not slow. I carry 129 cu ft. of oxygen and spend little time below 10K.
The flight aware track posted is into a 40 kt headwind to stay above a nor-easter Dec 29. At 20K I had 60 knots on the nose, but going lower was not an ice option.
This was 80.1 gallons of fuel, 4 hours' operation. 6.25nmpg into a humongous headwind, but over (on TOP) of a humongous storm. Sometimes the mission is not about fuel economy and speed; it's about being able to make the trip at all.
...and that is why Seneca II is an expensive trainer.
Last edited:
dans2992
En-Route
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,895
- Display Name
Display name:
Dans2992
Ok, makes sense. What's your typical cruise power setting MP/RPM?
I'm actually surprised anyone would leaseback a Seneca II, especially for training. I mean, how many students are accidentally pushing it over 40" and either not knowing or not saying anything? If you were flying OEI in an emergency, would you push it past 40?
180kts is not bad. I don't mind going to FL190.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Varies with altitude, a LOT. 11,000- 32" MP 2250 rpm, LOP 18 gph gets about 155-160 ktas. I don't run it much harder than that. Those engines are EXPENSIVE.
Dav8or
Final Approach
Just curious, why isn't the Seminole on the OP's list of consideration?
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Well first of all a stock turbo arrow can't get to FL 190 without pouring LOTS of fuel through it to keep it cool.
After Merlins, up there it's about 2.5" MP less than book, depending on RPM. Kareem will be along shortly.