Buying A Piper Seneca II

TheHulk said:
I dont calculate my cost per hour like you guys do.

My cost per house is fuel+oil=hourly cost.

The mainence fund is and always has been for me a set price per month or per issue.

So this seneca is gonna cost me 115$ an hour to fly. I'm sure I could factor in hanger, mx, monthly payment & insurance. But I dont view those as costing me during the flight. Maybe I'm all wrong, but its easier to show the wife "look, it burns 25 gallons per hour at 4.5$ a gallon" haha
Click to expand...

Works well until you need props, engines, paint, interior, and avionics.
 
TheHulk said:
Interesting, I'll look into that information. Last thing I wanna do is fry my engines lol.
Click to expand...
Go get your multi, and additional time, and the IFR from Tamara Griffith (Fox Aviation in Justin) in her Apache.... lower opex than what you want to go with, and someone else is responsible for mx while you're training.
 
Clip4 said:
Works well until you need props, engines, paint, interior, and avionics.
Click to expand...
That's why there's a monthly deposit that's not dictated by my hourly total.

You can manage the hourly costs anyway you like but if you buy a midtime engine and are putting 40$ back per hour on top of everything else and it craps out before tbo you're still not gonna have enough.

So how can you accurately calculate an actual hour cost due to unforeseen maintenance. You can't, so that's why the hourly (at least for me) is fuel+oil. And a completely separate cost of monthly maintenance sits in a savings account that doesn't change with the hours I fly. Just monthly.

At the end of the day I think we're all just hoping we estimated or saved enough to cover MX regardless of how you calculate it.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I'm not at all a fan of airplanes that you can't put the throttles to the firewall and get 100% power and no more. Turbo 182 with its throttle-linked wastegate is similar.
Click to expand...

Quite a number of turbines out there that you can’t do that in.

I’d say if you’re training in a twin with turbos, you’d better start thinking like it’s a power setting and not a trainer that you can just shove the throttle to the firewall in.

The fleet isn’t anywhere close to fully FADEC yet, so folks moving up to twins had better get used to it anyway. The non-turbo twin just means they have to learn it later in something even faster where they’re even further behind the airplane. ;)

Most of the fixed wastegate turbos will “creep” up as airspeed increases, too... so you set it slightly below the overboost number and it’ll work it’s way up there. Often a couple of inches low results in the right amount of creep up.

It doesn’t take long to get it to stick, they saw it on the first (and every) takeoff, too.

If they’re TOO ginger about it, at least they’ve pushed it up far enough for level flight, which makes the positive rate call out in the go around procedure important...

“Go around. Power, set. Blue line. Flaps 10. Positive rate, gear up. Recheck power........ Climb checklist...” :)

Can teach it single pilot as a double power change like the above if they’re seriously ham fisted.

But then again I never had much trouble transitioning to the R182 either.

It’s like a manual transmission versus an automatic. Sometimes you just have to know how to not downshift above a certain speed, pop the clutch out, and blow the engine or shatter the clutch plate. :)

Teach it as a two-push at first and then they’ll get used to it and push just the right amount. If they get it to 90% and clean up the airframe, the airplane will be headed in the right direction, or usually at least not down anymore.

And frankly if the terrain or obstacles are tight, that should have been pre-briefed and someone might even have to accept a mild overboost to try save their butt in wildly extreme cases. Better than center-punching a tree... but that one is hard to teach... that the lever may still have to come forward and the overboost light may come on... oh well...

Most really old pilots have at least one story of, “the engine wasn’t happy, but we survived...” somewhere in their experience.

One of my instructors has that story from a DC-9. Radar altimeter later said they missed the terrain in IMC by something less than 50’, since the data recorder wouldn’t record anything lower. Uncommanded dive during an instrument approach that wouldn’t recover and the last action either crew member remembered was firewalling the engines below 100’ AGL of the airport elevation, and the airport was in a shallow depression in the terrain. To this day they have no idea how they missed the ground nor how low they actually got.
 
TheHulk said:
Interesting, I'll look into that information. Last thing I wanna do is fry my engines lol.
Click to expand...

Basically, in the Seneca, when you take off you pull onto the runway and push the throttles forward to 30" MP, let the engines and turbos stabilize there momentarily, and then (carefully) push to 38" MP. Because the turbos in this setup are kind of a positive-feedback loop, they'll get to 40" on their own which is the max. A normal sea level to 1000 MSL range takeoff, the throttles will be between half and 2/3 of their travel from idle to firewalled. Then, as you climb, you have to keep inching them in to maintain the 40". Likewise, if you had a high power setting in cruise up in the flight levels and you don't inch the throttles back in the descent, you'll eventually overboost above 40" again.

IIRC there are overboost annunciators in the panel, but if you have an "oh ****" type of reaction to something, decide to go around, and instinctively shove the throttles forward, it may be too late to react by the time those annunciators come on.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Basically, in the Seneca, when you take off you pull onto the runway and push the throttles forward to 30" MP, let the engines and turbos stabilize there momentarily, and then (carefully) push to 38" MP. Because the turbos in this setup are kind of a positive-feedback loop, they'll get to 40" on their own which is the max. A normal sea level to 1000 MSL range takeoff, the throttles will be between half and 2/3 of their travel from idle to firewalled. Then, as you climb, you have to keep inching them in to maintain the 40". Likewise, if you had a high power setting in cruise up in the flight levels and you don't inch the throttles back in the descent, you'll eventually overboost above 40" again.

IIRC there are overboost annunciators in the panel, but if you have an "oh ****" type of reaction to something, decide to go around, and instinctively shove the throttles forward, it may be too late to react by the time those annunciators come on.
Click to expand...

Yeah similar in the Turbo Seminole. We pushed for takeoff to about 32” to start with. Good description.

That’s another thing we could mention about most light twins that comes as a surprise. Those fancy looking center throttle quadrants are hooked to $5 crappy cables to make those controls reach all the way out into both wings.

Depending on the maintenance of all of that, the controls can be ultra sloppy or ultra stiff, even if you loosen the tensioner that most people don’t see and many instructors fail to mention for a few flights on the right side of the console.

It’s somewhat surprising how chintzy the throttle, prop, and mixture controls feel compared to an airplane where the cable only runs a short distance forward of the control through a firewall. LOL.

Some of the light twins are just crappy in this regard.

And then you get the misadjusted ones where the throttles and mixtures don’t naturally end up “even” and they’re always “split” a little bit. Almost all of the older ones have some of that crap going on.

Ha. You get used to it.

Sometimes the combination of tension in the cable and lack of lubrication or needing the tensioner set tighter for other loose controls makes the prop control ridiculously touchy. You’ll be trying for a full minute of bobbing it up and down 300 RPM trying to set it to something for cruise and you’re only moving the stupid control less than half an inch by gingerly grabbing it with only two fingers. Hahaha.

At least for FEATHER you just grab it and pull it. LOL.

Not a fan of the Piper throttle quadrants. But they are what they are.

Sometimes you’re being “careful” because you know the throttle is sticky or slippery and a touchy little bastard. After a while you stop thinking about it as a lever to yank and bank on, and more of a “suggestion lever” for the cable to unbind and do what you asked of it. Hahahah.

I’ve been known to tap on the prop control in the Seminole with one finger trying to set it accurately. Which makes the owner/CFI in the other seat laugh. “I just want 100 RPM!” Especially when trying to sync the props. (Auto sync is also relatively useless in these things too. Ha!)

It’s fun to give a newbie a hard time in cruise... can’t you get those props synced? ;)
 
I've been told that in a properly rigged Conquest pushing the throttles to the stops at sea level will get you more than 2000 ft. lbs. of torque per side and temps that will make titanium cry. Certification limit at 1900rpm is 1244 ft.lbs. I usually set 1000 lbs before brake release and work it up to 1150-1180 on the roll and it will settle in around 1240 at climb speed. As you climb you need to add throttle to maintain torque until around FL230 when temps become limiting and torque falls off from there.
 
A few thoughts in no particular order, building on what others have posted:
1. The Merlyn upper deck controller referenced in James Dean's post #45 is a fairly popular modification on the turbo-charged Senecas. So is the aftermarket intercooler modification. I'd be looking for a Seneca that has both.
2. Whether you think you'll use it or not, if you plan to regularly fly IFR I'd be looking for a Seneca with FIKI boots/props/plate. You don't want to go looking for trouble, but if you are IFR rated it's nice to have a plane able to bust through winter stratus that may have some ice in the upper part of the layer.
3. As Ted has noted the C/R props don't make much difference on most piston twins. Proficiency/recency to deal with single engine situations in YOUR airplane type is a bigger factor in the outcome if it happens, imo.
4. A short body Baron 55 might be an equally good choice to a Seneca as an "economical" first twin, but I agree with flyingcheesehead's observation the headroom is a problem for bigger (taller) pilots. The front seat bottom on the top of the spar offers less than ideal headroom for guys our size.
5. An abnormally high percentage of used Senecas have suffered nose gear collapses in their history. If you plan to take out seats, take out the front two instead of the back two ;) (in other words, CGs at or very near the front of the range are not advisable - something to watch for if you are flying solo or with only one passenger up front).
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
A few thoughts in no particular order, building on what others have posted:
1. The Merlin upper deck controller referenced in James Dean's post #45 is a fairly popular modification on the turbo-charged Senecas. So is the aftermarket intercooler modification. I'd be looking for a Seneca that has both.
Click to expand...

Or if you can handle one less engine, that's @Clark1961 's airplane he has for sale. :) :) :)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I'm not at all a fan of airplanes that you can't put the throttles to the firewall and get 100% power and no more.
Click to expand...
Honest question: what turbocharged or supercharged engines can you achieve that?

All of the turbos and supercharged engines I’ve flown behind will overboost if you firewall the throttles at sea level. Even in the jet we don’t firewall the throttles on takeoff.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Fearless Tower said:
Honest question: what turbocharged or supercharged engines can you achieve that?

All of the turbos and supercharged engines I’ve flown behind will overboost if you firewall the throttles at sea level. Even in the jet we don’t firewall the throttles on takeoff.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming stuff like the SR22T... or the Piper's with the STCd pressure controllers and such is what he's talkin' 'bout... but dunno... what other stuff you thinkin' @flyingcheesehead ...? Wasn't there a single handle Mooney turbo in the 90's also?
 
Clark1961 said:
Tell us all about what the Merlyn does please.
Click to expand...

Well...on the Seneca I flew it replaced the fixed wastegate with a upper deck referenced pressure control. Generally more efficient and lower cht’s, particularly up high. I thought speed was up a bit too.

I suppose your request assumed that I thought they resolved the overboost issue which they do not. Bwthdik, I’ve only got about 5 hours in a straight II and 15 in one with the Merlyns.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Honest question: what turbocharged or supercharged engines can you achieve that?

All of the turbos and supercharged engines I’ve flown behind will overboost if you firewall the throttles at sea level. Even in the jet we don’t firewall the throttles on takeoff.
Click to expand...

Even the old Rajay manual wastegate systems on Comanches and Twin Comanches, you can shove the throttles all the way forward. There's really no boost until you start putting the wastegate controls forward too. And the newfangled auto-wastegates can be manhandled without overboosting too, I believe.
 
James_Dean said:
Well...on the Seneca I flew it replaced the fixed wastegate with a upper deck referenced pressure control. Generally more efficient and lower cht’s, particularly up high. I thought speed was up a bit too.

I suppose your request assumed that I thought they resolved the overboost issue which they do not. Bwthdik, I’ve only got about 5 hours in a straight II and 15 in one with the Merlyns.
Click to expand...
I assumed you really didn’t know what the Merlyn actually did.

First off, the Seneca I was not boosted. It had normally aspirated Lycomings.

The Merlyn upper deck pressure controller does two things. It unloads the turbocharger (opens the wastegate) when the manifold pressure is less than atmospheric pressure. It also raises the critical altitude (maximum altitude at which full rated engine output can be achieved) to 18,000 ft. That’s it.
 
Seems to me like a 5 year loan on a portion of a cirrus would spread the load for you and end up cheaper in the long run.
 
I've just started training, so have a long way to go, but I could see myself maybe getting a twin down the road. I know the single vs twin debate can be kind of a religious argument, but I could see myself doing a lot of mountain flying here in the Rockies, and I think I'd just feel safer in a twin, provided I always stay proficient at handling emergencies in one.

When I do get to the point of starting ME training, what would be a good twin to train in? Reading the comments about the throttles-full-forward, wastegates, and possible blown engines in the Seneca above make me think that's probably not a good choice. I might be limited to what's available at the flight school (not sure what my flight school has in their fleet for twins, they're mostly a Cirrus shop) but was curious if there was a short-list of twins that people think are the best for ME training?

Lastly, regarding the wastegate issue on the Senecas, is that something that can be upgraded to a better setup either from Piper or aftermarket? I'm guessing not, but am curious.

Thanks!
 
Salty said:
Seems to me like a 5 year loan on a portion of a cirrus would spread the load for you and end up cheaper in the long run.
Click to expand...
As much as l love twins, for the OP’s mission, a Cirrus is an excellent choice.
 
LoneAspen said:
I've just started training, so have a long way to go, but I could see myself maybe getting a twin down the road. I know the single vs twin debate can be kind of a religious argument, but I could see myself doing a lot of mountain flying here in the Rockies, and I think I'd just feel safer in a twin, provided I always stay proficient at handling emergencies in one.

When I do get to the point of starting ME training, what would be a good twin to train in? Reading the comments about the throttles-full-forward, wastegates, and possible blown engines in the Seneca above make me think that's probably not a good choice. I might be limited to what's available at the flight school (not sure what my flight school has in their fleet for twins, they're mostly a Cirrus shop) but was curious if there was a short-list of twins that people think are the best for ME training?

Lastly, regarding the wastegate issue on the Senecas, is that something that can be upgraded to a better setup either from Piper or aftermarket? I'm guessing not, but am curious.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

All six of the twin engine training aircraft on my field, in three different schools, are Seneca IIs. The fact the field is at 4000 ASL may have something to do with that. You are also at a rather high altitude, so a turbocharged Seneca may not be a bad option. A Seminole is a more common training twin, and there are some turbocharged versions of that around as well.

As for the turbo control issue in your last paragraph, go back to the link in post #45 on this thread.
 
@GRG55 Thanks for the info - good stuff to know! I just checked my flight school's fleet, and the only twin in their fleet is a Baron, so I'm assuming they use that for training.
 
LoneAspen said:
When I do get to the point of starting ME training, what would be a good twin to train in? Reading the comments about the throttles-full-forward, wastegates, and possible blown engines in the Seneca above make me think that's probably not a good choice. I might be limited to what's available at the flight school (not sure what my flight school has in their fleet for twins, they're mostly a Cirrus shop) but was curious if there was a short-list of twins that people think are the best for ME training?
Click to expand...

You’re not going to blow any engines in any of them if you learn to fly them correctly from someone who knows how, any more than you’re going to blow engines in turbo singles which also need care in engine operation. The instructor isn’t going to let you get any further behind than they would in a single. :)
 
LoneAspen said:
I've just started training, so have a long way to go, but I could see myself maybe getting a twin down the road. I know the single vs twin debate can be kind of a religious argument, but I could see myself doing a lot of mountain flying here in the Rockies, and I think I'd just feel safer in a twin, provided I always stay proficient at handling emergencies in one.

When I do get to the point of starting ME training, what would be a good twin to train in? Reading the comments about the throttles-full-forward, wastegates, and possible blown engines in the Seneca above make me think that's probably not a good choice. I might be limited to what's available at the flight school (not sure what my flight school has in their fleet for twins, they're mostly a Cirrus shop) but was curious if there was a short-list of twins that people think are the best for ME training?
Click to expand...

Mostly, you want to find something that has less than 200hp per side. No sense burning a ton of fuel for a rating where you don't go anywhere! Plus, it'll teach you to respect the performance limitations on a single engine.

So, that group would include the Piper Apache, Seminole, and Twin Comanche, Beech Travel Air, Grumman Cougar... And that's about it.

You can train in something heftier like a Baron or 310, but it'll cost ya. Locally there's a Baron 55 for rent. It's $450/hr. :hairraise:

Fearless Tower said:
As much as l love twins, for the OP’s mission, a Cirrus is an excellent choice.
Click to expand...

Someone mentioned "part of" a Cirrus since the OP mentioned he can't afford a whole one... And it's going to be tough to find partners who are willing to let him commute to work for two weeks at a time in it.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Mostly, you want to find something that has less than 200hp per side. No sense burning a ton of fuel for a rating where you don't go anywhere! Plus, it'll teach you to respect the performance limitations on a single engine.

So, that group would include the Piper Apache, Seminole, and Twin Comanche, Beech Travel Air, Grumman Cougar... And that's about it.

You can train in something heftier like a Baron or 310, but it'll cost ya. Locally there's a Baron 55 for rent. It's $450/hr. :hairraise:



Someone mentioned "part of" a Cirrus since the OP mentioned he can't afford a whole one... And it's going to be tough to find partners who are willing to let him commute to work for two weeks at a time in it.
Click to expand...
I don’t mean a partner. I mean pay some cash and finance the rest.
 
Salty said:
I don’t mean a partner. I mean pay some cash and finance the rest.
Click to expand...

My credit isn't what it used to be. But if the annual isn't good on the Seneca, I plan on looking into putting 40% down on a Cirrus SR22. I just gotta wait for the right deal. It's a seller's market right now unfortunately.
 
TheHulk said:
My credit isn't what it used to be. But if the annual isn't good on the Seneca, I plan on looking into putting 40% down on a Cirrus SR22. I just gotta wait for the right deal. It's a seller's market right now unfortunately.
Click to expand...
I'll sell you a good turbo Dakota...
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I'm not at all a fan of airplanes that you can't put the throttles to the firewall and get 100% power and no more. Turbo 182 with its throttle-linked wastegate is similar.
Click to expand...

One of the many reasoms I didn’t like flying Pratt Caravans....you can overtorque the snot out of them if you aren’t paying attention. That is the first thing people who haven’t flown turbines do when they get in the caravan.

The garretts I fly now OTOH have a single redline inhibitor so you can cob the power and it will not let you exceed 100% torque or 650 ITT. I wish every airplane displayed power as a function of percent of torque, sure beats having to memorize arbitrary PSI numbers or ft/lbs.
 
The Navajos use full throttle for T.O.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Honest question: what turbocharged or supercharged engines can you achieve that?

All of the turbos and supercharged engines I’ve flown behind will overboost if you firewall the throttles at sea level. Even in the jet we don’t firewall the throttles on takeoff.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I used to fly an older T tail turbo Lance that would overboost if you firewall and required less than full throttle takeoffs. More recently before buying my plane I rented a newer Turbo Saratoga II and found out they had changed it to firewall it and the automatic wastegate takes care of itself.
 
Radar Contact said:
I used to fly an older T tail turbo Lance that would overboost if you firewall and required less than full throttle takeoffs. More recently before buying my plane I rented a newer Turbo Saratoga II and found out they had changed it to firewall it and the automatic wastegate takes care of itself.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Wonder when they changed it.

I just got checked out in a fairly new PA46 and it behaves the same way the Turbo Lance did.
 
ronnieh said:
The Navajos use full throttle for T.O.
Click to expand...

The Navajos and the turbocharged Aztecs have a similar, fairly sophisticated (for Piper) control system with separate boost controllers for full-throttle and part-throttle operations.
 
...you sour graped dreamcrushers, don't blow his candle. If the OP wants to turn a pair of fixed gate Conti 360s into afterburner units during his first missed approach on IR training, who are we to say no. This 'Murica Jack! Like the man said, he can always sell. :eek::D
 
hindsight2020 said:
...you sour graped dreamcrushers, don't blow his candle. If the OP wants to turn a pair of fixed gate Conti 360s into afterburner units during his first missed approach on IR training, who are we to say no. This 'Murica Jack! Like the man said, he can always sell. :eek::D
Click to expand...

He can do that after the CFI isn’t aboard! Poor CFI doesn’t need any more excitement. :)
 
I see this thread pop up right as I'm also wondering about a Seneca. I think my next airplane is probably a PA-32 still but I've gotten a bit twin-curious as of late.

There are non-turbo versions of the Seneca, yes? How much of learning curve is there going from a basic fixed gear fixed prop PA-28 to something as advanced as a Seneca?
 
cowman said:
I see this thread pop up right as I'm also wondering about a Seneca. I think my next airplane is probably a PA-32 still but I've gotten a bit twin-curious as of late.
Click to expand...

You wanted to type bi-curious really bad didn’t you? LOL.

Bi-engine that is!

Not that there’s anything wrong with that! :)

(I’m thinking this is not a good idea for a multi-engine school’s marketing campaign. Hmmm.)

“Have you ever been bi-curious like @cowman? Or even just bi-crazy like @Ted DuPuis? Well then come on down to Bubba’s multi-engine school... where we’ll show you it’s okay to love twins. Um, we mean... well, never mind. Just get down here!”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top