Seneca vs Matrix

J

jayhawk74

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Feb 12, 2018
Messages
370
Display Name
Display name:
jayhawk74
I'm looking to buy an aircraft and have it narrowed down to a Seneca or Matrix. Before everyone starts telling me to get a 310, Bonanza or Cirrus here are my requirements. Due to some medical issues with my wife there must be a way for her to get into the aircraft other than climbing onto the wing. Additionally since my flying will primarily be in the Northeast (between New England and Maryland) it must be certified for FIKI so it can be used year round. Those flights can be done at 12,000 max so pressurization is not required. I do have experience in pressurized aircraft as I have over 17K hours in pressurized aircraft (1100 PC-12 and the rest in 737s) I just don't see the need for it on the East Coast. I have over 5700 hours in unpressurized aircraft that are certified FIKI (75 of which is in the Seneca) so I'm aware of that limitation.
Basically I'm looking for the pros/cons when comparing the two aircraft as I only know about the PA-46 series from what I read. The useful load are about the same for both so there is no difference in that issue so what I can see are two isssues for compararison. Cabin comfort and maintenance, not counting the twin vs single issue. Any and all insights would be greatly appreciated.
 
If mobility is an issue, it will be much easier for her to get into the back of a Seneca than a Matrix.

I flew a Matrix and Malibu professionally for a couple years and I enjoyed the Matrix (thought it was a better plane than the pressurized ‘Bu), but it is a bit tight compared to the cabin of a Seneca.
 
@Fearless Tower pretty much sums it up the first post. The air stair on a PA 46 is nice but it is no comparison to this when it comes to mobility issues!!!

Full disclosure...PA46 owner since 2012 I own Matrix serial number 001.
 

Attachments

  • Seneca.jpg
    Seneca.jpg
    147.6 KB · Views: 119
Curious - assuming similar hull values - would insurance be about the same?
 
Kelvin said:
@Fearless Tower pretty much sums it up the first post. The air stair on a PA 46 is nice but it is no comparison to this when it comes to mobility issues!!!

Full disclosure...PA46 owner since 2012 I own Matrix serial number 001.
Click to expand...
The medical issue with my wife is a balance problem from a stroke in 2001. She can walk and climb stairs but getting into a plane from the wing is the problem, which is why I currently rent a 172. Unfortunatley that type of aircraft will not carry 3-4 people comfortably nor does it FIKI capability.
 
I regularly fly and maintain a PA46 and have some experience with flying and maintaining PA34s and 32s. Ease of entry and exit would probably go to the Seneca although I don’t think the Matrix would be much of an issue either. From a pilot’s perspective I like flying the PA46 more than the Seneca. Since you mention FIKI/ice, I’d guess that the Seneca would do better than the PA46 in this department although I’ve never dealt with ice in the Seneca to confirm that.

Ive never had to pay the bills for maintenance since I just do all the work myself but I’d say the PA46 is more labor intensive to work on when things need to be done. The systems are simple but there is a lot of stuff in a small area under the cowl which often leads to lots of hours spent gaining access to things that need attention.

Perhaps the biggest hurdle to consider is the wing span of the PA46. Do you have space that will accommodate the longer than normal wings?
 
Is she riding in the back of the Seneca? If so that opens up several other planes with aft loading doors.
 
I have done the PA-46 dance to get into the pilot seat.
You always are in a three point stance (two hands and a foot, or two feet and a hand) when climbing into the front seats. With that said, I do not recall any special balancing required, but I would suggest having your wife try sitting in both planes.
Based on what I have read, the PA46 FIKI was certified later than the Seneca, so it likely performs better as the FAA has continued to update and tweak the FIKI regulations over the years.

I am curious about the budget numbers, as in what do the two planes cost to run?

Tim
 
I'm running about $300/hr. it's more expensive in the Seneca. however, having deadsticked a Turbo'd M20J from FL 18 in new england winter IMC.....the 2nd, after market merlin'd 2nd engine has become a "mandatory". 2, vs 1.

Well, at least the M 350 has a Lycoming. Continental has so many bearing problems that are unreported that I feel like I need two.
 
I vote Seneca. Slightly better useful. A couple gallons more per hour burn, but the second engine just in case.
 
schmookeeg said:
Is she riding in the back of the Seneca? If so that opens up several other planes with aft loading doors.
Click to expand...
She would be in the back in both aircraft. What other aircraft are you talking about that would have aft loading doors that is also FIKI. I know the Bonanza is aft loading but not FIKI.
 
I have only once flew a PA46 in icing, and I found it to be the worst aircraft I have flown in icing, period. That would give me strong pause.

I have never flown a Seneca in icing, though, @bbchien is the expert there.

I am a also not a fan of the TSIO-360s in the Seneca. I am a fan of the TIO-540-AE2A in the Matrix/Mirage. But there is still only one.

I would probably go for the Seneca between thohse.
 
jayhawk74 said:
She would be in the back in both aircraft. What other aircraft are you talking about that would have aft loading doors that is also FIKI. I know the Bonanza is aft loading but not FIKI.
Click to expand...

36/58 Bonanzas and Barons can get TKS FIKI as an STC. Same with the Cessna 206 I believe? I don't know if their Saratoga system confers FIKI or not. Might be worth a call to CAV Aero to see what their STCs are up to lately.
 
"Cool! A thread about a somewhat unknown airplane model that I have been flying regularly. Probably no one else will be able to make an informed response about the Matrix."

First two posts:

Fearless Tower said:
I flew a Matrix and Malibu professionally for a couple years
Click to expand...

Kelvin said:
Full disclosure...PA46 owner since 2012 I own Matrix serial number 001.
Click to expand...

Dang!

But I have been flying a Matrix professionally for its owner since April, with about 100 hours in it. Flew it for 4.4 hours today in fact. It is a nice aircraft to fly. It is essentially like a slightly larger PA-32 (Cherokee 6) with stairs. I get about 180 knots at 9 or 10,000, a little more up higher, a little less down lower. Since it's not pressurized, I haven't yet felt the need to take it above about 11,000, although it will of course go up into the flight levels (with oxygen).

With a max fuel load of 120 gallons, it is definitely not a "fill the tanks and seats" kind of airplane. With full tanks it's really only a 2 or 3 person airplane. But of course full tanks will take you 900-ish nm. Make sure you run the numbers.

At max gross, it does like some runway to get off the ground and the initial climb angle isn't impressive on a hot day.

I haven't yet flown it in the winter so I can't speak to the FIKI aspects.

Insurance will probably require initial and recurrent training (they did for me).

I have some time in a Seneca, but it was all CFI time. I think it would definitely be easier to get in the back for someone with limited mobility or such issues.

For the "getting in the back" tests, you can find any PA-46 to see how that works (the fuselages all the same as far as I know, at least for the parts you're concerned about). And for the Seneca, it's the same fuselage as the PA-32, so it should be easy to find one of those for comparison.
 
I had to renew my insurance today, crazy increases, crazy expensive for my straight-legged Cessna. My agent of 15 years and I spit-balled numbers for various models and it was eye-opening. Kind of killed my dreams of a near-term upgrade. She said it would probably be a $10,000 quote for me in a 310! (I have no multi or retract time). Ooofda.

So, I’m curious what you guys would expect to pay for a PA-46 or Seneca?
 
AA5Bman said:
I had to renew my insurance today, crazy increases, crazy expensive for my straight-legged Cessna. My agent of 15 years and I spit-balled numbers for various models and it was eye-opening. Kind of killed my dreams of a near-term upgrade. She said it would probably be a $10,000 quote for me in a 310! (I have no multi or retract time). Ooofda.

So, I’m curious what you guys would expect to pay for a PA-46 or Seneca?
Click to expand...

Id expect roughly 1% of hull value with good experience. With no experience the numbers can be eye watering. My friend looked into being insured in the PA46 he owns and was quoted $40k/year (yes you read that right). He had 1000ish hours but no instrument rating and no time in type at that time.
 
mondtster said:
Id expect roughly 1% of hull value with good experience. With no experience the numbers can be eye watering. My friend looked into being insured in the PA46 he owns and was quoted $40k/year (yes you read that right). He had 1000ish hours but no instrument rating and no time in type at that time.
Click to expand...
Nobody wants to insure a PA46 without an instrument rating…
 
dans2992 said:
Nobody wants to insure a PA46 without an instrument rating…
Click to expand...

They will do it, but for a price. I know of another guy who bought one recently and had 350 hours and no instrument rating. I don’t know what the insurance cost but he was insured.
 
Seneca. Two engines or bust, especially if you plan on doing frequent hard IMC
 
AA5Bman said:
So, I’m curious what you guys would expect to pay for a PA-46 or Seneca?
Click to expand...

For the 2010 Matrix I fly, I am one of two pilots listed. I am the more-experienced pilot. The other (one of the owners) is a Private with Instrument and 850 total hours. Annual premium is $8,025. Now, that is the first year, when neither of us had any time in type. Initial and annual recurrent training are required.
 
I have four winters and 1000 hours in PA46s from Mirage/M350s through the M600. Don't count on climbing through ice in a Malibu. You can descend through it, you can even hang out in some ice if you really want to...you just absolutely cannot climb through anything more than trace to light ice. PM me if you have any questions.
 
Arbiter419 said:
Don't count on climbing through ice
Click to expand...
..curious, is this because
(a) the boots are crap
(b) the wings don't carry ice well
(c) both a & b
(d) none of the above, please write a short answer:________________


in all seriousness, I've been told that some of the older Pipers (Aztec, for example) have such fat wings that they carry ice quite well. I find ice terrifying and my handful of ice encounters in a FIKI Cirrus I had the damn thing on high or max. But I'm curious about the why for your answer as to why a "high performance" plane won't perform in ice
 
Tantalum said:
I find ice terrifying and my handful of ice encounters in a FIKI Cirrus I had the damn thing on high or max. But I'm curious about the why for your answer as to why a "high performance" plane won't perform in ice
Click to expand...

Surely the only ice in San Diego is found in a Margarita on the rocks? :D

I hate ice, but after several oregon winters in the stuff, I'm now up to only fearing SLD, and just being ready/primed for the normal accumulating junk. SLD suxxxxxxx and I hope I never encounter it again. The rest is just not being caught accumulating without an out or reserve performance on tap.
 
Tantalum said:
..curious, is this because
(a) the boots are crap
(b) the wings don't carry ice well
(c) both a & b
(d) none of the above, please write a short answer:________________


in all seriousness, I've been told that some of the older Pipers (Aztec, for example) have such fat wings that they carry ice quite well. I find ice terrifying and my handful of ice encounters in a FIKI Cirrus I had the damn thing on high or max. But I'm curious about the why for your answer as to why a "high performance" plane won't perform in ice
Click to expand...

The Malibu could use about 100 more horsepower than it has, which would help. They are also fairly sensitive to ice; just a little will cause the airspeed to start decaying in a hurry. You don’t always know where you’ll find the top of the clouds/ice either, which can be a problem if you’re banking on getting out of it.

On the other hand, the Aztec is one of the best airplanes I’ve flown in ice. They will carry a ton of ice before you would ever really know it was there. I haven’t dealt with ice much in a Seneca but I expect it would be somewhere in between the Aztec and the Malibu, plus it has more power than the Malibu.

At the end of the day, I personally don’t feel any light airplane is truly an “all weather” airplane and should be treated as such, FIKI or not.
 
Tantalum said:
..curious, is this because
(a) the boots are crap
(b) the wings don't carry ice well
(c) both a & b
(d) none of the above, please write a short answer:________________


in all seriousness, I've been told that some of the older Pipers (Aztec, for example) have such fat wings that they carry ice quite well. I find ice terrifying and my handful of ice encounters in a FIKI Cirrus I had the damn thing on high or max. But I'm curious about the why for your answer as to why a "high performance" plane won't perform in ice
Click to expand...

It's just too light on power to carry the airplane uphill at a good enough rate or high enough airspeed. Boots work better the faster you go, a heavy Malibu slogging it uphill through ice at say, 130 knots (which is a pretty typical climb for a Malibu, I usually pitch for 125 or 5 degrees nose up which is good for about 700 FPM up with a clean wing) isn't going to be able to hold that speed for very long, you'll end up increasing AOA and trading speed for climb, which is going to allow ice to pile on the airplane even quicker.

The boots really don't do half bad in a Malibu. Tail inflates, then lower wings, then upper wings. No rest period, you can cycle them (push button) as often as you'd like.
 
schmookeeg said:
Surely the only ice in San Diego is found in a Margarita on the rocks?
Click to expand...
yeah it's almost never a factor here, but for the Mammoth and Tahoe ski trips the IFR routes take you west of the Sierras, which means you're crossing west to east at some point, typically by FRIANT or SPOOK (depending on where you're going).. that calls for a climb and if there's a layer.. ice as well. It's a short crossing, you prime the system ahead of time.. but it's unpleasant seeing it build fast and knowing that you're trusting a lot of tech to work well, and at least for a few minutes, you have no outs with the rocks under you.. chute or not that would suck to go down there
 
mondtster said:
The Malibu could use about 100 more horsepower than it has, which would help.
Click to expand...
Arbiter419 said:
It's just too light on power to carry the airplane uphill at a good enough rate or high enough airspeed.
Click to expand...
Interesting, thanks! I like the Piper products, the PA-46 seems like a "maybe sort of attainable" poor man's TBM. But I suppose it suffers from the same thing all pistons do.. "could use more power"!

mondtster said:
the Aztec is one of the best airplanes I’ve flown
Click to expand...
Man I've totally fallen for the one in our club.. out of only a few people flying it me and another pilot have accounted for over 80% of its flight hours since May. I'd love to buy one.. just very hard to justify the actual expense of owning a big old twin, and the (wet) lease rate is fair, imho ($315).. but for my mission it'd be the perfect platform
 
Tantalum said:
Interesting, thanks! I like the Piper products, the PA-46 seems like a "maybe sort of attainable" poor man's TBM. But I suppose it suffers from the same thing all pistons do.. "could use more power"!


Man I've totally fallen for the one in our club.. out of only a few people flying it me and another pilot have accounted for over 80% of its flight hours since May. I'd love to buy one.. just very hard to justify the actual expense of owning a big old twin, and the (wet) lease rate is fair, imho ($315).. but for my mission it'd be the perfect platform
Click to expand...

I really like the Malibu, but they have their limitations. If your typical flight falls within their limits they’re great. The things my friend and I use the one he has for is often borderline, but it is really still the best and most economical option for what we’re doing. If it would do shorter runways and turf/gravel better we’d probably like it more.

The Aztec does most of the things for us that the Malibu doesn’t do as well at. I’ve flown the one we have all over the remote parts of central Canada.

Both sit too much, but at least they aren’t as costly when sitting as the turbine that would be replacing both airplanes would be.
 
eman1200 said:
if u don't mind me asking, what does that run?
Click to expand...

Casey Aviation in Jacksonville, TX is where I did it. Piston initial runs $4000 for the "4-day" course, at their location (so, add lodging and of course fuel and other costs for your airplane, including getting it there).

Recurrent looks like a 2-day course for $2200 or a 1-day course (where you first watch training videos) for $1800.

https://flycasey.com/flight-training/
 
Isn't the piston PA46 (Matrix, M350, etc) a bit of a dog in takeoff performance and climb? I know they have a big wing and glide well but they seem to have some pretty unimpressive (~800 fpm or so IIRC) climb rate - or am I off in my recollection?
 
RudyP said:
Isn't the piston PA46 (Matrix, M350, etc) a bit of a dog in takeoff performance and climb? I know they have a big wing and glide well but they seem to have some pretty unimpressive (~800 fpm or so IIRC) climb rate - or am I off in my recollection?
Click to expand...

800FPM at 35" and 2500 RPM is pretty much best case scenario. Load it up to max or put it at a high DA and it'll be a bit less. Piper has advised that you can hold 42" (redline) for the duration of the climb...but I'd never do that if it was my airplane, nor do I do that in customer or company Mirage/M350s that I fly. It also burns 40 GPH at 42" as apposed to a slightly more reasonable 32-35 gph at 35". Typical cruise at 75% power (30" 2400 RPM leaned to 125 ROP) is 200 TAS at FL 200 on 22 gph. Down below 10,000 it'll do 170-175 for you on the same fuel flow.
 
Arbiter419 said:
800FPM at 35" and 2500 RPM is pretty much best case scenario. Load it up to max or put it at a high DA and it'll be a bit less. Piper has advised that you can hold 42" (redline) for the duration of the climb...but I'd never do that if it was my airplane, nor do I do that in customer or company Mirage/M350s that I fly. It also burns 40 GPH at 42" as apposed to a slightly more reasonable 32-35 gph at 35". Typical cruise at 75% power (30" 2400 RPM leaned to 125 ROP) is 200 TAS at FL 200 on 22 gph. Down below 10,000 it'll do 170-175 for you on the same fuel flow.
Click to expand...

Wow... so what's the climb rate at FL200 if you takeoff at gross in the summertime?
 
RudyP said:
Wow... so what's the climb rate at FL200 if you takeoff at gross in the summertime?
Click to expand...

About 500 FPM. Takes a long time to get up there! Worth it if you're going long range or able to get above some of the weather. It'll do up to FL250 and the cabin will be between 8 and 9 thousand. If you do the aux tank STC (drilling an extra hole outboard of each fuel cap) you can put an additional 10 gallons per side in the airplane, so about an hour of extra fuel at cruise. That will bring it up to 140 gallons on board. 35 gallons for your first hour and 20-22 gallons for every hour after that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top