SR22 or Seneca II?

Salty said:
I think you guys with 10,000 hours don't remember what it's like to have 210 hours. 60 hours a year is not much to stay proficient flying a slippery, high performance turbo aircraft when it's 30% of your entire experience. Probably is plenty when it's 0.3% of your experience. And if you're doing 4, 6 hour trips a year, that's half the hours right there.
Click to expand...
I have closer to 30,000 hours vs 10,000.
I am NOT competent in a Seneca, or any other light twin. So, that’s not a factor.

Just so you are aware, we in the 121 world get zero training in single engine ops. We a V1 cut every six months on our checkride (APG not sure) There are some retraining rules, but basically it’s jepordy every time.

Point is, total time has nothing to do with ME proficiency.

BTW, V1 cuts in a jet do not resemble those in a light twin.
 
Kritchlow said:
I have closer to 30,000 hours vs 10,000.
I am NOT competent in a Seneca, or any other light twin. So, that’s not a factor.

Just so you are aware, we in the 121 world get zero training in single engine ops. We a V1 cut every six months on our checkride (APG not sure) There are some retraining rules, but basically it’s jepordy every time.

Point is, total time has nothing to do with ME proficiency.

BTW, V1 cuts in a jet do not resemble those in a light twin.
Click to expand...
What I’m trying to say is that if you’ve already landed a similar type plane 5,000 times, been through multiple experiences over many years of flying, and had dozens if not hundreds of hours of training over those years, it won’t take as much time to remain proficient as it would a person who hasn’t landed any plane 1,000 times or had any experience with things going wrong yet.

Heck, I’d imagine you’ve had more than twice as many hours training as the OP has total. That doesn’t mean you are magically proficient in any aircraft, but it certainly gives you a leg up on getting there quicker.
 
MICHAEL MAHN said:
A Seneca II with rebuilt engines priced at 250/hour dry
Click to expand...
Addition to multi proficiency concerns, also keep in mind for 600nm trips ... it appears the autopilot for the rental PA-34-200T remains inop.
For maintenance squawks, check online. (Feel free to pvt msg if unfamiliar.)
 
There has been so much more input to this thread than I expected! I hope to someday have the experience and wisdom of exiting PoA members to be able to "give back" accordingly.

I was pretty sure a twin was not the right move for me, but, an SR22 seems like a pretty big jump too so I wanted to hear from experienced pilots. Thank you!

I've made these decisions:
(1) I will likely never be a twin pilot. The proficiency demands exceed the max amount of flying I ever intend to do.
(2) I hold out hope a SR22 might some day be in my future, but, as EMAN1200 pointed out, given my financial constraints, a less expensive option which allows me to fly more hours thereby increasing proficiency is preferential. So, Charlotte SR22 owners open for a partnership...I want to hear from you! :)
(3) The Seneca II I thought was available from a local pilot is actually available from the same FBO where I was looking to rent the 22. They also have a 182 in their fleet. The 182 seems like a much better incremental step up from where I am now. It's 2X the cost of my club 172, but, it's faster and has a larger useful load which is what prompted me to start looking for alternatives in the first place. I was really hoping to fly a modern airplane, but, given the options, this seems like the best route forward.
 
Last edited:
I posted this on FB but I'll re-post here. My dog has 20+ toys and, when I return home, he brings me whatever can fit is his mouth I guess as praise for me returning home. It's heartwarming sometimes as he's a mini and can only fit a couple toys in his mouth yet he tries bring me more. I cannot remember the last time he brought me his toy Snoopy. He did today. I acknowledge dog owners are subject to anthropomorphic tendencies, but I swear he was trying to make me feel guilty for not taking him flying
1f642.png
 
182 seems like a good plan to me. Easy to fly IMO. Pull the throttle and it slows right down. Put in full flaps and it’s drops straight down.
 
MICHAEL MAHN said:
So, Charlotte SR22 owners open for a partnership...I want to hear from you! :)
Click to expand...

Keep looking for that. I was in two "non-equity partnerships" before I bought into a partnership (technically an LLC) on a SR22. First was a 2002 SR22, then a Baron B58. I didn't buy into one while the kids were still in a private school and then college. Once the youngest was in her last year of college and we had quite a bit more free cash flow I found one and bought in.

All three had small groups, 3 to 4 pilots total. It has been rare to have a scheduling conflict. On the first one we only had two "real" scheduling conflicts in 4.5 years. Real as in two people wanted to go somewhere at the same time. Anything else was someone thinking, "hey, it's nice day, maybe I'll go fly" and then finding someone else had the plane out-of-state. That didn't happen much largely because we all used the plane to travel, not fly around the patch for an hour or so.

On that one and my current share of a SR22 my costs were much lower than what you would pay for that rental. Depending upon the monthly fee (for fixed costs) and the price of fuel, they've run from $210-250/hr. That's all the fixed and variable costs for the plane for me for the year divided by my flying hours. I fly more than you are planning, so that lowers how much the fixed costs impact my "hourly" cost. That first on I flew about 85-90 hr/year. Last year I flew 132 hours in my current plane, which definitely helps reduce the "all-in" hourly cost, but certainly costs a lot for all of those hours. We did a lot of traveling, even during the pandemic, plus I flew 15 Angel Flight missions, many of which were both legs of the mission.

Keep flying and keep looking for other options. :cool:
 
Salty said:
182 seems like a good plan to me...
Click to expand...
A friend who flew one told me it "it flies like a truck" :) It's all good. All things considered, I believe you and he are correct. Thanks so much for your insight.
 
I'd consider a twin partnership if you didn't fly more than 50 hours/year ;)
 
Salty said:
What I’m trying to say is that if you’ve already landed a similar type plane 5,000 times, been through multiple experiences over many years of flying, and had dozens if not hundreds of hours of training over those years, it won’t take as much time to remain proficient as it would a person who hasn’t landed any plane 1,000 times or had any experience with things going wrong yet.

Heck, I’d imagine you’ve had more than twice as many hours training as the OP has total. That doesn’t mean you are magically proficient in any aircraft, but it certainly gives you a leg up on getting there quicker.
Click to expand...
I guess what I’m trying to say is amount of time in the airplane does not equal proficiency. But… if you fly with an MEI and drill engine outs for a solid hour every month, you WILL be proficient… even if that’s all you fly.
Landing a twin is different, but not magical. Once you learn the profile it’s like any other airplane. Just the the Airbus I fly.
Sure, keeping proficient airman-wise is a bit more, but the multi engine aspect is not. The problem, as I see it, is folks getting their ME then never drilling the important stuff with a MEI.
 
I'd agree with the suggestion to consider the Cirrus SR22 for your described situation. The number of intended annual hours to be flown as stated by you are not enough to attain reasonable proficiency in the light twin, therefore the twin's redundancy in the powerplant department won't be of great use. In fact it's more probable that it would represent a significant liability.

The trick to safely operating a CAPS-equipped ship is to remember it's still a single-engine piston airplane and will always be inherently limited compared to a comparable light twin, flown by a proficient pilot, in terms of operational capability. I really love the SR-22 (especially the air conditioning for flying in the summer) but I would never use that aircraft to fly the same profiles that I do in my Twin Comanche. Those include night, widespread low IFR, mountainous terrain and some combinations thereof, all of which are a breeze in the twin. CAPS is a method of last resort which may result in injury or death, so don't plan a trip expecting that the chute is a cure-all panacea for anything which may go wrong. It's a nice tool, but if one uses good risk management techniques there's no "credit" for it at all in terms of risk mitigation.

Enjoy it,
 
wayne said:
...the kids were still in a private school and then college...
Click to expand...
That's exactly where I am now. In ~3 years my cash flow will be completely different story.

Thanks for the thoughts.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I honestly wonder how many hours the typical twin-owner flies annually. I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear 60-80 hours each year for a Seneca or 310 owner. I'm certainly not friends with a lot of twin owners, but I just don't see a ton of them flying around that makes me think they are getting up in the air more than once or twice a month for a few hours. Whether anyone here considers that enough to be "safe" is another matter.
Click to expand...

I flew my 310 about 60 hours last year. This year, it’s been down so much waiting on parts for minor MTX items and the freedom in my work schedule to do the work myself. I may be at 10 hours for the year.

I’ll be lucky to do 40 hours this year. I do fly for a living which helps, but it’s not the same as flying a piston twin vs a jet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Oldheimers has finally set in.
I glanced at the title of the thread and my brain said "SR71 or Seneca II".
I know which one I'd choose.
Flying one or more times a week, as I do, I could run up a pretty sizable equivalent of the national debt in the SR71 in no time at all.
 
Shepherd said:
Oldheimers has finally set in.
I glanced at the title of the thread and my brain said "SR71 or Seneca II".
I know which one I'd choose.
Flying one or more times a week, as I do, I could run up a pretty sizable equivalent of the national debt in the SR71 in no time at all.
Click to expand...

Is there a difference? Both twin engines, no? Seems comparable to me. Seneca, I believe, does have the edge on passenger capacity. ;):p:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top