SR22 or Seneca II?

[Mahneuvers]

I have a mission where I need to fly ~600 miles 2-4 times/year with mostly two passengers and a dog but sometimes a third child passenger. I really don't have the financial means to purchase a plane so I'm limited to clubs or rentals. I recently obtained my IFR rating. I have 210 total hours -- 60 in the past year and expect ~60/year going forward.

I belong to a fantastic club but they only have one IFR capable 172. Chugging along at 102 KTS for my mission is sub-optimal and the third passenger is only realistic if I leave fuel behind and make multiple stops. As a result, I've been thinking recently of getting checked out in a SR22. A nearby airport has a SR22TN which rents for $300/hour dry. I took an introductory flight in it and it's sweet! Cruising at 175 KTS in comfort would be nice, however, the useful load is only 530 lbs, so I'm pretty much in the same boat as the 172 but getting there a lot faster. I recently started studying the Cirrus POH and purchased the Carendo SR22 X-plane 11 plugin so I could learn about the plane so my lessons with an instructor aren't starting from scratch. I was prepared to start SR22 lessons in about a month when....

A Seneca II with rebuilt engines priced at 250/hour dry is now available at that same airport at which I would have started taking lessons in the SR22. Cruising at 190 KTS and the increased useful load is appealing. Availability could be an issue but the owner appears to be accommodating of multi-day trips.

30 minutes ago I would have told you I don't expect to ever be PIC of a twin, ever. Insurance, training, remaining proficient all make it seem like too much plane for me. However, the fact it better meets my mission makes me question myself. I recognize this Seneca might disappear tomorrow and, if it did, I probably wouldn't seek out a replacement twin. Should I stick with my original SR22 plan or go down this Seneca II route?

I'm sure I'm not thinking about a million aspects of this decision. Be gentle on me

 

[Mtns2Skies]

Okay, one of my driving factors in plane ownership is safety. The twin and the Cirrus have two similar but different safety devices for an engine failure.

Where are you going to be flying?
Over high altitude terrain? Cirrus
Over-water? Seneca
Over the great plains of merica? Disregard close your eyes and land straight ahead you'll be fine.

 

[eman1200]

I skimmed thru real quick (what else is new). are u asking which plane you should RENT, between sr and seneca?

 

[Tantalum]

Twin.

Useful load
Safe - if you are competent and practice procedures often

I was a Cirrus obsessive for a long time, still think they're great planes, but after getting my multi I'm not going back to SE

Plus if you are renting you are not dealing with a lot of the added maintenance headache that a twin traditionally would bring.. and it will force you to be a better pilot with additional systems etc

I'm flying a '65 Aztec C at our club now and I'm loving every second of it. Being able to carry four or five of my friends or another couple and a ton of gear in a rock solid platform is awesome

I only have a little time in a Seneca and I don't remember it being anywhere near as loud as the aztec. It certainly on the upper limit of what the Bose can handle

 

[kaiser]

At 60hrs a year, for me… seems like the bare bare minimum to maintain proficiency in a twin. Even in the 22 it seems light, though passable. Again, that’s for me.

 

[PaulS]

Man, 60 hours a year seems pretty low for getting and staying proficient in either plane.

 

[RyanB]

A nearby airport has a SR22TN which rents for $300/hour dry. I took an introductory flight in it and it's sweet! Cruising at 175 KTS in comfort would be nice, however, the useful load is only 530 lbs

Only a 530lb useful load? How do you figure? It has to be more than that.

 

[schmookeeg]

For a 210hr pilot, SR22 all day long.

 

[PaulS]

Only a 530lb useful load? How do you figure? It has to be more than that.

That sounds like full fuel remaining load.

 

[Mahneuvers]

That sounds like full fuel remaining load.

Correct. "fuel to the tabs" from the FBO documentation.

 

[Mahneuvers]

Okay, one of my driving factors in plane ownership is safety. The twin and the Cirrus have two similar but different safety devices for an engine failure.

Where are you going to be flying?
Over high altitude terrain? Cirrus
Over-water? Seneca
Over the great plains of merica? Disregard close your eyes and land straight ahead you'll be fine.

Neither over water or mountains. East coast flying mostly between NC and FL.

 

[Tantalum]

Sorry, I recant. After reading the other posts and re-reading yours and seeing this:

60 in the past year and expect ~60/year going forward.

..I would not go the multi route.. for sure. Save that for another day.

For 60 hrs that seems on the lighter side for either plane to be honest

Good luck though!

 

[Mahneuvers]

At 60hrs a year, for me… seems like the bare bare minimum to maintain proficiency in a twin. Even in the 22 it seems light, though passable. Again, that’s for me.

Yep. Maintaining proficiency is my biggest concern w/ a twin. I had thought the SR22 might not be as demanding but I really don't know. This is good information.

 

[eman1200]

if you're renting (the bird from monroe), don't forget to add in the recurrency costs. if you don't fly that puppy once every what, 90 days or so, you gotta go back up with an instructor. at those rates, sheesh, that'll add up over the course of a year.

 

[Racerx]

Twin.

Useful load
Safe - if you are competent and practice procedures often

I was a Cirrus obsessive for a long time, still think they're great planes, but after getting my multi I'm not going back to SE

Plus if you are renting you are not dealing with a lot of the added maintenance headache that a twin traditionally would bring.. and it will force you to be a better pilot with additional systems etc

I'm flying a '65 Aztec C at our club now and I'm loving every second of it. Being able to carry four or five of my friends or another couple and a ton of gear in a rock solid platform is awesome

I only have a little time in a Seneca and I don't remember it being anywhere near as loud as the aztec. It certainly on the upper limit of what the Bose can handle

Off the Cirrus bandwagon?! Say it ain't so!!

 

[Mahneuvers]

if you're renting (the bird from monroe), don't forget to add in the recurrency costs. if you don't fly that puppy once every what, 90 days or so, you gotta go back up with an instructor. at those rates, sheesh, that'll add up over the course of a year.

Yep. It's Monroe. My plan would be to fly either plane a minimum at least once a month for proficiency purposes. If I got to 90 days w/o a flight I would most assuredly drop out.

 

[eman1200]

btw, every time you post I think of this ( :55)

 

[Racerx]

btw, every time you post I think of this ( :55)

Great movie. Quite a bit was filmed in my town. They just reopened the beach they drove on.

 

[eman1200]

Great movie. Quite a bit was filmed in my town. They just reopened the beach they drove on.

How ‘bout the mall?

 

[Mahneuvers]

btw, every time you post I think of this ( :55)

Ha!! I haven't had that one brought to my attention. I've had people bring this Misery scene to my attention over the years And then, of course, Michael Mann is a prolific director starting with Miami Vice.

 

[RyanB]

That sounds like full fuel remaining load.

Correct. "fuel to the tabs" from the FBO documentation.

Ah, okay. I always assumed the -22TN would be a true 4 place with full fuel. Guess not.

 

[Racerx]

How ‘bout the mall?

Mall never reopened. Movie might have helped with the demolition

 

[Salty]

Definitely not a twin on 60 hours a year. Good way to kill yourself. I fly 150 a year and I’m concerned I wouldn’t put enough hours on a twin to stay safe.

I don’t even think 60 hours a year is enough for a 22tn and putting passengers in with me.

 

[ktup-flyer]

Only a 530lb useful load? How do you figure? It has to be more than that.

Useful load is, payload isn’t. 694lb payload on a bare bones G6 SR22T

 

[Mahneuvers]

Definitely not a twin on 60 hours a year. Good way to kill yourself. I fly 150 a year and I’m concerned I wouldn’t put enough hours on a twin to stay safe.

I don’t even think 60 hours a year is enough for a 22tn and putting passengers in with me.

Thanks for the thoughts everyone. Several have weighed in 60/year is even too little for a SR22. It was at least nice dreaming about a SR22 for a brief moment. If I end up flying well north of 60/year I'll reconsider.

 

[eman1200]

partnership?

 

[kaiser]

partnership?

Doesn’t solve the proficiency issue. Keeps the plane active - which is good.

 

[Salty]

Thanks for the thoughts everyone. Several have weighed in 60/year is even too little for a SR22. It was at least nice dreaming about a SR22 for a brief moment. If I end up flying well north of 60/year I'll reconsider.

Simple solution to that problem

 

[eman1200]

Doesn’t solve the proficiency issue. Keeps the plane active - which is good.

true, although maybe he'd be motivated to fly a little more if in a partnership.

 

[Tantalum]

Off the Cirrus bandwagon?! Say it ain't so!!

haha, and right after a few of my friends went and did their transition!!

The useful load just wasn't there for me.. we typically fly with another couple and that's just not realistic in the Cirrus both as far as space and weight are concerned for weekend trips. Our friends aren't pilots and the whole "please don't eat breakfast and keep your bags at 8 lbs or less" gets tiring. You can try to manage fuel but MYF-MMH or TVL you need at least tabs. Our club has a couple 210.. they're a beast for sure but the one that is near me has been rode hard and put away wet. I took a ride in a friend's Travel Air and it really sold me on twins.. the climb rate, the solid feeling, the redundancy. And something very "old school" about it.. even with "glass" in the cockpit

FWIW, to the OP, I'm flying about 120-130 hrs per year or at least one trip per month with a few weekend and afternoon flights peppered in.. imho that's on the edge of what's enough to keep me proficient, and its a graduated scale, I'm not going to launch out on a 900 nm flight alone into dubious weather at this point. Everyone's different but 60 hrs seems light

But again, good luck!! We're all different and if you go the Seneca route I look forward to hearing your experience with it

 

[Mahneuvers]

partnership?

Part of my 60/year estimate was based on flying costs of 300/hour. From what I've read, unless I go back to very early models, 300/hour is about right. If it were possible for me to fly <300/hour than I could fly more and therefore solve the proficiency problem. However, it seems at this point I'm splitting hairs. I'm thinking a 300/hour plane is just more than I can afford.

 

[Katamarino]

The US and Europe have very different ideas of what it takes to stay proficient. In the UK most pilots are flying 10-20 hours a year. Accident rates aren't terribly different. I'd say go for it in the SR22, just know your limits and be conservative if you haven't flown in a while.

 

[Stan Cooper]

For that mission I'd be looking for a 206 or Cherokee Six 300 (or fixed gear Saratoga) to rent. Fixed gear, slower than an SR22 but lots faster than a 172, six seats and decent payload.

 

[Mahneuvers]

The US and Europe have very different ideas of what it takes to stay proficient. In the UK most pilots are flying 10-20 hours a year. Accident rates aren't terribly different. I'd say go for it in the SR22, just know your limits and be conservative if you haven't flown in a while.

Thanks for the thoughts. In every aspect of my life, I tend to make decisions on the conservative side of the spectrum. I've been reading POA for years and highly regard the opinions. I will continue to listen and evaluate, and I will perform additional research with local, trusted contacts, but, as long as there are experienced POA pilots postulating a 60 hour/year pilot has no business in a SR22, then I'm inclined to run with that.

 

[Mahneuvers]

For that mission I'd be looking for a 206 or Cherokee Six 300 (or fixed gear Saratoga) to rent. Fixed gear, slower than an SR22 but lots faster than a 172, six seats and decent payload.

Thanks! I'll start researching and keeping an eye out for local availability.

 

[Kritchlow]

In my opinion 60 hours per year in a twin can be more than enough to remain proficient. It’s not the amount of time in the plane per se, but rather what you do with it. You can fly 1000 hrs a year, but if you never practice single engine procedures you will not be proficient. On the other hand, you can practice hardcore for one hour every month with a MEI and likely stay razor sharp.

 

[eman1200]

Thanks for the thoughts. In every aspect of my life, I tend to make decisions on the conservative side of the spectrum. I've been reading POA for years and highly regard the opinions. I will continue to listen and evaluate, and I will perform additional research with local, trusted contacts, but, as long as there are experienced POA pilots postulating a 60 hour/year pilot has no business in a SR22, then I'm inclined to run with that.

60 hours a year is just over an hour a week. it's not quite as horrible as PoA is making it out to be, if in fact you are flying that regularly and not, for example, one 60 hour straight and level flight. that doesn't do much good for proficiency. but 60 isn't horrible. for a high perf twin I'd prefer a little more but don't let the BS talk u out of it. just be honest with yourself on how much you'd really fly a twin or cirrus.

 

[Mahneuvers]

...one 60 hour straight and level flight...

I'm definitely not that. Sans the 2-4 600 mile flights I mentioned, the rest would be <2 hours. That said, even though I expect to fly this other plane at least 1X/month, I was expecting probably 25-50% of my 60 hour/year was in my existing club 172. If 60 hours of pure SR22 time is not enough to remain proficient, then where I expect to be probably is not.

 

[asicer]

60 hours a year is just over an hour a week. it's not quite as horrible as PoA is making it out to be, if in fact you are flying that regularly and not, for example, one 60 hour straight and level flight. that doesn't do much good for proficiency. but 60 isn't horrible. for a high perf twin I'd prefer a little more but don't let the BS talk u out of it. just be honest with yourself on how much you'd really fly a twin or cirrus.

That's the thing, isn't it? 60hrs/year could be 5 trips a year. Or it could be a weekly training session. Or it could be sitting in the plane burning avgas with a landing every 6 days.

 

[Mahneuvers]

That's the thing, isn't it? 60hrs/year could be 5 trips a year. Or it could be a weekly training session. Or it could be sitting in the plane burning avgas with a landing every 6 days.

Good point. I'm definitely in the camp of flying 2-4 times/month.