Compare and Contrast: Seneca or Aztec

[Horst Schwul]

Mädchen und Jungen, Bitte...

Option to purchase share in first twin.

Horror stories, good times, general experiences - all welcome.

You know it.

Horst.

[411A]

Never flew a Seneca, but have flown the Aztec extensively.
For a new twin pilot, you would be hard pressed to find one that is easier to fly, in complete safety.

[foxmoth]

I have flown both,like so many aircraft it depends on what you want from it, avoid the Seneca1 unless you are only going to carry light loads, 2 & 3 are better though IIRC you need to watch overboosting on the 2 and the Seneca is better fo pax entry/exit into the back and easier for loading large or awkward loads, overall though I would go with the Aztec D or E.

[englishal]

I've flown the Seneca II and it is a nice aeroplane to fly. The beauty of the Seneca II+ is that it is turbocharged so good for FL250 if you want. Not sure about the Aztec. Overboosting is possible but it doesn't take long to get used to not firewalling the throttles all the time.

The one I flew had a vortex kit on it so lower Vmc, and de-ice so a pretty capable aeroplane.

I guess a lot of it depends on your budget and what sort of flying you will be doing.

[gyrotyro]

Why not just be cool and get the best a/c....a Twin Comanche !

160kts on 55 LPH, good IMC platform, plenty of low cost spares via the owners club and a wealth of experienced pilots who are only too pleased to help out.

Many operate out of grass strips.

Welcome to Fergworld, a flying and aviation extravaganza! (http://www.fergworld.com/articles/article_twin_comanche.php)

Fergworld: Twin Comanche 8259Y (http://www.fergworld.com/twincomanche/)

Flight test - Piper Twin Comanche (http://www.planecheck.com/twincom.htm)

[vanHorck]

The Seneca can be deiced, has turbos and a more modern cabin. Also the single engine climb is better (all things being equal). I m not sure if the Aztec has counter rotating props. The Seneca has.

I believe the load capacity of the Aztec is quite good.

Seneca I and II are not my thing, III and IV are. The IV is basically a Seneca III with the looks of a Seneca V (round air inlets and the light color panel).

The V has different engines which are alleged to be a few knots slower.

Both machines are intended for longer trips where altitude capability (turbos) and de-ice is almost a necessity

[Fuji Abound]

I think the Aztec is the better aircraft, but it does depend on your mission profile.

The Aztec has the virtue of being almost bullet proof. Throw everything at it and the kitchen sink, add in some hard IFR weather and a grass runway and it will keep on smiling.

Add to that the feel of a "proper" aircraft, infact almost a mini airliner, and you can feel you are entitled to the gold braid (well almost). :)

The trouble is it is as hard to find a really good one as it is to find an MP with an honest expenses claim. Even if you do, the avionics will be antique.

That said there are very very few singles that will compete with an Aztec. There are a few that are faster, but done will carry the load and give you the same piece of mind as the trusty Aztec.

As a mate of mind says, when asked what would be better than the four engines on his 47, with a wry smile, he always says he wished he had five.

As twins go the Aztec is almost vice free. Perhaps a tad of care for the engines doesnt go amiss, the cowl flats are there for a purpose, and a mite of care on wet grass with a cross wind, but the handling is more benign than the Seneca and the build quality better. Single engine out is a complete non event.

[Pace]

I have flown a beautiful Aztec F and a not so beautiful older Aztec. They are very good twins with good range and carrying capacity. They have gentle handling characteristics.

Down side ? They are as ugly as can be and you wont impress the girls with your ugly nose and short stubby wings coupled to a stodgy out of shape body :)

Senecas? I have over 2000 hours in them. Just to clarify the 5 will way out perform the earlier versions in the climb. Expect a five to climb as well as a 3 or 4 at 20000 feet as the 3 or 4 do low level (yikes) Yes believe it or not the five will show 900 fpm in the high teens and 13000 to 1500fpm low down.

The five is turbocharged, wastegated and intercooled and can maintain full power. The earlier ones are limited in that way.

The five will fly engine out at 16500 feet which is impressive. Climb it high and you will see over 210 kts TAS. I have flown them all over Europe in all kinds of weather day and night. They are faithful servants.

It really depends on your budget? a five is muchos dollars the earlier senecas comparable to the AZTEC. Both are good twins.

Pace

[aluminium persuader]

Find a C310R! Beautiful a/c, loads of room & great perf. Downside is only one door! :ok:

ap

[Pace]

One of the best nicest handling twins which can be had for a song is the Baron 55, good on fuel reliable engines and bags of character.

Pace

[IO540]

I know next to nothing about twins, but looking at some other pilots who bought them and regretted it all the way to their bank, it seems to me that the worst combination is for a novice pilot to buy a piston twin, especially an old piston twin.

Novice owners get shafted on almost every corner in GA business, and buying an old twin is often buying a huge can of worms.

Many twins have worked very hard in their life, and many seem to be operated on the basis that if enough works to hang together then it's ok to fly. This is not the kind of machine to buy into if you don't know anything about the tech stuff.

In this case (a syndicate) there needs to be somebody who really understands the machine, and the share buyer needs to understand what the group fund covers, or not.

Also many old piston twins are worth only the remaining engine time before overhaul, and the instant something goes wrong with an engine, the whole plane becomes essentially worthless. Something to remember.

[englishal]

I agree with IO540. Unless money is no object, and / or one flies an awful lot, then one is FAR better off buying a decent fast single. The TB20, for example, will match the Seneca in performance up to 10k (or above?) I should imagine. The Seneca will win with regards to de-ice and climb in the higher FL's, and of course over mountains at night if the engine quits, but unless you have a lot of exposure to that type of flying, then is it worth the extra cost?

[IO540]

The TB20/TB21 will essentially match a Seneca up to any altitude, turbo for turbo.

A TB20 has a 20k (http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m74/peterh337/f200.jpg) ceiling and a TB21 has a 25k ceiling.

I don't think a Seneca (with boots) has a greater weather penetration capability than a TB20/21 with full TKS. Where would it come from? TKS is a damn good system. It has more redundancy (2 engines obviously, but also 2 alternators, etc) but that is a very different argument.

Obviously if you want a spare engine, etc, and are happy to pay for it then there is no argument and basically you are paying extra due to your different attitude to risk.

But I think many pilots think that a twin is somehow better able to penetrate crap weather. It usually is but only by virtue of equipment more often fitted to twins than to singles. But look at say a Cessna (Lancair) 400 - two alternators, de-ice, fully dual buses, etc.

Also, a twin has approx 2x more stuff to go wrong. The vast majority of problems on a plane are minor (thankfully!) and on a twin you will get a lot more of them. GA build quality tends to be somewhere around a Vauxhall Viva, and the avionics are designed mostly by dropout "engineers".

If you maintained a single to a zero defect tolerance (as I do with mine) or a twin (the same), the twin will cost you 1.5x to 2x more - for the same airframe age!

Now factor in the chance of the twin being older (because a given budget will generally acquire an older twin than a single) and you are looking at a significant operating cost difference.

Then add in the extra fuel :)

[what next]

Hi guys!

Mr. Horst did not ask for advice wether to buy a single or a twin, but wether to buy a Seneca or an Aztec...

I would suggest to take no decision before having bought half an hour of flying time in each of them. And to sit in one of the passenger seats as well for some time, since I suppose that a six-seater twin will also be bought with the idea of carrying passengers in mind. And if the passengers don't like it, it will not fly much!

I have flown and instructed something between 100 and 200 hours on Senecas (models 2, 3 and 5) and I really don't like this plane. Poor visibility, zero passenger comfort (got complaints on every flight!) and the most unpleasant handling of all aeroplanes I've flown so far (Metroliner included...).
Especially the "3" has awful landing characteristics - I don't think you will find many of them without damage history to the landing gear! The Seneca 2 has the nicest handling, but it is considerably slower. The 5 is a very smart aeroplane with good performance, but very expensive to buy and operate. Far too expensive for a light twin, if you ask me.

Many years ago (like 15) I was also tempted to buy a share of an Aztec, but after close inspection, it turned out to be far too old then already. And another 15 years have passed since. But if you find one that was always hangared with reasonable hours, why not? At least, you won't lose too much money.

Greetings, Max

[IO540]

Mr. Horst did not ask for advice wether to buy a single or a twin, but wether to buy a Seneca or an Aztec...

That's true, but I think he got some alternatives offered because it is so common for novices in GA to be pushed into the twin route.

When I was doing my PPL, everybody was telling me when I would be moving "up" to twins.

Moving "up" to twins seems to be often seen as some kind of macho thing to do, but is so expensive (relative to the return) that many of the people who do make the move are never seen flying again.

[Pace]

I don't think a Seneca (with boots) has a greater weather penetration capability than a TB20/21 with full TKS. Where would it come from? TKS is a damn good system.

10540

Correct me if I am wrong but I didnt know the TB20/21 is approved into known icing ?

We can all go down the statistics line about singles V twins arguement.
All I know is that 100 miles out to sea routing ireland to Spain I am very happy about the second engines purring away.

Above solid fog banks I am very happy about the second engine purring away.
At night I am very happy with the second engine purring away and statistics dont mean a jot when the engine goes bang in the middle of no where.

Solid IMC in bad weather same arguement :)
Etc etc etc.

Problem is I dont trust half a million parts whirring away in a piston engine

Pace

[IO540]

Pace

G-reg TB2x (full TKS) is approved for icing conditions.

N-reg TB2x (full TKS) is not approved for FIKI - because it doesn't have a few bits the FAA requires for FIKI e.g. a 2nd alternator.

Great, isn't it? Perversely of course the pilot of the latter is much more likely to have an IR, so will have ATC working for him, and is thus far less likely to be collecting ice to start with.

On the rest, well, like I said it is a trade between attitude to risk, and your wallet :)

There is really only one proper solution: a SE turboprop ;) Such a shame the TBM is made by ............ the French!!! <gallic shrug emoticon>