Piper Seneca V

[mggzz]

Hello everybody,
I am interested to know more about operating cost of Seneca V or piper Senecas in general especially if operated in Europe.
Anybody of you have any information about costs and more?


Thank you very much

[Pace]

The Seneca Five is an extremely capable aircraft. The engines are turbocharged and intercooled and wastegated so far superior to earlier Senecas.
Main differences are the climb capability which typically can be 1500fpm low and still showing 7-900fpm high level ie 18k.
They are fitted with oxygen and operate best high level where you will get a TAS of over 200 kts Low down expect 160 kts.
Most are certificated at 1999 kg which has an impact on landing fees and avoid Nav charges airways.
Handling is very docile stable and forgiving and the aircraft is an excellent instrument maching.
I always think of the five as a baby Kingair 90 and it will not be far behind.
Fuel look at 26 US gals per hour although you can go for a low cruise an get that back to 20 USG.
For maintenance costs may be worth Giving RGV at Gloucester a call.
With 2500 hrs on the five I see them as a trusted and much loved servant which handle ICE well.
I have flown them all over Europe! Summer winter night in attrocious weather so excuse me being biased towards them :ok:
Last point many talk of engine out ability of light twins over mountaiins the Seneca Five has an amazing single engine capability of being able to maintain over 16000 feet on one engine.
The older Seneca fives were fitted with King Autopilot which is far superior to newer Seneca Fives so dont be put off buying a 1998 model.
But do go for a Five as they are far superior in all ways to the earlier 1234s

Pace

[what next]

Hi!

Most are certificated at 1999 kg which has an impact on landing fees and avoid Nav charges airways.

Yes, and that's the only real problem of this aircraft (apart from being a Seneca, but that's another story). I used to fly a well equipped Seneca V (former Lufthansa training aircraft) with long range tanks that had been re-registered in the "below 2000kg" class. With full tanks it had 24lb of payload left, pilot included. So either a chimpanzee had to fly it or you were illegal for the first hour of flight...

If you buy one, never ever under no circumstances whatsoever let anyone else fly it. There are two kinds of Senecas: Those who already had their landing accident(s) and those with the accident waiting to happen. (The Seneca V I used to fly was almost written off after some guy bounced on landing and hammered the gear into the aircraft instead of going around...)

Happy landings
max

[Pace]

What Next

The 1999 KG limit is a paper limit not a safety based limit and I know of no private op Senecas which are flown to that figure.
You are of course correct it is technically illegal so that is a risk the pilot/operator has to take.
Of course I do not condone that I am just stating reality as to what happens in the real world.
Pilot/owners do not want to pay Nav charges, certificate at 1999 KG then fly to the normal certificated weight limits. Its a tough economic climate out there.

Regarding the famous Seneca porpoise. Yes landed on the nose or flat and they will start an uncontrollable bounce which gets worse until hey presto you loose the nosewheel and end up sitting on the props.
The only way out of that scenario is not to sit there like an involuntary passenger but to apply back pressure to the column and power and then resettle the aircraft.

But do not get in that situation in the first place! Apply loads of trim so you need a slight forward pressure on the column coming in to land and land mains first not flat or worse on the nose.
Flown correctly they land beautifully flown badly????
I would change your assumption on pilots who have or will land badly to bad pilots.
I have 2500 hrs on the aircraft and have never had a bad landing. That included a 90 degree 40 kt constant crosswind into Denham once over double the demonstrated limit and I am no SKY GOD!!!

So do not knock the Seneca Five it is a well tried and tested aircraft and a docile faithful servant.

Pace

[sevenstrokeroll]

seneca and nosewheel landing

you might want to do a weight and balance with actual crew/pax weights...you might be fwd of cg

some folks choose to use flaps 25 on landing to avoid the porposing...though I don't like that, some do

also, be careful of flying into rain and then into the freezing level as you might freeze up the stabilator trim, so keep moving the controls and trim to keep things loose.

[Pace]

some folks choose to use flaps 25 on landing to avoid the porposing...though I don't like that, some do
also, be careful of flying into rain and then into the freezing level as you might freeze up the stabilator trim, so keep moving the controls and trim to keep things loose.

Seven Stroke

Both very valid points. I rarely used flap full preferring flap 25 other than V short strips and have also experienced a frozen trim after heavy rain and a climb into freezing air.

Pace

[what next]

The 1999 KG limit is a paper limit not a safety based limit and I know of no private op Senecas which are flown to that figure.

Of course not. The Seneca V has a structural limit of 2400kg (IIRC) and will carry full fuel and four adults without any problem. But if you have your landing accident on one of those flights your insurer might have a valid point for letting you pay for everything yourself. That was one of the reasons why I didn't continue to fly that Seneca V (the other being the long downtime after it's landing accident during which I found something better to fly :O).

If someone wanted my advice on what six-seater piston twin to buy, I would not recommend a Seneca unless he really wants a factory new plane (not much choice there...). For the price of a Seneca V you can find a good Cessna 340 (or 303 if you want systems similar to the Seneca) and have enough cash left for two engine overhauls, a glass-cockpit retrofit and ten years worth of airway fees. And no C 340 I know of was ever crashed on landing.

[Pace]

What Next

I have flown both the C340 and the 303 on a year contract for a building company servicing two large factory sites in the middle of no where.
We selected the 303 because both sites were reached through disused airfields and both had 500 meters of usable runway with broken runway beyond.
The 303 had amazing undercarriage and short field ability but was let down by the engines.
The 340 was a poor climber compared to the Seneca Five although pressurised.
All to their own but I have a soft spot for the Seneca ;)

Pace