Operating cost for PA34

[azeman]

Can someone tell me the operating cost for a PA34 Seneca?
Also how long a runway needs to be to take off and land this aircraft safely?

[AndiKunzi]

Hi Azeman,

you'll be looking for about (all prices without VAT):
90 litres AVGAS per hour,
+ 220 EUR/h for maintenance + reserve fund for repair, overhaul, SID + SB and necessary upgrades (e.g. for the past: 8 kHz; mode S)
+ fix costs
(insurance: 4,000 EUR/yr, depending on value of aircraft;
CAMO + air worthiness review including 100 hrs inspection: 5,000 EUR/yr;
hangar / parking: xxx EUR/yr; painting: 800 EUR/yr)
+ data base updates (depending on equipment; GNS 430W incl terrain + GNS 430 + EX600: approx. 2,000 EUR/yr when already using Jeppesen)
+ any upgrade not absolutely essential (not covered by the 220 EUR/h)
+ airway, approach + landing fees

I hope to have helped you a bit.

Best regards,

Andi

[A and C]

To accurately tell you about the costs & performance you need to tell us if you intend to operate the variant with the turbocharged Continental engine or the normaly aspirated Lycoming engine.

[EDMJ]

Judging from his previous posts, "azeman" is at a stage of his aviation career where "AndiKunzi"'s very comprehensive reply is more than sufficient... :E

[RTN11]

Azeman, are you just going through every aircraft you can think of and starting a thread about it's costs?

Not difficult to roughly assess, in terms of fuel, hangarage and insurance, but if you're looking at older aircraft you never know when a massive bill for a new engine is round the corner, or on the DA42 you previously asked about you never know when the gear box is just going to give up.

Starting an air taxi company from scratch with aircraft of these size is going to be incredible different. Better off doing what most companies of this type of operation do and buy an islander or a twin otter.

[Another_CFI]

Azeman seems to be trying to win the prize for the most threads started in the shortest period of time.

[Pace]

Starting an air taxi company from scratch with aircraft of these size is going to be incredible different.

Senecas are good old tried and tested workhorses and have been used for years for all manner of work from medical to short field people carriers.
Seneca 1 2 3 4 5! Seneca 1 awful 234 nearly the same! 5 a different animal,
5 the one to go for but budget on 4-£500 per hour

Pace

[ericferret]

Some of the older Senecas are real money pits. We had one in for an annual and the bill reached over £18000. Everything you looked at needed attention. That £18k included a capped labour bill, we just wanted it out of the hangar. Not last year but 1992!!!!
Absolute horror which is why I remember it so well.

[peterh337]

It had probably been badly neglected for many years.

It may be anecdotal but the twins I see kicking around in private ownership generally seem to be maintained to a lower standard than the IFR capable singles I see around in private ownership.

It may be due to the higher ownership cost of a twin, or due to always having a spare engine and a lot of electrical and other systems redundancy.

But if you take one in for an Annual, then unless the company doing the work is happy to collude with you on doing a "box ticking" job (and many are, especially those doing the RF/FTO fleets) you are going to get a big hit because they will want to fix all the stuff that is broken.

[Pace]

The Senecas compared to other older twins should fair better as the majority of parts are still readily available from the manufacturer!
Seneca parts are also the ford escort parts rather than the Mercedes cost parts of Beech Barons.
As twins go they should be cheaper to maintain than others although none are cheap and 18 to 20 K is pretty normal for an annual check regardless of the twin manufacturer!

Ok you have a turbo but then again I would not consider a twin without one regardless of make! I have flown Senecas at 20 K plus where you will get 210 to 220 kts TAS
Down low 160 to 170 kts TAS
The Seneca will maintain 16000 feet on one engine try that in a normally aspirated Beech Baron over high mountains at night!

Pace

[peterh337]

Can you offer a breakdown of that 18k-20k Annual?

[Ellemeet]

I must say that I amvery intrigued by the Seneca. It may well be the ultimate piston twin if yone seriously wants to be able to fly whenever / whereever.

Ice mountains ..whatever.

[Pace]

They are very capable aircraft in the latest Seneca Five version which is wastegated turbocharged and intercooled.
I flew a demo with the Seneca five twin for a potential buyer against a Malibu Mirage for the then main Piper Agents at Bournemouth.
The Seneca Five beat the Mirage up to 20,000 feet hands down. Low level it was showing 1400 fpm! Even at 20,000 feet it was still climbing at 700 fpm albeit we were on oxygen rather than being pressurized.
I have over 2500 hrs on the Seneca Fives and have flown them in every condition imaginable, day night summer winter!
A real mini Kingair.
They are very forgiving aircraft which will deal with the shortest of strips and are far superior to the Seneca 1, 2 3 or 4!

Pace

[Ellemeet]

Can you tell me the big difference between the 2, 3 and 4 ... and what makes the 5 so much better?

What is the usefull load on the 5 .. especially as they all seem certified for 1999kg?

[Pace]

the five is turbo charged, inter cooled , and waste gated which means it can run at full power continuously.
The 234 were turbocharged but not waste gated and could only run a max power for a limited time of five minutes.
the 4 and 5 had different engine cowls with Lopresti air intakes.
they also had one piece screens compared to the split screen of the earlier Senecas.
the panel was completely redesigned in a very ergonomic manner
The DDMP engine, electric and fuel monitoring unit is excellent making especially for fuel monitoring a very accurate system.
Many are at 1999 KG to avoid airways charges although that is a paper weight not a realistic carrying limit and I have been told you can dual certificate for heavier loads.
For ferry work they will carry way above the certificated grosse weight without problem. The problem being engine loss at those weights.

Some find them hard to land which is technique they require plenty of back trim and are then a doddle. I even landed one in a constant 40 kt crosswind 90 degrees across Denham runway making a mockery of the demonstrated x wind figure.

Pace

[A and C]

I agree with you it is a myth about aircraft being hard to land, the problem is usually loading.

Most PA34's are nose heavy, put a lot of fuel and two people in the front seats and the aircraft is outside the forward C of G limit...........that is when it runs out of elevator in the final part of the landing giving the impression of being a bit of a pig to land. The moral of he story being to have a bit of weight in the aft baggage bay of there is only two of you in the aircraft.

The hard to land myth has been supported by an airtest in a UK flying magazine about twenty years back when the luminary reported difficulty in getting a smooth landing, a quick look at the way he had he aircraft loaded and there was no doubt why the aircraft ran out of elevator in the flair !

[ericferret]

18k annual from 20 years ago now you are asking!!!

However, both turbochargers fried and cracked, all the exhaust sections cracked or distorted. Engine mounts badly corroded. Low compressions on half the cylinders.
Both alternators shot.

Undercariage badly worn lots of parts needed.
Static system leaking like a sieve. Corrosion around fin mounting area. Cabin floor totally delaminated.
Remember this was also in the period when Piper were not supplying much in the way of spares so everything was hard to get which exacerbated the problem.

As somebody else said a product of maintenance carried out with a pen.
As always get a survey done by someone up to speed on type it will always pay for itself.

[silverknapper]

Pace. There is only one "mini King Air". The mighty Baron!

[Pace]

Silver knapper

I have about 200 hrs on the Baron 55 and loved it for its character and handling but normally aspirated engine out and you get a ceiling of around 7000 feet not good over high mountains.
The Seneca five does not have the pilots delight of handing qualities of the Baron but it is a safe and stable instrument platform!
The Seneca five appeal over the Baron is its amazing ability to maintain altitude at over 16000 feet engine out which is not matched by many light twins!
I have a lot if time on the Seneca and see them
Very much as a trusted friend which has flown through everything and anything!
They are docile creatures which will let you get away with murder!
Offer me a choice between a Baron 58 or Seneca Five and I would choose the Seneca but I am biased :ok:

Pace

[A and C]

What about the P58 or 56TC ?

[Pace]

heard bad reports on the P58 think the TC 56 was good if you can find one

Pace

[A and C]

I did an engine change on a 56TC a few years back, the engine instalation was basic that of a Duke but without the cabin presurissatuon, the turbo was massive. The story was that the factory where using a Barron arframe to test the duke engine instalation. The marketing people got wind of how fast the test bed was and decided this would give them some sort of bragging rights to have the fastest piston twin on the market. The 56TC has spectacular performance but at an equally spectacular fuel flow.

I think the 58P was probably one step to far, I am told the maintenance costs are greater than a King Air ( but with a smaller Perchace price ). Most people arrived at the conclusion the King air C90 was a better and more cost effective way of flying as the resale value of the King Air is quite good.

[silverknapper]

In Europe especially given Avgas prices as they are I agree totally. Ran the numbers a while back and per pax per mile the C90 is similar to the G58. Obviously you just have to get the head around the outlay/maintenance costs.

[irish seaplane]

If you read the Ch5 in the MM of a king air and see just how many time life components and inspections are in it, you would cry. A single washer for a wing
bolt, non re usable is 420 quid. For a washer. There are 8 wing bolts and the need greasing and ndt inspections at various times. That's just one tiny example to illustrate my point. Try a 6 year gear inspection at 25 grand and see how much you think it costs to run a KA - It's cruel! Because its twin turbine even part 91 operators must adhere to the intervals in the mm.

Compare that to running a part 91 B58p and the baron looks like a steal by comparison. Consider the king air an order of magnitude more costly. I know both reasonably well, and have flown and helped fix both.

Any of the beechboyz over on the beechtalk forum will concur as its been debated to death over there.

[Pace]

Irish Seaplane

I do not know how a Baron P58 stacks up against a KingAir but I had heard that as a piston twin the pressurized Baron was very expensive to maintain and run.

We were looking at a Seneca Five twin which is just as capable as the Pressurized Baron but far cheaper on fuel and to maintain.

Pace

[irish seaplane]

I bet the Seneca V is a an easier ownership proposition. The 58P is quite specialist but is a race car in the sky when on form. I have a friend getting 240ktas true at FL240 in his one as the fuel tab is picked up by the rear seats.

To get back to the original topic roughly, it ll cost lots and perplex and entertain you at the same time owning a twin. Agree the Seneca V is v capabable and refined design.

[Pace]

Irish Seaplane

I have had Seneca Fives up above FL200 and your not far off 220 TAS although breathing oxygen rather than pressurized :{

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

There is no way a Seneca V will do 220 TAS at any altitude even if you are flying at full power.

[Pace]

your not far off 220 TAS

BPF

The earlier Seneca Fives were quoted at 212 kts the recent ones slightly slower so maybe a bit of artistic licence in my comment :E But still a very capable aircraft,

If your out for speed only go for a Machen AeroStar

Pace

[S-Works]

Snort.... More than a bit of artistic licence. I have never seen a lightly loaded 5 get past 190TAS and that screaming the tits off it. You have rose tinted glasses when it comes to those things Pace...... :ok:

[Pace]

You have rose tinted glasses

Maybe?? :hmm: A good trusted servant we went through a lot together ;)

Pace

[A and C]

I would think that the environmental conditions are likely to be the deciding factor in this debate, after all in the south of Europe in the summer the ISA++ conditions are likely today a big factor even at normal PA34 IAS speeds.

[Pace]

A&C

Too true :) I was going off the manufactures figures which have dropped from the earlier 5 pre 2000 models! Think there was a stabilizer size change as well as the obvious nav changes.
I have seen greater than 200kts above 20K in the earlier fives.

pace

[AN2 Driver]

As with any airplane you can get dogs or good ones. Prebuy. Prebuy. Prebuy..... or you spend a multiple amount later to rectify the lack of one.

Pal of mine got himself a very used Seneca II in decent shapes, prebuy did not disclose any non starters. He's happy with it as can be, sais it is fast, reliable and refreshingly unsurprising so far. Value for money, I think the II is not the worst plane you can get. From the figures I've seen it is also pretty good in payload as compared to the later models. He's got the 123 USG tanks and the previous owner had new props fitted by STC with scimitar blades. Looks great and the performance is good too.

I've flown the I, II and III and would say that bang for buck I'd go for a good II anytime before shelling out considerably more for a III or IV without any substantial gain in performance or economy. IIRR the Lo Presti cowls are available as a mod to the II and those props are really lovely. The II has a range of around 850 to 900 NM, 180 kts @ 65% @ 23 GPH, payload with 123 USG of 370 kg if not downgraded to 1999 kg for Europe (which reduces the payload by 70 kgs). If you look at the book figures of the III and IV, there is maybe 5 kts speed at identical flow and 30-40 NM more range at lower payload, especcially at 1999 kg MTOW, because the Seneca III is about 100 kgs heavier empty. In Europe, a fully fuelled S III is legally a 2 seater.... Single engine ceilings are impressive, 16000 ft arounds.

The Seneca I has several negative points to it, which would keep me from buying one unless I have a very specific mission which fits it. My primary beef with it would be range and single engine performance. Its range is less than 500 NM with reserve and the payload with 93 USG on board (the S I does not have the LR tank option, pity in my opinion) of around 300 kgs. It will run at around 150 kts @ 22 GPH, so a whopping 30 knots less than the II at 1 USG less flow... Single engine ceiling is 4500 ft, which may be ok in the Netherlands but not very useful when flying in alpine regions..... Still, I remember from training that drift down is pretty slow. We usually managed to keep the I at around 7000 ft if we were coming down and around 5000 ft going up. Yet, if all you do is to fly the missus and kids from Shoreham to Jersey and like the safety of that 2nd prop, it may be the airplane which can do the job.

In today's market the SII might be a good entry level twin if you need the space and can afford the fuel. If not, Twin Commanche (Turbo if possible) for me any time if you don't mind :) if you want a twin which runs at the cost of a high performance single.