The Seneca 1 is underpowered, but the 2 is turbocharged so single engine performance is considerably better (the 1 has an SE ceiling of 3500' so not good if flying over similar sized bumps - twice the chance of a failure and all that).
I've not flown the 2, only the 1 and 3 (220 turbo) and the difference between those is like night and day. However, SE performance in the 3 could be marginal on a hot day, managed about 75fpm clean during my IR test last Summer with about 900lbs in people and fuel and no chance of a positive climb with with gear, flap OR a fine prop in such conditions.
No problem from a reasonably low and flat 800m grass strip. For example the Seneca 1's ISA performance is a TODR of 700m.
I believe the 2 has a better a load capacity of 4400lb compared to the 1's 4200lb. But at 20 usg/hr (120lbs) crz consumption you will need an additional minimum of 33 usg (200lbs) of fuel just to depart, go-around, divert and land with reserves in addition to crz gas.
My ME experience is limited to the Seneca 1 and 3 so I'm not in a position to recommend anything, except for the blindingly obvious the later the model the better. Single Engine performance in most twins is marginal to say the least.
I understand that the twin Comanche is both a better performer and more economical.
Last edited by High Wing Drifter; 6th Sep 2007 at 06:48.