Baron 58 v Piper Seneca V?

[Magic90]

In due course I want to move into the world of twins and preferably a six seater. Looking around, the G58 and Seneca appear to be quite favourable.


I like the look of the Baron and the interior of the Seneca.


For those of you out there with many hours on type what are your thoughts?


Cheers

[FerrypilotDK]

I liked both of them, but I have to admit that the Seneva Vs that I delivered had a couple advantages. 1. I could pick them up from Piper and fly off after inspection. Although much more expensive as new, I was NEVER able to leave Beech without minimum a day´s delay. There was always something wrong. Not one of the baggage doors was without a leak, the heaters went out, loose wires, etc. Then they upgraded the engines and added those ugly wedges to the leading edges of the wings. Like all the aerodynamic half-measures hung off a 1900D as opposed to the C.... cheap way to compensate.
2. Using nasal lines for the O, and flying at 25000 feet in the Seneca, you get great range, speed and it actually flies happily with those 220 Contis.

The only negative the V had was starting hot engines or in cold weather in the morning in winter...... They altered the fuel system in later models (after LONG reports about the symptoms) so make sure that you have the magic, as nothing is more frustrating!

Speaking of magic, I like the Senenca instruments a lot.

Have fun.....

[winkwink]

Seneca for me. There were some annoying things about the Baron which put me off it. The door was tricky to close and I once had it come open at 10,000 feet which caused a £90 diversion to BHX. I also didn't like the fuel boost pump which had low and hi settings with no guard, and I had a rich cut (fortunately whilst taxying) in Lille.
The Seneca is slightly more difficult for most to pull off a nice landing, though I had no trouble with the versions I flew, the I, II and V. All round though, I found the Piper a lovely aeroplane. I always thought the Baron a bit more stable though.

[Pace]

I have 3000 hrs in Seneca Fives and loved them to bits :ok: remember too that the service ceiling engine out is around 16500 feet so over big mountains I would choose the Seneca any day.
Taking them up to 18 to 20K and the climb rate remains strong all the way with a TAS of over 200 Kts once up there.
Seneca ANY DAY but then I am biased with that loyal friend

Pace

[TheiC]

I have to say I'm very surprised by the comments above.

For me, it would be the Baron, without hesitation. It's a bigger aircraft, designed and built up to a standard, not down to a price, and much, much, nicer to fly.

I'm not even sure I would have put them down as comparable. Have you looked carefully at range and payload, with your tasks in mind? Does the V really have the capability? The one I flew was chock-a-block with snazzy avionics which brought the empty weight up; it was in no way a real six seater (other, perhaps, than as a company hack for a touring theatre company who only ever did Snow White...).

If you need range, with six adults and bags, the question might be: Baron or Navajo? Then it would be an easy one to call.

I think Alan Bramson wrote the Baron, Navajo, and an earlier Seneca up in his book of flight tests. I'd certainly buy a copy of that and take what he said into account.

[dboy]

What about performance? I always thought that the baron was class higher than the seneca performance wise.

[Pace]

THEIC

Alan Bransons flight test was on an earlier seneca not a Five the five is a different animal.

i agree on the range and to a certain extent on the payload but it really depends on his mission profile

Pace

[silverknapper]

Baron every time. Beautiful cabin, well built and with pretty much everything as standard in terms of optional equipment.

[dirkdj]

I have owned a Six300 (4 years) and a BE36 (43 years and running); Piper and Beech are at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

Having flown the BE33, BE35, BE36, BE55, BE60 but not the BE58, I suspect the 58 will have the same family characteristics. Beech is expensive to buy but cheap to run due to very high build quality. You rarely need parts for Beech except scheduled replacements.
Handling is day and night too. Go over to BeechTalk - Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group Web Forums (http://www.beechtalk.com) and ask the same question there.

[Propellerpilot]

I used to fly the 58 with IO520 Contis and it way outperformed a Seneca III (can't compare it to the Seneca V as I never had a chance to fly and test it), still delivering a positive climb rate above 8000ft on a ISA +20 hot day with one engine feathered and four 190 lbs dudes on bord a training flight - simply amazing performance for a 6 seater twin piston that may save lives which is why you want two engines in the first place - most other piston twins will only take you to the scene of the accident.

As I say - I unfortunatly don't know the V but I would go with the performance any time. The Baron is definitely built to be a "pilots plane".

[Pace]

PP

The five is a very different ship to the other senecas. I have never flown a 58 but had quite some time on a 55 and loved its handling and character.
manifold pressure way way down by 9000 feet and i think the service ceiling SE was only about 7600 compared to the seneca five of around 16500 feet
The five is turbocharged intercooled and waste gated and can use max power continuous while the earlier ones were limited.
Climb performance was 12 to 1500 fpm initially and still 800 fpm passing 18000 feet. I had one up at FL230 once to clear weather and icing and that climb ability is essential for a serious machine.
The seneca five also took quite a bit of ice and could deal with the shortest runways.
Which is better? If you are crossing the Alps or high terrain or want the ability to put on oxygen and climb to 20 K over weather then the seneca Five and I loved the DDMP
Longer range and better carrying over low ground the Baron
Interior comfort and ergonomic panel design the Five wins every time over the dated Baron
i would not look at a normally aspirated twin for serious IFR
And remember when a Baron does start to go wrong the parts are mega expensive even if reliable

Pace

[Denti]

Just from the observation in lufties flighttraining, the seneca Vs suffered from a very low dispatch reliability, less than 50% on average. The old Beech 58 on the other hand were very close to 99% and had the better performance as well. The Senecas had much better equipment though, digital vertical profile capable weather radar, known icing equipped and so on, jut too bad that the ice from the props actually put holes into the fuselage, it had to be strengthened abeam the props to prevent that.

As far as i know (it was after my time there) they got rid of the Senecas pretty fast in favor of some (old) cheyennes and lateron CJ1s.

[dirkdj]

TAT is working on a turbonormalised Baron version retrofit. I have experience with both the NA A36 and the TN A36. Considerable speed/altitude/usefull load gains with the TN version as well as TKS. I try to limit unpressurized flight to FL180 or below.

[Pace]

Denti

I have 3000 hrs in Seneca fives don't fly them now and my MISSION COMPLETION and RELIABILITY was 95% AND 98% :ok: 50%That means that every other flight was grounded or 50 out of a 100 flights failed to dispatch ?? Unbelievable !!You had a very serious problem there

Don't get me wrong I loved the Baron 55 but given a choice flying at night over high terrain and having to clear weather fronts I would rather the seneca

Pace

[what next]

...the seneca Vs suffered from a very low dispatch reliability, less than 50% on average

Strange. I flew on one of those occasionally after they were sold off by Lufthansa flight training and only ever had one issue with it: A flat tire. As Pace wrote: Compared to other Senecas (especially the awful III) it is a completely different aeroplane. Actually a Seneca that is (almost) nice to fly :). This ex Lufthansa aircraft was very well equipped with full instruments on the right hand side, an engine computer of some kind and a good avionics fit and autopilot. But other than sitting in one on the ground, I have no experience with the Baron and can make no comparison. I found the layout of the controls a bit weird ("unergonomic" would be a more modern term), especially the engine levers, but one gets probably used to it after a couple of flights.

[dirk85]

Loved the V, but I had serious issues, being quite tall (>190 cm): I was not able to operate the control column properly without assuming funny positions. Never had a problem on other Pipers, from the PA28 to the PA32.

Might be that some tweaks on the seat were possible, but never investigated.

I would consider this if taller than average.

[Pace]

Dirk

You can lower the seat quite a way! I am 5 ft 11in and don't have a problem with the seat hight with plenty of drop still in the seat still to go
The Baron has better handling and with the slab wings the Seneca still tends to be a bit pedestrian in its handling.
In some ways that is good because it is a good instrument platform.
Some find it difficult to land!! but that is technique of not landing flat or nose first
The best way to avoid that situation is to make sure the aircraft is properly trimmed an then add a bit more till a slight forward pressure is required to fly the glide until landing.
On takeoff the aircraft wants to fly and off a bumpy grass field I have had the aircraft flying at 60 Kts :{ because it doesn't want to stay down

Pace

[Chilli Monster]

If you're looking at twins, then I'd seriously look at Single Engine Turbines. I've flown the Seneca V (delivered one from Europe to Brazil, in winter - heater packed in half way across the Atlantic, horrible. However, as Pace says the aircraft itself is lovely). The journey would have been shorter and easier in a Malibu Jetprop or similar.

6 seats in pressurised comfort - give me that over a piston twin any day.

[Denti]

To be honest i cannot explain it really as i wasn't involved in the maintenance part. But from what i read in the tech logs there were quite a few engine problems, especially exchanged turbochargers and engines. About half of the present aircraft could be rostered for training, the others were in the shop or hot spares for those that went tech during training. And those based in germany had of course quite some maintenance time in the beginning for those holes in the fuselage caused by ice (the US based ones didn't have wx radar and known icing equipment).

Of course part of it could be that the Vs are not really build for training, especially frequent single engine flight. The Barons on the other hand were better suited for that, especially since they were fitted with feather accumulators which made feathering and restarting so much easier.

By the way, for weight reasons the Vs were reconfigured to four seats only.

[dirkdj]

I think it would be good if the OP would define his mission better. A F1 car might be good for winning races, a 2CV would be better for taking your chickens to the market. I personally would not buy a new Baron or Seneca but a used Jetprop or similar.

[Propellerpilot]

Well turbocharged pistons do not handle abuse lightly. It works if flown by one pilot who knows what he is doing and flies consistantly the same way, each flight and pays attention to throttle, mixture cowling settings during descent, cooling the engine before shutdown etc. . If another pilot flies the aircraft the same way, there should be no problem either, but experience has shown, that the more individuals fly the plane, the higher the risk of the turbo charger packing up or cylinderheads cracking sooner or later due to incorrect temperature management.

This probably also explaines why Lufthansa's training aircraft had so many problems - I do not understand how someone can make the decision to utilise a turbocharged aircraft for such training purposes.

As far as I remember there was a B58 version with turbocharged IO550 BonAirs with a pressurized cabin. Probably heavier on fuel due to increased weight. Beech Duke, if you can get your hands on one may also be a nice ac.

[I-AINC]

I've got some hours on the BE55 and it flies very nicely. Maybe one of the best aircraft I've flown.
I've seen the most recent BE58 at the EBACE and I was surprised.

Another point:
Not sure about the Seneca (I think no) but the old version of the Baron is pressurized!

It is also, IMHO, more strong and better built.

I'd go for the Baron.

[dirkdj]

In 1000 hours of flying the Duke BE60 there was only one engine problem or rather an exhaust problem, the interconnection tube at the back of the engine fell of during climb out, an immediate shutdown was required an engine-out landing at Bologna. Later an AD was issued for this problem that required a stainless chain to prevent this from happening.

The 58P is a fairly rare machine, pressurized and turbocharged, lacking the barn doors for passenger and cargo loading.

Another normally aspirated option would be the Colemill President, a B55 converted with 300hp IO550 engines. Real good performance with the light-weight short cabin B55 Baron.

[Pace]

I too would go turbine and pressurised any day over either aircraft
But the original poster questioned which of the two? Without giving a mission profile?

For serious IFR at day or night in rubbish weather I would still choose the Seneca Five.

With 3000 HRS in them serious IFR means the ability to fly high and maybe over high terrain with the ability to handle ice and climb above icing weather and there the Seneca five wins hands down if not as quick low down

Pace

[Chilli Monster]

I must admit I'd like to see a "normal mission profile" too - as I'm guessing there's at least a 50/50 chance a Jetprop would suit it better.

And Pace - I'm STILL waiting to get back in a 550 ;)

[silverknapper]

Interior comfort and ergonomic panel design the Five wins every time over the dated Baron

Pace I'm not sure which Barons you've seen but even a B55 is far more comfortable than a V. Factor in the 58 which is even better and brings a standard cockpit layout with none of the 55's 'quirks', with the new interior from around 3 years ago and there is no comparison.

The Baron is more expensive however, so it could be a case of looking at whats available for the budget.

Whenever we taxi past a Baron, there always comments along the lines of what a beautiful aircraft, love to fly one etc etc. The seneca never attracts these comments.

[Jetblu]

I have over 150 hours in the PA34. II's and III's (never flown a V)
About 80 hours in the B58

From my perspective of flying them, the Baron wins hands down.
Surprisingly, the passengers in the back prefer the Seneca.

.

[stilton]

The Baron is simply the best light twin ever made. I flew an ancient 55 professionally in some very grim weather with no radar.


Many nights it was simply a question of hanging on, through thunderstorms, turbulence, icing and all the other delights of flying a light aircraft in conditions it wasn't really designed for.


At the time it was vital experience I needed to get the twin time for that Airline job which I managed to do.


Beechcraft are simply in a different league to any other light Aircraft, they are the best, extremely rugged and an absolute delight to fly.

[dboy]

I've always heard that the Baron was the rolls royce of the light twins.

[Magic90]

It never ceases to amaze me the response to questions on this forum and, may I thank all of you who have taken the effort in giving back your somewhat vast experience on the subject.


I purposely left out what the Mission profile as I wanted fliers to give unbiased feedback and not, "...this a/c is not for the inexperienced pilot." even if this is the case.


I intend to fly, mainly, in the UK with my wife on business and further a field to Europe with up to six adults. My experience is, currently, way below where it needs to be, but within 24 months I will have covered those bases on various platforms.


I love a long term project hence, this question. I will always look at other airframes, including singles, but I like the idea of redundancy and symmetry.

[what next]

Hello!

...further a field to Europe with up to six adults...

You need something bigger then. A Navajo or Cessna 421.

[Chilli Monster]

Get a Jetprop. Getting 6 adults off the ground in a Seneca will be "interesting" with sufficient fuel to actually go anywhere. A Jetprop however will fulfil your needs and you'll wonder why you even considered a piston twin.

I fly one, in your part of the world. Happy to give you unbiased comparisons over a coffee some time.

[AndiKunzi]

"Get a Jetprop. Getting 6 adults off the ground in a Seneca will be "interesting" with sufficient fuel to actually go anywhere. A Jetprop however will fulfil your needs and you'll wonder why you even considered a piston twin."

Have you ever done the M+B on a JetProp?? Usually, full fuel means about 40 kg below max. ramp mass - the pilot may not even enter the plane legally before dumping some fuel. Hard to be legal on any mission with 3 + adults and IFR reserves. Not to talk about estimating the exact amount of fuel in the tanks.

My Seneca III offers 382 kg with full fuel (123 GAL). Electronic on demand oxygen (6 seats, mountain high), no A/C. Aircraft fully loaded including RDR-2100, TAS620, WX500, full copilot instrumentation, FIKI, air data computer, and so on. The Seneca V with factory oxygen will be about 100 kg more heavy (electric flaps, more comfortable interior, oxygen, ...).

Over mountains, at night, during solid IMC down to ground or over water I would always prefer a twin. Of course, I'd prefer a Conquest or Cheyenne I, but those are way too expensive for me.

A Meridian offers much better payload than the JetProp, comparable to the Seneca V.

[skyking1]

Look hard at the 6 seat requirement. How often would that happen? What percentage of flights?
The planes you mentioned in the OP won't go far with seats filled with real folks. Maybe the leg lengths you have in mind are short enough, but figure about 2 hours aloft with IFR reserves.
I don't have any experience in the V, having only flown the I II and III. They flew OK by me and had decent short field performance. No Baron time, but did spend quite a bit of time in a travelair and it had lovely flying qualities, just like a twin engine version of the early bonanza.
My recollection of the little 6's vs the big 6's was, the little ones in Senecas were more spendy to keep going. The 470/520/550 is a tougher beast when compared to the 360.

[gordon field]

I've owned Cessna 310s, Barons and Senecas but not a V. I'd rather have a turbo 310R than any of the others. Barons are well built but expensive to maintain, check the number of screws and cowling fasteners you need to undo on Some Barons to do a proper pre-flight. Rear legroom in the Seneca is a real problem if there are four of you with 8 shoes to fit in a very limited space. The rear seats in the Baron are small, think children not adults. Yes you can change seats in the 310 and as the PF on a long day I had a kip in the back for an hour or so prior to a landing at 11.59. Barons are under braked compared with C310. Don't drop anything you need in a Baron as you cannot reach the floor to pick it up. 310s have a flexible wing and give a better ride in turbulence. Enjoy.

[skyking1]

As the new guy I was glad somebody else brought up the 310. The extra 5" of width in the "office" alone makes it a good choice.

[Tinstaafl]

In the 6 seat world I've flown 55 & 58 Barons, Seneca 1,2 & 3, C310R, Aerostar & Aztecs. They each have pros & cons.

B55: Nice to fly. Limited space for rear pax. Have to clamber to get in the back. Very limited baggage space if 6 POB. Instrument Panel is very cramped thanks to the space used by the centre control/throttle mount. Narrow cabin

B58: Nice to fly. More room (of course). The rear doors are a godsend. Instrument Panel is very cramped in the earlier models ie before the control column change thanks to the space used by the centre control/throttle mount and the stupid multi section panel. Newer Post change Barons are much better for instrument panel room. Narrow cabin. An older pressurised model is available. Still being manufactured.

Seneca: Rear door! More useable panel space than older Baron. Wider cabin than Baron. Can have all forward facing seats or club. I think the Baron is nicer to fly, though. Seneca 1 is slow & has minimal assy performance. The rest are turbocharged so will incur some maintenance $. Still manufactured as the Seneca V.

C310: Two steps to get onto the wing to enter which can be awkward for less able people. More room than a B58. Wider cabin. The R model has heaps of baggage space compared to a Baron. That long nose + aft + wing lockers. Have to clamber to get to the rear seats. Why Cessna didn't make a proper door when they chose to enlarge the cargo door from early C310s is beyond me.

Aerostar: Fast. Wider cabin than Baron. Everyone sits upright, unlike Baron, C310 & Seneca where the rear seats have your bum only a couple of inches above the floor. Not for shorter runways. Nice to fly. Have to move the pilot seat forward, and stagger R2 to get the pax in. Normally aspirated, turbo, and turbo/pressurised versions available

Aztec: Slowest of the lot (apart from Seneca 1) and thirsty. Easy to fly with quite good short runway performance (same aerofoil section as a Piper Cub, so no great surprise there re speed & runway performance). No rear door to load aft pax so clamber again. Proper rear seats unlike the bum-near-floor types above. Good cargo space. Excellent payload/range trade off - one of the few aircraft types I know that can take full fuel, an adult bum on every seat, and still have some weight capacity left over for bags. All the previously mentioned aircraft have to limit fuel to fit 6 adults, sometimes quite restrictively.


Other types you could consider but I've not flown:

Cessna 340
Cessna 303
Aerocommander

As a rule of thumb, for any reasonable distance flying with a load, most GA types can be regards has having 2 seats fewer than what the manufacturer stuffs in them.

If you really need to take 6 people regularly to go places then you might need to consider 8 seat twins eg Navajo and the like.

************
Later...

Forgot to mention the C336/337. No worries about asymmetric handling problems. Unless you have the cargo pod no baggage room with six people. Cabin room is somewhat similar to a C206 without the cargo area.

[Global Aviator]

I too have flown many of the types mentioned.

Love the 310R and B58, both very versatile, so many pros and cons.

Seneca II I flew was a good performer, great pac appeal in the back but not as robust as the Cessna or Beech.

As mentioned forget about 6 adults in the above.

The Aerocommander Shrike 500S is the beast for you! Great aircraft, not as fast but can carry 6 plus gear. Also you can get the Renaissance version that has been 'zero' timed.

It's all money, it really depends on your budget. Also if you plan on keeping it as a private you or putting it out to work a little. Either way look at the sums, hiring whilst expensive may just work out cheaper!

Have fun, I know I did!

[Magic90]

The amount of feedback here about various airframes has really got the grey matter working.


I started off with the requirement of two engines as I like redundancy, but the route to having enough experience in this category is more arduous. More questions about payload have me admitting that four pax is realistic for a six seater and frankly, the norm will be 2+ dogs.


One suggestion of Jetprop (what's a Jetprop?) got me researching singles. So, I've looked long and hard at the P46 Malibu and its variants. It appears to be a lovely aeroplane even in its basic Matrix format.


Suffice to say that the Meridian would be a financial step too far and, from what I've read, the Matrix has more width in the back as it's unpressurised.


Achieving enough complex single engine hours before this purchase is more realistic and hopefully less expensive than progressing through the twin route.


As ever, thank you for your feedback, I'm sure there's more to come.

[cavortingcheetah]

If you're going to take your dogs with you then the Cessna 310R is what you should be researching. It's a lovely machine to fly and the animals can travel in the extended nose bay, far, far away from your feet, your ears and your nostrils and any potential control interference or distraction which might lead to an unusually unsafe flight condition.

[Magic90]

I don't really think two retrievers would fit or want to go in an extended nose cone. These are two well behaved dogs who will sit and stay where they are told to. But thanks for the suggestion.

[Pace]

One suggestion of Jetprop (what's a Jetprop?) got me researching singles. So, I've looked long and hard at the P46 Malibu and its variants.

Magic90

I flew some demonstration flights for Anglo American the Piper dealership at Bournemouth many moons ago and one was for a prospective purchaser who was deciding between a Malibu and a Seneca Five.

His mission was weekly flight to western southern Ireland day night summer winter! In all weather.

one flight was to compare the two and the Seneca five out climbed the Malibu to 20K easily((
Given that and his water crossings often at night he elected to buy a new Seneca Five which I flew for him for 5 years.

a turboprop is one thing a piston is another and not a machine I would contemplate single engine over water fog banks at night.
Please if you are serious look at your mission profile!!! It maybe that a Cessna 150 is your ideal machine on CAVOK days running VFR for 100 miles ??

Start from a mission profile and then select an aircraft as did the guy buying a new Seneca five and he discounted wisely the Malibu for his mission profile

If its to be a single at least look at a Meridian Turbine not a piston Malibu unless you have a death wish or are only flying good weather in daylight:ugh:

Looking at your profile and PA28 experience if you are looking for a piston single consider the Cirrus at least over fog or at night you have the parachute option and it won't be a massive step up from a PA28 but you will be limited to 4
I never fly without an out and with pistons at least the Cirrus gives you that out if all the doors close and would be my choice if i wanted a single piston for serious IFR

Pace

[stilton]

That's an understatement of a reply to a very inhumane suggestion.



I hope the poster is not a dog owner !