Piper Seneca or Meridian?

[b737air]

One potential client is considering to buy one of these 2 airplanes. Do you have any ideas about the costs of ownership of those two, especially the Meridian turboprop?

And what does involve a maintenance program for the Meridian? The only things I know is that it needs a Hot Engine Inspection at 1800hrs and an engine overhaul at 3600hrs.

[AdamFrisch]

A hot section price depends on how much is trashed in there. But it will probably be in the $30-50K region, so it's on par with a piston engine overhaul. However, PT6's are kind of expensive to overhaul as they have such a stranglehold on the market that they can charge through the nose. Friend just did his TBM and it was well over $300K, but that's a bigger engine. Count on it being a good $250K at least.

A Seneca here in the states can probably be flown for $300-400/hr. But in Europe with the painfulness of Avgas it makes it a more expensive deal, probably. And inconvenient. Turboprops normally don't cost more per NM to run, but do cost a little more per hour. But when you factor in the much lower JetA1 price in Europe, there it actually makes more sense than here in the US.

Sometimes an older Garrett powered legacy twin can end up being cheaper to run than a TP single. Garrett's have 5400hr TBO, cost less to overhaul, burn about 20-30% less fuel than the PT6's. Add that up and a TP twin might be on par with the bigger single turboprops. Probably not the case with a Meridian in operating costs, but certainly cheaper if you factor in purchase price. MU-2's and Turbo Commanders 690B are the most common Garrett-powered twins.

Good luck!

[kko]

b737air, you are welcome to PM me with any questions. I have around 400 hours on the Meridian, and operate one on a daily basis.

[nouseforaname]

Cost wise you can compare but a Seneca v Meridian performance is not something you can really compare.

One is relatively slow and you will be stuck in the weather un-pressurized

The other is fast, reliability of a turbine, cruise in pressurized comfort.

In my book no comparison....

[Pace]

Hi

I have a lot of experience on the Seneca Five twins! It really comes down to what your buyers mission profile is?
We compared a Seneca Five twin to a Piper Malibu the piston variety of the Meridian and the Seneca won all round surprisingly beating the Malibu climbing to 20 K
This owners needs was to fly every week across the Irish Sea, day, night, summer, winter and it comes down to the old argument of single versus twin
Ok the Meridian is a turbine and hence more reliable but a twin is still a twin and the owner wanted that comfort factor!
I flew it for him for a year and it was without doubt the right choice a comfortable economical twin which handled all weather thrown at it
Also remember the costs of running a turbine

Really the prospective owner needs to work out his mission profile and fit the aircraft to that.

I flew the Meridian and TBM750 850 and frankly felt the Meridian felt like a toy in comparison. But then again I don't have a lot of experience in the turbine singles and that is more an impression

[S-Works]

The meridian everytime. The Seneca is a **** can compared to a turbine pressurised meridian. I have significant hours in both including all the variants of each and the meridian is unsurpassed in performance. A fast high altitude cruiser that will get you over most weather.

It can handle the weather thrown at it with ease, but in reality they are so fast and can climb so high you don't even see it. I used to aim to fly everywhere at FL240/250 so rarely ever saw sig wx.

More than 80% of my hours are turbine and once you have flown them you dont want to go back to Pistons......

[Pace]

Bose

I agree on turbines all the way but it's still the single versus twin argument !
Ideal is a twin turbine! I would not be happy mid winter at night over sea, low cloud or fog in a single turbine!
Some people are some are not!

Statistics don't mean a thing as collecting a Sea gull through a blade means you are going down! And yes it happened to a friend of mine

Pace

[b737air]

Well, in terms of performance and comfort, I will choose the Meridian either.
But that's not about the performance here. With the Seneca V you get pretty much good performance either but you are more often weather dependable.

If the operating costs of the single turboprop are comparable to that of a twin piston, then offcourse the decision will be a turboprop (Meridian beeing the case). But I'm trying to figure out the cost margin between these 2 airplanes in terms of operation.

I agree with the fact that it really depends of his needs: How often, how far, flight hours per year etc. Don't know nothing yet.

[flyingfemme]

Cost wise the turbine may not be much cheaper on fuel than the avgas burner in Europe. If you are not VAT registered and/or have no AOC then most European countries will charge VAT and duty on your fuel anyway. That makes Jet-A quite expensive in some places.
Performance wise, some people just want two engines.....

[porterhouse]

>> but it's still the single versus twin argument !

This is a meaningful argument if you compare single versus twin if engines are similar in performance and reliability, there is no comparison between a single turbine and twin pistons. What's worse that light twins like Senecca have horrid accident rate because amateur pilots simply can't properly handle engine-out situations. Therefore the often repeated joke "what good is the second engine for? - to get you to the crash site".

[Pace]

Porterhouse

In level flight the Seneca five is perfectly happy. We did a crazy thing years back shutting down the one engine and flying the aircraft across the Chanel only restarting to land in France! Also remember over high mountains the Seneca five unlike the barons will fly level on one engine at over 16000 feet.
I have had an engine failure due to a fault in engine manufacture by continental
Which resulted in a brand new unit within 2 weeks.
That engine went at 200 feet at grosse weight,
I estimated it was still producing some power although it was yawing and shaking like mad!
I decided thankfully to keep the unit going with one hand on the RPM lever till circuit height when it was so bad I shut it down!
You do need to be current in any light twin but a failure is manageable
But in the single turbine although the units are very reliable if anything happens there is only one option and that is down! At least in s twin you have options!

At night over fog you hear every clink in that engine!


Pace

[Above The Clouds]

>> but it's still the single versus twin argument !

Porterhouse
This is a meaningful argument if you compare single versus twin if engines are similar in performance and reliability, there is no comparison between a single turbine and twin pistons.


Not true, the single turbine relies on one HP fuel pump to sustain fuel to the engine when that fails the engine quits. Ask an owner who I occasionally flew around in a piston Malibu converted with a PT6 turbine called the Jetprop, FL240 over Switzerland exactly that happened when he was flying by himself and the engine failed it made a glide approach in to Geneva, after that within weeks he bought a Citation 501. It seems because they are powered by a turbine people think they never fail, however the turbine is far more reliable than any piston engine but not infallible.

[porterhouse]

>> but not infalable.

And where did I say it was infallible (I hope it was the word you meant)? :ugh:

[Above The Clouds]

Porterhouse
And where did I say it was infallible (I hope it was the word you meant)?:ugh:

I didn't say you said it I was making a generalised comment about some pilots perceptions of turbine reliability, and I corrected the auto spelling thingy so you can give your head a rest from banging it on the wall.

[S-Works]

Nothing is infallible. However the safety record and reliability of single engine turbines is impressive to say the least. Not so for piston twins.

[porterhouse]

>> thingy so you can give your head a rest from banging it on the wall.

I gladly will, provided you have a good explanation what exactly I said incorrectly that you replied "not true". :E

[Romeo Tango]

Does anyone know the numbers for crashes caused by engine failure: Seneca v PT6 ..... ?

[Pace]

RT

Crashes due to engine failure? What will that say? One is a single the other a twin! The challenges are different. It might tell you that many ME pilots are not current enough or not up to the job But then the TBM also has crashes due to mismanagement where they will bite! Low and slow there have been a number of loss of control accidents and fatalities due to torque stall spin accidents in the TBM which doesn't effect the Seneca while there will be poorly managed engine failures in the Seneca.

Is this the fault of the aircraft or the pilot?

is a turbine more reliable than a piston? Yes

what are the chances of loosing both engines in a twin? more than loosing one engine in a turbine? I doubt it

Pace

[olasek]

>> Does anyone know the numbers for crashes caused by engine failure: Seneca v PT6 ..... ?

I don't recall numbers but recall reading (J.Collins analysis in FLYING) that unfortunately Seneca numbers are much worse. It is not the engine failure itself - it is very poor job unskilled pilots do trying to manage a failed engine on an airplane like Seneca. Actually statistically (and it is shocking) you are safer in a single engine aircraft in which engine failed than in a light twin when one of it's engines failed. :uhoh: No, it isn't a misprint, FAA/NTSB confirms that.

By the way, Meridian's maintenance, operating costs will be much higher than Seneca's, sure it is a much superior aircraft (6 seats, pressurization, speed, etc) but you need a completely different size of wallet for both. They are NOT in the same league. And Meridian will require instrument rating plus there may be other requirements for pilot qualifications. Insurance companies are very leery when a low-time pilot wants to fly an expensive, pressurized turbine aircraft.

[Wrong Stuff]

According to this analysis of Seneca fatal accidents (http://www.pplir.org/component/joomdoc/Public%20Files/Piper%20Seneca%20safety.pdf/download), engine failure accounts for 11.3% of them.

As it looks only at the Seneca, it's based on just a small number of accidents. The overall picture for light twins is significantly better than than, but still not stellar. Mike Busch wrote an interesting article for AvWeb (http://www.avweb.com/news/usedacft/182809-1.html) which takes an even-handed look at the statistics:

The overall accident rates of high-performance singles (like Bonanzas or 210s or Mooneys) and light twins (like Aerostars or Barons or Commanders or Cessna 310s) are astonishingly close. Twins have a slightly higher accident rate per 100 aircraft and a slightly lower accident rate per 100,000 hours, but for all practical purposes the accident rates are the same. The same is true if you consider only "serious" accidents that involve death, serious injury, or substantial damage.

[...]

The statistics showed that a light twin is about equally likely to have a mechanical-caused accident as a high-performance single. But the twin's mechanical problem is most likely to be gear-related while the single's is most likely to be engine/prop-related. A single is about two-and-a-half times more likely to have an accident due to engine/prop failure than a twin (8% versus 3%). And if we assume that a twin is twice as likely to have an engine/prop failure (since it has twice as many to fail), then we can conclude that an engine/prop failure in a single is five times more likely to result in an accident than an engine/prop failure in a twin.

So are you any safer flying a light twin than a high-performance single? In terms of the overall and serious accident rates, the answer seems clearly to be no. But your risk profile changes somewhat: in the twin, you're less likely to be hurt by an engine failure, and more likely to be victimized by something else.

I always find it interesting that people concentrate on the supposed safety benefit of a second engine when the statistics show an almost negligible benefit. It's an emotional argument, rather than based on reality. If what they were actually interested in was reducing risks, they would be looking at the one factor which the statistics clearly show provides a safety benefit. That's not a second engine, it's a second pilot. Of course, it's a lot easier on the ego to believe the engine is the weak link in the chain, rather than oneself.

[Above The Clouds]

For the take-off and initial climb I would place single piston, single turbine and light piston twin aircraft all in the same category, in that if an engine fails then if possible plan on landing back on to the runway if thats not an option plan on putting it in a field.

The piston twin only really benefits on safety from the single engine aircraft during the cruise were should an engine fail a controlled descent to a runway is 99% of time going to work where as the single engine aircraft be it piston or turbine 99% of the time is going to land of airport.

Of course there are always exceptions to the rule.

[olasek]

>> a controlled descent to a runway is 99% of time going to work

Unless the pilot first loses control of the airplane, enters spins, etc. happens way too often in case of engine failures on twins such as Seneca, regardless of the phase of flight. Frankly I would never fly on a light twin if I knew a whole lot about the pilot and had confidence in his abilities.

[Above The Clouds]

olasek
Unless the pilot first loses control of the airplane, enters spins, etc. happens way too often in case of engine failures on twins such as Seneca


I did say from the cruise, if a pilot cannot control a piston twin with an engine failure during the cruise then conduct a controlled descent without entering a spin and crashing then there is something seriously wrong with his/her basic flying skills and the training they were given.

[olasek]

Regardless what the reason statistics don't bear your optimistic assessment of pilots skills flying Senecas. So yes, there is something seriously wrong and by the way insurances companies have known about it for a long time. There are numerous articles on the subject in aviation circles.

[Pace]

Again its not a clear picture dumping all Senecas together. There was the 1,2,3,4 and 5 all very different animals.

Only when you get to the 5 are you looking at a different beast. One with turbocharged, intercooled waste gated engines which unlike the earlier models can produce unlimited maximum power.

I have over 2000 hours in the fives. In the cruise engine out they are a doddle and frankly if a pilot crashes he should not be flying twins.

in the climb out there is a danger zone but then a thinking pilot will close both and treat it like a single to an off airfield landing.

Once you are at say 500 feet why climb at blue line? The thinking pilot will think that the seneca five is a doddle in level flight and just go for level flight and a low level circuit!

But no they try to climb at blue line, get below with a bit of sink and then loose the plot :ugh:

Single piston or turbine you are going down! day night, summer winter. over sea, fog banks, low cloud or whatever.

Remember this phrase " A twin gives you more options! with more options comes more choices. With more choices comes the option to make the wrong choice"

With a single your only option is to go down

Pace

[vector4fun]

I haven't seen anyone ask, or say, what the typical mission will be? Long distances and high altitudes make pressurization a very useful feature. The Seneca will likely cost half or third as much to purchase, and fit in a smaller hangar. The cost to overhaul a PT6 would buy a complete Seneca III.

I've had two loss of power events, both in twins. Not a scratch on me or aircraft. But a twin is not for the "casual" pilot.

[porterhouse]

>> But a twin is not for the "casual" pilot.

Fully agree. Being a casual pilot and in need of more than 4 seats and not quite ready for a turbine I would be looking at airplanes like Piper Cherokee 6, Cessna 210 or perhaps Piper Malibu/Mirage/Matrix. I would never be looking at Seneca. A strict choice between Seneca and Meridian is a weird one to begin with.

[b737air]

That's not weird for me! I mean... you agree with one single engine vs twin engine and you don't agree with a single turbine? How is that?
Meanwhile, the profile of the potential client is something like 20-25 flight hours per month with flights no more than 250nm one way. The routes are mostly over mountains with lowest IFR enroute level being FL110. Although I will feel comfortable flying at FL280 over those mountains in a Meridian Turboprop, cost wise it wouldn't be economical to fly a turboprop over such short distances vs a twin piston engine. So I think it would be a good idea a Seneca V equipped with oxygen system for this kind of operations. What do you think? Other suggestions?

[olasek]

>> you agree with one single engine vs twin engine and you don't agree with a single turbine? How is that?

I think you missed the thrust of the previous post. The 'weird' factor was that the choice was made exclusively between those two very different aircraft whereas all the 'intermediate' choices were somehow dropped from consideration. Why other 'similar' aircraft, very capable for the typical mission you describe and much more affordable than Meridian were ruled out from the start also baffled me.

>> Other suggestions?

Must be a rhetorical question, you already dismissed everything else.

[Pace]

it is important to work out a mission profile and fit the aircraft to that profile whether its multi engine or single.

Other than how far? payload, range come a whole load of other considerations.
When will the aircraft fly! Day? Night? Summer? Winter ? over long stretches of water? Inhospitable terrain?

Some of us have to fly and turning up at 0500 mid winter in pitch black and taking off into a 200 foot cloud base and pelting rain? It certainly wakes you up with a jolt especially with the destination being the same.
Would I want a single? No thanks.

With the Seneca Fives we despatched and arrived at destinations with a success rate of around 95%. Fog was the usual deal breaker very rarely reliability.

I have flown in the TBM 850 an impressive machine which UK to Nice was only maybe 10 minutes behind the Citation cruising at FL280 and a solid 320 KTS but I would still be more selective concerning weather regardless of statistics which can be engineered to prove a point.

You also have to look at the PAX perspective! How comfortable are they with one engine in the same way as how comfortable are they with one pilot?

You can claim statistically to your PAX incapacitation is rare but does that reassure them? In my experience the same goes with the twin versus single argument some companies being reluctant to send their employees off in a single.

For me the Seneca FIVE is a mini Kingair and a trusted servant which I have flown in every kind of weather imaginable but you need to look at the mission profile first and what the aircraft is supposed to do before making a decision
Apart from Piper and Barons and the Diesel Diamond Twin Star there are few twins which are current and you have to go back to the 80s for other choices.

Pace

[irish seaplane]

There is an operation ireland that uses a Seneca V all the time for trips to the uk and on those sort of journeys of 250nm it seems to be a good choice. Admittedly not very mountainous terrain but still has to deal with lots of wx. My friend used to operate a Meridien and when it came to selling it, he demoed it to two old ladies who had a pilot and a Seneca V. They preferred the Seneca...