Baron 58 v Piper Seneca V?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: 04°11′30″N 073°31′45″E
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
And Pace - I'm STILL waiting to get back in a 550
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interior comfort and ergonomic panel design the Five wins every time over the dated Baron
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.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
.
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.
.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: RAF Suffolk
Age: 61
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mission profile
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I fly one, in your part of the world. Happy to give you unbiased comparisons over a coffee some time.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EDDS
Age: 54
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: PNW
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 12th Feb 2015 at 03:19.
6 adults
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!
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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: RAF Suffolk
Age: 61
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Food for thought! PA46 v twins
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.
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.
Está servira para distraerle.
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.