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]

either

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 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 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% 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.