Match the plane to the pilot & mission

[Jim C]

- yep, you're biased.

you will still see 800 fpm ie better than the 340 will do at sea level

The 340 does 1600fpm at sea level vs 1460 for the Seneca V. With the RAM mods (which are very common) it pushes 2000fpm. The SE climb of a RAM 340 is 350fpm vs 250 fpm for a Seneca V. Basically, the 340 outclimbs the Seneca V at all times.

There's no question that if it comes to a 340 vs a Seneca, I'll take the pressurization. But pressurization might get dropped, and if it does - I'll keep the Seneca in mind.

Why bother with the 30 year aircraft? Same reason everyone does - it does something the modern aircraft won't, or it does it cheaper.

What's the difference between the V and the IV? why is the V so much better?

[Pace]

I have not seen the figures you quote in real life on 340s I have flown? The five is turbocharged intercooled and wastegated.
It is not time limited to max power as are the earlier Senecas.
Why it climbs so well???

Pace

[AdamFrisch]

I got my multi on the Seneca and all I can say is that I'm glad to see the back of that one. This is my most personal view and not based on much experience in them, so forgive me Pace. But to me they were impossible to get into and out of, had a fuel system from hell, the manual johnson flap bar always made you jerk the plane when deploying, cramped, ultra high glareshield that obstructed the view, finicky cowl flap management etc. I'll give them that they did land nicely and the gear felt sturdy and they performed OK, but that's about it. Each to their own.

P Baron has a life limit on the airframe and main spar, so that's something to consider. In many ways I think all planes should have that in principle, but when you're shelling out so much money for a piece of equipment, then the economics of it can become a problem.

[Jim C]

I have not seen the figures you quote in real life on 340s I have flown? The five is turbocharged intercooled and wastegated.

I have talked to 340A pilots who have seen those numbers. It's not surprising - the Seneca has 10.8 lbs/HP, the 340A has 9.7 lbs/HP.

The RAM 340s are also turbocharged, intercooled and wastegated.

I don't think you're going to convince me the Seneca outperforms a 340 in climb or cruise. There are other reasons one might choose a Seneca over a 340, but those aren't two of them.

[Pace]

I got my multi on the Seneca and all I can say is that I'm glad to see the back of that one. This is my most personal view and not based on much experience in them, so forgive me Pace. But to me they were impossible to get into and out of, had a fuel system from hell, the manual johnson flap bar always made you jerk the plane when deploying, cramped, ultra high glareshield that obstructed the view, finicky cowl flap management etc. I'll give them that they did land nicely and the gear felt sturdy and they performed OK, but that's about it. Each to their own.

Adam come on

That description is a bit like saying you will not buy a modern mooney because you do not like the manual gear retract lever bar of a vintage 1960s Mooney?

I do not know what Seneca you did your twin rating on but presume it was an ancient Seneca 1.

The Seneca five has one of the easiest fuel selectors around unlike the 340! There is no manual flap bar but a simple electric selector.
The cowl flaps are simple and rarely need more than cracking partially open.
The Undercarriage is not trailing link so requires some skill to get chairmans landings.
Are you sure it was a Seneca you were flying ?? it certainly was not a Five

Lastly I will put a Seneca five against a straight 340 in a climb race surface to 20K anytime I will even gamble on it
Yes the reengined modified 340s are much better performers if you can afford high fuel costs compared to the Seneca.

Pace

[gordon field]

The actual achieved rate of climb depends upon many factors and when flying with passengers one of the most important ones is passenger comfort often referred to as deck angle.

If you climb a Seneca at 1500 ft/min then the pilot will have no forward view and no view of other possible conflict with traffic from the 10 -2 o'clock positions. On VFR departures I always prefer to see where I am going.

The aft facing passengers will be hanging in their straps.

1500 ft/min is an uncomfortable rate of climb/pressure change for passengers and particularly for the kids who don't know hoe to counter this, anybody with a cold will really suffer.

In the 340 you can keep the rate of change in pressure very low and you can also move around see to the comfort of the passengers and if they feel in flight discomfort move them up front so on a long trip time soon flies by.

The turbo charging system on the the 340 is much superior to that on the Seneca, get the oil warm before take off and you can set full MP on take-off
as they are not prone to overboost.

[Jim C]

Pace,

It's not pressurized.
The ones under $400K are near TBO.
I don't give a rat's ass whether or not a Seneca will beat a 340 in a climb to 20K.

Thanks for your input,

Jim