Operating cost for PA34
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baron.....a fast way to spend money
I did an engine change on a 56TC a few years back, the engine instalation was basic that of a Duke but without the cabin presurissatuon, the turbo was massive. The story was that the factory where using a Barron arframe to test the duke engine instalation. The marketing people got wind of how fast the test bed was and decided this would give them some sort of bragging rights to have the fastest piston twin on the market. The 56TC has spectacular performance but at an equally spectacular fuel flow.
I think the 58P was probably one step to far, I am told the maintenance costs are greater than a King Air ( but with a smaller Perchace price ). Most people arrived at the conclusion the King air C90 was a better and more cost effective way of flying as the resale value of the King Air is quite good.
I think the 58P was probably one step to far, I am told the maintenance costs are greater than a King Air ( but with a smaller Perchace price ). Most people arrived at the conclusion the King air C90 was a better and more cost effective way of flying as the resale value of the King Air is quite good.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Europe especially given Avgas prices as they are I agree totally. Ran the numbers a while back and per pax per mile the C90 is similar to the G58. Obviously you just have to get the head around the outlay/maintenance costs.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
58P V KA
If you read the Ch5 in the MM of a king air and see just how many time life components and inspections are in it, you would cry. A single washer for a wing
bolt, non re usable is 420 quid. For a washer. There are 8 wing bolts and the need greasing and ndt inspections at various times. That's just one tiny example to illustrate my point. Try a 6 year gear inspection at 25 grand and see how much you think it costs to run a KA - It's cruel! Because its twin turbine even part 91 operators must adhere to the intervals in the mm.
Compare that to running a part 91 B58p and the baron looks like a steal by comparison. Consider the king air an order of magnitude more costly. I know both reasonably well, and have flown and helped fix both.
Any of the beechboyz over on the beechtalk forum will concur as its been debated to death over there.
bolt, non re usable is 420 quid. For a washer. There are 8 wing bolts and the need greasing and ndt inspections at various times. That's just one tiny example to illustrate my point. Try a 6 year gear inspection at 25 grand and see how much you think it costs to run a KA - It's cruel! Because its twin turbine even part 91 operators must adhere to the intervals in the mm.
Compare that to running a part 91 B58p and the baron looks like a steal by comparison. Consider the king air an order of magnitude more costly. I know both reasonably well, and have flown and helped fix both.
Any of the beechboyz over on the beechtalk forum will concur as its been debated to death over there.
Last edited by irish seaplane; 17th Mar 2013 at 18:03.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Irish Seaplane
I do not know how a Baron P58 stacks up against a KingAir but I had heard that as a piston twin the pressurized Baron was very expensive to maintain and run.
We were looking at a Seneca Five twin which is just as capable as the Pressurized Baron but far cheaper on fuel and to maintain.
Pace
I do not know how a Baron P58 stacks up against a KingAir but I had heard that as a piston twin the pressurized Baron was very expensive to maintain and run.
We were looking at a Seneca Five twin which is just as capable as the Pressurized Baron but far cheaper on fuel and to maintain.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 17th Mar 2013 at 18:28.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bet the Seneca V is a an easier ownership proposition. The 58P is quite specialist but is a race car in the sky when on form. I have a friend getting 240ktas true at FL240 in his one as the fuel tab is picked up by the rear seats.
To get back to the original topic roughly, it ll cost lots and perplex and entertain you at the same time owning a twin. Agree the Seneca V is v capabable and refined design.
To get back to the original topic roughly, it ll cost lots and perplex and entertain you at the same time owning a twin. Agree the Seneca V is v capabable and refined design.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Irish Seaplane
I have had Seneca Fives up above FL200 and your not far off 220 TAS although breathing oxygen rather than pressurized
Pace
I have had Seneca Fives up above FL200 and your not far off 220 TAS although breathing oxygen rather than pressurized
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 17th Mar 2013 at 19:29.
There is no way a Seneca V will do 220 TAS at any altitude even if you are flying at full power.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
your not far off 220 TAS
The earlier Seneca Fives were quoted at 212 kts the recent ones slightly slower so maybe a bit of artistic licence in my comment
But still a very capable aircraft,If your out for speed only go for a Machen AeroStar
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 18th Mar 2013 at 08:53.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snort.... More than a bit of artistic licence. I have never seen a lightly loaded 5 get past 190TAS and that screaming the tits off it. You have rose tinted glasses when it comes to those things Pace...... 
A good trusted servant we went through a lot together 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think that the environmental conditions are likely to be the deciding factor in this debate, after all in the south of Europe in the summer the ISA++ conditions are likely today a big factor even at normal PA34 IAS speeds.
Last edited by A and C; 18th Mar 2013 at 21:13.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A&C
Too true
I was going off the manufactures figures which have dropped from the earlier 5 pre 2000 models! Think there was a stabilizer size change as well as the obvious nav changes.
I have seen greater than 200kts above 20K in the earlier fives.
pace
Too true
I was going off the manufactures figures which have dropped from the earlier 5 pre 2000 models! Think there was a stabilizer size change as well as the obvious nav changes.I have seen greater than 200kts above 20K in the earlier fives.
pace
As with any airplane you can get dogs or good ones. Prebuy. Prebuy. Prebuy..... or you spend a multiple amount later to rectify the lack of one.
Pal of mine got himself a very used Seneca II in decent shapes, prebuy did not disclose any non starters. He's happy with it as can be, sais it is fast, reliable and refreshingly unsurprising so far. Value for money, I think the II is not the worst plane you can get. From the figures I've seen it is also pretty good in payload as compared to the later models. He's got the 123 USG tanks and the previous owner had new props fitted by STC with scimitar blades. Looks great and the performance is good too.
I've flown the I, II and III and would say that bang for buck I'd go for a good II anytime before shelling out considerably more for a III or IV without any substantial gain in performance or economy. IIRR the Lo Presti cowls are available as a mod to the II and those props are really lovely. The II has a range of around 850 to 900 NM, 180 kts @ 65% @ 23 GPH, payload with 123 USG of 370 kg if not downgraded to 1999 kg for Europe (which reduces the payload by 70 kgs). If you look at the book figures of the III and IV, there is maybe 5 kts speed at identical flow and 30-40 NM more range at lower payload, especcially at 1999 kg MTOW, because the Seneca III is about 100 kgs heavier empty. In Europe, a fully fuelled S III is legally a 2 seater.... Single engine ceilings are impressive, 16000 ft arounds.
The Seneca I has several negative points to it, which would keep me from buying one unless I have a very specific mission which fits it. My primary beef with it would be range and single engine performance. Its range is less than 500 NM with reserve and the payload with 93 USG on board (the S I does not have the LR tank option, pity in my opinion) of around 300 kgs. It will run at around 150 kts @ 22 GPH, so a whopping 30 knots less than the II at 1 USG less flow... Single engine ceiling is 4500 ft, which may be ok in the Netherlands but not very useful when flying in alpine regions..... Still, I remember from training that drift down is pretty slow. We usually managed to keep the I at around 7000 ft if we were coming down and around 5000 ft going up. Yet, if all you do is to fly the missus and kids from Shoreham to Jersey and like the safety of that 2nd prop, it may be the airplane which can do the job.
In today's market the SII might be a good entry level twin if you need the space and can afford the fuel. If not, Twin Commanche (Turbo if possible) for me any time if you don't mind if you want a twin which runs at the cost of a high performance single.
Pal of mine got himself a very used Seneca II in decent shapes, prebuy did not disclose any non starters. He's happy with it as can be, sais it is fast, reliable and refreshingly unsurprising so far. Value for money, I think the II is not the worst plane you can get. From the figures I've seen it is also pretty good in payload as compared to the later models. He's got the 123 USG tanks and the previous owner had new props fitted by STC with scimitar blades. Looks great and the performance is good too.
I've flown the I, II and III and would say that bang for buck I'd go for a good II anytime before shelling out considerably more for a III or IV without any substantial gain in performance or economy. IIRR the Lo Presti cowls are available as a mod to the II and those props are really lovely. The II has a range of around 850 to 900 NM, 180 kts @ 65% @ 23 GPH, payload with 123 USG of 370 kg if not downgraded to 1999 kg for Europe (which reduces the payload by 70 kgs). If you look at the book figures of the III and IV, there is maybe 5 kts speed at identical flow and 30-40 NM more range at lower payload, especcially at 1999 kg MTOW, because the Seneca III is about 100 kgs heavier empty. In Europe, a fully fuelled S III is legally a 2 seater.... Single engine ceilings are impressive, 16000 ft arounds.
The Seneca I has several negative points to it, which would keep me from buying one unless I have a very specific mission which fits it. My primary beef with it would be range and single engine performance. Its range is less than 500 NM with reserve and the payload with 93 USG on board (the S I does not have the LR tank option, pity in my opinion) of around 300 kgs. It will run at around 150 kts @ 22 GPH, so a whopping 30 knots less than the II at 1 USG less flow... Single engine ceiling is 4500 ft, which may be ok in the Netherlands but not very useful when flying in alpine regions..... Still, I remember from training that drift down is pretty slow. We usually managed to keep the I at around 7000 ft if we were coming down and around 5000 ft going up. Yet, if all you do is to fly the missus and kids from Shoreham to Jersey and like the safety of that 2nd prop, it may be the airplane which can do the job.
In today's market the SII might be a good entry level twin if you need the space and can afford the fuel. If not, Twin Commanche (Turbo if possible) for me any time if you don't mind
if you want a twin which runs at the cost of a high performance single.
Last edited by AN2 Driver; 19th Mar 2013 at 17:59.
