Operating cost for PA34
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: london
Age: 34
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operating cost for PA34
Can someone tell me the operating cost for a PA34 Seneca?
Also how long a runway needs to be to take off and land this aircraft safely?
Also how long a runway needs to be to take off and land this aircraft safely?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EDDS
Age: 54
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Azeman,
you'll be looking for about (all prices without VAT):
90 litres AVGAS per hour,
+ 220 EUR/h for maintenance + reserve fund for repair, overhaul, SID + SB and necessary upgrades (e.g. for the past: 8 kHz; mode S)
+ fix costs
(insurance: 4,000 EUR/yr, depending on value of aircraft;
CAMO + air worthiness review including 100 hrs inspection: 5,000 EUR/yr;
hangar / parking: xxx EUR/yr; painting: 800 EUR/yr)
+ data base updates (depending on equipment; GNS 430W incl terrain + GNS 430 + EX600: approx. 2,000 EUR/yr when already using Jeppesen)
+ any upgrade not absolutely essential (not covered by the 220 EUR/h)
+ airway, approach + landing fees
I hope to have helped you a bit.
Best regards,
Andi
you'll be looking for about (all prices without VAT):
90 litres AVGAS per hour,
+ 220 EUR/h for maintenance + reserve fund for repair, overhaul, SID + SB and necessary upgrades (e.g. for the past: 8 kHz; mode S)
+ fix costs
(insurance: 4,000 EUR/yr, depending on value of aircraft;
CAMO + air worthiness review including 100 hrs inspection: 5,000 EUR/yr;
hangar / parking: xxx EUR/yr; painting: 800 EUR/yr)
+ data base updates (depending on equipment; GNS 430W incl terrain + GNS 430 + EX600: approx. 2,000 EUR/yr when already using Jeppesen)
+ any upgrade not absolutely essential (not covered by the 220 EUR/h)
+ airway, approach + landing fees
I hope to have helped you a bit.
Best regards,
Andi
Last edited by AndiKunzi; 13th Mar 2013 at 23:34.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What type of PA34
To accurately tell you about the costs & performance you need to tell us if you intend to operate the variant with the turbocharged Continental engine or the normaly aspirated Lycoming engine.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Azeman, are you just going through every aircraft you can think of and starting a thread about it's costs?
Not difficult to roughly assess, in terms of fuel, hangarage and insurance, but if you're looking at older aircraft you never know when a massive bill for a new engine is round the corner, or on the DA42 you previously asked about you never know when the gear box is just going to give up.
Starting an air taxi company from scratch with aircraft of these size is going to be incredible different. Better off doing what most companies of this type of operation do and buy an islander or a twin otter.
Not difficult to roughly assess, in terms of fuel, hangarage and insurance, but if you're looking at older aircraft you never know when a massive bill for a new engine is round the corner, or on the DA42 you previously asked about you never know when the gear box is just going to give up.
Starting an air taxi company from scratch with aircraft of these size is going to be incredible different. Better off doing what most companies of this type of operation do and buy an islander or a twin otter.
Last edited by RTN11; 14th Mar 2013 at 17:58.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Starting an air taxi company from scratch with aircraft of these size is going to be incredible different
Senecas are good old tried and tested workhorses and have been used for years for all manner of work from medical to short field people carriers.
Seneca 1 2 3 4 5! Seneca 1 awful 234 nearly the same! 5 a different animal,
5 the one to go for but budget on 4-£500 per hour
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 14th Mar 2013 at 22:58.
Some of the older Senecas are real money pits. We had one in for an annual and the bill reached over £18000. Everything you looked at needed attention. That £18k included a capped labour bill, we just wanted it out of the hangar. Not last year but 1992!!!!
Absolute horror which is why I remember it so well.
Absolute horror which is why I remember it so well.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It had probably been badly neglected for many years.
It may be anecdotal but the twins I see kicking around in private ownership generally seem to be maintained to a lower standard than the IFR capable singles I see around in private ownership.
It may be due to the higher ownership cost of a twin, or due to always having a spare engine and a lot of electrical and other systems redundancy.
But if you take one in for an Annual, then unless the company doing the work is happy to collude with you on doing a "box ticking" job (and many are, especially those doing the RF/FTO fleets) you are going to get a big hit because they will want to fix all the stuff that is broken.
It may be anecdotal but the twins I see kicking around in private ownership generally seem to be maintained to a lower standard than the IFR capable singles I see around in private ownership.
It may be due to the higher ownership cost of a twin, or due to always having a spare engine and a lot of electrical and other systems redundancy.
But if you take one in for an Annual, then unless the company doing the work is happy to collude with you on doing a "box ticking" job (and many are, especially those doing the RF/FTO fleets) you are going to get a big hit because they will want to fix all the stuff that is broken.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Senecas compared to other older twins should fair better as the majority of parts are still readily available from the manufacturer!
Seneca parts are also the ford escort parts rather than the Mercedes cost parts of Beech Barons.
As twins go they should be cheaper to maintain than others although none are cheap and 18 to 20 K is pretty normal for an annual check regardless of the twin manufacturer!
Ok you have a turbo but then again I would not consider a twin without one regardless of make! I have flown Senecas at 20 K plus where you will get 210 to 220 kts TAS
Down low 160 to 170 kts TAS
The Seneca will maintain 16000 feet on one engine try that in a normally aspirated Beech Baron over high mountains at night!
Pace
Seneca parts are also the ford escort parts rather than the Mercedes cost parts of Beech Barons.
As twins go they should be cheaper to maintain than others although none are cheap and 18 to 20 K is pretty normal for an annual check regardless of the twin manufacturer!
Ok you have a turbo but then again I would not consider a twin without one regardless of make! I have flown Senecas at 20 K plus where you will get 210 to 220 kts TAS
Down low 160 to 170 kts TAS
The Seneca will maintain 16000 feet on one engine try that in a normally aspirated Beech Baron over high mountains at night!
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 15th Mar 2013 at 18:14.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must say that I amvery intrigued by the Seneca. It may well be the ultimate piston twin if yone seriously wants to be able to fly whenever / whereever.
Ice mountains ..whatever.
Ice mountains ..whatever.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are very capable aircraft in the latest Seneca Five version which is wastegated turbocharged and intercooled.
I flew a demo with the Seneca five twin for a potential buyer against a Malibu Mirage for the then main Piper Agents at Bournemouth.
The Seneca Five beat the Mirage up to 20,000 feet hands down. Low level it was showing 1400 fpm! Even at 20,000 feet it was still climbing at 700 fpm albeit we were on oxygen rather than being pressurized.
I have over 2500 hrs on the Seneca Fives and have flown them in every condition imaginable, day night summer winter!
A real mini Kingair.
They are very forgiving aircraft which will deal with the shortest of strips and are far superior to the Seneca 1, 2 3 or 4!
Pace
I flew a demo with the Seneca five twin for a potential buyer against a Malibu Mirage for the then main Piper Agents at Bournemouth.
The Seneca Five beat the Mirage up to 20,000 feet hands down. Low level it was showing 1400 fpm! Even at 20,000 feet it was still climbing at 700 fpm albeit we were on oxygen rather than being pressurized.
I have over 2500 hrs on the Seneca Fives and have flown them in every condition imaginable, day night summer winter!
A real mini Kingair.
They are very forgiving aircraft which will deal with the shortest of strips and are far superior to the Seneca 1, 2 3 or 4!
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you tell me the big difference between the 2, 3 and 4 ... and what makes the 5 so much better?
What is the usefull load on the 5 .. especially as they all seem certified for 1999kg?
What is the usefull load on the 5 .. especially as they all seem certified for 1999kg?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the five is turbo charged, inter cooled , and waste gated which means it can run at full power continuously.
The 234 were turbocharged but not waste gated and could only run a max power for a limited time of five minutes.
the 4 and 5 had different engine cowls with Lopresti air intakes.
they also had one piece screens compared to the split screen of the earlier Senecas.
the panel was completely redesigned in a very ergonomic manner
The DDMP engine, electric and fuel monitoring unit is excellent making especially for fuel monitoring a very accurate system.
Many are at 1999 KG to avoid airways charges although that is a paper weight not a realistic carrying limit and I have been told you can dual certificate for heavier loads.
For ferry work they will carry way above the certificated grosse weight without problem. The problem being engine loss at those weights.
Some find them hard to land which is technique they require plenty of back trim and are then a doddle. I even landed one in a constant 40 kt crosswind 90 degrees across Denham runway making a mockery of the demonstrated x wind figure.
Pace
The 234 were turbocharged but not waste gated and could only run a max power for a limited time of five minutes.
the 4 and 5 had different engine cowls with Lopresti air intakes.
they also had one piece screens compared to the split screen of the earlier Senecas.
the panel was completely redesigned in a very ergonomic manner
The DDMP engine, electric and fuel monitoring unit is excellent making especially for fuel monitoring a very accurate system.
Many are at 1999 KG to avoid airways charges although that is a paper weight not a realistic carrying limit and I have been told you can dual certificate for heavier loads.
For ferry work they will carry way above the certificated grosse weight without problem. The problem being engine loss at those weights.
Some find them hard to land which is technique they require plenty of back trim and are then a doddle. I even landed one in a constant 40 kt crosswind 90 degrees across Denham runway making a mockery of the demonstrated x wind figure.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 16th Mar 2013 at 12:16.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
I agree with you it is a myth about aircraft being hard to land, the problem is usually loading.
Most PA34's are nose heavy, put a lot of fuel and two people in the front seats and the aircraft is outside the forward C of G limit...........that is when it runs out of elevator in the final part of the landing giving the impression of being a bit of a pig to land. The moral of he story being to have a bit of weight in the aft baggage bay of there is only two of you in the aircraft.
The hard to land myth has been supported by an airtest in a UK flying magazine about twenty years back when the luminary reported difficulty in getting a smooth landing, a quick look at the way he had he aircraft loaded and there was no doubt why the aircraft ran out of elevator in the flair !
Most PA34's are nose heavy, put a lot of fuel and two people in the front seats and the aircraft is outside the forward C of G limit...........that is when it runs out of elevator in the final part of the landing giving the impression of being a bit of a pig to land. The moral of he story being to have a bit of weight in the aft baggage bay of there is only two of you in the aircraft.
The hard to land myth has been supported by an airtest in a UK flying magazine about twenty years back when the luminary reported difficulty in getting a smooth landing, a quick look at the way he had he aircraft loaded and there was no doubt why the aircraft ran out of elevator in the flair !
Last edited by A and C; 16th Mar 2013 at 13:24.
18k annual from 20 years ago now you are asking!!!
However, both turbochargers fried and cracked, all the exhaust sections cracked or distorted. Engine mounts badly corroded. Low compressions on half the cylinders.
Both alternators shot.
Undercariage badly worn lots of parts needed.
Static system leaking like a sieve. Corrosion around fin mounting area. Cabin floor totally delaminated.
Remember this was also in the period when Piper were not supplying much in the way of spares so everything was hard to get which exacerbated the problem.
As somebody else said a product of maintenance carried out with a pen.
As always get a survey done by someone up to speed on type it will always pay for itself.
However, both turbochargers fried and cracked, all the exhaust sections cracked or distorted. Engine mounts badly corroded. Low compressions on half the cylinders.
Both alternators shot.
Undercariage badly worn lots of parts needed.
Static system leaking like a sieve. Corrosion around fin mounting area. Cabin floor totally delaminated.
Remember this was also in the period when Piper were not supplying much in the way of spares so everything was hard to get which exacerbated the problem.
As somebody else said a product of maintenance carried out with a pen.
As always get a survey done by someone up to speed on type it will always pay for itself.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver knapper
I have about 200 hrs on the Baron 55 and loved it for its character and handling but normally aspirated engine out and you get a ceiling of around 7000 feet not good over high mountains.
The Seneca five does not have the pilots delight of handing qualities of the Baron but it is a safe and stable instrument platform!
The Seneca five appeal over the Baron is its amazing ability to maintain altitude at over 16000 feet engine out which is not matched by many light twins!
I have a lot if time on the Seneca and see them
Very much as a trusted friend which has flown through everything and anything!
They are docile creatures which will let you get away with murder!
Offer me a choice between a Baron 58 or Seneca Five and I would choose the Seneca but I am biased
Pace
I have about 200 hrs on the Baron 55 and loved it for its character and handling but normally aspirated engine out and you get a ceiling of around 7000 feet not good over high mountains.
The Seneca five does not have the pilots delight of handing qualities of the Baron but it is a safe and stable instrument platform!
The Seneca five appeal over the Baron is its amazing ability to maintain altitude at over 16000 feet engine out which is not matched by many light twins!
I have a lot if time on the Seneca and see them
Very much as a trusted friend which has flown through everything and anything!
They are docile creatures which will let you get away with murder!
Offer me a choice between a Baron 58 or Seneca Five and I would choose the Seneca but I am biased
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 16th Mar 2013 at 14:27.