[Lockhaven]

Every time I see one of these, I feel the urge... but I am resisting it.

Seneca II for sale at Planecheck: http://www.planecheck.com/index.asp?ent ... 5717&cor=y

There do seem to be quite a few light twins for sale at what on the face of it look like low prices. This one needs work on the engines... but if the estimate they give is realistic, it looks like you have a lot of aircraft (in terms of IFR capabilities, cruise speed, range, lifting capabilities etc.) for not that much money. Although it will cost you to run it, of course.

How unrealistic could it possibly be to pick something like this one up, get it fixed and enjoy it? (Accepting the fuel burn...!)

Can someone please provide the required reality check?

Morten

With those engine and prop hours for private use you would get years out of it, even getting them to do the engine inspections at an additional 24000 euros I would consider it if I had a need.

[Flyingfemme]

It's not just the buying and servicing costs to think about.....how will you feel about paying 4,5 or even 10 times as much for landing? And parking? And what is your view on handling?
All just because you have an extra engine?
I can tell you that it takes the shine off a trip when you are looking at over a hundred quid just to touch tarmac.
There is a view all over Europe that, if you can afford to buy it (a twin, a turbine, a helicopter), you can afford to pay everyone's inflated charges. Value for money doesn't come into, nor do services actually rendered.
Take Cranfield, for example (please!) If we pitch up (just the two of us, with no need for fancy services) in the T6 it costs a tenner (or less) to land............likewise the Comanche (single flavour). But do the same thing in a Caravan (coz it happened to be at the front of the hangar) and the cost goes up to £100 - still only a single but now you are in the turbine-victim category..........and don't even think of using a Kingair.
Most places operate similar policies......I remember going to Popham, having called ahead for landing fee info....five quid all singles. And then to be asked for a tenner - coz it's a really big one.
Better to get a really nice single piston for the same money and spend the operating difference on actually going places.

[flybymike]

On my third twin now. Yeah, they can be expensive to run when you add it all up. So the trick is to not add it up! Just count the fuel and be happy! If you just count the fuel, they're not that bad.

Don't listen to a word Adam says about twins.

The amount he has spent on them is eye watering!

(Gotta love his style though.... )

[Lefty]

Don't forget that the Seneca II has really poor performance. Poor payload, Poor runway requirements, poor single engine performance and poor speed (c120 KIAS). My Cherokee Six (a single engine Seneca) out performs it in every aspect (except singl engin climb )

If you want a twin, look for a twin Commanche. They can be found quite cheaply - and are really good performers.

[Lockhaven]

Don't forget that the Seneca II has really poor performance. Poor payload, Poor runway requirements, poor single engine performance and poor speed (c120 KIAS). My Cherokee Six (a single engine Seneca) out performs it in every aspect (except singl engin climb )

If you want a twin, look for a twin Commanche. They can be found quite cheaply - and are really good performers.

The Seneca II I fly cruises at 140 Kts using 100Lts/Hr and operates from 800m runways quite happily.

[Gertie]

When people have said how many hours they will fly in a year, I always half it.
When aircraft engineers quote a price, I always double it.
When aircraft engineers quote a time, I always double it.

And then there's doctors - whenever they tell me how long something is going to take to get better I double the number and up the units by one. So:

"three or four days" means six or eight weeks
"a couple of weeks" means four months

etc.

[tomshep]

I expect that the Cherokee Six actually has a better single engined climb performance.

[A le Ron]

Yes, but poorer after an engine failure

[Morten]

Thanks @Flyingfemme . Up to and including @Lockhaven above I was increasingly panicking, but now reality has come back. Phew...

[AdamFrisch]

Personally, if I'm going to spring for the upkeep of a twin, I'd go for a pressurized, turbocharged, FIKI one. They'll only cost you a tiny bit more, but give you so much more performance and capability. It's worth the extra $40/hr or whatever it might cost. Don't really see the point of anemic old Aztec's or Seneca's. Get a P-Baron, P337 or an Aerostar.

[flybymike]

Don't listen to him.....don't listen to him.....

[gasman]

Taking advantage of the landing voucher in Flyer we dropped into Shipdham yesterday (lovely welcome).

At the back of the hangar there is a Seneca that is in the process of being rebuilt following a landing accident several years ago. The costs so far include a new wing/engine/prop as well as hangarage and engineering support from Scotland. The other engine is high timed.

Given the current value of piston twins I cannot understand the rationale behind rebuilding as opposed to scrapping and parting out the wreck.

[PeteSpencer]

Deleted:
An irrelevant thread drift too far........

Peter

[EddieHeli]

Yes Peter, very cute, but Cheap they are not !!

[Andrew Sinclair]

When I decided to do my MEP I decided to get from zero to 100hrs in a light twin by buying a Seneca with 2 friends. It had TBO hours on both engines but was basically sound. I spent £7k buying it and £18k flying it VFR to circa-100hrs. To have hired a Seneca II would have cost circa £35k so I think it was worth it. I have recently said to my fellow group members they can have my share foc, as I now want to buy a newer IFR capable twin.

As an aside, Timothy Nathan (who some may know) flew in to help with Fly2Help yesterday, it was nice to see him again and lovely to
meet his new stead a PA31 G-ILZZ, now I know the avionice I want

My Seneca II 200T G-FILE does 140KIAS 30"/2300rpm 90litres per hour. Can we have a discussion about over-square