Michelle,

The Seneca I is no more to be avoided than the Seminole. Neither one has
much of a single-engine ceiling. The Seneca I flys just fine. As long as
you don't think you need turbos, then you should at least consider it.
The Lycoming engines are a bit less problematic than the Conts. in the
IIs and IIIs. (mainly because no turbos.)

As others have said, there isn't that much difference between the IIs
and IIIs.

I got my ME in a Seneca I and my CFI ME in a turbo Seminole. I used to
work at Piper (not as a pilot, though) and got the full factory checkout
in Seneca III and thereafter rented the 2 that were in the company
fleet. So, based on that, here is my impression:

Think of a Seneca I as a retractable Cherokee 6 that will come down more
slowly than the Cherokee 6 if the engine fails. The Seminole is just
delightful to fly. Just like flying an Arrow, but with extra power (as
long as both mills are turning). The Seneca III flys a lot more like the
Seminole than a Seneca I. The handling was much less truck-like,
especially with full flps on landing. The difference in power and engine
smoothness between the I and III is striking.

Best regards,

Steve Robertson
N4732J 1967 Beechcraft A23-24 Musketeer Super III

Michelle P wrote:

Hi all,

Several of us have been renting twins are seriously looking into
buying one.

We have been renting a Seminole but are looking at a Seneca. I
understand the Seneca I is to be avoided. The Seneca II is better and
the III is the best in the batch. Our budget appears to be no more
than 200K, but prefer the upper 100s.

I would be interested in hearing any thoughts good or bad on the
Airframe and engines. We are particularly concerned about the turbo
charged Continentals.

Thanks in advance,

Michelle
--
Michelle P CP-ASMEL-IA, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, AirLifeLine

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity