A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Seneca III effective range



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 30th 03, 05:52 PM
Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Seneca III effective range

Can anybody tell me what a realistic cruising range is for a Seneca
III with long range tanks a a full load (i.e. six people including
pilot)?
  #2  
Old October 30th 03, 09:20 PM
Steve Robertson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A realistic range with full fuel is about 500 - 600nm. You can go
further with a very economy power setting, but somebody's bladder won't
last as long as the fuel.

As with most light aircraft, with full fuel, six occupants, and the
usual baggage, you will be overgross at takeoff.

Best regards,

Steve Robertson
Former Piper employee and Seneca III pilot

Mark wrote:

Can anybody tell me what a realistic cruising range is for a Seneca
III with long range tanks a a full load (i.e. six people including
pilot)?


  #3  
Old October 31st 03, 03:55 AM
BTIZ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm not sure about the Seneca III, but with the Seneca II, you can either
fill the seats or fill the tanks.. can't do both.. and those in the way back
seats better be kids..

BT

"Mark" wrote in message
m...
Can anybody tell me what a realistic cruising range is for a Seneca
III with long range tanks a a full load (i.e. six people including
pilot)?



  #5  
Old October 31st 03, 02:53 PM
M.E. Borner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I fly a Seneca V but I don’t expect much difference between the
III and the V except the empty weight. I can legally carry about 1,000
lbs. Of people, fuel or some combination. With a burn rate of about 24
gph you figure how the desired balance within the limitations.

(Mark) wrote in message om...
Can anybody tell me what a realistic cruising range is for a Seneca
III with long range tanks a a full load (i.e. six people including
pilot)?

  #8  
Old November 3rd 03, 02:53 PM
M.E. Borner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The 1,000 is an approximation used for "back of the envelope"
calculations on max. gross weight. In actuality on my A/C the basic
empty weight is 3576.5 lbs. and the max. gross wt. is 4750 lbs.
leaving 1173.5 lbs. useful load (10% margin of error between the book
figures and the estimated figures). You also need to remember that the
zero fuel weight is about 300 lbs. below the max. gross. not that that
is really an issue because you can't go too far on less than 50 ga. so
you would not likely hit that limitation.

The 1337 lbs. on the Piper website probably does not count certain
options. Oxygen? Addit'l. avionics?

These figures that limit the carrying capacity are a real shame. I
would expect that in fact the A/C can carry way over these limits but
since it would raise the stall speed over the max. for the utility
category the max. gross was lowered for certification.



Mike Rapoport" wrote in message k.net...
Piper lists the useful load at 1337 lb

http://www.newpiper.com/fleet/spec_s...ew/senecaV.pdf

Mike
MU-2


"Nathan Young" wrote in message
om...
(M.E. Borner) wrote in message

. com...
I fly a Seneca V but I don’t expect much difference between the
III and the V except the empty weight. I can legally carry about 1,000
lbs. Of people, fuel or some combination. With a burn rate of about 24
gph you figure how the desired balance within the limitations.

(Mark) wrote in message
om...
Can anybody tell me what a realistic cruising range is for a Seneca
III with long range tanks a a full load (i.e. six people including
pilot)?


Is the useful load on a Seneca V really ~1000lbs? That's nearly
700lbs less than a II. I know the interiors/air condition/avionics
can take up weight but that's obscene.

-Nathan

  #9  
Old November 3rd 03, 04:06 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"M.E. Borner" wrote in message
m...
These figures that limit the carrying capacity are a real shame. I
would expect that in fact the A/C can carry way over these limits but
since it would raise the stall speed over the max. for the utility
category the max. gross was lowered for certification.



Mike Rapoport" wrote in message

k.net...

I didn't know that there was a max stall speed for multi engine aircraft.
What is it?

Raising gross weight is normally not as simple as writing a larger number in
the book. There are many potential issues, climb rate, single engine
performance and strength among them. We can be assured that the designers
gave us as high a gross weight allowance as they dared..

Mike
MU-2



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
This week's AW&ST: apparently THAAD will have some ABM (as in anti- *ICBM*) capability. Scott Ferrin Military Aviation 29 August 31st 04 04:20 AM
What is missile defense? An expensive fraud Bush needs Poland as a future nuclear battlefield Paul J. Adam Military Aviation 1 August 9th 04 08:29 PM
Is replacing Maverick with JCM a good idea? Scott Ferrin Military Aviation 12 June 16th 04 10:07 PM
Helicopter gun at LONG range Tony Williams Naval Aviation 3 August 20th 03 02:14 AM
To Steal an F-86 Dudley Henriques Military Aviation 19 August 1st 03 02:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.