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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Piper Seneca
Hi!
Thanks to all the replies! I'm going to seriously look into the Aztec. How is the baggage loading compared to the Seneca? Is it easy to get bukjy items into the plane? Easy to remove seats if I need to carry something big? I ask, because I am a double bass player...... :-) Frode "Jim Burns" skrev i melding ... My real world '66 C, non turbo Aztec numbers are identical to Ronnie's. Recent 25 hour round trip flight from WI to Las Vegas and back yielded an average of 22 gph fuel burn at TAS between 160 and 165. I also flight plan on 160 TAS at 25gph. Jim "Ronnie" wrote in message . com... Frode, For my 1964 C model, non-turbo Aztec: Gross Weight: 5,200 lbs Empty Weight: 3,120 lbs Useful Load: 2,080 lbs Payload w/ Full Fuel 1,240 lbs Total Fuel: 144 gallons Usable Fuel: 140 gallons Payload with full fuel: 1,240 lbs Normal cruise Performance: 160 KTAS @ 7,000 MSL @ 24 GPH Endurance: 5.8 hours Range: 928 NM The flight manual indicates that the maximum cruise speed is 178 knots at 7,000' to 8,000' and 75% power. I have found this to be optimistic. I flight plan for 160 knots with a fuel burn of 25 GPH. In flight, I see true airspeeds ranging from 160 to 165 knots and at the pumps the fuel consumption normally turns out to be around 22 GPH. Using 160 knots and 25 GPH is conservative and it is easy to do the math for fuel burn in your head. If you'd rather save fuel, extended your range and endurance, and log more multi-engine hours, just pull the power back. On a recent flight at 3,500', I decided to use 2,000 RPM and 18" of manifold pressure and see what the speed and fuel flow would look like. The true airspeed was around 135 knots and the fuel flow was 15 gallons per hour. On a 425 NM trip, the calculated difference in time en route was 30 minutes, turning what would have been a 2 hour, 40 minute trip into a 3 hour, 10 minute trip. The difference in the calculated fuel consumption was 58.4 gallons versus 47.2 gallons, or a savings of 11.2 gallons. An added benefit of lower power settings is that the airplane is quieter and the engines are loafing along and running very cool. Flight Speeds and Characteristics: SPEED MPH KTS Vso 68 59 Vs 72 63 Vmc (Red radial line) 80 70 Vr (Vmc + 5) 85 74 Vxse 97 84 Vyse (Blue radial line) 102 89 Vx 107 93 Vy 120 104 Vfe 125 109 Va (@ 4800 lbs) 145 126 Vle 150 130 Vcruise 184 160 Vne 249 217 You have to look at the flight manual to get the various performance figures, but on average you will experience climb rates of between 1,400 to 1,900 FPM on a standard day from 4,000 lbs up to full gross weight. With my normal load and on a hot summer day leaving a 782' MSL field using a cruise-climb airspeed of 130 MPH, I'll average 750 to 1,000 FPM as the initial rate of climb. At light weights and under cool conditions, using Vyse, it is not hard to peg the +2,000 FPM limit on the vertical speed indicator. This is of course with both engines running. A healthy rate of climb provides a quicker trip up to the cooler, smoother air where you and your passengers will be more comfortable. The single-engine rate of climb is much less. Rate of climb is dependent on power in excess of that necessary for level flight. When you lose an engine, you lose 50% of your total power, but in the order of 80% of your excess power. Therefore your climb performance also suffers by that same 80% figure. The flight manual shows a single-engine rate of climb of between 225 and 625 FPM depending on weight for sea level, standard day conditions. Many people are afraid of twins because of this poor single engine performance and the potential for loss of control after an engine failure on take-off. But consider the climb performance of a single engine airplane after loosing one engine! I'll guarantee you it will be less! The most critical time period in a twin for losing an engine is the few seconds between rotation and getting to a safe maneuvering altitude. There is an elevated risk of losing control of the airplane during these critical few seconds of flight. This risk it managed by good initial training, good recurrent training, and by proper planning and preparation before each and every take-off. If you are well trained, well practiced and have thought through the possibilities before each take-off, you should have no difficulty executing the manufacturer's engine-out checklist procedures and maintaining control of the airplane. For other phases of flight, an engine failure is a non-event. Assume you are cruising along at 8,000' and you lose one engine. Yes, it will get your attention, but there is no emergency. Identify which engine failed, verify you have identified the correct engine as the failed one, and then go through the steps to either fix the problem or to feather the prop and secure the engine. If you end up securing the failed engine, you continue to fly on the remaining engine and will only slowly drift down to the single-engine service ceiling. This is the altitude where the rate of climb is less than 50 FPM. For the Aztec, the lowest single-engine service ceiling is 5,000' and goes up to over 17,000' depending on initial take-off weight and remaining fuel load. In short, unless you are in the mountains, the single-engine service ceiling will not likely be a concern. Simply find an airport where repairs can be made and head that way. Similarly, a single-engine approach and landing is also a non-event. Fly the airplane at Vyse throughout the pattern, fly a bit wider than normal pattern to give yourself a little extra time, and defer the use of full flaps until the landing is assured. Once full flaps are deployed, don't attempt a go around. If you need to go around, make the decision early in the approach. If you attempt a "low and slow" go around, you've put yourself back into a single engine takeoff phase of flight which should be avoided. I am a firm believer that a twin-engine airplane is safer than a single-engine airplane, hands-down, assuming a well trained, competent pilot in command in each airplane. The benefit to you is that you will fly safer as will your family and other passengers. All the data above is for a non-turbo model. Turbo-charged Aztec are also common and will of course post higher speeds up high and associated higher fuel burns. Maybe Kyler will post the data for his turbo Aztec. Ronnie "Frode Berg" wrote in message ... hi! Thanks for your input. As I stated, this is not a short term consideration, as I do not currently hold an IR license, but will be getting one starting this summer. My wife and I have been toying with the possibilities of getting a vacational house in southern Europe, and I've been saying ok, but we'll need a de-iced twin, and she agrees, so a lot of the job is done.... :-) However, the Aztec idea is interesting. What are the figures for this plane? Loading capabilities? Speeds? Endurance/range? Thanks, Frode "Ronnie" skrev i melding . com... Frode, I know you asked specifically about a Seneca and if you want a Seneca, a Seneca you should get. However, in the meantime, you might consider another Piper twin, the Aztec. Older versions can be had for much less and would let you fly a twin and accumulate multi-engine time before ultimately getting the Seneca that you want. I admit I'm a bit biased since I've been flying 1964 C model Aztec for the last 7 years. There was a very, very nice Seneca III hangared in the same hangar as my Aztec and it made me conside trading for a Seneca, stricly on apperances. However, when I began comparing useful loads, single engine rate of climb, and over-all performance versus cost to aquire, I decided the Aztec fit my needs much better. At first, the blub seating and left side, low entry door looked like a plus for the Seneca that make getting passengers and big items in and out easier However, after taking a couple of trips the club seating turned out to be problematic for my family with the kids bumping knees. In our case, we like the forward facing seats and two large cargo areas fore and aft. better. Just food for thought. Ronnie "Frode Berg" wrote in message ... hi all! This might be a silly question, but I am dreaming of owning, or co-owning a Piper Seneca. Not this year or next, but maybe within the next 10 years. I have been browsing the aircraft for sale sites, and found planes from the 70's (Seneca II) selling for as low as $139K with about half time remaining on the engines and props. Anyone care to share the pro's and con's of the different models? (I-V) Obviously, I will not be able to afford a V, so far, only the II's seem accessible sort of. Anything worth knowing about this model? Bad things? Also, I understand maintenance will be about double of what I have now (Arrow 180). Any other traps to consider cost wise going for a twin? Any other aircraft in the same price range that might be better choices? I'm looking for a piston certified for Icing conditions. I also want a twin, as I'll be flying over mountains and have nightmares about engine out's in IMC and icing conditions over mountain terrain..... Thanks for any hints, Frode |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Piper Seneca
Seats are easy to remove. 66 and newer have a larger rear baggage door.
150 lbs in the rear, 150 lbs in the nose. I think there is an STC for a removable cabin door setup, I know guys that have used Aztec's for ambulance service that have had a removable cabin door. There's also a coffin door STC if you really want to get elaborate. The forward wall of the rear baggage compartment is the seat back of the rear bench seat, so pull the rear bench and it opens up into the rear baggage compartment. Standard seat rails extend from the spar rearwards to the baggage compartment, however they are not drilled under the rear seat. There is also a mod to drill the rails, pull the rear bench and install a second set of chair's similar to the center seats. Jim "Frode Berg" wrote in message ... Hi! Thanks to all the replies! I'm going to seriously look into the Aztec. How is the baggage loading compared to the Seneca? Is it easy to get bukjy items into the plane? Easy to remove seats if I need to carry something big? I ask, because I am a double bass player...... :-) Frode "Jim Burns" skrev i melding ... My real world '66 C, non turbo Aztec numbers are identical to Ronnie's. Recent 25 hour round trip flight from WI to Las Vegas and back yielded an average of 22 gph fuel burn at TAS between 160 and 165. I also flight plan on 160 TAS at 25gph. Jim "Ronnie" wrote in message . com... Frode, For my 1964 C model, non-turbo Aztec: Gross Weight: 5,200 lbs Empty Weight: 3,120 lbs Useful Load: 2,080 lbs Payload w/ Full Fuel 1,240 lbs Total Fuel: 144 gallons Usable Fuel: 140 gallons Payload with full fuel: 1,240 lbs Normal cruise Performance: 160 KTAS @ 7,000 MSL @ 24 GPH Endurance: 5.8 hours Range: 928 NM The flight manual indicates that the maximum cruise speed is 178 knots at 7,000' to 8,000' and 75% power. I have found this to be optimistic. I flight plan for 160 knots with a fuel burn of 25 GPH. In flight, I see true airspeeds ranging from 160 to 165 knots and at the pumps the fuel consumption normally turns out to be around 22 GPH. Using 160 knots and 25 GPH is conservative and it is easy to do the math for fuel burn in your head. If you'd rather save fuel, extended your range and endurance, and log more multi-engine hours, just pull the power back. On a recent flight at 3,500', I decided to use 2,000 RPM and 18" of manifold pressure and see what the speed and fuel flow would look like. The true airspeed was around 135 knots and the fuel flow was 15 gallons per hour. On a 425 NM trip, the calculated difference in time en route was 30 minutes, turning what would have been a 2 hour, 40 minute trip into a 3 hour, 10 minute trip. The difference in the calculated fuel consumption was 58.4 gallons versus 47.2 gallons, or a savings of 11.2 gallons. An added benefit of lower power settings is that the airplane is quieter and the engines are loafing along and running very cool. Flight Speeds and Characteristics: SPEED MPH KTS Vso 68 59 Vs 72 63 Vmc (Red radial line) 80 70 Vr (Vmc + 5) 85 74 Vxse 97 84 Vyse (Blue radial line) 102 89 Vx 107 93 Vy 120 104 Vfe 125 109 Va (@ 4800 lbs) 145 126 Vle 150 130 Vcruise 184 160 Vne 249 217 You have to look at the flight manual to get the various performance figures, but on average you will experience climb rates of between 1,400 to 1,900 FPM on a standard day from 4,000 lbs up to full gross weight. With my normal load and on a hot summer day leaving a 782' MSL field using a cruise-climb airspeed of 130 MPH, I'll average 750 to 1,000 FPM as the initial rate of climb. At light weights and under cool conditions, using Vyse, it is not hard to peg the +2,000 FPM limit on the vertical speed indicator. This is of course with both engines running. A healthy rate of climb provides a quicker trip up to the cooler, smoother air where you and your passengers will be more comfortable. The single-engine rate of climb is much less. Rate of climb is dependent on power in excess of that necessary for level flight. When you lose an engine, you lose 50% of your total power, but in the order of 80% of your excess power. Therefore your climb performance also suffers by that same 80% figure. The flight manual shows a single-engine rate of climb of between 225 and 625 FPM depending on weight for sea level, standard day conditions. Many people are afraid of twins because of this poor single engine performance and the potential for loss of control after an engine failure on take-off. But consider the climb performance of a single engine airplane after loosing one engine! I'll guarantee you it will be less! The most critical time period in a twin for losing an engine is the few seconds between rotation and getting to a safe maneuvering altitude. There is an elevated risk of losing control of the airplane during these critical few seconds of flight. This risk it managed by good initial training, good recurrent training, and by proper planning and preparation before each and every take-off. If you are well trained, well practiced and have thought through the possibilities before each take-off, you should have no difficulty executing the manufacturer's engine-out checklist procedures and maintaining control of the airplane. For other phases of flight, an engine failure is a non-event. Assume you are cruising along at 8,000' and you lose one engine. Yes, it will get your attention, but there is no emergency. Identify which engine failed, verify you have identified the correct engine as the failed one, and then go through the steps to either fix the problem or to feather the prop and secure the engine. If you end up securing the failed engine, you continue to fly on the remaining engine and will only slowly drift down to the single-engine service ceiling. This is the altitude where the rate of climb is less than 50 FPM. For the Aztec, the lowest single-engine service ceiling is 5,000' and goes up to over 17,000' depending on initial take-off weight and remaining fuel load. In short, unless you are in the mountains, the single-engine service ceiling will not likely be a concern. Simply find an airport where repairs can be made and head that way. Similarly, a single-engine approach and landing is also a non-event. Fly the airplane at Vyse throughout the pattern, fly a bit wider than normal pattern to give yourself a little extra time, and defer the use of full flaps until the landing is assured. Once full flaps are deployed, don't attempt a go around. If you need to go around, make the decision early in the approach. If you attempt a "low and slow" go around, you've put yourself back into a single engine takeoff phase of flight which should be avoided. I am a firm believer that a twin-engine airplane is safer than a single-engine airplane, hands-down, assuming a well trained, competent pilot in command in each airplane. The benefit to you is that you will fly safer as will your family and other passengers. All the data above is for a non-turbo model. Turbo-charged Aztec are also common and will of course post higher speeds up high and associated higher fuel burns. Maybe Kyler will post the data for his turbo Aztec. Ronnie "Frode Berg" wrote in message ... hi! Thanks for your input. As I stated, this is not a short term consideration, as I do not currently hold an IR license, but will be getting one starting this summer. My wife and I have been toying with the possibilities of getting a vacational house in southern Europe, and I've been saying ok, but we'll need a de-iced twin, and she agrees, so a lot of the job is done.... :-) However, the Aztec idea is interesting. What are the figures for this plane? Loading capabilities? Speeds? Endurance/range? Thanks, Frode "Ronnie" skrev i melding . com... Frode, I know you asked specifically about a Seneca and if you want a Seneca, a Seneca you should get. However, in the meantime, you might consider another Piper twin, the Aztec. Older versions can be had for much less and would let you fly a twin and accumulate multi-engine time before ultimately getting the Seneca that you want. I admit I'm a bit biased since I've been flying 1964 C model Aztec for the last 7 years. There was a very, very nice Seneca III hangared in the same hangar as my Aztec and it made me conside trading for a Seneca, stricly on apperances. However, when I began comparing useful loads, single engine rate of climb, and over-all performance versus cost to aquire, I decided the Aztec fit my needs much better. At first, the blub seating and left side, low entry door looked like a plus for the Seneca that make getting passengers and big items in and out easier However, after taking a couple of trips the club seating turned out to be problematic for my family with the kids bumping knees. In our case, we like the forward facing seats and two large cargo areas fore and aft. better. Just food for thought. Ronnie "Frode Berg" wrote in message ... hi all! This might be a silly question, but I am dreaming of owning, or co-owning a Piper Seneca. Not this year or next, but maybe within the next 10 years. I have been browsing the aircraft for sale sites, and found planes from the 70's (Seneca II) selling for as low as $139K with about half time remaining on the engines and props. Anyone care to share the pro's and con's of the different models? (I-V) Obviously, I will not be able to afford a V, so far, only the II's seem accessible sort of. Anything worth knowing about this model? Bad things? Also, I understand maintenance will be about double of what I have now (Arrow 180). Any other traps to consider cost wise going for a twin? Any other aircraft in the same price range that might be better choices? I'm looking for a piston certified for Icing conditions. I also want a twin, as I'll be flying over mountains and have nightmares about engine out's in IMC and icing conditions over mountain terrain..... Thanks for any hints, Frode |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Piper Seneca
I also flight plan on 160 TAS at 25gph.
Now that fuel prices are near $5/gal that's $125/hr in gas. I"m sure the oil companies love you. I'll continue to do 160 knots on 9.5 gal/hr in my Mooney. If fuel prices keep going up, I may need an RV. -Robert |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Piper Seneca
In Canada it is even more It is over 5/gal in CDN dollars!
Robert M. Gary wrote: I also flight plan on 160 TAS at 25gph. Now that fuel prices are near $5/gal that's $125/hr in gas. I"m sure the oil companies love you. I'll continue to do 160 knots on 9.5 gal/hr in my Mooney. If fuel prices keep going up, I may need an RV. -Robert |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Piper Seneca
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:13:03 -0400, The Visitor
wrote: In Canada it is even more It is over 5/gal in CDN dollars! $1.38 a litre at CYCE today |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Piper Seneca
$2 pr litre in most of Europe at least, so stop whining...
:-) Last year, I paid NOK 19.80 per litre at Gronningen in the Netherlands. That amounts to close to $3 pr litre, something like $11 pr Gallon.... Frode "Drew Dalgleish" skrev i melding ... On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:13:03 -0400, The Visitor wrote: In Canada it is even more It is over 5/gal in CDN dollars! $1.38 a litre at CYCE today |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Piper Seneca II vs Cessna 310 | John Doe | Owning | 9 | August 19th 05 01:33 PM |
Piper Seneca III Announciator Panel | Richardt Human | Piloting | 0 | February 17th 05 05:30 PM |
Piper Seneca, | In Soo | Piloting | 1 | December 30th 04 01:25 PM |
Insuring a C310 vs. Piper Seneca | Dave | Owning | 17 | October 27th 04 03:29 PM |
I am going to do it again! A Piper Seneca? | Michelle P | Owning | 5 | August 20th 03 01:59 AM |