Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Suitable SEP IR tourer with FIKI and speed

Bonjour, everybody
my first posting here.
I think that a Piper Seneca 2 or 3 is an interesting airplane if you have access to cheap fuel and good quality maintenance.

Canad_Air!

Bonsoir TBM_Driver

you know what, I think you are quite right. For the purpose that the original poster wants to use the plane, a Seneca II sounds like the exactly right plane.

It is cheap to buy (use the rest of the budget to fly and maintain), full FIKI and it has that 2nd engine. Right now, it appears that good Seneca II’s rise in price again… before there were several in the 50k range with good engines and equipment, right now, the only reasonable one I found is at about the op’s budget…

I used to fly the Seneca II and III and quite liked it. If I ever upgrade to something which can give me this kind of mission capability, the Seneca would be quite high on my list.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Looking at the OP list the Mooney or Beech 36 are available within budget. Checking the NTSB only two fatalities for the Mooney due to structural icing in the last ten years,

e.g.

http://www.ntsb.gov/layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?evid=20101222X20739&ntsbno=ERA11FA095&akey=1

…and none for the BE-36. Sensible risk management will provide good utility for these proven designs. The second engine and FIKI of a Seneca 2 would not tempt me to launch in weather that was not acceptable for a BE-36. The Seneca also has not had a structural icing fatality in the last ten years.

Crossing autumn/winter occluded fronts in piston equipment is for the birds.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

Moi, I think that the second engine will add much safety for IFR flying, especially across water and mountains.
best regards,
Vanessa

Last Edited by at 23 Aug 09:10
Canad_Air!

TBM_Driver wrote:

I think that the second engine will add much safety for IFR flying, especially across water and mountains.

Well, engines usually aren’t the problem (as evidenced by round the world flights where IIRC singles dominate over twins). So I think “much safety” is an exaggeration. With older planes, it’s IMHO the “ancillaries” that are interesting – deicing, redundant electrical system, that sort of thing. And with some twins that second engine is more of a glide extender.

TBM_driver that’s a fair point of view – 22 fatal accidents for the Mooney fleet and 4 for the BE36 fleet due to engine failures in the last ten years, also 5 serious injury accidents for the Mooney fleet, and one for the BE36 fleet related to engine failure. The PA34 had no fatalities, but did have three accidents with serious injuries related to engine failure.

The apparent higher proportion of engine failure relative to the fleet for the Mooney might be that the type has longer history than the BE36 and so a greater proportion of older airframes. Also some people might argue that six pots are better than four in the context of a SEP.

My only point is I wouldn’t risk compensate thinking I would fly in weather in a Seneca which I wouldn’t fly in a high performance single.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

…btw the TB20 reports zero serious/fatal accidents due to engine failure in the last ten years, which is a nice statistic for the six pot lycosaurus.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

It is slightly surprising but not all that much, since the non turbo 250HP IO540 is very hard to break. About all you can do is crack cylinders, with gross mismanagement, but that won’t stop it running – you just get a 10k bill at the next Annual

But there isn’t a huge number of TB20s flying. Socata made about 2k TBs total, and you can go here and add them up. I reckon it is c. 500 (just a guess). Bear in mind that after about 1990 not many 9s and 10s were sold, due to overpricing.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Here is a sample of SEP where engine failure is cited as a cause for a fatal accident in the last ten years. Apologies to Mooniacs, my previous post was PLAIN wrong, only THREE fatalities according to the NTSB.

PA18 1
PA28 1
PA28R 4
PA28RTC 0
PA24 2
PA32 5
PA32R 3
CE172 2
CE182 3
CE206 2
CE210 1
CE210T 3
BE33 3
BE35 4
BE36 4
BE36TC 2
Mooney 3
SR22 1
SR22T 0
114 0
TB20/21 0
DA40 0

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

Thanks Robert.

These figures are very interesting if you think about it and actually relativate the perceived risk quite a bit. If there is a similar table where severe injuries are listed, the figures might even be more conclusive.

What I see from the figures you just posted is, that the probability of a fatal accident in a SEP due to the fact that it is a SEP as opposed to a MEP is quite remote, despite the fact that in the US, night and IFR flying in SEP’s is much more common than here.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top