Unless you really want to carry more than 4 persons (and I still think it would be difficult to do that in a Seneca I), then I see no reason to to get one instead of a Twin Comache. More speed, more range, lower fuel costs and better looks.
mooney_d that’s quite a lardy Seneca 1.
Here is a M&B .xls which is quite representative.
boscomantico wrote:
Unless you really want to carry more than 4 persons (and I still think it would be difficult to do that in a Seneca I), then I see no reason to to get one instead of a Twin Comache. More speed, more range, lower fuel costs and better looks.
One particularity that is not mentioned here (because we are talking about the plane and not the specific case) is availability and location. The Cessna 303 I was looking at and the Seneca I I am looking at now are both for partial sale (buy in in a group) and both have an arranged parking spot in Zurich, which I want to have. Deciding on a type and trying to find an available plane, then 2-3 more people to join in, fixing it/making it airworthy again, upgrading avionics and then finding a spot at Zurich airport is an almost impossible task. I understand there are people that can afford to do all that on their own and arrange everything, but I need to wait a couple more years for that.
The Twinkie enjoys a cult status which the prosaic Seneca 1 will never enjoy.
The Seneca I, however, has one achievement which is not at all shabby when being compared to the Twinkie – no Seneca I has experienced a Vmc loss of control accident. The experience of the Twinkie (stendiamo un vielo pietoso) led to the FAA introducing the concept of Vsse (single engine safety speed). Also the Twinkie has a few ADs more than the Seneca 1.
Hour price x3 – really? I would expect plus 50% before Eurocontol charges for the C303, but certainly not more than double.
Do the two aircraft you see have vastly different utilisation?
I would say, 50% more IS worth it, if you take the money out of something else than flying. If you have to fly a lot less, I would probably go for the cheaper one.
Re initial price – without knowing the particulars (time remaining on engines, general condition etc) it is difficult to tell. A good Crusader will cost between 100-150,000 Euro with mid-time engines, a Seneca I would be less than half that, but might need a lot of work to get it up to scratch, being 10-15 years older…
RobertL18C wrote:
Another area that will require some TLC is the wiring to the engine accessories and out to the wings
On some old Pipers the large size wires are from aluminium. They tend to corrode and thus have quite some resistance resulting in voltage drop. There is an bulletin on this, I don’t know the number from memory. Saratoga has the same alumiunium wiring for starter and alternator.
Did replace these wires by standaard 22759 wiring on some aircraft
The quoted hourly costs may come from the Group assumption for operating costs? 3x seems a tad high, but 2x may not be unrealistic based on engine replacement fund, fuel consumption, turbos and eurocontrol.
The 303 is a clever, elegant update on the Aztec, Piper might have thought of it.
Cobalt wrote:
Hour price x3 – really?
Yes, really. That’s including the airway taxes though – the Seneca doesn’t have any and someone still has to pay for them.
Both aircraft I am looking at have almost newly overhauled engines and propellers and prices are Swiss ones for flying aircraft, i.e. somewhat higher than market price in other countries. The aircraft are in better condition though.
