Snoopy wrote:
Is the G3X even stc‘d for IFR in this airframe?
That was my concern – G3X touch AFAIK only supports twins in experimental version…
I think the price is a consequence of both the high engine times and the absymal avionics. Whereby the engines are the lesser problem, a O320 is not that expensive to overhaul, but to put a proper avionic suite in there for IFR will be very costly.
I actually know G-BGON – it was bought a couple of years ago to replace another of its siblings that needed an incredibly expensive (well over the value of the airframe) prop overhaul.
alioth wrote:
incredibly expensive (well over the value of the airframe) prop overhaul.
That sounds like fuel tank is empty, lets write the airframe off.
Sebastian_G wrote:
That sounds like fuel tank is empty, lets write the airframe off.
Yea, really weird. I’ve heard of Senecas being thrown away (or sold to less demanding countries) when the engines reached TBO. One of them now flies with a T7 registration.
I remember a Cougar flying here in Switzerland in beautiful condition and well IFR equipped. The owner had her for over 20 years and loved to fly her. It is probably one of the least expensive twins to own and fly, similar consumption as a Twin Comanche but less demanding on maintenance and systems apparently.
Generally not a bad airplane, OEI performance is not very exiting but still better than an Apache or the likes, otherwise well built not unlike it’s “parent” the AA5. For the right money, why not. The engines are bog standart O320, props Hartzells and the remainder of the airframe does usually not give too much hassle.
Performance wise, if I remember right, about 160 KTAS @ 75% and 16 GPH total or 150 KTAS @ 65% and 13 GPH. With 114 USG total fuel in 2 fuel tanks, that allows for ample 6 hours of endurance as well as 1000 NM range, which is not bad at all for a small twin. It is also a very decent short field performer which does not mind grass strips.
One question would be if the Cougar is also limited in terms of hours of the wing, which the AA5 is. I have a faint memory of a wing spar life limit, but which is not applicable for private ops or can be extended. In any case, this might be a much more viable reason to dump any Grumman airplane than a prop overhaul.
For the right price I’d be tempted. Here, there is quite a bit of avionic to do for decent IFR, including an AP:
What about the Piper Seminole?
Why are they so expensive and rare?
All I can tell you that Seneca is not that expensive!
And we have a LOT of fun out of it 
I don’t know how to turn those pictures.
[ Images fixed – are they from a new Iphone by any chance? There is some incompatible rotation mode ]
Agree with @Raven the Piper Seneca is a beast of an aeroplane. My business partner has one. Last month they brought 3 pax into a wet uphill 600m strip full of tools and gear which was so muddy the whole rear of the A/C was covered afterwards. They did their maintenance work, shot a deer and loaded up all with 3/4 fuel and took off in roughly 250m heading downhill. Off home in a winters evening over the sea to land in a short lit uphill grass strip. If you have to bring a lot of gear, people and do work a twin is more useful than the likes of Dakota. We did a similar trip with a Dakota over the summer and it was just too small for all the aircraft maintenance gear you would need plus 3 pax.
Seneca 3 has a little extra power too. His one is in for a complete refurb at the moment. I think it’s a sweet spot between the 160/180hp engined twins and the 300hp ones.
arj1 wrote:
What about the Piper Seminole?
Why are they so expensive and rare?
The Seminole is basically a twin engined Arrow. It is a relatively “modern” Twin with T-tail and usually good avionics, but other than that, it really is a trainer. I would not really consider it as a tourer for the same reason I’d not look at an Arrow II as a tourer, limited range, not too great speed and appeal. But it appears to sell for horrendous figures, primarily because most of them are not that old, have fewer hours than comparable Twin Commanches or similar and are still sought after on the trainer market.
Looking at it, it has 2 O360 engines, if I had the choice and wanted that kind of plane, I’d look at a well kept Seneca I. You can get them very cheap and they perform better than a Seminole and it is bigger. With 2 O360’s, I would look for a BE95 Travel Air, which is basically a twin Bonanza. Again, usually cheaper than a Seminole but a much nicer airplane. Or a Cougar if I can find a nice one.
Looking at the Cougar, I have to say, it is quite a touring plane if you use it right. 1000 NM range (maybe a tad over), decent payload, decent speed and and maintenance wise not very challenging, it can do grass and short strips and is pretty decent in any regard.
As for OEI performance, I think we’ve had that discussed a few times already. Basically until about 500 ft AGL on take off and totally cleaned up, these twins are like SEPs, if something happens, you land straight ahead. Above that, you can, with caution, nurse them back home over the circuit. Obviously you can’t climb it to a lot of altitude, at 4000-5000 ft it will be finished.
The big difference to any SEP however comes if engines fail in cruise. There, these planes will perform quite ok. I’ve test flown a BE95 at the time, we were two on board, tanks 3/4 full and not too much load. The plane, coming from 10k ft, held 7.5 k ft quite happily with one shut down. I expect the Cougar won’t be much different and I have read from Twin Commanche owners that they experience similar stuff.
That makes these light twins a much safer proposition for IFR and night flying, also over oceans. The only place they won’t do you much good is over the Alps, where you need 17k ft OEI performance, you need a Seneca II or a Turbo Twin Com (not sure about the Turbo Seminole). But unless you live in Switzerland or Austria, where is this a real show stopper? Me thinks for most of the operation, say over Germany, Netherlands, France, e.t.c. you can save your butt with an OEI drift down ceiling of between 5000 and 7000 ft quite nicely, also you don’t sink like a rock from, say, 12k ft, you drift down with about 200-300 fpm. With a decent moving terrain or even better a good synthetic vision setup, you should even be able to follow valleys to an alternate if you get caught out over the mountains.
My dream airplane to this day is the Turbo Twin Commanche or, failing that, a normal Twin Commanche. But looking at the figures I see from the Cougar, I might consider one (if I ever upgrade to a Twin). It will do everything I need to do and do it quite economically.
As for the advertized one: If one has a good avionics shop who can do a decent upgrade not too expensive, here is your chance to take a “white sheet” airplane and make it yours. It’s a pity they don’t show the interior and the panel, whether there is e.g an Autopilot there which can be brought back to life, or similar, but generally, if the airframe is sound, it may well be a steal.
Oh, and I just saw, it is actually de-iced. Now that makes it quite interesting. TKS? Thermowing? Props only? Not sure, but worth looking into. Maybe @Alioth might know more about this.
