To quote a piece of text, put a > in front of it.
This works for only one paragraph at a time however - this is intentional to stop some people quoting a massive post from somebody else, perhaps complete with pictures etc, which happens on all other sites and makes the thread almost unreadable. The system here makes people think a bit as regards which item they are replying to.
If you need to quote more than one paragraph then you need to put a > before each one.
The "Quotes" button merely places a > before the text.
Re 1999kg, it may be a fact that many operators ignore the limit in the POH - it is only a change of paper - but then why not ignore any other limit also?
A plane has no inherent MTOW limit provided that (a) it remains loaded within the forward/aft envelope and (b) you make the appropriate adjustment for the rotation and landing speeds, and therefore the runway size (which in turns helps with (a) and (c) you respect the structural limits (which are mostly undocumented, but e.g. the TB20 has a 250kg (IIRC) rear seat limit) 
What I was suprised to hear recently is that the majority of G-reg Senecas on AOCs are reportedly 1999kg. Reportedly, the saving on IFR route charges outweighs the loss of official payload (which on an AOC operation does "supposedly" need to be respected).
Looking at planecheck.com one can get some nicely equipped PA34s for round about 100kEUR and quite a few for less.
A PA34 for under €100k may not be in the best condition and then you are stuck with (a) loads of avgas and (b) high maintenance because the airframe and avionics are shagged. Not a good combination.
You missed the point Peter. The Seneca would be stripped anyway to replace the engines with SMA 305s and a panel upgrade at the same time. The question was "suitable" airframes to apply an STC to. And there was no mention of a cost cap...
And, just because it's cheap doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. The Seneca is not a sought after aircraft these days due to high fuel burn (relative to a Panthera, I guess) and that is reflected in the price.
I know of a Seneca V from ´99 sold recently in this neck of the woods. It had brand new engines and props and a fully loaded panel with dual everything, including hot plates and full right side panel, extra heater etc. It didn't fetch much, but is a really nice airplane. Sure, it's not the latest gadgetry but, known Ice, oxygen, etc etc. Probably a two place if you stay under 1999kg, but still.
While I'm dreaming I'd like to stick a couple of RR250 B17Fs on the Navajo...
If I was making a new engine I would not look at twins, whose market has been shrinking continuously for years, and had been shrinking long before the current recession.
I would look at high-performance singles whose values are still reasonably high and which exist in reasonable numbers e.g. the SR22 or the TB20/21. There are hundreds of each of those in Europe and being relatively recent, one might expect the owners to be more willing to pay for the conversion. If a plane's market value is down to say €80k then the owner probably won't pay say €80k for a diesel engine, unless he's putting literally hundreds of hours a year onto it.
The twin market seems to have shrunk to (a) private owners who already have a twin, who want 2 engines but can't move to anything new due to the capital cost and (b) the FTO business, which can operate anything so long as it has 2 engines - even the Tecnam. I think most DA42s were sold to FTOs.
Who says that is what people do? The 1999kg are on paper.
Sure. But many Senecas (including all 4 different Senecas that I have flown!) have been damaged in landing accidents at least once. And whenever you have an accident, someone is going to investigate. And then it is better if you can show W&B calculations that are within limits... I have always tried (more or less successfully) to stay within those limits, especially when flying a 1999kg Seneca.
Does that mean you haven't flown it? It's not such a bad airplane really.
I have flown it. 200 hours plus/minus a few. Even got paid to fly it. But I would not fly it again unless I needed to get away from an erupting volcano real quick. Of all piston twins that I had the pleasure to fly (Pa44, Pa34 (variants II, III and V), C303, C404, C414, C421) the Seneca is the only one I really didn't like. Unpleasant handling and control forces, poor outside view, unergonomic cockpit, unrealiable heater, tricky to land, awfully uncomfortable for the passengers, pooooor cruise performance (with exception of the Seneca V). If you get a chance, try a Cessna 303 Crusader, then a direct competitor to the Seneca! A difference like day and night. Or a 421, what a lovely aircraft, but of course in a different category than the Seneca.
Yes, the T303 is a fantastic aircraft but very rare (spare parts!) and more than 2 tons. Even though the Eurocontrol fees only make a small difference in the overall equation, they are a cost factor that one can influence. I was considering a T303 at some point and I still think it's the nicest non pressurized piston twin ever built.
Well that explains your opinion on the Seneca. :) I've only flown the I and II myself but I know what you mean about visibility, heavy controls, bad seating, landing etc. Still, I like the old dog, for some odd reason. Maybe because it's the first twin I ever flew.
The Crusader is supposedly a very nice aircraft, too bad it hit the market too late. Perhaps that's a suitable twin for upgrade, but I'm thinking it would be a little underpowered with the diesel. From a business perspective (speaking of twins) the Seneca must have the better potential based on market volume so even though it's not the greatest aircraft ever built I think I'd place my bets there.
337 maybe? :D
337 maybe?
Yes, you can buy it for the current aluminium price It's a good aircraft although the gear system is over complex and thus error prone. Its engines deliver 210hp so that would fit well. The biggest issue (in my opinion) is how loud it is (you're sandwiched between the engines) but that should be a lot better with the low rpm SMA engine.
Nothing beats a 337's ramp appeal. Very odd looking aircraft
making a counterrotating engine means a completely new design and thus certification.
the engine seems about 100lbs heavier than the tsio-360-e of the seneca II but that aircraft has a lot of extra capacity. Especially if you consider a fuel burn of 14gph total versus 25.
I disagree with Peter in the sense that he main reason all twins have become cheap is the fuelburn. The DA42 seemed to tackle that until the engine problems started And the gearbox is a weak point.
Would I prefer a Seneca with 2 Sma (and otherwise in good and comparable condition with a similar single? Absolutely.
@what next .. You are the first I have come across who is incredibly negative about the Seneca. Every other review is extremely positive . calling it a mini and unpressurized King Air capable of any weather you trow at it .
For the other mentioned twins ... a big block diesel like the 400bhp which was just announced would be ideal..
For the TB20 you would like more Bhp than the 230.
I disagree with Peter in the sense that he main reason all twins have become cheap is the fuelburn
I don't think I would say that either. I think it's a big reason, but the reason for the steady decline in the market preceeds the recent avgas price rises, and is probably to do with most people having decided that a single engine is good enough for what they want.
SE failures (excluding pilot errors e.g. running out of fuel) barely feature in the accident stats and most people seem happy to accept it.
And now it has become a circular argument because as a result of the low demand we have a relatively small choice of new twins on the market, with the most prominent example by far having had severe reliability issues. Also all the modern stuff is SE and most people with money prefer something modern.
A twin can deliver a lot. I know a pilot who bought a 421C, stripped it down to bare metal and had it rebuilt, all the way down to re-doing the veneered cabinets. My only ME time (1.5hrs) is in that plane, and it was super smooth and really classy. The mission capability is very good, with a ~FL250 ceiling, de-ice and radar.
For the TB20 you would like more Bhp than the 230.
The TB20 goes fine on the existing 250HP but 300HP would be better, of course.
However a 230HP turbo engine will be better than the 250HP IO-540 as soon as you climb up above something like 2000ft.
@what next .. You are the first I have come across who is incredibly negative about the Seneca. Every other review is extremely positive . calling it a mini and unpressurized King Air capable of any weather you trow at it .
Interesting! I like "mini King Air"... have you ever sat in a passenger seat of a Seneca? The seating position comes close the the "crash position" that you are supposed to assume when an airliner makes a forced landing - with your knees touching your chin.
I see it with the eyes of a professional aviator: The aeroplane is my office where I spend a substantial portion of my working time. Every office worker dreams of a corner office on the 25th floor overlooking some Hawaiian scenery, furnished with comfortable designer stuff, a 27inch iMac on the desk that a pretty Hawaiian girl is operating for him so that all he has to do is to sit back, relax, enjoy and have a coffee every half hour or so. In my world, that would be a corporate A319 or similar. On that scale, a Seneca is a 2 by 2 metre booth in the basement of a concrete office block with nothing but a wooden chair to sit on and a plank supporting a 1982 MS-DOS computer with a flickering green monitor and a noisy cooling fan...
And yes, you are right about the anti-icing capabilities of the Seneca - this is the only point that I appreciate about this aeroplane.
