Had a quick look at the Seneca I in question today on the way out and it is a nice example, as nice as I ever saw one, certainly much better than the one I used to fly. (That one had Rajay’s though).
Just to give an idea: Engines, props are very recently overhauled to full TBO capability. It’s got quite good avionics too, a Sandel HSI, WAAS GNS, recent AP and weather radar, as well as even radio altitude and, from what I see, it had been taken care of lovingly. From the equipment, it should be LPV capable. And it is maintained by one of the best maintenance organisations I know in this country.
I honestly have to say for the conditions Vladimir shows here, it’s hard to beat if you want to fly a twin. And even a Seneca I will outdo any SEP with one engine out, provided it happens either high enough or over terrain lower than 5000 ft.
What I still recommend is that Vladimir should absolutely go fly with it. He is used to the Seneca II and it will be worth looking at the performance difference of the I. But if he is happy with it, my recommendation under his mission profile would be to go for it.
Approximately 1300 CHF vs 450 CHF. I should add about 50 CHF to the Seneca for overhaul though, it’s not included and if I decide to stay with it 10 years, I will need it. That is by the way when flying 40 hours per year with the T303 vs 20 hours with the Seneca. If I were to fly 20 hours with the T303, it would probably be at least 200 on top because of fix costs.
Would you be willing to share the prices, or rather they remain secret? I pay £500 (wet) per hour for a T303. A comparable Seneca I goes for £350 (wet) at the same airfield. The Crusader is better equipped and in better cosmetic shape.
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.
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.
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
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…
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.
