BeechTalk - BT - Piper Seneca II (-200T)

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Jan 2015, 09:24

Username Protected wrote:

When it came time to get a twin I did look at the II. What I didn't like was the cost to O/H the TSIO-360.

How does the cost to O/H TSIO-360 any different than another twin? IIRC, our last quote to O/H both engines was ~70AMU. What does a B55 or B58 run?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Jan 2015, 16:23

Did that 70 AMU include the turbo? It's my understanding you can expect to do the turbo at mid time and at TBO. My only experience with the plane was 20 years ago so take it easy on me.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jan 2015, 01:56

Username Protected wrote:

When it came time to get a twin I did look at the II. What I didn't like was the cost to O/H the TSIO-360.

How does the cost to O/H TSIO-360 any different than another twin? IIRC, our last quote to O/H both engines was ~70AMU. What does a B55 or B58 run?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jan 2015, 08:28

I went with the IO-470 and the belt driven alt. I thought the turbo would run you a few AMU more at O/H. I like the back door on the II but went with the Beech. It's not like I think it's a bad plane. I wouldn't turn down a good II but I went with the Beech.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jan 2015, 09:28

Flew a 1980 Seneca II side by side with a 1964 B55 Baron for two years.

Neither had deice.

The Seneca had AC and a horrible zero fuel weight limit, so filling all seats was not an option. Was quiet and lots of room, easy to overgross. Used it primarily with two to three people. Pretty basic plane, with no mods.

The Baron was better in every aspect except noise and room. Short field favored the Seneca but not by much and only landing. Baron was cheaper and faster and MUCH better on one. Maintenance was higher on the Seneca. The Baron also handled significantly better.