banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 11:44 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Seneca III vs B55 Baron
PostPosted: 29 Oct 2020, 18:10 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/20/16
Posts: 6406
Post Likes: +7871
Location: Austin, TX area
Aircraft: OPA
I'd vote for the Aztec, 250hp IO540s just loafing along on each wing.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Seneca III vs B55 Baron
PostPosted: 29 Oct 2020, 18:39 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3343
Post Likes: +1948
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
Username Protected wrote:
In the next 12-18 months, I’ll be starting the search for a family hauling twin. Mission will be 400-700 nm with two adults and three kids- 17, 12 and 7. We live in the upper Midwest with plenty of ice and snow and I don’t want to fly a single engine in IMC, hence the need for two motors. I would like to keep the budget around $200k, but the CPA wife might let me stretch it out to $250k for the right machine. I would also like to keep reasonable operating costs- 25-27 gph and no pressurization. I’m okay with 175-180 knots in a Piper or faster in a Baron.

I’ve narrowed the search to a Seneca III or B55. I’ve got a couple hundred hours in a Seneca II but never flown a Baron. It seems like you can get a nice turn key model of either airplane for around $200k. I just wanted to get some opinions on the pros and cons of each. Reliability?

It’s nice most of the Seneca IIIs are FIKI. I know they do well in ice and the cabin is wide and comfortable. The II I flew was pretty reliable, very few maintenance issues over the year I flew it.

Being a Beechcraft message board, I’ll expect the bias, but a 55 is a good machine, so I’ll look forward to the opinions.



I owned a Seneca II for about a decade. I think you're pointed clearly toward the Seneca III. The Seneca III has some incremental improvements over the II. (the original Seneca with non-turbo Lycomings no need to go there).

I like flying the 55, it is a nice plane. It's a pilot's airplane, no doubt.

But the mission is clearly going to tip towards the Seneca III in this case. Go with FIKI and most of the III's have club seating. They do haul a load and the III has some improvements in Zero Fuel Weight. Although the engines are rated for more power, in reality, they're the same exact engines with different redlines on the gauges. Use the much more conservative Seneca II power setting table for cruise and you'll be rewarded with longer engine life.

Besides FIKI, the other huge difference between the Seneca III and the 55 is turbocharged engines. Those will buy you more options and ways-outta-here than anything else, including FIKI. The Seneca III will maintain >12000' on a single engine. They do very well if you follow the commandment to always fly under gross weight.

Since you've already flown the II, the III is really no different. It drives like a pickup truck, the 55 can be right sporty and more fun. But the Seneca III will get the job done.

Some have described the Seneca II/III as, "the least airplane that can be scheduled to arrive". That I'd have to agree with. You're not going through bad ice and you're not going through thunderstorms, but in most cases, you can say, "I'll be there at..." and it will happen.

I may be wrong, but I think the only 55 that are FIKI are those with an aftermarket TKS system installed. I don't think the factory-booted 55's are FIKI, but I may be incorrect.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Seneca III vs B55 Baron
PostPosted: 29 Oct 2020, 20:37 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/16/10
Posts: 8884
Post Likes: +1954
I miss my Seneca III. I currently have a G58. I miss the turbocharging the most. Over mountains going to Florida, it would be nice if singe engine I could maintain altitude and not have to drift down into icing conditions.

Slower it is, but it is a nice plane with gentle manners. Baron on one engine will kput me into clouds and icing. (Yeah, I miss typed kput, but somehow it seems to fit)

Slower, but trouble happens slower too. I do sort of miss that.

_________________
If you think nobody cares about you. Try not paying your income tax.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Seneca III vs B55 Baron
PostPosted: 29 Oct 2020, 21:00 
Online


 Profile




Joined: 01/22/19
Posts: 870
Post Likes: +634
Location: KFXE
/quote]

Senecas are actually 7" wider than Barons.[/quote]

Aztecs are 48" wide in the front and middle, and 44 inches wide at the rear seats. The cabin is nine inches taller than a Seneca, and all six people sit up in full size seats. No one is eating their knees, or touching the headliner, like the middle and back rows of a Seneca. Or sitting on the floor in the back of a 310 with your knees above your hips. All are facing forward, and have storage under each seat. None of the silly club seating smashed knees nonsense. You can get up out of the front seats in flight, and make your way to the back seats with very little trouble. You can't do that in a Baron or a Seneca.

_________________
A&P/IA/CFI/avionics tech KFXE


Top

 Post subject: Re: Seneca III vs B55 Baron
PostPosted: 29 Oct 2020, 23:43 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 02/11/09
Posts: 1350
Post Likes: +457
Location: Tucson, AZ (57AZ)
Aircraft: 1960 Bonanza M35
Quote:
Ken, I'm curious why you take the Seneca over the Baron? You've owned both, I'd like to hear your rationale. Once the older daughter is off to college, we'll likely be hauling four most of the time. There will still be an occasional trip with five when she comes along.


Five people. Four people, the Baron is fine. But that 5th person either has to climb over two rows of seats or enter through the baggage door. If you're doing that, you better have the large baggage door. I've done it a couple of times and found it unpleasant for the 3rd row passenger. And you lose some baggage space with a 5th seat in.

Also, turbocharging in the Seneca III is nice as others have mentioned. The TSIO-360 series engines lead long and happy lives if you treat them well. I'm running my 6th and 7th TSIO-360 engines now.

With six (or seven) seats in the Seneca it still has full baggage space behind the 3rd row of seats. Nose baggage is reasonably similar in either airplane. The Seneca has those huge back doors that make passenger loading so easy, no climbing over anything.

The Baron will be faster, on more fuel. The Seneca with its C/R props, low blue line and almost coincident blue line with red radial, combined with turbos makes it a safer airplane, in my opinion. Few B55s are KI, most Seneca IIIs are.

The Baron handles 1000% better than the Seneca. But realistically most pilots click on the A/P within a couple of minutes after rotation and click it off a couple of minutes prior to landing so the point is mostly moot.

_________________
Ken Reed
57AZ


Top

 Post subject: Re: Seneca III vs B55 Baron
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2020, 00:21 
Online




User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 30418
Post Likes: +10534
Location: Minneapolis, MN (KFCM)
Aircraft: 1970 Baron B55
Username Protected wrote:
Five people. Four people, the Baron is fine. But that 5th person either has to climb over two rows of seats or enter through the baggage door. If you're doing that, you better have the large baggage door. I've done it a couple of times and found it unpleasant for the 3rd row passenger. And you lose some baggage space with a 5th seat in.

Also, turbocharging in the Seneca III is nice as others have mentioned. The TSIO-360 series engines lead long and happy lives if you treat them well. I'm running my 6th and 7th TSIO-360 engines now.

I've been told by a couple of experienced Seneca owners that pushing the power above 65% shortens engine life noticeably Is that part of what you mean by "treat them well"? Do your engines have the Merlyn MAP control system? I've also heard this lets the engines run cooler and live longer.

Quote:
With six (or seven) seats in the Seneca it still has full baggage space behind the 3rd row of seats. Nose baggage is reasonably similar in either airplane. The Seneca has those huge back doors that make passenger loading so easy, no climbing over anything.

ingress/egress for the back seats is much better in the Seneca but for small stature adults and kids getting into a single 5th seat through the large baggage door is pretty easy, not so much with the small door. Also any 55 Baron with extended rear baggage has plenty of room for all the baggage you can carry weight wise, and I think the Baron's nose baggage space has quite a bit more usable volume and weight capacity than a Seneca. What's the Seneca's nose baggage weight limit?
Quote:
The Baron will be faster, on more fuel. The Seneca with its C/R props, low blue line and almost coincident blue line with red radial, combined with turbos makes it a safer airplane, in my opinion. Few B55s are KI, most Seneca IIIs are.

A Baron will also be faster on the same fuel as well.

Finally, if a Colemill B55 PII can be found, it will do about as well as a Seneca II/III on one engine at almost any altitude without the expense and maintenance issues that come with turbocharging. An IO520 modded B55 or an even rarer E55 with IO550s are almost as good on one engine.

_________________
-lance

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Seneca III vs B55 Baron
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2020, 00:22 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/15/18
Posts: 9
Post Likes: +2
Location: Winnipeg Canada
Aircraft: A320
Username Protected wrote:
What about a Navajo? Should be able to find a good one for the budget. Burns more fuel, but hauls more and does pretty good in ice. Way bigger cabin than a Seneca. Lots of them have KFC200 autopilots (as do Seneca IIIs), but with yaw damper. Seneca’s Dutch roll in turbulence more than a Navajo.


Lots of ‘Ho’s in that price range. I have a couple thousand hours in a -350 and it was a really pick up truck. You can have 5 people and a suburbans worth of luggage and your mission is possible. Ice and engine out performance are both better than you will get in a Seneca.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Seneca III vs B55 Baron
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2020, 10:15 
Online


 Profile




Joined: 01/22/19
Posts: 870
Post Likes: +634
Location: KFXE
If the object is traveling with the family, having them enjoy the flight is the first consideration.

Speed alone is not the over-riding factor. If the family is uncomfortable, the plane had better be really fast. The difference between a 170 knot plane and 190 knot plane is only 30 minutes on a max range 800 NM trip. (4.7 vs 4.2 hours) When you consider that most people (non-pilots) don't want to sit more than three hours, the difference is even smaller. In three hours, there are 510 miles covered by the 170 knot plane, versus 570 by the 190 knot plane.

When you figure your average load, and desired distance, you'll rule some planes out right away. Many of those will be the faster planes, since they often don't have the useful load needed. Aerostars come to mind- you can get the blazing speed, but the fuel needed to do that cuts the useful load so much that it's no longer a family hauler.

Club seating is another problem for families. Sounds like a great idea, but try putting four kids in the back. They will fight over the aft seats, because no one wants to ride backwards in the middle row. It's uncomfortable. And they have to share floor space for their feet. Works with babies, and up to about 5 years old. After that it's hell.

The only planes with realistically useful club seating are the Malibu, and the Navajo, or the Cessna 340/414 series. The problem with all of these is you need a large hangar, which can really blow the budget.

Find someone who will let you and the family sit in a Seneca, and then try a Baron. See what fits better.

_________________
A&P/IA/CFI/avionics tech KFXE


Top

 Post subject: Re: Seneca III vs B55 Baron
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2020, 11:06 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/08/12
Posts: 872
Post Likes: +492
Aircraft: D55, C172M, B737
Username Protected wrote:
Club seating is another problem for families. Sounds like a great idea, but try putting four kids in the back. They will fight over the aft seats, because no one wants to ride backwards in the middle row. It's uncomfortable. And they have to share floor space for their feet. Works with babies, and up to about 5 years old. After that it's hell.


Completely agree. Want to see the kids' kicking match? Put the family in club seating. If you go with a 58, turn the middle seats around to face forward and life will improve dramatically. Otherwise, try for a C/D/E55 with IO-550s to get the larger nose baggage and plenty of useful load to carry 5. One adult in the back is not bad at all. I've spent plenty of time back there. Two adults will hate you on any flight longer than an hour.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Seneca III vs B55 Baron
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2020, 11:48 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/27/09
Posts: 1108
Post Likes: +543
Location: Chicago
Aircraft: E55
One consideration I didn’t see: kids grow, get really busy and leave (flee?). We went Baron 5-yrs ago as eldest became bigger than Bonanza could do. We toyed with stepping up again to bigger, pressurized etc. However we under estimated how active teens are: sports, camps, friends—waning desire or ability to travel. Five years later I’m glad we didn’t go bigger, we will be down to two of us in a year or two. Point: the “need” for 5 may rather quickly and unexpected become less of a need...

_________________
-Tim Anderson

The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire


Top

 Post subject: Re: Seneca III vs B55 Baron
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2020, 13:15 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/08/13
Posts: 901
Post Likes: +243
Location: Lander, WY
Aircraft: Duke B60
Username Protected wrote:
One consideration I didn’t see: kids grow, get really busy and leave (flee?). We went Baron 5-yrs ago as eldest became bigger than Bonanza could do. We toyed with stepping up again to bigger, pressurized etc. However we under estimated how active teens are: sports, camps, friends—waning desire or ability to travel. Five years later I’m glad we didn’t go bigger, we will be down to two of us in a year or two. Point: the “need” for 5 may rather quickly and unexpected become less of a need...


I had similar thoughts. The OP mentions "in the next 12-18 months" as the shopping window, so, realistically, is the 17-yr old going to be a factor?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Seneca III vs B55 Baron
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2020, 13:29 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 02/14/08
Posts: 3158
Post Likes: +2660
Location: KGBR
Aircraft: D50
viewtopic.php?f=43&t=187626

This would be my suggestion.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Seneca III vs B55 Baron
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2020, 13:37 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 03/11/15
Posts: 152
Post Likes: +114
Company: Trailhead Partners
Location: Austin, TX
Is this even BeechTalk? 3 pages in and no one has mentioned an MU-2? Like $125 an hour I hear...


Top

 Post subject: Re: Seneca III vs B55 Baron
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2020, 15:17 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/24/17
Posts: 1023
Post Likes: +949
Aircraft: A36
Great thread and responses! I've been looking to transition into a piston twin, and was of course looking almost exclusively at Barons. I've always been under the impression that the Senecas were hopelessly underpowered. This thread has changed my perception.

FIKI is really a must for me in the CA/WA. Not because I enjoy flying in forecast icing but because it's hard to avoid all unforecast icing in the winter months around here, given the MEAs. There seem to be a few good Seneca IIIs for sale right now.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Seneca III vs B55 Baron
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2020, 17:38 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 07/23/18
Posts: 15
Post Likes: +1
Aircraft: B757/767
Username Protected wrote:

Speed alone is not the over-riding factor. If the family is uncomfortable, the plane had better be really fast. The difference between a 170 knot plane and 190 knot plane is only 30 minutes on a max range 800 NM trip. (4.7 vs 4.2 hours) When you consider that most people (non-pilots) don't want to sit more than three hours, the difference is even smaller. In three hours, there are 510 miles covered by the 170 knot plane, versus 570 by the 190 knot plane.

Find someone who will let you and the family sit in a Seneca, and then try a Baron. See what fits better.


I’m with you on the speed thing, over 85% of my mission, the difference in speed would be negligible. Rarely will we be flying over 700 nm so that part doesn’t concern me- it’s really only a few minutes either way. Buy the plane that suits 80% of your mission and just deal with the last 20%, right?

I’ll absolutely find a Seneca locally and hopefully a 55 somewhere to sit inside. Maybe even fly. See what’s the most comfortable for the whole crew and go from there. I’m sure the Barons handle better than a Seneca, but I’ve flown enough in a Seneca to know I don’t hate them and if they fit the family, I could deal with the oddities.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.