Multi-engine wisdom sought:

I'm going to buy a twin for training and also to have a more capable plane around for longer x-cntry trips (which I do, admittedly, infrequently) - to augment my Super III.

I just don't do the 'renting' thing anymore - so, I am planning on getting commercial insurance on the twin and naming two (ONLY TWO) MEIIs I personally know who will do dual only multi- ratings in it as well to supplement the maintenance costs of the plane. I don't know about where you live, but here in NYC area there are dozens and dozens of pilots looking to get multi and commercial multi ratings to move along to ATP norms and there are literally ZERO planes to do them in. I could name the number of hours per month I could work the twin with just two ready MEIs.

I've been searching for a while - and I've really settled on a Seneca - seems to check all the boxes for what I want. I've actually found two that are (I think) very reasonably priced (and I think the twin market has been softening recently).

Both planes are pretty similar in specs: about 3000TT airframes, engines done within last 7 years and between 350 and 500 SOH. Props the same - and the panels are both very decent - not full glass, but not legacy either. Both with working A/P's.

One is a Seneca I - at a bit more than 100k. The other, a Seneca III, at a bit more than 200k. 10 years separate their birth dates.

For training, the less powerful lycomings of the (I) seem more robust and able to last longer in that kind of environment, while for traveling, the 220hp Contis of the (III) far more capable. A plus on the III, it has intercoolers installed.

Money is, of course a factor. But here you go: What would you buy? The Seneca I for 100k or the Seneca III for 200k ?

Let 'er rip. I'll be making a decision in the next two weeks. Thanks.

Seneca I for training. No doubt the two or three are better for personal use but but turbo contentials would likely be more expensive to operate than N/A Lycomings in a training environment. Plus if if you own it long enough to need an engine or 2 the continentals are currently about 20K more on a pallet. The labor to change them would be more as well.

However, if it was going to be just personal I think the 2-5 would be the way to go.

I flew a III with inter coolers and it was a mid 170s plane at 8k most days. That would be my choice.

Interesting note was that the III with inter coolers had Johnson bar flaps, and another III that I flew with inter coolers had electric flaps. I liked the first plane better.

The 2-5 Senecas had fixed wastegate turbos. In training, I don’t think a person would really be boosting them to the max, then cutting an engine, so I don’t feel like that would be an issue.

The only issue I see with the IIIs is the more expensive engine if it ever needs one.

Hi Daniel I got my first multi and IR nearly fifty years ago on a Seneca I, and I have fair bit of time on the I and the V.

On your specific question, a 3000 AFTT Seneca 1 is a relatively rare, low time, example. I have noticed that BT can be a bit dismissive on the Seneca I, but it is a good, solid airplane, especially if you are only using it for MEP class rating instruction. The aileron design is a bit more prosaic than the subsequent versions of the type, but the handling is vice free, if not Beechcraft level sprightly. I believe the Seneca 1 has never had a Vmca related accident, and has a good safety record. This is due to the counter rotating, bullet proof, normally aspirated, Lycoming four banger engines, combined with an effective tail fin and rudder. In effect slightly, under powered but with a long moment arm from CG to the rudder.

In cool, close to sea level, country like New York, SE performance is fine for ME training. Please note that in the UK the asymmetric go around and circuit is practised a lot as part of the training, and the Seneca I is benign in this respect.

It is also a perfectly comfortable, cross country light IFR MEP. With fuel at wet bottoms (there are two tanks per wing, but the fuel filler is on the outer tank) it means you have around 60 USG out of 98 USG, which will allow a generous payload and around 250NM with a generous VFR reserve. No club seating and lower total useable fuel than later versions, but can be operated as a six seater on shorter legs (1000 lbs payload with 60 USG). Expect around 145 KTAS on around 20 USGPH. With full fuel, assume around 550 NM VFR and a comfortable four passenger and luggage cruiser.

Maintenance is straightforward although the electro-hydraulic gear needs to be well maintained and the lower gear retraction speed restriction respected. Heavy control in pitch leads to a tendency to land on the nose wheel if instructors are not familiar on type.

The next versions have all the complexity/expense of the turbocharger, and only the V version benefits from an intercooler. They are much heavier than the I with less loading flexibility and much less practical useful load-and on a HP/LB ratio not a lot of extra power. The V engines are well designed but the II through IV need to be handled sensitively to avoid over boost, and respecting the max power limitations. Not a good set up for ME initial training.

It doesn’t take the brains of a bishop to realise that I regard the Seneca I as a very good, multi engine trainer. The turbo charged versions come in FIKI form (there are Seneca I which are FIKi) and are arguably a better IFR platform somewhere like New York, but for VFR multi rating training the Seneca I is a better proposition.

There is a reason nearly all the Seneca I's are being used for training. They are pretty underpowered and were very cheap because they have little use out of the training environment. A good number of them have turbos installed to get any engine out performance out of them.

For a personal plane that you will actually travel in, the Seneca II through V will do the job well. I am not a huge fan of the turbo 360 Continental, but the later versions seem to do a lot better than the early versions.

It is a pretty good learning curve jumping into a Seneca II+ for you first multi experience - for that I would prefer the Seneca I. The multi rating usually does not take much time - might be a good option to get the rating quickly and then build competence in a Seneca II - V .

If you want a good 4 cylinder Lycoming powered trainer that you can use after the rating the Twin Comanche or Travel Air is a better option.

Not sure I’d own a Seneca, it would be like owning a 172, it’s really a twin for the sake of being a twin for the training world

What about a twin Comanche or something

I ran a multi flight school with a TravelAir a few decades ago and almost did it again a few years ago. Enjoy the commercial insurance quote. BTDT about 3 years ago.

The three aircraft I narrowed my search on were the Twinkie, TravelAir, and Seneca I. There are few TravelAirs with dual brakes but plenty of Senecas and Twinkies. Parts availability on the Seneca fleet is pretty readily available and plenty of mechanics have worked on them. I did training in a Seneca II in WV and in a Seneca I in Savannah. They are great planes and the Lycoming IO-360 and LIO-360 are great engines. The Lycoming 360 engines are just phenomenal engines.

My opinion would be to go with the I if it's mechanically sound and passes prebuy. The other folks hit on the downsides of the II and III in a flight school operation.

I believe Action Multi Ratings in Groton has a small fleet of Seneca I aircraft and they have been very successful with them. Also, I have seen the Seneca I and II doing blood runs years ago. They are a smaller workhorse of an aircraft than the 'AzTruck' and rarely have unexpected problems.

The other thing is to reach out to the trusted multi DPEs that you might use once you have the plane. You may have to get them some Seneca I time and ensure they are comfortable with the aircraft.

Good luck with your school! Hopefully you find some success and end up with a Baron A55 or B55 President II as your advanced trainer here in a few years.

Thanks for the replies. As expected, the choice isn’t cut and dried. There’s always the question of how I arrived at the Seneca choice. I didn’t want to go into it, would just lead to another thread and the decision of the lyc or Conti is at hand today. My cheap instinct is towards the I, because heck , 100 amu is 100 amu, with the option of actually foregoing hull insurance entirely, saving maybe 6k a year compared to the III, maybe more. Plus, I have experience with the lyc 360 in 2 planes I’ve owned, they’ve proven bulletproof while I hear stories of Conti io360s burning up cylinders in ME flight training if even slightly abused.

But turbos =altitude and performance and it’s a compelling choice too.


Anybody got more to add? I’m enjoying this.

Since the primary purpose is training no question, the I. As for cross country, there is not a huge difference with the III and in the end the turbo engines will require more maintenance and $$$s, especially if used for training.

I have absolutely no expertise in this, but it seems like your two purposes are at odds with each other. One is "cheap to run ME trainer with few down days" and the other is "better performance for personal travel." I think you're gonna have to decide which one of those is most important to you.

To me, the standout facts here are infrequent need for this plane for your personal trips and the $100k price difference. Does that extra performance from the III really have a measurable difference on your trips that you want to pay $100k for? Does it let you make trips that you couldn't with the I?

Got my ME in a Seneca 1...........then flew various other twins, and realized how crappy a I is. If you are buying for long term, go for the III. Find a type-knowledgeable training/transition instructor, and move on down the road. Otherwise, buy a Baron.

Difference is in the handling.

The 1 ailerons are quite a bit shorter span than the others.

II and up have a rudder servo tab

Elevator bobweight II and up.

Keep in mind that the 200 hp injected Lyc is an angle valve, which is not quite as bulletproof an engine as the parallel valve Lycomings.

Still a great engine but ...

Cylinders - New - are much more expensive for the angle valve engine.

I have a IV. Do not do multi training in a turbo seneca. The engines aren't bad when handled appropriately but will definitely bite you if mishandled. Also, a complete shutdown causes loss of oil pressure to a fast spinning turbo- not great for longevity. Great planes for actual travel though, and can tolerate occasional recurrent training. But OH is likely at least $80k, but I know someone that blew an engine recently and OH was $100k for TSIO360

Depending on load and expected passengers, a twinkie would be a nice combo trainer and 2-3person traveling plane. Nice speed, handles well, solid lycomings.

Keep in mind that the 200 hp injected Lyc is an angle valve, which is not quite as bulletproof an engine as the parallel valve Lycomings.

Still a great engine but ...

Cylinders - New - are much more expensive for the angle valve engine.