My primary mission is carting the wife and two kids (currently 1 and 6, but growing rapidly) and optionally the 50 lb dog around on trips to destinations that are 450 and 700nm from the home base. In another year or two the Bahamas will be added to that list.

Right now I'm renting an SR22 (G1) with a V35B as a backup when then SR22 is in for maintenance or booked. I actually prefer the way the V35B flies, lands and sounds. It's a very nice airframe and I see why people fall in love with them. The huge baggage door makes for easier loading/unloading as well. However since my engine out (Arrow) I've concluded no matter how firmly the odds may be stacked against having engine issues, I can't in good conscience do regular trips with the family in a plane with no "out". So that means either a chute or twin for Plan A.

One thing I really don't like about the SR22 is the way it eats runway on landings. The brakes are awful and it takes me ~3500 ft to safely stop. I'm told by more practiced people that ~3000 is a good number once you get better dialed in. The book says 2428 at sea level and 30C/86F and perfect technique so that's not too far off. I would love to land at 1D2 (2300 ft) because it is closer to my usual destination but I always land at KYIP since it is way longer (7000+). I would never dream of landing in 2300 ft in the SR22.

And although the chute may be great over land, it seems in a ditching scenario (e.g. going to Bahamas) it can be a serious liability once you splash down and it starts pulling on the plane. That Coast Guard video of the ferry pilot illustrates how little time you can have to exit with the chute pulling. The odds of getting the wife and two kids out in that amount of time are very low.

So call me crazy but I started looking at Senecas because one of the local flight clubs here has one for a not unreasonable hourly dry rate, and I saw they have cabin seating and that nice big back door. That's a game changer when loading the family, and the extra useful load even means we can even stuff the dog in there.

So pros of the SR22:
* Not a Piper
* Modern air frame for ~150k
* Market is well priced - lots of planes for sale and they are all pretty much identical

Cons of SR22:
* Poor short field performance
* Chute over the ocean seems sketchy with passengers
* Continental engine
* G1 avionics seem troublesome (something about short wiring harnesses installed at the factory)

Pros of Seneca:
* Plenty of planes for sale for same or cheaper than a SR22 G1 (yes, the whole twin value thing is a huge asterisk)
* Club seating/back door
* Two engines so forced landing is very unlikely
* Better short field performance than SR22

Cons of Seneca:
* TWO Continental engines with short overhaul periods (TSIO-360s @ 1400 hrs TBO on Seneca II, 1800 hrs on Seneca III)
* Burns a bit more fuel but honestly not a whole lot more than an SR22
* Value/depreciation of twin airframes means you basically have to find one with good engines AND avionics to make a purchase make sense
* If I were to buy one I'd definitely want to find a partner to reduce the financial risk of having two (Continental) engines

So what are your thoughts on this topic?

Honestly, this is a matter of your personal comfort and not logic. The likelihood of an engine out injury is very low in any airplane, even less likely over water. Twins have their own issues.

One option is just look for both and buy the first good plane you fly.

I think the Seneca at $150K will probably be a better value than an SR22 at the same price, and depreciate less. The G1's will be coming up on chute replacement #2 soon - might not wanna be the first guy to go through that.

The twin market is very much so in the buyers advantage. If it were me, I'd take a Bo over the Seneca. There is just more value you in it, both now and later. I suspect cost of ownership will be about the same until you have engine parts needing replacement. Now your paying MX for two powerplants. But, but but, its a twin so its safer right? Its a Seneca

Exactly. We do this for fun.

I personally prefer a twin, I just feel better in one. Over the years I have had three major mechanical engine problems, 1 in a single and 2 in a twin. The single required a rescue flight for my friend in his cub the retrieve me and a later trip to get the plane, both the occurrences in a twin I simply returned home.

As for the cost of ownership, the single will most likely cost less: One less engine and propeller and fixed gear. Simply less moving parts. Moving parts, especially FAA PMA'ed ones, cost $$$.

Another consideration is your experience level, twins to be operated to the level that will give a noticeably better safety record requires a more experienced pilot. There are twice as many engine systems to monitor and when one fails there are a number of decisions that need to be made correctly and in a timely manner to achieve a successful outcome. With a single, when the engine quits a lot of the decision-making has just been made for you... you are ging to land, and soon!

At the end of the day, there is no denying the attraction of a second engine. When I'm flying a twin and an engine stumbles it's , with a single it's !!

I have never owned a Senica, I did use a II for my multi sooo many years ago, but it's a very good airplane. Will haul a load of ice, or just about anything else you can stuff in it.

Go for the twin, especially with Bahamas in the cards where the chute is useless. But why on earth would you pick the Seneca. Get a 55 or 58 Baron.

+100


Matt

Seneca III. I had one, it was a great plane. 1500 pound useful load, with air conditioning. Full long range fuel weighed 750. A tad slow, but not too bad.

The engines of the Seneca II are not as powerful as the Baron (or Twin Cessna), so an engine out experience may be more challenging in a Seneca.

Twins offer great value for the current (depressed) purchase prices, but the maintenance costs can of course be a bit more than in a single.

More room.

Ray - as I was reading this, my first thought was "cue the suggestions of a 55 or 58 Baron"... You had to know that was coming, right? lol

I have a C55 Baron, which I LOVE. Previously, I've had a Travel Air and an SR-22 also Gen 1.

I like, and enjoy all three planes. I have never flown a Seneca, mainly because I don't know anyone who has one, and have never had the opportunity.

It would be easy for me to recommend the Baron, and it'd be a good choice. If I was in your situation, I'd be looking at the single engine service ceiling for the Seneca loaded the way you intend to fly it, and then loaded by the way you'll fly it as the kids grow.

If you intend to fly a twin for the reasons you've suggested, and it doesn't hold altitude at a single engine ceiling that is good enough for you to reach a runway, then it doesn't much matter whether you have a single or a twin.

As a point of comparison, I have 1000lbs useful with full fuel, my Baron will hold a single engine ceiling of 7000 ft, I've tested it in reasonable weather and it does that. That was important to me.

You really can't go wrong with a Cirrus either, they are great planes. I loved mine, but ask yourself how quickly you'll run out of useful load as the kids grow up.

My wife would tell you she would prefer the Cirrus, it was no contest. Not even for the parachute either, she loves the fact that it's comfortable and built like her car. She had her own door, and the stick was not in her way. With the Baron I always fly with a single yoke to give her room, not sure you have that option in a Seneca. The happier my wife is, the more willing she is to fly with me...

Good luck and let us know what you decide.

Also Senecas are turbocharged except for the I model, the single engine service ceiling will be perfectly fine for anything east of the Rockies.

And the passenger compartment of the Seneca is luxurious compared to the Cirrus or 55 Baron.

If you're not a fan of Continental engines, get an Aztec. I think Sarasota Avionics had one at SnF with the middle seats out, new paint, and all new panel. That sucker was like a limo in back. Two 250hp 540 Lycs without turbos are just "loafing" out there, though they do burn fuel. Also not the fastest.

I did my MEI in the Seneca II, it was a good, simple twin, and AC would be nice if equipped. It handles like the Cherokee Six though, which means like a one ton PU without power steering. On the plus side, it had no problem going to the lower teens.

The Seneca might be turbocharged but a 520/550 Baron will outperform it probably up to 10000 ft?

A Seneca flys like a truck and a Baron well like an airplane.

Im not a Cirrus guy but you must be landing too fast or something as 3500 ft to stop a Cirrus looks looooong...

In the very narrow, essentially irrelevant case of SE service ceiling the 220hp/side TC seneca will very much outperform a 260hp baron and perhaps a 300hp one also.