PA-34-200
- Thread starter Sprint100
- Start date
Alchemy
Well-Known Member
I've got about 80 hours in one....
Handles like a dump truck, very heavy on the pitch controls due to the stabilator configuration.
It's pretty docile for Single Engine work, and a decent training platform in my opinion. Engines are your standard reliable old IO-360's. I think it had counter rotating props too.
The Seneca takes a decent amount of muscle to land, as it's pretty nose heavy in the flare in my experience.
It's got decent payload or range but not both at the same time. Overall a reliable airplane, which is good because most of them are probably getting pretty old by now. Only thing finnicky about the one I flew seemed to be the prop controls, the control cables were always binding up, had to scrub a few flights because we caught that in the runup.
Handles like a dump truck, very heavy on the pitch controls due to the stabilator configuration.
It's pretty docile for Single Engine work, and a decent training platform in my opinion. Engines are your standard reliable old IO-360's. I think it had counter rotating props too.
The Seneca takes a decent amount of muscle to land, as it's pretty nose heavy in the flare in my experience.
It's got decent payload or range but not both at the same time. Overall a reliable airplane, which is good because most of them are probably getting pretty old by now. Only thing finnicky about the one I flew seemed to be the prop controls, the control cables were always binding up, had to scrub a few flights because we caught that in the runup.
OneNineHundy
Well-Known Member
I have 75 hours in the 200. The plane is difficult to land, it is extremely heavy in pitch and this leads to some flat landings. The max demo x-wind is 13kts, compared to the II 17kts. It is terrible in a x-wind, the ailerons are tiny in comparison to the II and III etc. Some people say if you can land a Seneca consistently you can land anything. I think it flies nicely, very stable. It doesn't have a critical engine so during assymetric flight it handles well. Performance is ok, decent for a trainer, however it lacks a turbo and at altitude performance is rubbish.
I now fly the II and it is a much nicer aircraft, however the 200 was my first twin and I really enjoyed flying her.
I now fly the II and it is a much nicer aircraft, however the 200 was my first twin and I really enjoyed flying her.
Lee D
Well-Known Member
I think it is a good stable plane to use for your multi/com. As an instructor, I probably did 5 or 6 multi/coms and 2 or 3 MEI's in a Seneca. You should be fine.
Did a little over 200 hours in a 1. (Also one with after market turbos too.) Much of it was instruction. It is only nose heavy when has two pax in the front. With bags or other people in back, it is not nearly so bad. Though I did not think this issue made the plane super difficult to land with a student and instructor on board. I usually added a fair amount of trim just as I pulled the power before touchdown and that seemed to really help with the heavy nose.
Did a little over 200 hours in a 1. (Also one with after market turbos too.) Much of it was instruction. It is only nose heavy when has two pax in the front. With bags or other people in back, it is not nearly so bad. Though I did not think this issue made the plane super difficult to land with a student and instructor on board. I usually added a fair amount of trim just as I pulled the power before touchdown and that seemed to really help with the heavy nose.