|
|||||||
| Airplane Ownership aircraft owners, future aircraft owners, and wannabe aircraft owners. |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
04-29-2006, 12:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
BE58 is a little faster and flies a little heavier. I love my Seneca II and the V's are so much more refined. I also think the seating is much more comfortable in the PA34 vs. the 58. I also get out of the BE58 feeling like I need a massage. You sit pretty straight in those seats.
Go with the Seneca. You can't beat it! Let me know if you need dual instruction to meet insurance reqs! Michael 
|
|
10-15-2006, 11:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have flown both a lot but never owned one. The Baron is like most Beech's, it's a pilot's airplane: crisp handling and fun to fly. The Seneca is not nearly as fun to fly but has one of the widest cabins in general aviation,(same as the cherokee six and lance/saratoga, I believe). Anyway if you are going to be flying by yourself most of the time, I would get the Baron. If you are going to be carrying passengers a lot and comfort is important, Seneca's are very roomy in comparison.
|
|
10-15-2006, 07:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Consider a Cessna 310!
|
|
10-24-2006, 12:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Baron, there is no substitute!
|
|
11-07-2006, 06:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
11-18-2006, 12:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
which one?
I've owned both. The seneca does have more room and you can buy a lot newer seneca for the same money than a baron; however, I am now flying a baron and I prefer it. It is faster and more agile. Depends on what you want.
|
|
01-10-2007, 12:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
this may be more of a brand generalizaton than a baron vs. seneca list, but maybe it will be helpful...
piper built like, well, an aluminum aircraft (see below) easy to find people to work on it parts aren't too hard to find or expensive to purchase (relatively speaking) beech built like a bank vault harder to find people to work on it parts can be obscenely expensive. you won't believe it until it happens to you are you set on turbo or non-turbo? that might be the first place to draw your lines deciding which plane is right. also you said baron, but not which one. i was always partial to the b55, mostly because we didn't need the extra room (nor the extra fuel burn) that a 58 provided. b55 vs b58 vs seneca covers a lot of differences, i guess it would be interesting to hear more about your needs.
|
|
12-01-2007, 02:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Baron turbo 58 Vs Seneca
There are both great aircraft, the big diference is speed , you can carry about the same amount of souls or loads, The baron 58 turbo cruises at 180 to 200 Knts , the Seneca 160 to 170 Knts, VMC is lower in the seneca, if you need to land in short runways no hassle, the Seneca is the one, no Baron can matched a Seneca In short landing and take off, no Seneca would matched a Baron turbo in speed, I`ve flown both,worked with them , and carrried passengers and cargo, the Seneca is a little cheaper to operate and mantain than the Baron but it won`t break your bank account,it depends for what tou want and airplane for.
|
|
12-10-2007, 06:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just curious,
You did not mention the Cessna 340A in your choices, it’s my personal favorite. Cruise at 200kts, 36GPH fuel flow, pressurized (very cool), 5 seats (ok six, but cramped), and 800nm range and you can stretch your legs. The B58 is a great airplane, like the man said, it’s a tank. The 340A is stout aircraft. The piper, I’m not so sure. They are fine aircraft, but they simply are not as robust as the B58 or the 340A. They have had a number of tailplane separations in flight, check the NTSB stats (NTSB - Aviation Accident Database Query). When you are in heavy chop and look in the back seats and see you family, you will want a B58 or a 340A under you. Also critical engine survivability will go to the B58 and 340A with a RamVI, you need the power to make it happen. Just my opinion
|
Linear Mode
