![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I thought some or all of the PA-34-200T Seneca IIs are using TCM's TSIO-360 and LTSIO-360. Would someone who knows well about the subtypes of this craft add this information? I guess this may be one of the examples when explaining the countermeasures against propeller wash. -- Marsian 07:32, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
What is the reason behind this particular light aircraft having three sets of specifications, when aircraft such as the Cessna 172, which have had far more models with many more powerplants, have only one set in accordance with the guidelines? As the guidelines indicate the specifications are "a short summary of aircraft's characteristics and performance." The Seneca would need a pretty strong justification for three sets of specs. - Ahunt ( talk) 22:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The useful load information was not correct for the Seneca V as listed; perhaps the number I removed (988) is actually max payload. Perhaps we need to bring this up in TfD because useful load, empty weight, and payloads are all highly dependent on the aircraft's equipage with optional items over and above the standard equipage. Standard empty weight and useful load could be listed as such, but this is misleading because very few aircraft are built that actually weigh the standard weight; it is really a minimum empty weight. Readers would be much better served knowing the typical empty weight with given optional equipment installed, as we have written in the text of the article. Guerrid ( talk) 21:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there a way we could add max payload and payloads at certain ranges to the template? Is this template used for all aircraft? Wikipedia could be much more useful than the Business and Commercial Aviation Magazine purchase guide if such important information could be listed accurately. It seems that magazines tend to leave out important real-life information in their aircraft summaries probably in deference to their sponsors. If you look a the 2014 B&CA purchase guide, it has mission profiles of 200 and 500 NM, but conveniently left off are the available payloads for those missions. It is also very important to use real numbers from actual POH's in actual aircraft because the standard useful loads are usually best-case numbers, not necessarily reflective of actual aircraft as equipped. This is key information every aircraft buyer/operator should have, so it would be really, really cool if Wikipedia could make that part of the aircraft project to provide that information accurately for every aircraft. Guerrid ( talk) 17:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
For now, maybe we should use the standard empty weight listed in the 2014 B&CA Magazine purchase planning handbook. If user:Ahunt agrees, please go ahead and make that change (to 3491 pounds), and add reference ref=BCA. Anyone who wants to figure out useful load can do simple subtraction for now until we figure out how to fix the template so it is not misleading. We have more accurate information about useful load in the text of the article. When I have time (or if someone else has time) maybe we should propose the aircraft specification template to be a TfD and suggest "empty weight" and "useful load" be changed to "standard empty weight" and "standard useful load". See below for additional possible things to include in the template such as payload for 200 and 500 NM missions, max payload, and ferry payload. Also, max zero fuel weight and max landing weight should be included. I personally don't see a down side to adding additional parameters to the template because they can easily be left blank. However the payload additions appear to be controversial, unfortunately, because we want to refrain from providing any information that might allow someone to use that information to make a better purchase decision, which might make folks think Wikipedia has became a purchasing guide, which is not its purpose (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Guerrid ( talk) 22:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The information on the engines in the article is correct - the early PA-34-200 Seneca I is powered by a pair of Lycoming IO-360-C1E6 4-cylinder engines, while the Model PA-34-200T Seneca II and later variants are powered by turbocharged, six cylinder Continental TSIO-360E engines (and later engine sub-models). The specs as presented are for the early Lycoming-powered (4 cylinder) Seneca I and not the later six-cylinder models. - Ahunt ( talk) 13:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Use of the 4-cyl Seneca I specs is preposterous since this model has been long discontinued and is in limited services (generally as a primary multi engine trainer). The specs should be for a current model Seneca since it is a currently supported model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.64.166 ( talk)
Hi!
I have a photo of very first prototype of Seneca I. I've uploaded it here http://www.freeimagehosting.net/tgdlk but don't know how to add it to the Wikipedia article. If somebody knows please do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.79.6.108 ( talk) 00:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi!
As a Seneca lover and Pilot having over 600 Pilot In Command flight hours on PA34 type I've spend some of my free time trying to improve quality of that article which is constantly being rejected by "Wiki guys". I would like to start a discussion about new information provided by me. All of that information is extracted directly from an FAA approved Pilot's Operating Handbooks so it's an official and perfectly accurate source of information.
Most probably a lot of young pilots is reading PA-34 article in Wikipedia mainly to get an idea what are the major changes between different models of Piper Seneca. One of the most important from pilot's point of view is a difference in engine model and procedures regarding setting of takeoff power. it is due to turbocharger system which varies between different Seneca models. From pilot's point of view knowing the difference is really important because setting Takeoff power using full forward throttle position on Seneca V is a "normal" procedure whilst doing the same in Seneca II, III and IV can potentially lead to an engine overboost and costly maintenance repairs. To be more precise in my article edit I highlighted aspects relating to differences in wastegate system which leads to a different operating procedures and power outputs of different Senecas models and engines. This is major difference between models and in my opinion needs to be clearly stated in article about Piper Seneca.
Later on I can add information to be careful because of existing Supplement Type Certificate and modifications of fixed wastegates in early Seneca models to make it pilot friendly as Seneca V is.
Beside of above I wanted to describe differences in trailing edge wing flaps design and electrical systems of various Seneca models and to add information about different avionics options offered in Seneca V in different years (from classic "six pack" instruments and Bendix/King avioncs, through Garmin GNS430+GMX200MFD, later Avidyne Entegra option followed by Garmin G500 avionics and most recently 3 screen G1000 option with S-Tec 55 autopilot planned to be replaced by GFC700. But for now I'm a bit disgusted about reception of my edits by "Wiki guys" deleting my article revisions.
Looking forward for some voices regarding my article update from 22 March.
Regards,
Konrad
84.10.214.115 ( talk)Konrad
I removed the 11 Oct 2016 accident as it clearly was not notable, it didnt damage anything or anybody of importance so was just one of many thousand light aircraft crashes. The accident has been added again but it really should not be included, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I thought some or all of the PA-34-200T Seneca IIs are using TCM's TSIO-360 and LTSIO-360. Would someone who knows well about the subtypes of this craft add this information? I guess this may be one of the examples when explaining the countermeasures against propeller wash. -- Marsian 07:32, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
What is the reason behind this particular light aircraft having three sets of specifications, when aircraft such as the Cessna 172, which have had far more models with many more powerplants, have only one set in accordance with the guidelines? As the guidelines indicate the specifications are "a short summary of aircraft's characteristics and performance." The Seneca would need a pretty strong justification for three sets of specs. - Ahunt ( talk) 22:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The useful load information was not correct for the Seneca V as listed; perhaps the number I removed (988) is actually max payload. Perhaps we need to bring this up in TfD because useful load, empty weight, and payloads are all highly dependent on the aircraft's equipage with optional items over and above the standard equipage. Standard empty weight and useful load could be listed as such, but this is misleading because very few aircraft are built that actually weigh the standard weight; it is really a minimum empty weight. Readers would be much better served knowing the typical empty weight with given optional equipment installed, as we have written in the text of the article. Guerrid ( talk) 21:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there a way we could add max payload and payloads at certain ranges to the template? Is this template used for all aircraft? Wikipedia could be much more useful than the Business and Commercial Aviation Magazine purchase guide if such important information could be listed accurately. It seems that magazines tend to leave out important real-life information in their aircraft summaries probably in deference to their sponsors. If you look a the 2014 B&CA purchase guide, it has mission profiles of 200 and 500 NM, but conveniently left off are the available payloads for those missions. It is also very important to use real numbers from actual POH's in actual aircraft because the standard useful loads are usually best-case numbers, not necessarily reflective of actual aircraft as equipped. This is key information every aircraft buyer/operator should have, so it would be really, really cool if Wikipedia could make that part of the aircraft project to provide that information accurately for every aircraft. Guerrid ( talk) 17:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
For now, maybe we should use the standard empty weight listed in the 2014 B&CA Magazine purchase planning handbook. If user:Ahunt agrees, please go ahead and make that change (to 3491 pounds), and add reference ref=BCA. Anyone who wants to figure out useful load can do simple subtraction for now until we figure out how to fix the template so it is not misleading. We have more accurate information about useful load in the text of the article. When I have time (or if someone else has time) maybe we should propose the aircraft specification template to be a TfD and suggest "empty weight" and "useful load" be changed to "standard empty weight" and "standard useful load". See below for additional possible things to include in the template such as payload for 200 and 500 NM missions, max payload, and ferry payload. Also, max zero fuel weight and max landing weight should be included. I personally don't see a down side to adding additional parameters to the template because they can easily be left blank. However the payload additions appear to be controversial, unfortunately, because we want to refrain from providing any information that might allow someone to use that information to make a better purchase decision, which might make folks think Wikipedia has became a purchasing guide, which is not its purpose (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Guerrid ( talk) 22:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The information on the engines in the article is correct - the early PA-34-200 Seneca I is powered by a pair of Lycoming IO-360-C1E6 4-cylinder engines, while the Model PA-34-200T Seneca II and later variants are powered by turbocharged, six cylinder Continental TSIO-360E engines (and later engine sub-models). The specs as presented are for the early Lycoming-powered (4 cylinder) Seneca I and not the later six-cylinder models. - Ahunt ( talk) 13:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Use of the 4-cyl Seneca I specs is preposterous since this model has been long discontinued and is in limited services (generally as a primary multi engine trainer). The specs should be for a current model Seneca since it is a currently supported model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.64.166 ( talk)
Hi!
I have a photo of very first prototype of Seneca I. I've uploaded it here http://www.freeimagehosting.net/tgdlk but don't know how to add it to the Wikipedia article. If somebody knows please do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.79.6.108 ( talk) 00:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi!
As a Seneca lover and Pilot having over 600 Pilot In Command flight hours on PA34 type I've spend some of my free time trying to improve quality of that article which is constantly being rejected by "Wiki guys". I would like to start a discussion about new information provided by me. All of that information is extracted directly from an FAA approved Pilot's Operating Handbooks so it's an official and perfectly accurate source of information.
Most probably a lot of young pilots is reading PA-34 article in Wikipedia mainly to get an idea what are the major changes between different models of Piper Seneca. One of the most important from pilot's point of view is a difference in engine model and procedures regarding setting of takeoff power. it is due to turbocharger system which varies between different Seneca models. From pilot's point of view knowing the difference is really important because setting Takeoff power using full forward throttle position on Seneca V is a "normal" procedure whilst doing the same in Seneca II, III and IV can potentially lead to an engine overboost and costly maintenance repairs. To be more precise in my article edit I highlighted aspects relating to differences in wastegate system which leads to a different operating procedures and power outputs of different Senecas models and engines. This is major difference between models and in my opinion needs to be clearly stated in article about Piper Seneca.
Later on I can add information to be careful because of existing Supplement Type Certificate and modifications of fixed wastegates in early Seneca models to make it pilot friendly as Seneca V is.
Beside of above I wanted to describe differences in trailing edge wing flaps design and electrical systems of various Seneca models and to add information about different avionics options offered in Seneca V in different years (from classic "six pack" instruments and Bendix/King avioncs, through Garmin GNS430+GMX200MFD, later Avidyne Entegra option followed by Garmin G500 avionics and most recently 3 screen G1000 option with S-Tec 55 autopilot planned to be replaced by GFC700. But for now I'm a bit disgusted about reception of my edits by "Wiki guys" deleting my article revisions.
Looking forward for some voices regarding my article update from 22 March.
Regards,
Konrad
84.10.214.115 ( talk)Konrad
I removed the 11 Oct 2016 accident as it clearly was not notable, it didnt damage anything or anybody of importance so was just one of many thousand light aircraft crashes. The accident has been added again but it really should not be included, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)