Talk:Piper PA-34 Seneca/Archive 1

Archive 1

Request

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)

Specifications

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)

Lacking any justification for three sets of specs for this aircraft type I will remove two as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content - Ahunt (talk) 14:25, 11 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)

This is an encyclopedia not a purchasing guide, it doesnt not need to show every possible specification detail. MilborneOne (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Call it what you want, but why would someone not want to make Wikipedia as informative and useful as possible? What could be a more important use of an encyclopedia than to help people make important decisions based on the information in it, and in so doing improve the world? IMHO, purchase decisions are how this world is governed in free-market societies. A free and informed marketplace is a perfect companion to democracy because people vote with their dollars, hopefully in informed ways. Without good accurate information, the promise of a democratic free market is lost. I can't imagine that it is not the mission of Wikipedia to effect that democratization in all segments of industry and society. What better use is there for Wikipedia, when other available sources fall short?!! Good purchase decisions can reduce global climate change, or prove it all wrong. Good purchase decisions in aggregate are what separates truth from fiction and the proverbial wheat from chaff. I can't possibly disagree with you more that helping people make good decisions is not THE most important purpose of an encyclopedia. If not, what good is knowledge at all?Guerrid (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia not a buying guide, have a read of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I would submit that the information can be used in a number of ways regardless of what you call it. Just because the information might be used for something useful should not disqualify it. I'm sure there are others who will appreciate range vs. payload numbers for as many aircraft as possible in spite of your opinion. So are we going to waste time arguing about semantics or will you please help me add some additional parameters to the template? Perhaps Ahunt will help me? Is there an easy way to ask him/her about this? I very much appreciate your opinion and efforts to help make Wikipedia great.Guerrid (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If you add a link to his name User:Ahunt it creates a notice when he next logs in, best idea is to raise it at the aircraft project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft where most of those interested in these articles hang out. MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually I watch this article, so will see any changes and comments added. I have to agree with User:MilborneOne, the specifications we include in the template were arrived at over a period or time by consensus and one of the critical factors considered was that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and not a buyer's guide or a specialist publication, like Janes All The World's Aircraft. Multiple specs and complex range and payload data doesn't belong in a general encyclopedia. It is just far out of scope for Wikipedia. If you want to get into this issue in some depth it would be best to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft since any changes would affect a range of aircraft articles. - Ahunt (talk) 19:34, 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)

I don't have that ref myself, so I can't verify the number. - Ahunt (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Engines - four or six cylinder

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)

The article is not a brochure for the latest Piper products, it is a historical article about all the Seneca aircraft in the series from the start to today. The articles are generally limited to only one set of specs, because this is an encyclopedia, not Janes, or a fan site. We could change the specs to the Seneca V if a good reference can be found that has at least most of the specs required. The Piper brochure has some data in it. - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Used Piper Seneca V Information Manual to provide Seneca V specs. Obankston (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo of prototype of Seneca

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)

You would need to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons so that it can be used on Wikipedia, but you can only do that if you own the copyrights to the image, otherwise it is a copyright violation. This image is found in many places like this on the internet so I doubt you own the rights to it. Instructions for images are found at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard - Ahunt (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to add it is not actually a prototype Seneca but the three-engined PA-32-3M N9999W, part of the history of the PA-34 but strictly speaking just a modified Cherokee Six. MilborneOne (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Highlighting differences between different Senecas Models and associated improvements. (22 March edits)

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

This is an encyclopedia article, not an operating guide to the Seneca. As such, the detail you added was completely over-the-top. Minutiae about the engines and the brand of the turbocompressors used is not really appropriate.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

But this is a fundamental an major difference between different models so in my opinion encyclopedia article should point that key points and differences. We're not talking about some little differences as single engine climb rates vs altitude and temperature or other little aspects how to operate Piper Seneca. Engine design difference is an obvious difference between models and leads to other differences so in my opinion this is a key point in differences between different Seneca models. If you think that such info is over the top please see articles about airliners as B737 or A320 and see how many details are provided there. Maybe you would like to edit A320 article leaving just information that A320 is an airliner having 180 pax seats, two wings and 2 engines (of course not to mention engine type because it is over the top information for Encyclopedia)?

84.10.214.115 (talk)Konrad

The text you tried to add just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, as it runs afoul of the rules at WP:NOTMANUAL. It belongs in the POH, where it came from. - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Konrad. Stuff like, for example, the overboost indicator lights that will illuminate at approximately 39.8 in.Hg, and how the pilot should monitor the manifold pressure during take-off in a Seneca II are way beyond the scope of an encyclopaedia. However, a brief, generic mention on the improvement in the turbocharger's installation across subsequent Seneca models may be appropriate, if properly referenced. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Not-notable accident

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)

I concur with its removal at this time. However, the FBI is investigating it, per FlightGlobal, so it's worth keeping an eye out for updates. - BilCat (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Understood but even if it was intentional it didnt actually hit anything. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm on the other side of the coin on this one for the moment. On other occasions when this has happened with light aircraft in the US, an entire article has been written. I see no reason to remove it at this time and if it turns out there is no coverage next week then we can remove it. YSSYguy (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it may turn out to be worth including, depending on what the investigation turns up, but only because it may have been an intentional act and not an accident. That said, if it turns out to be a suicide then it probably isn't notable, as light aircraft suicides are quite commonplace. If it turns out to be an intended murder attempt or act of terrorism or something else unusual then it may be worth keeping, just as an unusual event. - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The aviation media are reporting that it was mostly likely a suicide. Since these are very common I suggest it be removed from the article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Piper Seneca GAP jeh.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)