Sitting in the left front seat of the Seneca V, I reminisced about my previous experience with this line. Well, not exactly. The panel of the new Seneca V has about as much resemblance to my old company airplane’s as does a new Ford Mustang to a Model T’s.

Still, I couldn’t resist flashing back to those happy days of the late 1970s when I operated a Seneca II for three years and 500 hours. Despite the airplane’s niggles (and there were several), I came to respect the little twin as a valuable business tool.

In 1979, the corn at the end of the runway in Ft. Atkinson, Wisconsin looked to be at least six feet tall, but I had no major concerns as I turned the company Seneca into the wind and pointed the tapered nose down runway 21. The abbreviated, grass strip was by far the closest to the home office of Johnson Hill Press, in those days one of the world’s largest publishers of corporate magazines, not to mention my part-time employer.

A summer rain shower had stormed through the area the night before and the grass was still wet, so I knew I’d need a soft field takeoff. I held the brakes at the very threshold of the runway as I pushed power through 35 inches, then released the binders and felt the airplane lumber sluggishly forward. The grass runway was only 1,900 feet long, but at light weight, I knew I’d need far less than that to lift off on the short hop down to Janes­ville, Wisconsin for fuel before making my way back to California.

I watched the corn grow in stature as the airplane accelerated down the strip. Must be at least 15 feet tall, I thought. Passing 55 knots, I pulled up on the floor-mounted Johnson bar to lever in the flaps and improve short field performance, but I was a little too enthusiastic. I’d planned to add only the first two notches of flaps, worth 25 degrees. Instead, I wound up pulling the handle to its maximum deflection, 40 degrees.

Bad idea. Though I was already holding some back pressure to keep the nosewheel off the grass runway, the Seneca reacted instantly as the big flaps deflected. The airplane lifted its main wheels off the grass and wheel barrowed forward onto the nosewheel, plunking it back down hard into the grass. Lucky I was flying light.

I yanked the yoke full back and the twin leaped off the runway vaulting over the corn in an ungraceful, elevator-like ascent. Once in the air I made a silent promise to always set the flaps prior to takeoff in the future.

Flying the new Seneca V out of Oshkosh a few months ago was far less dramatic. It was like revisiting an old friend, only better. Perhaps predictably, everything about the new Seneca is improved over the airplane I flew 25 years ago. The configuration is still the same—Hershey-bar wing, aft left cargo doors, and familiar coun­ter-rotating Continental TSIO-360 engines. Beyond that, the Seneca V is a dramatically revised airplane.

The improvements are a little surprising yet totally necessary. “My” 1975 Seneca II was a wonderful machine that taught me many lessons about multi-engine airplanes, but like so many early versions of anything, it was in serious need of improvement.

After three model chan­ges this latest Seneca offers updates in just about every area, which has kept it competitive in a shrinking market. As this is written, there are only four piston-twins in production; Piper’s Seminole, the Seneca V, the Beech 58 Baron and the new Austrian Diamond Twin Star. At press time, the promising Twin Star wasn’t a factor as it had yet to be certified for IFR. Even when it is, the twin-Thielert-diesel-powered plane isn’t lia­ble to have much of an effect on the Seneca market, though it may have a dra­matic impact on Seminole sales.

Unless you’re looking for a multi-engine trainer (which the Seneca V definitely is not), the inevitable comparison is between the Seneca and Baron. Aside from mounting two engines out on the wings and seating a theoretical six folks, the two types couldn’t be more dissimilar. The Sen­eca V has consistently operated on the premise that less is more. Power is limited to only 220 turbocharged hp on each side compared to the Baron’s 300 normally-aspirated horses on each wing. Gross weight of the Seneca V is a mere 4,750 pounds compared to the Baron’s more portly 5,500 pounds.

The Seneca began life in 1972 as a normally-aspirated, twin-engine, retractable version of the Cherokee Six with a pair of 200-hp Lycoming IO-360s on the wings. In 1975, Piper premiered the Seneca II and switch­ed to early versions of the six-cylinder, Rajay-turbocharged, Continental TSIO-360s that survive to this day. The Seneca III debuted a 28-volt electrical system, three-blade props and increased power to 220 on each side. The Seneca IV added optional de-ice, air conditioning and leather, and the Seneca V, announced in 1997, brought intercooling and a vast array of other improvements to Piper’s work-horse twin.

In other words, no matter how familiar it looks, the current PA-34 is a very refined airplane in contrast to the original machine. Senecas of one version or another probably serve in more diverse roles than any other model in Piper’s fleet. Their big cargo door, large cabin, fat, high-lift wing and turbocharged engines make Senecas a popular choice in low-lands, moun­tains, the city or the country.

Due to the PA-34’s unusual flexibility, the type is in demand all over the world and has been pressed into service flying more diverse missions than can be believed. The Seneca V makes an excellent, comparatively low-cost charter airplane, a reasonable corporate transport, an effective air ambulance, a reliable businessman’s traveling machine, an economical check or mailer hauler and even, on occasion, a bush plane (when converted to STOL mode).

I’ve seen Senecas of all descriptions flying standard urban domestic missions, but I’ve also witnessed the type operating in the Alaskan bush, the Saharan and Australian deserts and the South American pampas. I’ve delivered probably a dozen of those international Senecas to destinations ranging from Cape Town to Kuala Lumpur, Singapore to Southampton, so I can personally attest to their popularity in foreign lands.

As you may have guessed, I like the Seneca, and I’m not alone in my appreciation of Piper’s evolving twin. Over the last three decades, Piper has sold nearly 5,000 Senecas.

The aforementioned large cabin, essentially identical to that of the fixed-gear Cherokee Six single, recently revived as the Piper 6X and 6XT (turbocharged), is a big part of the Seneca’s appeal. You can read about the dimensions in the specs, but the Seneca’s passenger enclosure offers roughly the same width as the cabin class Navajo…now long out of production. There is plenty of room for six full-sized people, though the airplane is payload-challenged. More on that later.

The double cargo doors at aft left are another big asset. In addition to admitting passengers, freight, a stretcher, coffin or a piano, they are sometimes used as an exit for people or other items such as sky divers, bales of hay and emergency supplies.

Even in standard trim, Senecas come well-equipped for VFR and IFR, fitted with a full package of Garmin avionics – 430/530 COM/VOR/ILS/GPSs and the popular 330 transponder that enables traffic uplink – plus an STEC HSI and 55X autopilot/flight director. Unlike the old days when airplanes featured just enough standard equipment to make them operational, the new Seneca makes an excellent IFR platform right from the base price.

Naturally, it gets even better, and much more expensive, when you start adding options. Fitted with the FIKI (Flight Into Known Icing) package ($28,455), the latest PA-34 is a reasonable winter/spring traveling machine, willing to handle most modest icing situations. The Seneca employs old-fashioned rubber boots rather than the more effective, “weeping wing” TKS system, however, so the V is not a good choice for taking on serious icing conditions.

Other popular options include the Meggitt Magic Electronic Flight Display System, Honeywell Enhanced Situational Awareness Package that in­cludes weather radar, IHAS, Stormscope and a KMD-850 multi-function display to play it on, air conditioning, oxygen, three-blade props, prop sync and unfeathering accumulators. Tack on all these options and you will be facing a list price well north of $900,000.

What that buys, in addition to incredible electronic talent, is good operational performance with both mills turning true and acceptable numbers with one engine shut down. Specifically, plan on at least 1,300-1,400 fpm climb at sea level in multi-mode and a single-engine service ceiling higher than any mountain in the contiguous 48 states. Single-engine climb is only 253 fpm at gross making it a long climb if you did need to clear those mountains. Critical altitude (the maximum height at which the engines can develop full power) is 19,000 feet, and opting for max cruise at that height provides a solid 195 knots or better. Down at 10,000 feet, expect a max cruise around 180 knots.

An obvious benefit of the relatively small engines is low fuel burn… roughly14 gph/engine at high cruise. The wings hold 122 gallons, so endurance at high cruise is about 3.5 hours or 4.0 hours at normal cruise (12 gph/engine).

The bad news is that at 4,750 pounds gross, the Seneca V is a little short on payload. Topping the tanks in a standard airplane yields little more than 600 payload pounds available to distribute between six seats. Yes, you can trade fuel for payload, but only up to a point. Maximum zero fuel weight is 4,479 pounds, so you’re obliged to fly with at least 42 gallons in the tanks if you’re operating at gross. In that loading configuration, you’d have just over 1,000 pounds of payload available. There’s also a max­imum landing weight limitation of 4513 pounds. Therefore, a departure at gross requires burning down 39 gallons before returning to land.

In stock trim, Senecas aren’t truly STOL twins, but they do very well in short field performance. The short grass strip at Ft. Atkinson was always a challenge, but it was near sea level and there were no obstacles, discounting the corn at certain times of the year. I flew in and out of Ft. Atkinson (now long since paved and extended) several dozen times and thoroughly enjoyed my 500 hours in the Seneca II. Now that Piper has addressed most of my complaints, I’d be happy to spend another 500 hours—in a Seneca V.PIPERS