What's the difference between the Navojo and Seneca V? Both seem to be about same in size (actually, I think the Navojo is bit bigger). However, as Rico indicates in his thread "Best Flight Dynamics I've seen", the Seneca V has great flight dynamics. How do you feel about the Navojo?

I have both aircraft and fly them quite often. The Seneca is the smaller of the two, seating a maximum of 6 (if memory serves me). the Navajo is larger and heavier, and seats 8. The Navajo is usually used as a commercial plane, either for business or as a short-hop commercial carrier. It can carry a higher payload than the Seneca, but is also not pressurized, so usually flys at 10,000 ft or less. Both have excellent flight dynamics, in that they are stable and easy to hand fly. The Navajo has a slightly heavier feel and is not quite as responsive to control input as the Seneca, which is what I would expect, based on the size and weight difference. (Picture the Seneca as a nice mid-size car and the Navajo as an airport limo van)Of the two, I can fly a slightly better instrument approach in the Navajo. It trims up nicely and holds a steady descent on final approach. For VFR work, I would prefer the Seneca V because it is somewhat more responsive to control input. Of course, this is on my setup (CH Yoke, throttle quadrant, and pedals), so others with a slightly different setup may have a different impression.You can't go wrong with either aircraft. If I had to choose only one, I'd probably pick the Seneca - it's a bit more fun to fly (IMHO).Dale

My personal favourite is the Navajo, but that's probably only because it requires a bit more effort on my part to fly it without constantly blowing up the engines! ;-)As with Dale, I'd recommend either quite happily, but the Seneca is a bit more fun to fly than its bigger stablemate.Ian P.

They are both two of my favorite aircraft! As for flight dynamics, they are both excellent (both done by Steve Small). You can't possibly go wrong there. As was mentioned, the planes themselves are different when it comes to size and roles. The only real difference from a technical standpoint that I would mention is the texture size and load times. The textures on the Navajo are really big, and you can get some delays when switching views. There are some dxt3 repaints out there to help alleviate this. Sometimes there is a delay when switching views, although the performance out the 2d cockpit isn't really impacted. The Seneca on the other hand has smaller textures, which load faster. I enjoy them both a lot. Overall I fly the Seneca more, not really because it is "better". I have always liked it as a real world aircraft.

Thank all for your comments. Another Q. Does the Seneca V have a pressurized cabin?

The Seneca is in dire need of an update seeing it's an older FS2k2 model. The VC is about 1/3 interactive which is a huge problem for me. Otherwise it's a nice aircraft and very fun to fly...

That's an added feature I believe a real owner in question would have had to purchase. I don't think it was a standard feature but perfectly optional.

I like them both, but in general I think the Navajo is a more interesting airplane so I prefer it. The FSD rendition is great and there is also a nice review of it in the Avsim aircraft review section.

I have 1800 hrs on Seneca Fives real world and the answer is no. The Seneca V is not pressurised so is limited on the N reg to 12500 feet or up to 14000 feet for 30 mins without oxygen.The Seneca five with Oxygen will have a ceiling of 25000 feet.I have regularly taken the Seneca five up to FL200.Its main difference to earlier senecas is the climb rate which even at 20000 feet is still showing 900 fpm in the climb.At FL200 29 in map and 2400rpm will true out at 204 kts. The same setting at 3000 feet should give 155 kts.Peter

Peter,What does it feel like at FL200 without presurization (with oxygen ofcause)? What I also found is, in FS when flying at altitude, the plane is slower. Is this true in RL? Thnx.

>Peter,What does it feel like at FL200 without presurization (with oxygen ofcause)? What I also found is, in FS when flying at altitude, the plane is slower. Is this true in RL? Thnx.800 feet tops of the main cloud block at 14000 and a wall of embedded CBS.The only way was over the top or at least above the main cloud tops where you could see the CBS and pick your way around them.I flew at FL190 East bound and put my two female passengers on oxygen.The one was quite comfortable and relaxed. The other clung to the oxygen mask and you could tell her breathing rate was fast.As we cleared the weather I requested FL100 but even low down it took some persuasion to get her to takeoff the mask.In what way do you mean the aircraft is slower? IAS or TAS?Peter

Other than the lack of oxygen, how are other bodily function. I mean, would you feel that you were going to 'explode'?I set FS to display IAS. I took the Beech A36 from Seattle heading east. Had to go up to FL120 to clear the mountains. When reaching altitude, I couldn't go any faster than 120.

>Other than the lack of oxygen, how are other bodily function.>I mean, would you feel that you were going to 'explode'?>As long as you are getting oxygen, the human body doesn't have much problem with higher altitude, until you approach 50,000 ft. (Above 50,000 ft, the pressure is so low, your blood could begin to boil at 98.6 F). Any internal gases that expand will equalize themselves in the natural way. During WWII, bomber crews routinely flew long missions above 20,000 ft in unpressurized aircraft without ill effect, as long as they had oxygen and heated suits.>I set FS to display IAS. I took the Beech A36 from Seattle>heading east. Had to go up to FL120 to clear the mountains.>When reaching altitude, I couldn't go any faster than 120. That's normal - as the air gets thinner, IAS will decrease. When it decreases to approaching stall speed, that's as high as you can go. Your ground speed, however, may actually increase (depending on winds).Dale