Opinions on Cessna 340, 414 and 421

[john szpara]

I'm considering buying a plane, and have decided to go with a twin. I
understand that there will be more maintenance costs over a single,
but I like the safety margin of the second engine. I also like the
idea of pressurization, because we have some high mountains out here
on the west coast. It would be nice to fly over them at a safe
altitude, and I would also like to be able to get on top of most of
the weather.

I'd like to hear opinions on the 340, 414, and 421. A former commecial
pilot recommended the 340 or 414 to me. He said the 421 is good, but
has some kind of gear drive that could make maintenance more
expensive.

Also, I'd like opinions on the engine out performance and handling.
I'm told some twins are more difficult than others when an engine is
out.

John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[Peter R.]

john szpara ) wrote:

<snip>
> I'd like to hear opinions on the 340, 414, and 421. A former commecial
> pilot recommended the 340 or 414 to me. He said the 421 is good, but
> has some kind of gear drive that could make maintenance more
> expensive.
>
> Also, I'd like opinions on the engine out performance and handling.
> I'm told some twins are more difficult than others when an engine is
> out.

I don't have any experience to offer but I have been catching news items
about the probable release of a very expensive spar AD for the Cessna 400
series. There is also speculation that this spar AD might involve other
Cessna twins, too. Read a couple of news items here:

http://www.avweb.com/newswire/10_12a/leadnews/186888-1.html

http://www.avweb.com/newswire/10_12a/leadnews/186889-1.html




--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[jsmith]

This was going to be my response. I wouldn't invest any money in a
Cessna twin until the AD becomes final and I know what aircraft are
involved and how much it is going to cost to comply. Cessna Twins may
become very inexpensive in the near future.

"Peter R." wrote:
> I don't have any experience to offer but I have been catching news items
> about the probable release of a very expensive spar AD for the Cessna 400
> series. There is also speculation that this spar AD might involve other
> Cessna twins, too. Read a couple of news items here:

[john szpara]

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:03:01 GMT, jsmith > wrote:

Thanks for the heads up. I've been browsing ads, and see that some say
"not affected by upcoming AD" or some such things, but it's looking
like all Cessna twins might go that route.

>This was going to be my response. I wouldn't invest any money in a
>Cessna twin until the AD becomes final and I know what aircraft are
>involved and how much it is going to cost to comply. Cessna Twins may
>become very inexpensive in the near future.

John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:02:34 GMT, john szpara
> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:03:01 GMT, jsmith > wrote:
>
>Thanks for the heads up. I've been browsing ads, and see that some say
>"not affected by upcoming AD" or some such things, but it's looking
>like all Cessna twins might go that route.

snip

Talked to a big Cessna piston operator/maintainer recently (he had
just returned from meetings with da Feds).

He's got his first 400 series in the shop right now. During
inspection, found 4 non-standard rivets in the fitting immediately
outboard of the wing attach.

The consensus from the meeting was that about 40% of the aircraft that
have been inspected have found similiar serious maintenance-induced
spar/wing attach problems (wrong hardware, post-assembly holes
mis-drilled, or drilled in critical areas), but no inherent
age-related structural problems.

It's going to happen, it's going to be expensive, and no one knows for
sure where it is going to stop (in regards to applicability).

This is a critical issue for continued airworthiness of ALL twin GA
aircraft. Last time I checked, no one was manufacturing a new like
replacement for a medium recip twin (300- 400- series Cessnas, 31-
Pipers, etc.).

TC

[Dude]

Hmm, You raise an interesting point. Why is it that no one is making those
planes anymore? Does everyone want turbine singles and twins instead?

I have seen that convrting the 421 to a turbine is becoming popular.

I know that turbines are safer than pistons, but I always believed that the
difference in accidents between the turbine and piston twins was more a
matter of training than engine reliability.

[One's Too Many]

If I were rich enough to afford a twin, I would like to buy a P337
Skymaster, not a 3xx or 4xx. Nasty wing AD hammer about to drop on the
heads of the owners of Cessna "conventional" prop twins. Oh, and if I
win the lottery, the only other Cessna twin I'd have would be a
Citation of course :-)

[Craig]

john szpara > wrote in message >...
> I'm considering buying a plane, and have decided to go with a twin. I
> understand that there will be more maintenance costs over a single,
> but I like the safety margin of the second engine. I also like the
> idea of pressurization, because we have some high mountains out here
> on the west coast. It would be nice to fly over them at a safe
> altitude, and I would also like to be able to get on top of most of
> the weather.

John: you might also want to take a look at the Commander series too.
Some are pressurized and some not, but all have great usefull loads
and excellent performance numbers. Seating is available for up to 11,
with decent range. From what I remember when I had a demo flight years
ago in a 520, an engine out situation was pretty ho-hum....dial in a
little trim, set the numbers and run the checklist. Yes, they do have
one real big AD on the spar, but the inspection requirements have a
considerable time spacing as to when it has to be done. Geared engines
are not that big of a deal to operate with as long as you learn the
proper procedures and follow them.

For lots more info, visit www.aerocommander.com.
I've got a 680 that I'm about to go retrieve and start a ground up
restoration/overhaul/update. It's been in storage since the late 70's
and hasn't had any changes since the day it rolled off the assembly
line in '57.

Craig C.

[john szpara]

>John: you might also want to take a look at the Commander series too.
>Some are pressurized and some not, but all have great usefull loads
>and excellent performance numbers. Seating is available for up to 11,
>with decent range. From what I remember when I had a demo flight years
>ago in a 520, an engine out situation was pretty ho-hum....dial in a
>little trim, set the numbers and run the checklist. Yes, they do have
>one real big AD on the spar, but the inspection requirements have a
>considerable time spacing as to when it has to be done. Geared engines
>are not that big of a deal to operate with as long as you learn the
>proper procedures and follow them.

Thanks for the tip.

I don't need to take any more than 6 people, and one reason why I like
the 400 series is that you can install (or there is already) a potty
onboard. That will make life easier on the wife and passengers on
longer trips. I hope to eliminate (most) airline travel with whatever
plane I get. Can you do that in any Commander?

John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[john szpara]

A couple more commander questions. My best case scenario has the
following parameters:

1. Cruising speed 200+ kts (not just at the flight levels)
2. cabin class
3. potty
4. pressurized
5. price around $150k, +/- 20k
6. ceiling above FL240

Do any Commanders fit the profile?

John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[Tom Sixkiller]

"One's Too Many" > wrote in message
om...
> If I were rich enough to afford a twin, I would like to buy a P337
> Skymaster, not a 3xx or 4xx. Nasty wing AD hammer about to drop on the
> heads of the owners of Cessna "conventional" prop twins. Oh, and if I
> win the lottery, the only other Cessna twin I'd have would be a
> Citation of course :-)

A P337 is essentially a twin engine Skylane; a 300 or 400 series is a cabin
class plane.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> Hmm, You raise an interesting point. Why is it that no one is making
those
> planes anymore? Does everyone want turbine singles and twins instead?
>
> I have seen that convrting the 421 to a turbine is becoming popular.
>
> I know that turbines are safer than pistons, but I always believed that
the
> difference in accidents between the turbine and piston twins was more a
> matter of training than engine reliability.

Training and experience are definitely factors ("Professionally" flown vs
owner flown) but an engine failure, under the same circumstances, in a
piston popper might well be no big deal in a turbine.

I can't say for sure, but I don't think all that many piston engines have
full feathering props. Add the complexity of mixture control (and even carb
heat in some) and there's more work when that much more frequent failure
occurs.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"john szpara" > wrote in message
s.com...
> A couple more commander questions. My best case scenario has the
> following parameters:
>
> 1. Cruising speed 200+ kts (not just at the flight levels)
> 2. cabin class
> 3. potty
> 4. pressurized
> 5. price around $150k, +/- 20k
> 6. ceiling above FL240
>
> Do any Commanders fit the profile?
>

The Commander's don't fit that, but neither do the 421's...not in that price
range (not one ready to fly without putting a lot more money into it to make
it airworthy, or one right up against engine OH).

[Nathan Young]

On 30 Mar 2004 21:20:00 -0800, (One's Too Many)
wrote:

>If I were rich enough to afford a twin, I would like to buy a P337
>Skymaster, not a 3xx or 4xx. Nasty wing AD hammer about to drop on the
>heads of the owners of Cessna "conventional" prop twins. Oh, and if I
>win the lottery, the only other Cessna twin I'd have would be a
>Citation of course :-)

337 is a great concept, but the cabin is small (compared to other
Cessna twins) and it is slow (compared to other Cessna twins).

OTOH, 337s are generally priced to reflect this difference in
performance and carrying capabilities.

-Nathan

[Nathan Young]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:00:07 GMT, john szpara
> wrote:

>A couple more commander questions. My best case scenario has the
>following parameters:
>
>1. Cruising speed 200+ kts (not just at the flight levels)
>2. cabin class
>3. potty
>4. pressurized
>5. price around $150k, +/- 20k
>6. ceiling above FL240
>
>Do any Commanders fit the profile?

Those are tough requirements, but most are commensurate with a cabin
class twin.

1. Most planes (short of the low drag homebuilts) are going to have a
difficult time hitting 200kts (without running the engines at 100%)
below 10,000 ft. Flight levels and turbo are the way most airplanes
reach 200+ kts. As an example, I fly a Seneca II. Below 10,000, the
fastest you can go with 75% power is 175kts. At 20,000 75% power gets
190kts. Seneca's don't perform like the 3/4 series Cessnas, but the
concept translates. The 3/4 series twins will probably do 190kts
below 10k, and 220 in the 20s.

2, 3, 4. The 4 series Cessna twins meet all these requirements.

5. 150k is the LOW end of the range for the 3/4 series twins. Most
are listed with asking prices from $150 to $500k. Most in this price
range have high time engines, worn paint and interiors, and old
avionics. A cheaper alternative would be the Cessna T310Q or T310R.
Similar performance - 6 seats but without the pressurization and
potty. $150k will buy a nice one.

6. The pressurized 3/4 series Cessna's have ceilings from 25-30k
feet.

Keep in mind that the purchase cost of these twins is in relative
terms quite low. If a 421 was produced today, it would easily cost
$2M. (A 2004 Baron 58 is $1M).
Operating/maintenance/insurance/hangar costs on a 20-30 year old cabin
class twin can approach $400/hr. Also, have a look at
http://www.factoryengines.com and look how much a rebuilt GTSIO520 for
a 421 costs. $50k!

As others mention - the upcoming wing spar AD is a serious issue.
Many shops put the compliance cost at close to $50k.
Some additional info can be found here:
http://www.twincessna.org/
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/regtwincessna2.html
http://www.cessnatwinssparcorp.org/

-Nathan

[jsmith]

Do some advanced research on fuel required and pax load before you buy.
(play with sample weight and balance for the loads you anticipate carrying)
If you want to fill the seats, your fuel load will be significantly
reduced to avoid overgross.
Short legs may not get you the performance you are looking for.

john szpara wrote:
> A couple more commander questions. My best case scenario has the
> following parameters:
> 1. Cruising speed 200+ kts (not just at the flight levels)
> 2. cabin class
> 3. potty
> 4. pressurized
> 5. price around $150k, +/- 20k
> 6. ceiling above FL240

[Mike Rapoport]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hmm, You raise an interesting point. Why is it that no one is making
> those
> > planes anymore? Does everyone want turbine singles and twins instead?
> >
> > I have seen that convrting the 421 to a turbine is becoming popular.
> >
> > I know that turbines are safer than pistons, but I always believed that
> the
> > difference in accidents between the turbine and piston twins was more a
> > matter of training than engine reliability.
>
> Training and experience are definitely factors ("Professionally" flown vs
> owner flown) but an engine failure, under the same circumstances, in a
> piston popper might well be no big deal in a turbine.
>
> I can't say for sure, but I don't think all that many piston engines have
> full feathering props. Add the complexity of mixture control (and even
carb
> heat in some) and there's more work when that much more frequent failure
> occurs.
>
>

AFAIK all piston twins have feathering props. You probably meant
autofeathering though. Most of the safety difference is probably training
and the reliability of turbine engines. If you are ten times less likely to
have an engine failure, you are a lot less likely to have and engine failure
related accident.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> Hmm, You raise an interesting point. Why is it that no one is making
those
> planes anymore? Does everyone want turbine singles and twins instead?
>
> I have seen that convrting the 421 to a turbine is becoming popular.
>
> I know that turbines are safer than pistons, but I always believed that
the
> difference in accidents between the turbine and piston twins was more a
> matter of training than engine reliability.
>
>

Its both. The relability of turbines is probably 10x greater than piston
engines so even if the pilots were the same, turbine accident statistics
would be a lot better.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

I don't think anything fits all those requirements.

Mike
MU-2

"john szpara" > wrote in message
s.com...
> A couple more commander questions. My best case scenario has the
> following parameters:
>
> 1. Cruising speed 200+ kts (not just at the flight levels)
> 2. cabin class
> 3. potty
> 4. pressurized
> 5. price around $150k, +/- 20k
> 6. ceiling above FL240
>
> Do any Commanders fit the profile?
>
> John Szpara
> Affordable Satellite
> Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Training and experience are definitely factors ("Professionally" flown
vs
> > owner flown) but an engine failure, under the same circumstances, in a
> > piston popper might well be no big deal in a turbine.
> >
> > I can't say for sure, but I don't think all that many piston engines
have
> > full feathering props. Add the complexity of mixture control (and even
> carb
> > heat in some) and there's more work when that much more frequent
failure
> > occurs.
> >
> >
>
> AFAIK all piston twins have feathering props. You probably meant
> autofeathering though.

I hadn't even thought of auto-feather, but I was under the impression that
most piston twins wouldn't go to full feather (it's been 15 years since I
flew a piston popper twin).

> Most of the safety difference is probably training
> and the reliability of turbine engines.

Agree, but I'd say that loss of a piston engine would be much more
hazrardous than losing a turbine under the same circumstances (weather,
load, etc.) since a turbine usually has much more power available in the
remaining engine than a piston. And, yes, under high loads, the margins are
equally BAD.

> If you are ten times less likely to
> have an engine failure, you are a lot less likely to have and engine
failure
> related accident.

Indeed, but, too, SEROC in a piston is possibly a negative number, while in
a turbo-prop it might be 800-1000fpm. Handled the same way, I can see that
what is a landing short of the runway in a piston twin would be a non-issue
in a turbine.

I wonder how big the gap is between the two types, from Vsse to Vsi/Vso (not
sure I'm phrasing that right).

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I don't think anything fits all those requirements.
>
A 421 would, but to get one with the cabin he desires (potty) would be one
of the later models and it's going to cost a LOT more than $150K by probably
a factor of two or three.

For example: http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AircraftView.jsp?aircraft_id=79362 (at
$275K) (I'm not sure it has a potty in the back).

Or http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AircraftView.jsp?aircraft_id=67456 ($509K)

> "john szpara" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> > A couple more commander questions. My best case scenario has the
> > following parameters:
> >
> > 1. Cruising speed 200+ kts (not just at the flight levels)
> > 2. cabin class
> > 3. potty
> > 4. pressurized
> > 5. price around $150k, +/- 20k
> > 6. ceiling above FL240

[Mike Rapoport]

Since price was one of the requirements (probably the only critical one),
nothing fits.

Mike
MU-2

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > I don't think anything fits all those requirements.
> >
> A 421 would, but to get one with the cabin he desires (potty) would be one
> of the later models and it's going to cost a LOT more than $150K by
probably
> a factor of two or three.
>
> For example: http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AircraftView.jsp?aircraft_id=79362
(at
> $275K) (I'm not sure it has a potty in the back).
>
> Or http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AircraftView.jsp?aircraft_id=67456 ($509K)
>
> > "john szpara" > wrote in message
> > s.com...
> > > A couple more commander questions. My best case scenario has the
> > > following parameters:
> > >
> > > 1. Cruising speed 200+ kts (not just at the flight levels)
> > > 2. cabin class
> > > 3. potty
> > > 4. pressurized
> > > 5. price around $150k, +/- 20k
> > > 6. ceiling above FL240
>
>

[Brian Cox]

wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:02:34 GMT, john szpara
> >
> >Thanks for the heads up. I've been browsing ads, and see that some say
> >"not affected by upcoming AD" or some such things, but it's looking
> >like all Cessna twins might go that route.
>
>
> It's going to happen, it's going to be expensive, and no one knows for
> sure where it is going to stop (in regards to applicability).
>
> This is a critical issue for continued airworthiness of ALL twin GA
> aircraft. Last time I checked, no one was manufacturing a new like
> replacement for a medium recip twin (300- 400- series Cessnas, 31-
> Pipers, etc.).
>
> TC
As an owner of a C-310, I have been following this issue over the past
year. The current NPRM Compliance Requirements call for inspection of
certain 400 series wing spars at given flight hour thresholds:

401 series and 402, 402A, 402B = 6,500 hours
411 series = 5,500 hours
402C = 14,500 hours
414A through S/N 200 = 8,500 hours
414A S/N 201+ = 14,500 hours

If the AD is extended to the 300 series, then I am hopeful that they
also set a realistic flight hour threshold. At current rate, my 1966
C-310K has 2900 hours TT. If the threshold is set at 5,500 hours, and
at current useage rate, I have over 34 years until the inspection is
needed. The most critical aircraft are those that have been used
heavily for air taxi and with very high total time. Unfortunately,
this is also an opportune time for Cessna to wash their hands of the
laiability associated with supporting aging aircraft, which may be the
real end game.

As far as new replacements for the 400 series Cessnas, the options are
Adam Aircraft Carbonaero, a push-pull twin piston, or a P-Baron.
Piper still makes a Seminole, but it is a smaller twin originally
designed for training. The cost of producing a piston twin is
substantial enough to that the manufacturers have opted for turbine
aircraft. That means Malibu Meridian, TBM-700 and Pilatus PC-12
singles. Deeper pockets can consider the new light-light jets like
Eclipse, Citation Mustang, etc.

If you're looking for an older twin, the Cessna is a good performer,
albeit with this AD causing uncertainty in the market. Otherwise
older Barons, Aztecs or Aero Commanders are a consideration. Larger
twins that are candidates would be the Piper Navajo or Chieftain. If
you want speed, a Piper Aerostar or Beech Duke. All have their own
set of considerations for support and maintenance.

If I ever get the chance to upgrade from a piston twin to a more
capable (and costly) aircraft, I would consider the Piper Cheyenne.

Good luck and safe flying,
Brian

[Mike Rapoport]

Almost all piston twins will climb on one engine if the airplane is clean
and above Vyse. Turboprops, unless they are Part 25 certified, don't cllimb
well on one engine at gross either. I have never heard of a non-Part 25
turboprop that would climb 1000fpm on one engine at gross although perhaps a
400LS could do it. Even a Piaggio Avanti can only do 753fpm on one engine.
Usually the manufacturer just sets the gross weight at a level where the
single engine performance is barely adequate. Training flights are usually
way below gross weight.

The real point of my post was that turbine engine failures are so rare that
even if every one resulted in a fatal accident, they would still have a
lower fatal accident rate then piston twins. It doesn't matter what happens
after an engine failure if the engine doesn't fail in the first place. So,
from an engine failure standpoint, you would probably be safer flying a King
Air 90 without a multi rating than flying a Baron with annual simulator
training.

Mike
MU-2



"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Training and experience are definitely factors ("Professionally" flown
> vs
> > > owner flown) but an engine failure, under the same circumstances, in a
> > > piston popper might well be no big deal in a turbine.
> > >
> > > I can't say for sure, but I don't think all that many piston engines
> have
> > > full feathering props. Add the complexity of mixture control (and
even
> > carb
> > > heat in some) and there's more work when that much more frequent
> failure
> > > occurs.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > AFAIK all piston twins have feathering props. You probably meant
> > autofeathering though.
>
> I hadn't even thought of auto-feather, but I was under the impression that
> most piston twins wouldn't go to full feather (it's been 15 years since I
> flew a piston popper twin).
>
> > Most of the safety difference is probably training
> > and the reliability of turbine engines.
>
> Agree, but I'd say that loss of a piston engine would be much more
> hazrardous than losing a turbine under the same circumstances (weather,
> load, etc.) since a turbine usually has much more power available in the
> remaining engine than a piston. And, yes, under high loads, the margins
are
> equally BAD.
>
> > If you are ten times less likely to
> > have an engine failure, you are a lot less likely to have and engine
> failure
> > related accident.
>
> Indeed, but, too, SEROC in a piston is possibly a negative number, while
in
> a turbo-prop it might be 800-1000fpm. Handled the same way, I can see that
> what is a landing short of the runway in a piston twin would be a
non-issue
> in a turbine.
>
> I wonder how big the gap is between the two types, from Vsse to Vsi/Vso
(not
> sure I'm phrasing that right).
>
>

[[email protected]]

On 31-Mar-2004, john szpara > wrote:

> A couple more commander questions. My best case scenario has the
> following parameters:
>
> 1. Cruising speed 200+ kts (not just at the flight levels)
> 2. cabin class
> 3. potty
> 4. pressurized
> 5. price around $150k, +/- 20k
> 6. ceiling above FL240
>
> Do any Commanders fit the profile?


Seems to me that in this class of used airplane the primary cost issue isn't
purchase price but rather annual insurance and maintenance costs. Any
pressurized, cabin class twin you buy for $150K will probably require a LOT
of maintenance! How much are you willing to spend annually to keep your
bird flying at peak safety levels? Are you willing to devote maybe a week
(and several thousand dollars) every year for recurrent training?

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Since price was one of the requirements (probably the only critical one),
> nothing fits.
>

Yup..."Beer budget with champagne tastes", or should I say "requirements"?.



> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > I don't think anything fits all those requirements.
> > >
> > A 421 would, but to get one with the cabin he desires (potty) would be
one
> > of the later models and it's going to cost a LOT more than $150K by
> probably
> > a factor of two or three.
> >
> > For example: http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AircraftView.jsp?aircraft_id=79362
> (at
> > $275K) (I'm not sure it has a potty in the back).
> >
> > Or http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AircraftView.jsp?aircraft_id=67456 ($509K)
> >
> > > "john szpara" > wrote in message
> > > s.com...
> > > > A couple more commander questions. My best case scenario has the
> > > > following parameters:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Cruising speed 200+ kts (not just at the flight levels)
> > > > 2. cabin class
> > > > 3. potty
> > > > 4. pressurized
> > > > 5. price around $150k, +/- 20k
> > > > 6. ceiling above FL240
> >
> >
>
>

[john szpara]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:11:44 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>I don't think anything fits all those requirements.
>

Those are best case scenario. I figure I will have to give up one or
more things. But I may as well lay all the cards on the table, and
hope for the best hand.

John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[john szpara]

>Seems to me that in this class of used airplane the primary cost issue isn't
>purchase price but rather annual insurance and maintenance costs. Any
>pressurized, cabin class twin you buy for $150K will probably require a LOT
>of maintenance! How much are you willing to spend annually to keep your
>bird flying at peak safety levels? Are you willing to devote maybe a week

I'm figuring $20-30k/year for 100 hours flying. Extra money would be
available for the (inevitable) unexpected. I won't even attempt to buy
unless the revenue stream is in place for it. I would also be using it
partly for my business.

>(and several thousand dollars) every year for recurrent training?

Absolutely. I'm figuring one or two trips a year to Flightsafety.
Recurring training will be a given. I don't want to be a hack, weekend
pilot. I take it very seriously.

John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[john szpara]

>The Commander's don't fit that, but neither do the 421's...not in that price
>range (not one ready to fly without putting a lot more money into it to make
>it airworthy, or one right up against engine OH).

I've seen enough of them advertized in or near my price range,
otherwise I wouldn't even be considering a cabin class twin. That's
without a prebuy inspection, of course, so I won't know if those
planes are really worth it until I start to look at them (with
professional help).

John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[john szpara]

>As an owner of a C-310, I have been following this issue over the past
>year. The current NPRM Compliance Requirements call for inspection of
>certain 400 series wing spars at given flight hour thresholds:
>
>401 series and 402, 402A, 402B = 6,500 hours
>411 series = 5,500 hours
>402C = 14,500 hours
>414A through S/N 200 = 8,500 hours
>414A S/N 201+ = 14,500 hours

Any idea of the current status of this AD thing? Are the numbers above
set, or is it still being discussed?

John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[john szpara]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:52:29 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote:

>
>"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>> Since price was one of the requirements (probably the only critical one),
>> nothing fits.
>>
>
>Yup..."Beer budget with champagne tastes", or should I say "requirements"?.

There are several on trade-a-plane in my budget without run-out
engines (at least by the numbers) and wouldn't fall into the AD for
several years of flying.

John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[Mike Rapoport]

I think that you need to start with the budget and see what is availible.
I'm not sure what the relevance of some of the other items is.

What is magical about 200kts? Why do you care if it will go fast at low
altitudes? If you are going any distance, you will be high and if you are
only going a short distance a faster cruising speed won't matter much.
Often, making an intersection departure will save more time than and
additional 20kts. 190kts or 210kts won't make much difference on even the
longest flight.

Why do you want a potty? They stink and YOU have to empty them. I have had
potty in my airplane for 6 yrs and it has never been used.

Why does it need to be "cabin class" unless it is eight seats or greater?

Your specs add up to a big, heavy airplane with a lot of frontal area. It
is going to require big, powerful, thirsty engines to pull it through the
air. All this is going to cost multiples of the proposed budget.

You may have great reasons for every spec but you need to narrow it down
quite a bit.

Mike
MU-2


"john szpara" > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:11:44 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
> >I don't think anything fits all those requirements.
> >
>
> Those are best case scenario. I figure I will have to give up one or
> more things. But I may as well lay all the cards on the table, and
> hope for the best hand.
>
> John Szpara
> Affordable Satellite
> Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[Mike Rapoport]

If his exposure is covered somehow then why wouldn't he? :-)

Mike
MU-2

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
> Gee Mike, if I point this out to my banker will he spring for a C-90 loan?
> denny
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > > The real point of my post
> was that turbine engine failures are so rare that
> > even if every one resulted in a fatal accident, they would still have a
> > lower fatal accident rate then piston twins. It doesn't matter what
> happens
> > after an engine failure if the engine doesn't fail in the first place.
> So,
> > from an engine failure standpoint, you would probably be safer flying a
> King
> > Air 90 without a multi rating than flying a Baron with annual simulator
> > training.
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

Those trips to FlightSafety will eat up a lot of that 20-30K per year
budget. It is a real commitment once you get an airplane that requires
simulator training unless you are fortunate enough to live near the sim
facility. If you go for two days at a time it will take at least four
including getting there and back. Twice a year is eight days which is a lot
of *estra* time to carve out of your annual schedule.

Mike
MU-2

"john szpara" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> >Seems to me that in this class of used airplane the primary cost issue
isn't
> >purchase price but rather annual insurance and maintenance costs. Any
> >pressurized, cabin class twin you buy for $150K will probably require a
LOT
> >of maintenance! How much are you willing to spend annually to keep your
> >bird flying at peak safety levels? Are you willing to devote maybe a
week
>
> I'm figuring $20-30k/year for 100 hours flying. Extra money would be
> available for the (inevitable) unexpected. I won't even attempt to buy
> unless the revenue stream is in place for it. I would also be using it
> partly for my business.
>
> >(and several thousand dollars) every year for recurrent training?
>
> Absolutely. I'm figuring one or two trips a year to Flightsafety.
> Recurring training will be a given. I don't want to be a hack, weekend
> pilot. I take it very seriously.
>
> John Szpara
> Affordable Satellite
> Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[Tom Sixkiller]

"john szpara" > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:11:44 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
> >I don't think anything fits all those requirements.
> >
>
> Those are best case scenario. I figure I will have to give up one or
> more things. But I may as well lay all the cards on the table, and
> hope for the best hand.

The one that'll kick it into the higher price bracket is the potty, since
only the 421 has that feature available.

[Ben Jackson]

In article et>,
Mike Rapoport > wrote:
>It doesn't matter what happens
>after an engine failure if the engine doesn't fail in the first place. So,
>from an engine failure standpoint, you would probably be safer flying a King
>Air 90 without a multi rating than flying a Baron with annual simulator
>training.

Or a turbine single like a TBM-700 or PC12.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[john szpara]

>What is magical about 200kts? Why do you care if it will go fast at low
>altitudes? If you are going any distance, you will be high and if you are
>only going a short distance a faster cruising speed won't matter much.
>Often, making an intersection departure will save more time than and
>additional 20kts. 190kts or 210kts won't make much difference on even the
>longest flight.

I don't know what is magical about 200kts. Just a target, I suppose,
for being able to travel longer distances in a reasonable period of
time.

You make good points about speed, though.
>
>Why do you want a potty? They stink and YOU have to empty them. I have had
>potty in my airplane for 6 yrs and it has never been used.

You've never been on a long trip with my wife. When we're driving, we
have to stop every hour for the restroom. That's tough to do on a long
flight, especially if you're at the flight levels and she tells you
she "has to go". Not such a big deal for me, if I have a relief tube,
but for her its a different story.
>
>Why does it need to be "cabin class" unless it is eight seats or greater?

So the passengers don't have to climb over seats to get in and out?
>
>Your specs add up to a big, heavy airplane with a lot of frontal area. It
>is going to require big, powerful, thirsty engines to pull it through the
>air. All this is going to cost multiples of the proposed budget.

OK, so some things will have to be sacrificed. My list is only stuff
I'd like to have. Reality (and pocketbook) will dictate what I *can*
have.
>
>You may have great reasons for every spec but you need to narrow it down
>quite a bit.

That's why I'm here. Ask the questions now, before I write a big
check.

John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[john szpara]

>The one that'll kick it into the higher price bracket is the potty, since
>only the 421 has that feature available.

I've seen 414s with them. You might even be able to do it with a 340,
if you do a 4 seat config.

John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[john szpara]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:41:16 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>Those trips to FlightSafety will eat up a lot of that 20-30K per year
>budget. It is a real commitment once you get an airplane that requires
>simulator training unless you are fortunate enough to live near the sim
>facility. If you go for two days at a time it will take at least four
>including getting there and back. Twice a year is eight days which is a lot
>of *estra* time to carve out of your annual schedule.

Sorry, I should have said that the $20-30k was for insurance,
maintenance, gas, and tiedown. It didn't include the training.

Again, if some of this is tax deductable, due to business expense,
then it's a whole different ballgame than a hobby. Also, I'm self
employed, and will have the time to spend on the training.

John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[Nathan Young]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:07:22 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>
>The real point of my post was that turbine engine failures are so rare that
>even if every one resulted in a fatal accident, they would still have a
>lower fatal accident rate then piston twins. It doesn't matter what happens
>after an engine failure if the engine doesn't fail in the first place. So,
>from an engine failure standpoint, you would probably be safer flying a King
>Air 90 without a multi rating than flying a Baron with annual simulator
>training.

Creative thinking, and probably true.

-Nathan

[Nathan Young]

On 31 Mar 2004 07:53:06 -0800, (Brian Cox) wrote:

>
>If the AD is extended to the 300 series, then I am hopeful that they
>also set a realistic flight hour threshold. At current rate, my 1966
>C-310K has 2900 hours TT. If the threshold is set at 5,500 hours, and
>at current useage rate, I have over 34 years until the inspection is
>needed. The most critical aircraft are those that have been used
>heavily for air taxi and with very high total time. Unfortunately,
>this is also an opportune time for Cessna to wash their hands of the
>laiability associated with supporting aging aircraft, which may be the
>real end game.

Wouldn't the 18 year liability limit set by GARA 'wash' Cessna's
liability on these older aircraft? Cessna made/sold their last 421 in
1986, so the their risk on the 4-series twins should be done, right?

Additional details on GARA:
http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/181905-1.html

-Nathan

[Nathan Young]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 17:54:35 GMT, john szpara
> wrote:

>
>>Seems to me that in this class of used airplane the primary cost issue isn't
>>purchase price but rather annual insurance and maintenance costs. Any
>>pressurized, cabin class twin you buy for $150K will probably require a LOT
>>of maintenance! How much are you willing to spend annually to keep your
>>bird flying at peak safety levels? Are you willing to devote maybe a week
>
>I'm figuring $20-30k/year for 100 hours flying. Extra money would be
>available for the (inevitable) unexpected. I won't even attempt to buy
>unless the revenue stream is in place for it. I would also be using it
>partly for my business.

John,

You are definitely asking the right questions about the twins. And
you are right to be asking here before getting out your checkbook. In
the traditional r.a.owning way - keep asking the questions and we'll
keep saying you can't afford it until you're stuck on the ground.

Seriously though, $20-30k for 100hrs/year works out to $200-300/hr.
It is impossible to own/operate a 421 for $200/hr. The GTSIO520s burn
25gph (each) in cruise. Given the $3/gallon prices we have in Chicago
- that's $150/hr right there.

A rebuilt GTSIO520 is $45k, assuming it goes 2000 hrs before the
rebuild that's $22.50/hr per engine. So another $45/hr. Plus, if the
engines are mid-time, you need to be able to make up the 'already
spent' hours in the overhaul fund. This also does not include the
costs to install the new engine or remove the old one.

Most of these engines will require 1 (if not 2) top overhauls to make
it to 2000 hrs. That's another 10-20k per engine per TOH.

Hell, even oil changes on these things are serious business.
Basically a case of oil per engine for each change, plus however much
burn they have. Figure $100 per oil change, and $50 for burned oil
between changes.

Tiedown/Hangar costs are variable, but it is my opinion that a
high-performance/complex aircraft should really be in a heated/climate
controlled hangar. The wind/weather are really hard on planes sitting
outside, and when things break on a 421, they are expensive. Even so,
let's assume that a tie-down is available for $600/year or $6/hr.

Insurance will be another heap. My low-time ME quotes for a $140k
Seneca II with $1M smooth ranged from $5.5k to $12k. I'm sure a 421
with 8 seats and a higher hull value will be much worse. Let's say
you can get insurance for $10k/year which would still be $100/hr.

So a rough estimate per hour
Fuel: $150
Oil: $6
Eng Reserve: $45
Tiedown $6
Insurance: $100
------------------------------------
That's close to $300 and it does not include annual inspections or
misc maintenance costs.

-Nathan

[john szpara]

>You are definitely asking the right questions about the twins. And
>you are right to be asking here before getting out your checkbook. In
>the traditional r.a.owning way - keep asking the questions and we'll
>keep saying you can't afford it until you're stuck on the ground.

Yeah, a while back I was asking about a favorite plane of mine, the
T210, and they were close to having me talked out of buying it, or
anything else. The dream to fly and own is persistant, though.

>
>Seriously though, $20-30k for 100hrs/year works out to $200-300/hr.
>It is impossible to own/operate a 421 for $200/hr. The GTSIO520s burn
>25gph (each) in cruise. Given the $3/gallon prices we have in Chicago
>- that's $150/hr right there.

A 421 is almost certainly more plane than I need. The 340 is probably
closer to the truth, but is more crampt than the 414. If I can find a
414 that I can afford, both on the front and back end, then that might
be the bird. Assuming, of course, that wing spar AD doesn't kill all
300/400 Cessnas.

>So a rough estimate per hour
>Fuel: $150
>Oil: $6
>Eng Reserve: $45
>Tiedown $6
>Insurance: $100
>------------------------------------
>That's close to $300 and it does not include annual inspections or
>misc maintenance costs.

Thanks for the writeup. This kind of stuff is invaluable in helping
the decision process.

John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[jsmith]

Piper Aztec. Best single engine piston performer. Nice fat wing, good
low speed handling.
Piper Cheyenne is the best small turbine. Check the accident statistics.

[jsmith]

john szpara wrote:
> >Why do you want a potty? They stink and YOU have to empty them. I have had
> >potty in my airplane for 6 yrs and it has never been used.
>
> You've never been on a long trip with my wife. When we're driving, we
> have to stop every hour for the restroom. That's tough to do on a long
> flight, especially if you're at the flight levels and she tells you
> she "has to go". Not such a big deal for me, if I have a relief tube,
> but for her its a different story.

My family has made two 800 nm trips in the last two years.
The first was in a Cherokee Six. The legs were three to three-and-a-half hours.
This was max bladder range for the kids.
The second trip was in a C182. Prior to departure, my wife decreed that
legs were to be two-hours (+/-).
It added two fuel stops and two hours to the flight, but everyone was happy.

[Mike Rapoport]

"john szpara" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> >You are definitely asking the right questions about the twins. And
> >you are right to be asking here before getting out your checkbook. In
> >the traditional r.a.owning way - keep asking the questions and we'll
> >keep saying you can't afford it until you're stuck on the ground.
>
> Yeah, a while back I was asking about a favorite plane of mine, the
> T210, and they were close to having me talked out of buying it, or
> anything else. The dream to fly and own is persistant, though.
>
> >

Seriously, don't let anybody talk you out of doing what you want to do
because you will regret it. I think most of the posters here are just
trying to make sure that you think of all the angles.

I am seriously thinking of getting rid of my current airplane in the next
few years for many of the reasons that have been brought up. Going to
Simcom is a minimium of four days and $15,000. Going in for maitenance is
two days just to drop off the airplane and pick it up again. There is no
way that I save SIX DAYS a year by owning an airplane. I don't fly around
anymore just to look out the window. My plan is to build a Murphy Moose (6
place bushplane) that can be maintained by myself and where I can get
training locally. I would also save well over $100k/yr in expenses. I can
find the time and I can afford the price but I am reaching the point where I
ask myself if I really want to. Once you cross a certain threshold of
airplane performance, the commitment, both in term of time and money starts
growing geometrically.

Mike
MU-2

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 04:35:56 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

Interesting. The *only* reason I fly is to enjoy the view out the
window (to the tune of 200+ hours per year), and to transport myself
to (relatively local) places I've never been before, or to go places
you can only get to with an airplane (most of which, you can only get
to with a "bush" airplane).

I own a simple/old tail-dragger now, but in earlier days, I used to
long for high/fast stuff (the more complex, the better, although
I've never had the pleasure of flying equipment like you're
airplane Mike).

These days, something like a Champ on a summer day at 800' AGL
putting along at 85-90mph is my idea of fun. If I need to get across
the country in a hurry, I hop onto a tube (airliner).

The Murphy Moose is a neat rig. If I were to build one, I'd have to
hang/use the M-14PF (400hp) engine.

Bela P. Havasreti

>
>"john szpara" > wrote in message
s.com...
>>
>> >You are definitely asking the right questions about the twins. And
>> >you are right to be asking here before getting out your checkbook. In
>> >the traditional r.a.owning way - keep asking the questions and we'll
>> >keep saying you can't afford it until you're stuck on the ground.
>>
>> Yeah, a while back I was asking about a favorite plane of mine, the
>> T210, and they were close to having me talked out of buying it, or
>> anything else. The dream to fly and own is persistant, though.
>>
>> >
>
>Seriously, don't let anybody talk you out of doing what you want to do
>because you will regret it. I think most of the posters here are just
>trying to make sure that you think of all the angles.
>
>I am seriously thinking of getting rid of my current airplane in the next
>few years for many of the reasons that have been brought up. Going to
>Simcom is a minimium of four days and $15,000. Going in for maitenance is
>two days just to drop off the airplane and pick it up again. There is no
>way that I save SIX DAYS a year by owning an airplane. I don't fly around
>anymore just to look out the window. My plan is to build a Murphy Moose (6
>place bushplane) that can be maintained by myself and where I can get
>training locally. I would also save well over $100k/yr in expenses. I can
>find the time and I can afford the price but I am reaching the point where I
>ask myself if I really want to. Once you cross a certain threshold of
>airplane performance, the commitment, both in term of time and money starts
>growing geometrically.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>

[Ben Jackson]

In article . net>,
Mike Rapoport > wrote:
>I don't fly around anymore just to look out the window. [...]
>I would also save well over $100k/yr in expenses.

Sounds like you need a helicopter!

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Dennis O'Connor]

mmmm probably.... But, I just wrote a check yesterday for 70K for new
software and hardware for the office... There went the down payment on the
C-90 so I can forget that - and I won't even get any fun for the 70K...
Life's a bummer sometimes...
denny
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> If his exposure is covered somehow then why wouldn't he? :-)
>
> Mike
> MU-2

[john szpara]

>I am seriously thinking of getting rid of my current airplane in the next
>few years for many of the reasons that have been brought up. Going to
>Simcom is a minimium of four days and $15,000. Going in for maitenance is
>two days just to drop off the airplane and pick it up again. There is no
>way that I save SIX DAYS a year by owning an airplane. I don't fly around

I read an article that you can do Flightsafety sim training for
something like $4500 (or so) a year, and go as many times as you
want/need.

That's a twin simulator, and the writer of the article raved about the
quality of the sim and the training.

John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[Mike Rapoport]

That is true...for the course only. I have to get there which is a 4000+nm
round trip which takes 15+ flight hours at $600+/hr. Then there in another
$1-2,000 for hotels, maeals, rental car over the four days. We haven't
allocated anything for my time yet either.

Mike
MU-2

"john szpara" > wrote in message
s.com...
> >I am seriously thinking of getting rid of my current airplane in the next
> >few years for many of the reasons that have been brought up. Going to
> >Simcom is a minimium of four days and $15,000. Going in for maitenance
is
> >two days just to drop off the airplane and pick it up again. There is no
> >way that I save SIX DAYS a year by owning an airplane. I don't fly
around
>
> I read an article that you can do Flightsafety sim training for
> something like $4500 (or so) a year, and go as many times as you
> want/need.
>
> That's a twin simulator, and the writer of the article raved about the
> quality of the sim and the training.
>
> John Szpara
> Affordable Satellite
> Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[john szpara]

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 18:33:50 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>That is true...for the course only. I have to get there which is a 4000+nm
>round trip which takes 15+ flight hours at $600+/hr. Then there in another
>$1-2,000 for hotels, maeals, rental car over the four days. We haven't
>allocated anything for my time yet either.

I thought they have more than one location, Long Beach and Wichita? If
they have one in Long Beach, that's only 1.5 hours by 300-400 series
cessna for me (and good practice, to boot).

Where are you located?

John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[Mike Rapoport]

"john szpara" > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 18:33:50 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
> >That is true...for the course only. I have to get there which is a
4000+nm
> >round trip which takes 15+ flight hours at $600+/hr. Then there in
another
> >$1-2,000 for hotels, maeals, rental car over the four days. We haven't
> >allocated anything for my time yet either.
>
> I thought they have more than one location, Long Beach and Wichita? If
> they have one in Long Beach, that's only 1.5 hours by 300-400 series
> cessna for me (and good practice, to boot).
>
> Where are you located?
>

> John Szpara
> Affordable Satellite
> Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

Location is the heart of my problem. I am in the Northwest (Idaho) and the
only simulator is in the Southeast (Orlando) so it is about the worst
possible situation. If the sim was only 1.5hrs away from you then it is an
entirely different situation.

Mike
MU-2

[Kyler Laird]

jsmith > writes:

>Piper Aztec. Best single engine piston performer. Nice fat wing, good
>low speed handling.

Yeah, I keep thinking about a bigger plane (hence reading this thread),
but I like being able to go 200 knots on "only" 32 GPH, and being able
to fly places that a 421 wouldn't.

Yesterday I almost filled the plane (One person didn't show.) and flew
to a 2100' grass strip. I had a single-engine pilot on the other
controls and he was impressed by how stable and easy to fly it was.

Every time I start to look at bigger planes, I check the takeoff roll
requirements and my bank account and give my Aztec a hug. There just
doesn't seem to be another plane like it.

OT: three more Aztecs recently appeared at our airport. They're flying
checks. Gotta meet them sometime.

>Piper Cheyenne is the best small turbine. Check the accident statistics.

My mechanic votes for the Cheyenne too. That means a lot to me.

--kyler

[john szpara]

>>Piper Cheyenne is the best small turbine. Check the accident statistics.
>
>My mechanic votes for the Cheyenne too. That means a lot to me.

My commecial pilot friend, the one who mentioned 310, 340, 414 and
421, recommends them, too. But my banker says no.

John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[Mike Rapoport]

Not sure why your mechanic likes Cheyennes unless it is because his son was
just accepted to Harvard :-).

The Cheyennes are built like other Pipers and were aimed at the bottom of
the market. A lot of corners were cut to reduce the price point and it is
starting to have an effect on the airplanes. An example is that Cheyennes
used zinc (instead of gold) plated contacts on all the electrical
connections and now, 20yrs later they are subject to a lot of electrical
gremlins caused by corrosion of the contacts.

Mike
MU-2


"Kyler Laird" > wrote in message
...
> jsmith > writes:
>
> >Piper Aztec. Best single engine piston performer. Nice fat wing, good
> >low speed handling.
>
> Yeah, I keep thinking about a bigger plane (hence reading this thread),
> but I like being able to go 200 knots on "only" 32 GPH, and being able
> to fly places that a 421 wouldn't.
>
> Yesterday I almost filled the plane (One person didn't show.) and flew
> to a 2100' grass strip. I had a single-engine pilot on the other
> controls and he was impressed by how stable and easy to fly it was.
>
> Every time I start to look at bigger planes, I check the takeoff roll
> requirements and my bank account and give my Aztec a hug. There just
> doesn't seem to be another plane like it.
>
> OT: three more Aztecs recently appeared at our airport. They're flying
> checks. Gotta meet them sometime.
>
> >Piper Cheyenne is the best small turbine. Check the accident statistics.
>
> My mechanic votes for the Cheyenne too. That means a lot to me.
>
> --kyler