Advice and experts with 400 series Cessnas (414 and 421), purchase and training

[[email protected]]

I recently got back into flying after a 12 year layoff. I am current,
and flying high-performance singles (182). I have around 80 hours in
high-performance planes, including retracts. I am currently building
time to improve my skills and getting ready to take the next step.

I am finally in a financial position to not only be able to afford to
fly, but to own an aircraft. I've been doing research on the various
costs, fixed and hourly, and I will not buy an airplane unless I am
sure I can:

1. afford to fly it regularly
2. have sufficent income to handle unexpected expenses
3. have funds for initial and recurrent training
4. can put 50-100 hours of dual in type

I am trying to map out how I want to proceed going to the next step. I
want to get my instrument rating, and possibly multi (which, of course
I'd do, if I went for a twin).

So, here is my dilema. I've pretty much settled on a T210 or a
400-series Cessna. I'd prefer the twin, because I'd like to replace
most or all of my airline travel. I want to be able to take 4-6 people
on medium to long trips. I'm based on the west coast, in California.
We seldom have seriously bad weather here, and if I travel east, I
would allow plenty of time to divert or wait out bad weather.

One reason I'd prefer a twin is that certain areas of California can
have persistant fog, with below-IFR ceilings, that I occasionally need
to overfly. If you lose a single engine, an emergency landing in those
conditions have a low chance of success. To get use out of my plane, I
would like to be able to fly over areas with those conditions. A twin
would almost certainly get you to a clear weather airport.

My total time is about 300 hours. Yes, I know, low time. If I went for
either plane, I would do all my training in that plane. That would
mean 50-100 hours of dual. When I started my refresher (extended BFR),
I told the instructor I was in no hurry, and we'd keep going until we
were both satisfied. If I buy either plane, I would do the same. No
hurry with time, no money constraints on training. I'd tell the
instructor I want to go through training slowly and do everything over
and over until there is no doubt I'm ready for the next thing. I would
also plan several dual-instruction, cross-country, point to point
flights (hopefully in actual IFR) to gain practical experience in the
system and with my plane.

As for insurance, I'd look for a pilot with lots of hours in type to
add as first insured. The best case would be to find a CFII, MEI that
would want time in type, could train me in my plane until I'm ready
and have enough time in type, and could use my plane part of the time.

So, the questions are:

1. are there any schools that specialize in 414/421 initial and
recurrant training?
2. any advice on how to find local instructors that have experience in
type?
3. if anyone has any advice on buying and training in T210s and 400
series, your advice would be welcome

Again, I want to emphasize that I would do EXTENSIVE training,
including extended training and dual instruction flights, before I'd
consider myself worthy of acting as PIC. I realize that a 400 series
Cessna is a very complex aircraft, and I would do everything necessary
to become proficient in my aircraft. I take flying and training very
seriously.

[kontiki]

If you can afford it, and are willing to put in the time and effort
to do all of the things you elaborated on then why the hell not?

My only problem with your post is that it seems your reasoning
for wanting a twin is to help you avoid any possibility of getting
into any sort of weather. That seems sort of counter productive
in that either the 210 or the twins are very adept at dealing
with weather given a competent pilot and a some wise flight planning.

[Mike Murdock]

I suspect your biggest hurdle will be insurance. You'll want to work with a
good broker who has experience with transitioning pilots into cabin-class
twins, before you buy a plane. While there are only a handful of
underwriters, a good broker can present your case so that you will get
insurance, where another broker might just submit your flight times and then
give you the "everybody declined" news.

As to flying "4 - 6 people on medium to long trips," you might want to work
some weight and balance and fuel consumption scenarios for your intended
aircraft. You can buy POHs at http://www.esscoaircraft.com/.

I'd also recommend that you visit Jerry Temple's web site:
http://www.jtatwins.com. Jerry is an airplane broker specializing in twin
Cessnas. I bought a T310R through him, and can vouch for his honesty and
integrity. His web site has a lot of information about the purchase
process.

There is also a wealth of information available through the "Twin Cessna
Flyer", a type organization. Their web site is http://www.twincessna.org/

Best of luck on your adventure.

-Mike

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:52:21 GMT, kontiki >
wrote:

>If you can afford it, and are willing to put in the time and effort
>to do all of the things you elaborated on then why the hell not?
>
>My only problem with your post is that it seems your reasoning
>for wanting a twin is to help you avoid any possibility of getting
>into any sort of weather. That seems sort of counter productive
>in that either the 210 or the twins are very adept at dealing
>with weather given a competent pilot and a some wise flight planning.

Maybe I didn't word that correctly. One rationale for wanting a twin
over a single is that I'd like to be able to fly *over* areas that are
below IFR minimums and over mountains without the worry that if I lose
my one engine, that I'd have to make an emergency landing with poor
odds of survival. There are other reasons for wanting a twin, but
assuming I keep up with emergency engine out procedure reviews, I'd
like the piece of mind knowing I can continue into more favorable
conditions with the remaining engine.

Some examples:

1. California's Central Valley can get persistant fog that lasts for
days, has ceilings of 100ft AGL or less, and quarter to half mile
visibility. I occasionally overfly those conditions from the bay area
to the Sierra mountains or southern Cal, and I'm concerned that losing
an engine over that kind of muck is pretty much a death sentence.

2. I like to fly to Tahoe, Truckee and Reno. I'd like the piece of
mind that an engine loss won't leave me over terrain that is
impossible to land on safely.

[[email protected]]

Excellent info. Thanks!


On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:55:39 -0600, "Mike Murdock" >
wrote:

>I suspect your biggest hurdle will be insurance. You'll want to work with a
>good broker who has experience with transitioning pilots into cabin-class
>twins, before you buy a plane. While there are only a handful of
>underwriters, a good broker can present your case so that you will get
>insurance, where another broker might just submit your flight times and then
>give you the "everybody declined" news.
>
>As to flying "4 - 6 people on medium to long trips," you might want to work
>some weight and balance and fuel consumption scenarios for your intended
>aircraft. You can buy POHs at http://www.esscoaircraft.com/.
>
>I'd also recommend that you visit Jerry Temple's web site:
>http://www.jtatwins.com. Jerry is an airplane broker specializing in twin
>Cessnas. I bought a T310R through him, and can vouch for his honesty and
>integrity. His web site has a lot of information about the purchase
>process.
>
>There is also a wealth of information available through the "Twin Cessna
>Flyer", a type organization. Their web site is http://www.twincessna.org/
>
>Best of luck on your adventure.
>
>-Mike
>

[BTIZ]

engine loss on most twins.. in the Reno/Tahoe area will NOT keep you out of
trouble..

The single engine service altitude on some twins is well below that mountain
pass.

BT

> wrote in message
news:1104457427.9d9ebb6bf233270beb75b79a476ce16b@t eranews...
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:52:21 GMT, kontiki >
> wrote:
<snip>
> 2. I like to fly to Tahoe, Truckee and Reno. I'd like the piece of
> mind that an engine loss won't leave me over terrain that is
> impossible to land on safely.
<snip>

[Matt Whiting]

BTIZ wrote:

> engine loss on most twins.. in the Reno/Tahoe area will NOT keep you out of
> trouble..
>
> The single engine service altitude on some twins is well below that mountain
> pass.

True, but a twin that loses an engine above the single engine service
doesn't plummet instantly to that altitude. Depending on how long the
pass is, a twin that is flying well above the SESC could transit the
pass long before the slow descent has dropped it to the SESC.


Matt

[john smith]

What is the status of the proposed AD on twin-cessnas?
These aircraft are/were going cheap because of the cost to comply with
the AD.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 03:44:39 GMT, john smith > wrote:

>What is the status of the proposed AD on twin-cessnas?
>These aircraft are/were going cheap because of the cost to comply with
>the AD.

I've been reading that the FAA delayed or cancelled it. I'm not sure
if it applies to the 421, but most of the others were covered (unless
the 421 wasn't part of it in the first place).

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:31:09 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>BTIZ wrote:
>
>> engine loss on most twins.. in the Reno/Tahoe area will NOT keep you out of
>> trouble..
>>
>> The single engine service altitude on some twins is well below that mountain
>> pass.
>
>True, but a twin that loses an engine above the single engine service
>doesn't plummet instantly to that altitude. Depending on how long the
>pass is, a twin that is flying well above the SESC could transit the
>pass long before the slow descent has dropped it to the SESC.

You don't need to be able to cruise all the way out of the mountains.
You just need to stay aloft long enough not to crash into a mountain
or canyon.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:09:04 -0800, "BTIZ" >
wrote:

>engine loss on most twins.. in the Reno/Tahoe area will NOT keep you out of
>trouble..

On departure, maybe not. I'm thinking more at cruise or if you've
already got some altitude. Engine failures on departure are dangerous
no matter what you are flying. There is no way to eliminate all risk,
I just hope to minimize risk as much as possible.

>
>The single engine service altitude on some twins is well below that mountain
>pass.

This is something I will have to investigate with any aircraft I will
consider buying.

[Mike Rapoport]

> wrote in message
news:1104443885.3fb6f23b35455ac79c342aee9241e5cd@t eranews...
>I recently got back into flying after a 12 year layoff. I am current,
> and flying high-performance singles (182). I have around 80 hours in
> high-performance planes, including retracts. I am currently building
> time to improve my skills and getting ready to take the next step.
>
> I am finally in a financial position to not only be able to afford to
> fly, but to own an aircraft. I've been doing research on the various
> costs, fixed and hourly, and I will not buy an airplane unless I am
> sure I can:
>
> 1. afford to fly it regularly
> 2. have sufficent income to handle unexpected expenses
> 3. have funds for initial and recurrent training
> 4. can put 50-100 hours of dual in type
>
> I am trying to map out how I want to proceed going to the next step. I
> want to get my instrument rating, and possibly multi (which, of course
> I'd do, if I went for a twin).
>
> So, here is my dilema. I've pretty much settled on a T210 or a
> 400-series Cessna. I'd prefer the twin, because I'd like to replace
> most or all of my airline travel. I want to be able to take 4-6 people
> on medium to long trips. I'm based on the west coast, in California.
> We seldom have seriously bad weather here, and if I travel east, I
> would allow plenty of time to divert or wait out bad weather.
>
> One reason I'd prefer a twin is that certain areas of California can
> have persistant fog, with below-IFR ceilings, that I occasionally need
> to overfly. If you lose a single engine, an emergency landing in those
> conditions have a low chance of success. To get use out of my plane, I
> would like to be able to fly over areas with those conditions. A twin
> would almost certainly get you to a clear weather airport.
>
> My total time is about 300 hours. Yes, I know, low time. If I went for
> either plane, I would do all my training in that plane. That would
> mean 50-100 hours of dual. When I started my refresher (extended BFR),
> I told the instructor I was in no hurry, and we'd keep going until we
> were both satisfied. If I buy either plane, I would do the same. No
> hurry with time, no money constraints on training. I'd tell the
> instructor I want to go through training slowly and do everything over
> and over until there is no doubt I'm ready for the next thing. I would
> also plan several dual-instruction, cross-country, point to point
> flights (hopefully in actual IFR) to gain practical experience in the
> system and with my plane.
>
> As for insurance, I'd look for a pilot with lots of hours in type to
> add as first insured. The best case would be to find a CFII, MEI that
> would want time in type, could train me in my plane until I'm ready
> and have enough time in type, and could use my plane part of the time.
>
> So, the questions are:
>
> 1. are there any schools that specialize in 414/421 initial and
> recurrant training?
> 2. any advice on how to find local instructors that have experience in
> type?
> 3. if anyone has any advice on buying and training in T210s and 400
> series, your advice would be welcome
>
> Again, I want to emphasize that I would do EXTENSIVE training,
> including extended training and dual instruction flights, before I'd
> consider myself worthy of acting as PIC. I realize that a 400 series
> Cessna is a very complex aircraft, and I would do everything necessary
> to become proficient in my aircraft. I take flying and training very
> seriously.
>

Have you considered not insuring the hull? Flight Safety and Simcom would
be the preferred places to get trained.

Mike
MU-2

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:20:03 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:


>>
>
>Have you considered not insuring the hull? Flight Safety and Simcom would
>be the preferred places to get trained.

So the idea would be that if I wrecked it, I'd take the loss, not the
insurance company? Would that make a significant difference in price
and my "insurability"?

[Ben Jackson]

In article <1104514642.0540a981e3e373fdfec3f46fbafc3ee2@terane ws>,
> wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:20:03 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:
>>
>>Have you considered not insuring the hull?
>
>So the idea would be that if I wrecked it, I'd take the loss, not the
>insurance company?

You'd get liability coverage so that if you crashed it INTO something
thei insurance company would cover what you hit. You'd probably get
"not in motion" hull coverage so if the hangar collapsed you'd be covered.
You'd skip the "in motion" hull coverage (which is the bulk of the
premium).

Then, if you crashed, you'd have to pay to repair it or decide it's not
repairable and sell the aircraft for salvage. In any survivable accident
the salvage value is likely to be pretty high.

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

[[email protected]]

>You'd get liability coverage so that if you crashed it INTO something
>thei insurance company would cover what you hit. You'd probably get
>"not in motion" hull coverage so if the hangar collapsed you'd be covered.
>You'd skip the "in motion" hull coverage (which is the bulk of the
>premium).
>
>Then, if you crashed, you'd have to pay to repair it or decide it's not
>repairable and sell the aircraft for salvage. In any survivable accident
>the salvage value is likely to be pretty high.

Someone was telling me that the hull portion was the least portion of
the premium. I'm guessing it is the liability, i.e., I crash, kill
everyone on board, their families sue, damage/casualties on the
ground, etc.

[Ben Jackson]

In article <1104532621.47695f51644ac10c93563568d2bcd3af@terane ws>,
> wrote:
>
>Someone was telling me that the hull portion was the least portion of
>the premium. I'm guessing it is the liability, i.e., I crash, kill
>everyone on board, their families sue, damage/casualties on the
>ground, etc.

I strongly recommend that anyone seriously thinking of purchasing an
aircraft pick a likely looking candidate and get a real quote for it.
I got 'estimates' but they were way, WAY off the actual quotes I got.

Looking at the first policy I found (not this year's) the breakdown
was about 14% liability, 1% medical, 35% not-in-motion and 50% in-
motion.

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

[Fly]

Another thing to consider besides insurance cost is the operating cost of
the plane.

Don't think that two engines is just double the cost, stepping up to a 414
from a 210 is 3x or 4x the cost.

Kent Felkins

[Mike Rapoport]

> wrote in message
news:1104532621.47695f51644ac10c93563568d2bcd3af@t eranews...
>
>>You'd get liability coverage so that if you crashed it INTO something
>>thei insurance company would cover what you hit. You'd probably get
>>"not in motion" hull coverage so if the hangar collapsed you'd be covered.
>>You'd skip the "in motion" hull coverage (which is the bulk of the
>>premium).
>>
>>Then, if you crashed, you'd have to pay to repair it or decide it's not
>>repairable and sell the aircraft for salvage. In any survivable accident
>>the salvage value is likely to be pretty high.
>
> Someone was telling me that the hull portion was the least portion of
> the premium. I'm guessing it is the liability, i.e., I crash, kill
> everyone on board, their families sue, damage/casualties on the
> ground, etc.
>

The hull coverage is going to be the largest component of insurance by far.
On a $400K hull with a low time multi pilot, hull might be 90% of the total
premium.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:3IlBd.51226$k25.45830@attbi_s53...
> In article <1104532621.47695f51644ac10c93563568d2bcd3af@terane ws>,
> > wrote:
>>
>>Someone was telling me that the hull portion was the least portion of
>>the premium. I'm guessing it is the liability, i.e., I crash, kill
>>everyone on board, their families sue, damage/casualties on the
>>ground, etc.
>
> I strongly recommend that anyone seriously thinking of purchasing an
> aircraft pick a likely looking candidate and get a real quote for it.
> I got 'estimates' but they were way, WAY off the actual quotes I got.
>
> Looking at the first policy I found (not this year's) the breakdown
> was about 14% liability, 1% medical, 35% not-in-motion and 50% in-
> motion.
>
> --
> Ben Jackson
> >
> http://www.ben.com/

Hull insurance goes up with the value of the hull, liability does not, so,
for an expensive airplane the hull coverage is the overwhelming portion.

Mike
MU-2

[[email protected]]

>The hull coverage is going to be the largest component of insurance by far.
>On a $400K hull with a low time multi pilot, hull might be 90% of the total
>premium.

I'm looking at 421s in the $150-180k range. There are at least a half
dozen on trade a plane at any one time.

[G.R. Patterson III]

wrote:
>
> Someone was telling me that the hull portion was the least portion of
> the premium.

The cost of the hull premium varies with the value of the plane, so that person
might be correct. For something like an Ercoupe. I have my plane insured for a
hull value of $60,000, and the hull premium is by far the largest portion of the
bill.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Colin W Kingsbury]

> wrote in message
news:1104443885.3fb6f23b35455ac79c342aee9241e5cd@t eranews...

Wow, in one brief post you managed to contain at least three of the great
flamewar topics- insurance, relative safety of twins, and real operating
costs. Not bad!

> I am trying to map out how I want to proceed going to the next step. I
> want to get my instrument rating, and possibly multi (which, of course
> I'd do, if I went for a twin).

Since it makes sense to get your rating in a plane you own, and the
400-series Cessna are terrible for this type of work (hell on the engines)
I'd look to buy something to get the rating in and then build some time in
before stepping up. You may even find the step-up unnecessary as many people
overestimate what they really need. A light twin like a Seminole or Aztec
might be a good choice, since the smaller engines won't eat you alive on
costs and it's docile enough to be a good training platform, but you're
building multi time which will help you when time comes to insure something
bigger. I just don't see making the step-up from a low-time 182 pilot to a
400 series right away.

> As for insurance, I'd look for a pilot with lots of hours in type to
> add as first insured. The best case would be to find a CFII, MEI that
> would want time in type, could train me in my plane until I'm ready
> and have enough time in type, and could use my plane part of the time.

If you were near Boston I'd have the guy for you. Ask the owners of those
421's you've seen who they use. Quite often the best CFIs are not the ones
hanging around the flight school waiting for students to walk in the door.

Best,
-cwk.

[john szpara]

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 16:59:13 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
>news:1104443885.3fb6f23b35455ac79c342aee9241e5cd@t eranews...
>
>Wow, in one brief post you managed to contain at least three of the great
>flamewar topics- insurance, relative safety of twins, and real operating
>costs. Not bad!

Heh heh.

>Since it makes sense to get your rating in a plane you own, and the
>400-series Cessna are terrible for this type of work (hell on the engines)
>I'd look to buy something to get the rating in and then build some time in
>before stepping up. You may even find the step-up unnecessary as many people
>overestimate what they really need. A light twin like a Seminole or Aztec
>might be a good choice, since the smaller engines won't eat you alive on
>costs and it's docile enough to be a good training platform, but you're
>building multi time which will help you when time comes to insure something
>bigger. I just don't see making the step-up from a low-time 182 pilot to a
>400 series right away.

I had a talk with a local A/P who specializes in 421s. He gave me a
lot of good info, including the point that I should not to my multi in
a 421. The club I'm in has a Piper Seminole and Seneca II. I might get
my multi in the Seminole, get a checkout in the Seneca, and fly only
twins until I buy. I'm sure that would save a 421s engines unnecessary
wear and tear, and I'd be building muti time.


>If you were near Boston I'd have the guy for you. Ask the owners of those
>421's you've seen who they use. Quite often the best CFIs are not the ones
>hanging around the flight school waiting for students to walk in the door.

Yeah, I'll have to do a lot of local searching. The A/P says he knows
someone who does instruction in 421s. He seems to have a lot of
connections relating to that aircraft.

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

[Mike Rapoport]

> wrote in message
news:1104567426.5d42d27af3ddef329bdea5c38f8ade9a@t eranews...
>
>>The hull coverage is going to be the largest component of insurance by
>>far.
>>On a $400K hull with a low time multi pilot, hull might be 90% of the
>>total
>>premium.
>
> I'm looking at 421s in the $150-180k range. There are at least a half
> dozen on trade a plane at any one time.
>

I didn't realize that they were so cheap. I guess that I was thinking of
the C model.

Mike
MU-2

[john szpara]

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:31:19 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:


>> I'm looking at 421s in the $150-180k range. There are at least a half
>> dozen on trade a plane at any one time.
>>
>
>I didn't realize that they were so cheap. I guess that I was thinking of
>the C model.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>

Yes, A & B models are out there in that range. There was one on Ebay
for $60,000 (below reserve), repeat auction after the last one fell
through, but went for $76,000. I would have gone for that one, but
research showed there were better ones available for less total money
(both engines were near TBO).

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

[Allen]

> wrote in message
news:1104567426.5d42d27af3ddef329bdea5c38f8ade9a@t eranews...
>
> >The hull coverage is going to be the largest component of insurance by
far.
> >On a $400K hull with a low time multi pilot, hull might be 90% of the
total
> >premium.
>
> I'm looking at 421s in the $150-180k range. There are at least a half
> dozen on trade a plane at any one time.
>
Don't go for the 421 or 421A. They both utilized engines that were short
lived and high maintenance. The 421B can use the GTSIO-520-H engine that is
more readily found at engine overhaulers.

[john szpara]

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:08:25 GMT, "Allen" >
wrote:


>Don't go for the 421 or 421A. They both utilized engines that were short
>lived and high maintenance. The 421B can use the GTSIO-520-H engine that is
>more readily found at engine overhaulers.

What year did the 421B model start? Does that indicated the larger
fuselage?

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

[john szpara]

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:31:19 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:


>> I'm looking at 421s in the $150-180k range. There are at least a half
>> dozen on trade a plane at any one time.
>>
>
>I didn't realize that they were so cheap. I guess that I was thinking of
>the C model.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>

Yes, A & B models are out there in that range. There was one on Ebay
for $60,000 (below reserve), repeat auction after the last one fell
through, but went for $76,000. I would have gone for that one, but
research showed there were better ones available for less total money
(both engines were near TBO).

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

[Scott D.]

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 16:59:13 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
>news:1104443885.3fb6f23b35455ac79c342aee9241e5cd@t eranews...
>

>Since it makes sense to get your rating in a plane you own, and the
>400-series Cessna are terrible for this type of work (hell on the engines)
>I'd look to buy something to get the rating in and then build some time in
>before stepping up. You may even find the step-up unnecessary as many people
>overestimate what they really need. A light twin like a Seminole or Aztec
>might be a good choice, since the smaller engines won't eat you alive on
>costs and it's docile enough to be a good training platform, but you're
>building multi time which will help you when time comes to insure something
>bigger. I just don't see making the step-up from a low-time 182 pilot to a
>400 series right away.
>
If he wants to do the slow transition route of being able to get his
twin rating and still carry passengers and luggage around, I would go
for the Seneca II T. I fly both the Seneca II T and a 421C quiet
often (at least once a week each) and I can tell you that I can out
climb the 421 in the Seneca II any day. The Seminole is for training
only IMHO. The engines are just to small for any use full load, but
the Seneca II will carry 4 passengers with their luggage and full fuel
just fine.

The 421C is very nice but with the fuel that it uses, around 44GPH
compared to the Seneca's 22GPH, the speed difference that you get
between the two is not worth the fuel. Yes the 421 has a higher
service ceiling, but if he is going to train in the 421, he is going
to be real hard on those geared engines, which are not cheap. I cant
say much about the B model as I only have one flight in it but it was
a dog and I really hated being in it.

Scott D.


Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher

[Allen]

"john szpara" > wrote in message
news:1104894990.9b8bdf9c0fc87d09428b5fb09527b83d@t eranews...
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:08:25 GMT, "Allen" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >Don't go for the 421 or 421A. They both utilized engines that were short
> >lived and high maintenance. The 421B can use the GTSIO-520-H engine that
is
> >more readily found at engine overhaulers.
>
> What year did the 421B model start? Does that indicated the larger
> fuselage?
>
> John Szpara
> Affordable Satellite
> Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

The 421 was first built in 1968, 200 of them were built. The 421A started
in 1969, 158 were built. Both the 421 and 421A had the GTSIO-520-D engines.
The 421B started in 1970 and was built until 1975. It had a 410 lb. gross
weight increase, the GTSIO-520-H engines, 2'4" longer fuselage and 2' wider
wing span.

Allen

[john szpara]

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:58:07 -0800, wrote:

Update

I've eliminated the 421 as the first plane. I've been having a long
discussion on the cessna pilot's association forum, and the 421 isn't
the right airplane for now.

I've made a list of planes I'd be interested in:

T210
P210
T310
320
340

The 340 would be nice, but the costs and complexity are too close to
the 421, so it is basically out. I could use some opinions on the
others. I've pretty much decided to get my instrument rating in a
single first, then go from there.

I could also use some recommendations on instrument rating programs
here in the Bay Area. All clubs offer them, but it is difficult to
know which one is best.
John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[Paul Smedshammer]

wrote in
news:1104457427.9d9ebb6bf233270beb75b79a476ce16b@t eranews:

> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:52:21 GMT, kontiki >
> wrote:
>
>>If you can afford it, and are willing to put in the time and effort
>>to do all of the things you elaborated on then why the hell not?
>>
>>My only problem with your post is that it seems your reasoning
>>for wanting a twin is to help you avoid any possibility of getting
>>into any sort of weather. That seems sort of counter productive
>>in that either the 210 or the twins are very adept at dealing
>>with weather given a competent pilot and a some wise flight planning.
>
> Maybe I didn't word that correctly. One rationale for wanting a twin
> over a single is that I'd like to be able to fly *over* areas that are
> below IFR minimums and over mountains without the worry that if I lose
> my one engine, that I'd have to make an emergency landing with poor
> odds of survival. There are other reasons for wanting a twin, but
> assuming I keep up with emergency engine out procedure reviews, I'd
> like the piece of mind knowing I can continue into more favorable
> conditions with the remaining engine.
>
> Some examples:
>
> 1. California's Central Valley can get persistant fog that lasts for
> days, has ceilings of 100ft AGL or less, and quarter to half mile
> visibility. I occasionally overfly those conditions from the bay area
> to the Sierra mountains or southern Cal, and I'm concerned that losing
> an engine over that kind of muck is pretty much a death sentence.
>
> 2. I like to fly to Tahoe, Truckee and Reno. I'd like the piece of
> mind that an engine loss won't leave me over terrain that is
> impossible to land on safely.

As somebody who does exactly this with a Mooney often (crossing over the
California Central Valley) I can attest to the desire to have another
engine. Just last month I was flying over a fog layer that was 100 agl
to tops at 1000 solid in the Central California Valley heading back to
the Northern Bay Area. I was at 4,500 feet when the engine began running
very rough. It cleared about 8 minutes later (turned out to be water in
the fuel or a plugged injector) but the feeling that I was a gonner is
still with me. Thinking about crossing over an overcast layer with no
place to safely glide makes a pit in my stomach. Having another engine
in that case that would allow me to find a clear spot on either side of
the Central Valley fog could have been a life saver. I was very lucky
and will think twice before going VFR over the top again on a single
engine.

Paul Smedshammer
Mooney M20F

[john szpara]

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 00:38:58 GMT, Paul Smedshammer
> wrote:

ne
>in that case that would allow me to find a clear spot on either side of
>the Central Valley fog could have been a life saver. I was very lucky
>and will think twice before going VFR over the top again on a single
>engine.
>
>Paul Smedshammer
>Mooney M20F

I've pretty much been talked out of buying a twin. The way they talk
about it, it sounds like you'd have to be nuts to buy a twin,
especially an older one.

I guess I have 3 choices:

1. Buy a twin, go broke
2. Fly a singe, eventually get killed
3. Don't fly

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

[Mike Rapoport]

The T210 is probably the best overall compromise between capability and cost
but it isn't really up to flying IMC over the Sierra, but the 340 and 421
would be marginal for that too.

Mike
MU-2


"john szpara" > wrote in message
news:1105148624.5add2b1a2ce8325fe6c0b0c877086475@t eranews...
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 00:38:58 GMT, Paul Smedshammer
> > wrote:
>
> ne
>>in that case that would allow me to find a clear spot on either side of
>>the Central Valley fog could have been a life saver. I was very lucky
>>and will think twice before going VFR over the top again on a single
>>engine.
>>
>>Paul Smedshammer
>>Mooney M20F
>
> I've pretty much been talked out of buying a twin. The way they talk
> about it, it sounds like you'd have to be nuts to buy a twin,
> especially an older one.
>
> I guess I have 3 choices:
>
> 1. Buy a twin, go broke
> 2. Fly a singe, eventually get killed
> 3. Don't fly
>
> John Szpara
> Affordable Satellite
> Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[Scott D.]

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:35:06 -0800, john szpara
> wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:58:07 -0800, wrote:
>
>Update
>
>I've eliminated the 421 as the first plane. I've been having a long
>discussion on the cessna pilot's association forum, and the 421 isn't
>the right airplane for now.
>
Good decision,

>I've made a list of planes I'd be interested in:
>
>T210
>P210
>T310
>320
>340

Just kind of curious as to why you have eliminated everything but
Cessna products. Piper and Beech also have good small single and twin
aircraft with comparable price. For the single engine, look at the
Bonanza, it has better performance in almost all categories. And for
the twin, I would also look at the Beech Baron or the Piper Seneca's.
If it is just because your familiar with Cessna products, don't short
yourself. I don't know what kind of aircraft that you have been
taught it (suspecting a 172) but if you are looking for
familiarization and easy transition into a larger plane, the 210 is
the only plane on your list that would look similar to the 172. After
that, the panels and their flight characteristics, IMHO, are no where
close. But I can't speak for the 340 as I have never flown or even
been in one but I am suspecting it is similar to the 320.

>The 340 would be nice, but the costs and complexity are too close to
>the 421, so it is basically out. I could use some opinions on the
>others. I've pretty much decided to get my instrument rating in a
>single first, then go from there.
>
Good decision on getting the Instrument in a single engine. I would
suggest getting it in like a 172 because things happen a lot slower
and it gives your mind a chance to react and make decisions before you
go blowing thru a localizer or you cross a fix before deciding what
type of hold entry you are suppose to be making.

Good luck.

Scott D.
Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher

[john szpara]

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 11:04:55 -0700, Scott D. <> wrote:


>Just kind of curious as to why you have eliminated everything but
>Cessna products. Piper and Beech also have good small single and twin
>aircraft with comparable price. For the single engine, look at the
>Bonanza, it has better performance in almost all categories. And for
>the twin, I would also look at the Beech Baron or the Piper Seneca's.
>If it is just because your familiar with Cessna products, don't short
>yourself. I don't know what kind of aircraft that you have been
>taught it (suspecting a 172) but if you are looking for
>familiarization and easy transition into a larger plane, the 210 is
>the only plane on your list that would look similar to the 172. After

I've done a lot of reading and research, checking performance numbers,
operating costs and flying characteristcs. There is nothing special
about the Pipers. I've flown the Warrior, Archer and Arrow. Bonanzas
evidently are very sensitive to CG. I have time in a Mooney 231, great
airplane, but barely 4 pax, forget fuel and baggage. Also a bit crampt
compared to most Cessnas.

For the money, a T210 is a better overall buy. I've flown them before,
and love 'em. Fast, powerful, heavy feeling (feels smoother in
flight), good loading numbers.

I don't know much about the Piper twins, but the Cessnas seem to fit
the bill for me nicely. Perhaps I should consider, say, a Seneca
turbo, but if I want cabin class, the 340, 414 and 421 would be a
better goal (although a Navajo would fit the bill as well).

>that, the panels and their flight characteristics, IMHO, are no where
>close. But I can't speak for the 340 as I have never flown or even
>been in one but I am suspecting it is similar to the 320.

The 340 is quite different. The 320 is *slightly* larger than a 310,
but you wouldn't be able to tell that much just looking at it. The 340
is cabin-class, a bit shorter and narrower than a 400-series. You
might have trouble telling a 340 from a 414 just looking at the
pictures.

>Good decision on getting the Instrument in a single engine. I would
>suggest getting it in like a 172 because things happen a lot slower
>and it gives your mind a chance to react and make decisions before you
>go blowing thru a localizer or you cross a fix before deciding what
>type of hold entry you are suppose to be making.

Yeah, I need to take a slower track on this. No problem, I have lots
of time to figure things out after I get my instrument rating.

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

[john smith]

Look at the safety numbers for a Cheyenne I.
Safest twin flying.