Opinions on Cessna 340, 414 and 421

"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/AircraftVie...craft_id=79362 (at
$275K) (I'm not sure it has a potty in the back).

Or http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AircraftVie...craft_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

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/AircraftVie...craft_id=79362
(at
$275K) (I'm not sure it has a potty in the back).

Or http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AircraftVie...craft_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

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

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).

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

"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/AircraftVie...craft_id=79362
(at
$275K) (I'm not sure it has a potty in the back).

Or http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AircraftVie...craft_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

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

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

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

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