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

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 a

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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