A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Opinions on Cessna 340, 414 and 421



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 30th 04, 09:13 PM
john szpara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Opinions on Cessna 340, 414 and 421

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
  #2  
Old March 30th 04, 09:30 PM
Peter R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 he

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

http://www.avweb.com/newswire/10_12a.../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 =---
  #3  
Old March 30th 04, 10:03 PM
jsmith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 he

  #4  
Old March 31st 04, 01:02 AM
john szpara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #5  
Old March 31st 04, 03:00 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #6  
Old March 31st 04, 06:07 AM
Dude
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.



  #7  
Old March 31st 04, 04:53 PM
Brian Cox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #8  
Old March 31st 04, 06:20 AM
One's Too Many
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 :-)
  #9  
Old March 31st 04, 12:08 PM
Tom Sixkiller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.