What's a 421 good for?

Fearless Tower

Fearless Tower

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
16,473
Location
Norfolk, VA
Display Name
Display name:
Fearless Tower
Part serious/part tongue in cheek question.

What did the Cessna 421 excel at? Is it an airplane whose time has come and gone?

The company I contract for has a 421. We fly it with two pilots and I'll occasionally right seat in it.

It seems like a bit of an odd bird. Lots of maintenance problems. Couple engine failures. Range sucks. High fuel burn (more than my Beech 18). Speed….okay, except you lose any time advantage over the Beech 18 when you have to make a fuel stop every 2.5 hours. Hardest airplane to hot start that I have seen.

Controls feel…..like a PA32 times 5. Like driving a very stiff dumptruck.

I honestly know more pilots that have had inflight engine failures in a 421 than any other airframe. Are the engines just junk?

Seems like the Golden Eagle is a Duke in disguise…..but the Duke looks cooler.

Thoughts???
 
Fearless Tower said:
Part serious/part tongue in cheek question.

What did the Cessna 421 excel at? Is it an airplane whose time has come and gone?

The company I contract for has a 421. We fly it with two pilots and I'll occasionally right seat in it.

It seems like a bit of an odd bird. Lots of maintenance problems. Couple engine failures. Range sucks. High fuel burn (more than my Beech 18). Speed….okay, except you lose any time advantage over the Beech 18 when you have to make a fuel stop every 2.5 hours. Hardest airplane to hot start that I have seen.

Controls feel…..like a PA32 times 5. Like driving a very stiff dumptruck.

I honestly know more pilots that have had inflight engine failures in a 421 than any other airframe. Are the engines just junk?

Seems like the Golden Eagle is a Duke in disguise…..but the Duke looks cooler.

Thoughts???
Click to expand...
As far as the engines I think P&W is the only manufacturer with engine still flying that I think were good at designing reduction gearboxes. I wouldn’t buy a 421 because of the engines none of the other issues would have even been looked at by me...I would already have moved on to a different aircraft
 
I do know that the guys that own them in the Twin Cessna Owner's group love them. That said, I think if I had that kind of mission I'd prefer a nice 414A/414AW instead. Maybe @Ted DuPuis can throw his 2 cents in?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Part serious/part tongue in cheek question.

What did the Cessna 421 excel at? Is it an airplane whose time has come and gone?

The company I contract for has a 421. We fly it with two pilots and I'll occasionally right seat in it.

It seems like a bit of an odd bird. Lots of maintenance problems. Couple engine failures. Range sucks. High fuel burn (more than my Beech 18). Speed….okay, except you lose any time advantage over the Beech 18 when you have to make a fuel stop every 2.5 hours. Hardest airplane to hot start that I have seen.

Controls feel…..like a PA32 times 5. Like driving a very stiff dumptruck.

I honestly know more pilots that have had inflight engine failures in a 421 than any other airframe. Are the engines just junk?

Seems like the Golden Eagle is a Duke in disguise…..but the Duke looks cooler.

Thoughts???
Click to expand...
Wait, do you actually have a beech 18??
 
Most engine problems I have seen with the 421 is ham fisted pilots that yank the throttles around, like major power reductions.

For a twin Cessna I like the 414A for its single engine ceiling. It is higher than the 421.
 
Matthew K said:
That's awesome. How has maintenance been with the radial engines?
Click to expand...
Really hasn't been bad. I haven't had any real issues. Most of the engine things I've come across were actually observations that seemed odd at first and then further research showed they were normal for radials. Any maintenance shop can maintain them and do work, although there is a learning curve associated with it. They often need to do a little more research before maintenance. The Twin Beech has been every bit as reliable as my Baron was. I've flown it to San Diego and back to Virginia. With the exception of a prop issue early on, it hasn't needed to go into the shop for anything other than annuals and oil changes.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
I hear they make great dog waggons.....:D
Click to expand...
Not sure. I’m not seeing what a 421 does better than a 414.

I’m kind of wondering if Cessna’s real intent behind the 421 was to convince buyers that they really should upgrade to a Conquest or a Citation....
 
I think @tonycondon has flown a 421 in the corporate world. He might be able to shed some light on ops.

I know of one based at FTG that was used for hops to cities out on the plains. It didn’t seem to spend much time in the shop once they got caught up on maintenance.
 
421s (especially, 421C) still have value as working airplanes. They maintain value well.
 
The 421 has a high useful load (much higher than the 414) and if you’re stopping every 2.5 hours for fuel then I’d question how rich you’re running it. Most people plan 50 gallons first hour, 40 thereafter. If treated properly the engines are supposedly reliable.

They’re popular with owners, but I sought out a 414 instead of a 421 for a reason.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
They’re popular with owners, but I sought out a 414 instead of a 421 for a reason.
Click to expand...

For us old guys with age related memory loss problems :), perhaps you can remind what those reasons were. Purely for the the benefit of the discussion.
 
Radar Contact said:
I do know that the guys that own them in the Twin Cessna Owner's group love them. That said, I think if I had that kind of mission I'd prefer a nice 414A/414AW instead. Maybe @Ted DuPuis can throw his 2 cents in?
Click to expand...

Why the 414A instead of the 414, which does not have the spar AD issue?
 
so...maybe the 414 has different engines....that isn't gear reduced?
 
From the perspective of one who has (illegally) flown one and performed maintenance on many there is nothing wrong with the 421. I worked for a charter company the had about five on the roster. Good solid plane and if the engines were properly treated they would make TBO with minimal maintenance. GTSIO 520's do need an even hand on the throttle.
 
Norman said:
From the perspective of one who has (illegally) flown one and performed maintenance on many there is nothing wrong with the 421. I worked for a charter company the had about five on the roster. Good solid plane and if the engines were properly treated they would make TBO with minimal maintenance. GTSIO 520's do need an even hand on the throttle.
Click to expand...

Very true. A new to the 421 pilot means a few cracked cylinders until they learn.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I’m not seeing what a 421 does better than a 414.

I’m kind of wondering if Cessna’s real intent behind the 421 was to convince buyers that they really should upgrade to a Conquest or a Citation....
Click to expand...
The 421 appeared as a 1968 model, derived from the non-pressurized, geared-engine C-411 of 1965. The first Citation 500 was delivered in 1971, and the first Model 441 Conquest in 1977.

The initial 414 (1970) was basically a pressurized version of the Model 401/402.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Part serious/part tongue in cheek question.

What did the Cessna 421 excel at? Is it an airplane whose time has come and gone?

The company I contract for has a 421. We fly it with two pilots and I'll occasionally right seat in it.

It seems like a bit of an odd bird. Lots of maintenance problems. Couple engine failures. Range sucks. High fuel burn (more than my Beech 18). Speed….okay, except you lose any time advantage over the Beech 18 when you have to make a fuel stop every 2.5 hours. Hardest airplane to hot start that I have seen.

Controls feel…..like a PA32 times 5. Like driving a very stiff dumptruck.

I honestly know more pilots that have had inflight engine failures in a 421 than any other airframe. Are the engines just junk?

Seems like the Golden Eagle is a Duke in disguise…..but the Duke looks cooler.

Thoughts???
Click to expand...
Wow, never saw anyone dump on a 421C. Long term owners seem to love them, same with Dukes. One you're flying is prolly rode hard and put away wet. Guys flying them aren't writing the checks?
 
paflyer said:
Wow, never saw anyone dump on a 421C. Long term owners seem to love them, same with Dukes. One you're flying is prolly rode hard and put away wet. Guys flying them aren't writing the checks?
Click to expand...
This is the only 421 I’ve flown, so it’s possible it’s just a bad one. None of the primary pilots seem to love the airplane.

The owner isn’t a pilot, but he’s going to upgrade to a Citation before he sinks any more into this one.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The 421 has a high useful load (much higher than the 414) and if you’re stopping every 2.5 hours for fuel then I’d question how rich you’re running it. Most people plan 50 gallons first hour, 40 thereafter. If treated properly the engines are supposedly reliable.

They’re popular with owners, but I sought out a 414 instead of a 421 for a reason.
Click to expand...
We average 48-49 gph. We could go I get than 2.5 hours, but the overall trips we do are in the 3.5-4 hour range which this airplane can’t do without a stop.

Useful load and a second engine seems to be the only advantages. This company also operates 2 Malibu’s and they’ll beat the 421 in most missions if there is not a huge load. I haven’t flown the Malibu yet, but even the guys with a lot of 421 time seem to like the PA46 better.
 
paflyer said:
Wow, never saw anyone dump on a 421C. Long term owners seem to love them, same with Dukes. One you're flying is prolly rode hard and put away wet. Guys flying them aren't writing the checks?
Click to expand...

There's damn few private (non-commercial) owners of any airplane I've ever met that didn't love whatever it was they had their money sunk into at the time. I've even had a few wax nostalgic years after the fact over a problem airplane they replaced, almost like a long lost "perfect" GF they couldn't quite get along with.
 
From what I understand, the are few advantages to the 421. Because of the engines, it is much quieter than other twins. But otherwise...it isn't the prettiest, the fastest and it doesn't haul the most weight. But passengers like it.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Not sure. I’m not seeing what a 421 does better than a 414.

I’m kind of wondering if Cessna’s real intent behind the 421 was to convince buyers that they really should upgrade to a Conquest or a Citation....
Click to expand...

I know cape air has a small army of 402s that they seem to do rather well with.

cape-air-950x530.jpg
 
Fearless Tower said:
This is the only 421 I’ve flown, so it’s possible it’s just a bad one. None of the primary pilots seem to love the airplane.

The owner isn’t a pilot, but he’s going to upgrade to a Citation before he sinks any more into this one.
Click to expand...
Having owned a Citation II and a 421B, if he's worried about spending money, he's going backwards at an alarming rate!! :D:D
 
Fearless Tower said:
We average 48-49 gph. We could go I get than 2.5 hours, but the overall trips we do are in the 3.5-4 hour range which this airplane can’t do without a stop.

Useful load and a second engine seems to be the only advantages. This company also operates 2 Malibu’s and they’ll beat the 421 in most missions if there is not a huge load. I haven’t flown the Malibu yet, but even the guys with a lot of 421 time seem to like the PA46 better.
Click to expand...
I flight planned 50 GPH in my 421B and it actually burned about 42 in cruise I think, it's been a couple years. I had double nacelle tanks which I rarely used, but gave me 248 gallons IIRC and 5 hour range. I searched and bought one that had been well kept, but had a radio package that a B-17 pilot would recognize and upgraded the panel. Other than the landing gear actuator AD, I didn't have a lot of unscheduled issues in 3 years of owning it. Even after I sold it the same shop maintained it and the mechanics would comment on how nice it was to work on an airplane in such good shape. It's moved on to the west coast now. I have a buddy with a C model that he bought in 1998 and he's replaced both engines well past TBO and I keep trying to convince him to move to a turbo-prop, but he just loves his 421C!!
I'd buy another one if I ever retire!! (not likely):rolleyes:
 
GRG55 said:
Why the 414A instead of the 414, which does not have the spar AD issue?
Click to expand...
My dream plane for any mission I would have would be a 340 if I ever moved up...not likely for a long time if ever.

The only reason I suggested it was if the mission was in the 421 range then the 414A gives you 215 lbs useful load more than a 414 and the nose is lengthened similar to the 421 for extra baggage out of the cabin. They also improved the pressurization with the A. The A also has the highest single engine service ceiling in the twin recip world that I know of. It's close to 20,000 I believe.
 
James331 said:
I know cape air has a small army of 402s that they seem to do rather well with.

cape-air-950x530.jpg
Click to expand...

135 FBO I worked at had two C402Bs, easy plane to fly and land, especially compared to the five C310s they had.
 
They're quiet comfortable and relatively fast. They were built for the passengers. If you take an extra pilot and run way over rich then you'll have range issues.

I believe the plane was intended to have small turboprop capabilities at lower cost. There are certainly always little gremlins to chase on these 40 yr old pressurized twin turbocharged geared and air conditioned airplanes.

I sure like flying them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top