Big upgrade coming

[Art Fritzson]

Hi all, this is my first post. I own a Diamond DA40XL and am planning for an upgrade to something that will comfortably go into the flight levels. I have clearance from my insurance guy (500 hours, instrument rating,...), from the bank, and from my wife (most important!). I had pretty much zeroed in on either a used Malibu JetProp or Malibu Meridian and was just sorting through the used market. The prices are a bit intimidating (about 800K to 1M) and I thought of an alternative I wanted to bounce against a more experienced group.

For a lot less money (say, less than 500K) I can get a Cessna 340, with a brand new RAM VII conversion (i.e. new engines) and a brand new glass panel (G600) and probably new paint and interior. It will climb almost as well, cruise at about 220kts instead of 250 and maybe only routinely go to FL230 instead of FL270. But it will lift significantly more and travel quite a bit further. The JetProp/Meridian will have better resale, but still...

Any thoughts?

 

[Trapper John]

It's really a matter of balancing range, useful load, dispatch reliability and your cost tolerance...

 

[PittsDriver]

It's really a matter of balancing range, useful load, dispatch reliability and your cost tolerance...

I'd say between those choices it's more of a balancing act between acquisition cost and maintenance cost. The 340 will eat you alive.

 

[wabower]

Business or pleasure? Can you depreciate it? If so, at what combined(federal & state)marginal tax bracket

 

[nyoung]

Sounds like a fun project, good luck with your upgrade!

I'm sure you already know this, but maintenance on the more expensive planes and older planes can be really steep. Especially with turbo'd or turbine engines. You might spend a few grand / yr on the Diamond. You could easily 5-10x that with a turbo'd or turbined twin.

Curious - what's your typical mission?

 

[Henning]

You might also consider a King Air.

 

[taters]

Hi all, this is my first post. I own a Diamond DA40XL and am planning for an upgrade to something that will comfortably go into the flight levels. I have clearance from my insurance guy (500 hours, instrument rating,...), from the bank, and from my wife (most important!). I had pretty much zeroed in on either a used Malibu JetProp or Malibu Meridian and was just sorting through the used market. The prices are a bit intimidating (about 800K to 1M) and I thought of an alternative I wanted to bounce against a more experienced group.

For a lot less money (say, less than 500K) I can get a Cessna 340, with a brand new RAM VII conversion (i.e. new engines) and a brand new glass panel (G600) and probably new paint and interior. It will climb almost as well, cruise at about 220kts instead of 250 and maybe only routinely go to FL230 instead of FL270. But it will lift significantly more and travel quite a bit further. The JetProp/Meridian will have better resale, but still...

Any thoughts?

340 is a great airplane...they can be expensive to maintain so do some research....also low tbo.......
however RAM is the ONLY way to go with that plane. Thought about a TBM at all? Id say turbine single all the way!

 

[sba55]

Hi all, this is my first post. I own a Diamond DA40XL and am planning for an upgrade to something that will comfortably go into the flight levels. I have clearance from my insurance guy (500 hours, instrument rating,...), from the bank, and from my wife (most important!). I had pretty much zeroed in on either a used Malibu JetProp or Malibu Meridian and was just sorting through the used market. The prices are a bit intimidating (about 800K to 1M) and I thought of an alternative I wanted to bounce against a more experienced group.

For a lot less money (say, less than 500K) I can get a Cessna 340, with a brand new RAM VII conversion (i.e. new engines) and a brand new glass panel (G600) and probably new paint and interior. It will climb almost as well, cruise at about 220kts instead of 250 and maybe only routinely go to FL230 instead of FL270. But it will lift significantly more and travel quite a bit further. The JetProp/Meridian will have better resale, but still...

Any thoughts?

A 340 will not cruise a 220 kts unless you like buying new engines very often. 190 kts is more realistic.

Flying a 340 at FL230 all the time will also cause problems unless you're very careful where you run it. You might also consider the limited range of the 340 compared to the other options you mention.

For what you want, you really need to get a turbine airplane. King Air is probably the best choice, but the operating costs are high. Meridian is ok, but just like the 340, it's a big compromise.

-Felix

 

[RotorAndWing]

A 340 will not cruise a 220 kts unless you like buying new engines very often. 190 kts is more realistic.

Flying a 340 at FL230 all the time will also cause problems unless you're very careful where you run it. You might also consider the limited range of the 340 compared to the other options you mention.

For what you want, you really need to get a turbine airplane. King Air is probably the best choice, but the operating costs are high. Meridian is ok, but just like the 340, it's a big compromise.

-Felix

Have you ever operated a 340? The OP said he was looking at a 340 with the Ram VII conversion. Very different from the original Cessna 340.

 

[Henning]

Have you ever operated a 340? The OP said he was looking at a 340 with the Ram VII conversion. Very different from the original Cessna 340.

Performance is an improvement, dispatch reliability...ehhhh, not so much of an improvement, especially when the other side of the coin is turbine powered. The TBM is nice, but for the price delta between an 850 and a King Air, you can operate the King Air for quite a while.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Performance is an improvement, dispatch reliability...ehhhh, not so much of an improvement, especially when the other side of the coin is turbine powered. The TBM is nice, but for the price delta between an 850 and a King Air, you can operate the King Air for quite a while.

I have a friend that had the 340 Ram VII conversion and he never had "dispatch reliability" problems. He was very proactive on the maintenance and kept the airplane in immaculate condition.

 

[Ted]

It's a personal choice. Andrew can tell you all about PA-46 ownership (and I'm sure he'll chime in here). Having flown in his Matrix (both front and back), I can say it's quite a nice aircraft.

Personally, though, I have a thing for two engines, and I love 340s. Never owned one, never flew one, never flew in one, but personally I wouldn't even consider the single engine aircraft (even though they're turbine), I'd just go straight to the twin, despite the lower performance. A lot of people prefer single turbines to twin pistons, commonly touting the reliability of the turbine. I like having more levers, and improved reliability of turbines still doesn't give you more options when that engine does quit on you.

The one thing I will say is that going from a Diamond to a 340 represents a good jump, adding retractable gear, the second engine, and pressurization all at once. It surprises me that the insurance company would be ok with you going right into a 340 without any other prior multi experience. When I was looking at options, it seemed to me that at 500 hours the only reason I'd be insurable in a 340 was the fact that I had about 220 hours of multi time in my Aztec.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Art: I fly a P-Baron. Looked at the 340s when I purchased my plane and have a close friend that had a 340 at the time I purchased the 58P. Lots of things to consider.
First, you are purchasing an old airframe; so, maintenance will naturally be higher than on a newer plane. Lots of systems compared to what you have: more weight; pressurization, two of many things: engines; alternators; vacuum pumps, more fuel, pressurized hull; turbos, wastegates, etc. Most have much more in the way of avionics which are probably also older. We estimate it's over $350 per hour to fly our '82 P Baron. If you do a lot of your own maintenance, you may have lower costs. We use third parties.

The sweet spot on these planes is in the low flight levels. Look at your cabin pressure differential. When my cabin altitude gets over 9,000 on long trips, I wear a cannula. That puts me around FL190. Higher and I'm on nose straws. Some 340As have a better pressure differential than my plane, but the sweet spot on running the engines LOP (which is how I run) is also low flight levels. In summer, above FL210 to 220, the CHTs get pretty hot and one has to run lower power settings to keep them under 380. My plane trues out at 205 to 210 at FL190 this time of year. When lighter and colder, I normally go 210 to 215. At FL 250, I recently trued out at 233. I had to go higher to get over storms enroute. I was on a cannula; the cabin was 12,500 and the engines ran a bit rough at that altitude. The 340 is a bit slower than my plane because it has the larger cabin (more drag); we have the same engines.

You really need to focus on running those engines properly. Mine are over 300 hours over TBO and still have excellent compressions; oil analysis is still good. We're not sure when we're going to replace them. We didn't get here running the plane according to the POH and in the past have strongly disagreed with RAM's procedures because they wouldn't warranty LOP ops. My friend with the 340 brought a 300 hour engine back to them (their warranty was excellent) and didn't make TBO operating according to their procedures.

A King Air will cost almost 3x as much to run as a 340 or P Baron if you believe Conklin and Dedecker. Fuel burn alone is more than our total operating cost per hour in a C90 (we've looked at them many times). Your insurance will get quite expensive when you have a hull value of $1MM or more. It's a different plane; much larger with much more drag; so, it takes a lot more power to go the same speed. Nice if you want true cabin class and turbines, but much more expensive that what you're looking at.

We can chat sometime if you want. I've missed very few trips with the 58P, but it's got much more that can go wrong than your plane because there are many more systems. I would own either a 340 or 58P without good on-field maintenance: both mechanical and avionics.

Best,

Dave

 

[kmead]

If you choose between the Jetprop or Meridian I would suggest the Jetprop. The Meridians are really cheap right now. They are a great airplane but still suffer from some of the same problems that they had in 2001. Make sure you have a service center or distributor nearby to support you. The Jet prop is a much simpler airplane, easier to work with and much simpler systems. The big problem with them will always be useful load.

I really like the Cessna 340, it's a good light twin. I wanted a Piper Mojave before we bought the Malibu. With all of the costs involved I'm glad I have the Malibu. You will really like the pressurization, I can't go back.

Kevin

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Oh, our cylinders were replaced before we purchased the 58P at 800 hours. Didn't want to give the impression they were the original cylinders. Pretty typical to top before 1,000 hours on a turboed engine. TBO is 1,600 hours. We are now over 1,900 which would make over 1,100 hours on the remanned cylinders that came with the plane. One doesn't get to where we are running high power settings all the time <g>

Best,

Dave

 

[wabower]

He should consider himself a very lucky man. That experience seems to be atypical of the fleet.

I have a friend that had the 340 Ram VII conversion and he never had "dispatch reliability" problems. He was very proactive on the maintenance and kept the airplane in immaculate condition.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

If I didn't say it, the 340 is a wonderful plane if things are done right. My choice of the P Baron was one of mission and having flown Beechcraft for many years. If one needs to get back and forth in the cabin during flight, they'd have to be really small and flexible to do that in a 58P. OTOH, the handling is much better, it's a bit faster and the quality is better. If most missions are with a couple folks, the 58P fits well.

If passenger comfort and exchanging a bit of speed for cabin class is important, the 340 may be better. Passengers have to get up on the wing to get in front in the Beech; the Cessna has the cabin stairs. Cessna did a much better job of creating move up aircraft.
As far as RAM VII, it seems to be a great engine and shop. There are other boutique shops that do just as good a job and create an engine with the same HP; RAM does more advertising and has a great reputation. Where I differed with them for years was when they voided their warranty if one ran the engine LOP. I've been doing that for over ten years now on TN and turboed aircraft per Tornado Alley and the Advanced Pilots Course in Ada and have run the engines of each plane well past TBO.

Best,

Dave

 

[Art Fritzson]

Wow! Thanks for the incredibly rich discussion.

As far as my insurability, going to either plane for me will require a lot of dual time (about 25 hours in the turbine, maybe twice that in the 340) but I have no objection to that.

The older airframe and increased complexity of the 340A does have me a bit worried, but I've heard great things about the RAM VII reliability. Disappointing to hear about their LOP policy - as an engineer, LOP just makes so much more sense. Can anyone speak to the reliability of the airframe and systems (i.e. non-avionics, non-engine)?

The King Airs are lovely but the costs would eat me alive and, as much as I love the way all Barons and Bonanzas feel, I really need the cabin class bit for kids and company.

My missions now are short and the Diamond is perfect for me. But this year - change in career and change in family situation - the missions will start to extend to where the average is more than 3 hours in the Diamond with many missions requiring a stop - we tend to be more bladder limited than fuel limited. Also, we're getting tired of being beat up by the weather (and near zero dispatch in the winter) and would like to spend a bit more time on top - and without nose straws.

Any thoughts on the resale potential of either choice? I think a highly refurbed 340 would have a very limited market and I'd probably take a bigger loss at resale than with the turbine, but other opinions certainly welcomed.

I was really intrigued by Kevin's comment on the JetProp vs the Meridian. Are there really problems on the older Meridians that haven't been effectively dealt with via SBs or ADs? I know about the low temp limit but isn't there a "kit" to fix that? Or are you saying that all Meridians suffer from reliability issues? And are you the "famous" Kevin Mead that all Malibu/Mirage/Meridian owners bow down to?

Thanks!

- Art

 

[kmead]

I see way to many of these every day.

The Meridian is a great airplane in many ways, no fuel selector or ice vane automatic environmental but what has hurt it a lot are the following.

1) oil pump failures. Some have had many and some have had none at all.
2) Megitt ADHRS and display problems, prices and availability are horrible.
3) electronic environmental system failures.
4) remote switching module failures.
5) Piper spare parts availability on simple things like batteries and hydraulics.

The Jetprops advantages will always be it's simplicity. Manual environmental and mainstream parts. More shops can understand this airplane. Jetprop can be a challenge at times but you can get parts when you need them.

Jetprop cabin heating, cooling and useful load will always be a problem.

It comes down to one important question. Which would my wife choose- Jetprop.

We were ready to move into a Jetprop from our Malibu until my wife crunched the numbers. Twice the cost per hour kept us with our Malibu. Most of our legs are 1000 miles and few fuel stops.

The MMOPA has become very active in solving some of the nagging problems with the PA46 fleet, it might be worth joining.

Kevin

 

[Ted]

We were ready to move into a Jetprop from our Malibu until my wife crunched the numbers. Twice the cost per hour kept us with our Malibu. Most of our legs are 1000 miles and few fuel stops.

While it's twice the cost per hour, what's the increase in cost per mile since you're going faster, especially factoring in better climb performance to get up to where you can get the most speed? Just wondering.

 

[Art Fritzson]

Great information Kevin, thanks for the advice. I'd been leaning toward the jetprop anyway, but your real world data is the strongest argument I've heard yet.

I'd considered starting with a Malibu and then going to a jetprop, but single (piston) engine reliability problems seem to plague the Malibus and Mirages. With your technical and maintenance experience you can probably get a comfort level with your own malibu that few of us can hope to achieve in daily use.

I'd heard that TCM had certified a FADEC version of the 550 - have you heard of any plans to STC it for the early Malibus? That might (might!) go a long way toward solving some of the reliability issues.

Thanks again!

- Art

 

[Ted]

I'd considered starting with a Malibu and then going to a jetprop, but single (piston) engine reliability problems seem to plague the Malibus and Mirages. With your technical and maintenance experience you can probably get a comfort level with your own malibu that few of us can hope to achieve in daily use.

I'd ask the other PA-46 owner on PoA about his experiences (surprised he hasn't chimed in yet).

Personally, I don't think that a pressurized piston single is a great idea. Pressurization is a good sum of extra strain on a piston engine that is already strained from turbocharging. Pressurized turboprop singles make more sense thanks to the miracle of bleed air.

Kevin made an interesting point about the cost of ownership of the Malibu vs. Jetprop I'd be interested to see what the cost differential is for Malibu vs. Jetprop vs. 340. My money would still go on the 340 (even if it is slower and burns more fuel), but as I've already stated, I'm biased towards twins.

 

[Art Fritzson]

The feedback I received here seems to boil down to this.

On the cost of ownership question, the acquisition cost of, say, an equivalently equipped Malibu and 340, each with new engines and upgraded panels, would probably be about the same. The Malibu would beat the 340 on operating cost (and probably resale value) but the 340 would be able to lift more and probably get to the flight levels more easily - and thus more frequently - and would go a bit faster. OTOH, flying in the high teens still gets you over a bunch of weather and is less stressful on the engine.

The JetProp would have the highest acquisition cost but probably lower operating costs than the 340 - but not by much. Similar fuel burn, but the newer airframe and less vibration would probably reduce maintenance costs on the JetProp. The higher speeds of the JetProp would further increase that difference when you look at cost per mile - but probably not as low as the cost per mile of the Malibu. It's all tradeoffs.

BTW, planequest shows the operating cost for the 340 to be about twice that of the Malibu. It also shows the Meridian (not the JetProp) to be slightly higher than the 340 - consistent with Kevin's observations.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

If looking at the jet prop, you might want to look into the issue of the turbine inlet. My memory is a bit fuzzy, but the magnesium (or what ever other metal they were using for that) needed to be frequently cleaned or it deteriorated. Ask your maintenance friend about it. IIRC, folks were having to replace those early and thought Piper should have helped--they didn't.
I still go back and forth on a single turbine v. a recip twin, but you are going from a single recip to a single turbine. The climb will be better, it should be much more reliable, quieter, and simpler to operate. OTOH, look at what the cost to replace an engine is compared to a recip and factor that into your replacement fund. Range will be shorter, but if you're flying shorter legs, that won't matter.

I'm flying to the east and west coast from Dallas and the turbine you're looking at won't do that non-stop. It's all tradeoffs as you said. Another nice thing about the turbine is not having to do that run up before departure each time <g>.

I have several friends that moved to turbines thinking there wouldn't be any problem making the next inspection only to find they couldn't get to full torque and guess what--hot section time. Don't just look at engine cycles, look at who's been doing the work on the plane and engines like any good pre-buy.

Best,

Dave

 

[wabower]

I spend most days at a shop that specializes in twin Cessnas, and have owned a 340 and 421. I would advise a prospective 340 buyer to count the number of annual shop visits in the logs in order to evaluate the hassle of ownership, and to budget $20/yr for MX expense. The newest airplanes were built in the mid-80's, and additional MX issues seem to surface with each passing year. Owners dislike the repetitive "fly a trip, take it to the shop" routine that is common with twin Cessna's.

Buyers in warm climates should know that the factory-installed hydraulic-motor air conditioning systems are "sorry as skim plss" as they say back home, and incapable of maintaining comfortable cabin temps. A well-equipped 340 will weigh more than 4500#. With full-tanks fuel of 1100# and standard MGTOW of 6000#, the cabin load is severely limited, and less than wonderful even with VG's and RAM STC's that add 300-400# of cabin load. Cockpits aren't particularly comfortable for tall pilots, and forward visibility is limited by the sloped windshield and high glareshield. Tip-tanks limit side visibility, and good systems training is essential for the operation of fuel systems and landing gear idiosyncrasies.

Many more issues are worthy of discussion, including underwriter requirements for PIC, but nobody should buy one thinking their ownership experience will be simple, cheap or easy.

The feedback I received here seems to boil down to this.

On the cost of ownership question, the acquisition cost of, say, an equivalently equipped Malibu and 340, each with new engines and upgraded panels, would probably be about the same. The Malibu would beat the 340 on operating cost (and probably resale value) but the 340 would be able to lift more and probably get to the flight levels more easily - and thus more frequently - and would go a bit faster. OTOH, flying in the high teens still gets you over a bunch of weather and is less stressful on the engine.

The JetProp would have the highest acquisition cost but probably lower operating costs than the 340 - but not by much. Similar fuel burn, but the newer airframe and less vibration would probably reduce maintenance costs on the JetProp. The higher speeds of the JetProp would further increase that difference when you look at cost per mile - but probably not as low as the cost per mile of the Malibu. It's all tradeoffs.

BTW, planequest shows the operating cost for the 340 to be about twice that of the Malibu. It also shows the Meridian (not the JetProp) to be slightly higher than the 340 - consistent with Kevin's observations.

 

[kmead]

I want to get there faster, who doesn't? My biggest interest was in engine reliability. I was really surprised in my wife's faith in our recip. Malibu. She had problems with the turbine on the stops we would have to make during westbound trips and keep within legal weight.

The FADEC airframe STC is still not done yet. With 250 Jetprop conversions done and faith in recips. dropping hasn't helped the project much. It will be nice to see a TCM FADEC in place of the Textron engine.

Corrosion on the magnesium Meridian inlet has been a problem and it hasn't for the aluminum Jetprop inlet. Its my understanding that Magnesium was chosen for the weight reduction.

The mod to help with the Meridian fuel temp issues was a bit of a flop. 75-105 hrs to install and most people reported fuel tank temps not much more than 4 degrees above OAT.

If you were to consider a recip. Malibu first, with the thought of converting it later you should buy a 1996 or up Mirage. They make a much nicer conversion and are easier to resell.

Kevin

 

[Ted]

The FADEC airframe STC is still not done yet. With 250 Jetprop conversions done and faith in recips. dropping hasn't helped the project much. It will be nice to see a TCM FADEC in place of the Textron engine.

Curious, why do you say that, and what benefits do you think electronic controls will have over the current mechanical system in this case?

 

[NC Pilot]

O&N (the same ones who do the Silver Eagle P210) is about to certify a 340 with Rolls Royce turbines. Should be a nice upgrade, but may be a trifle pricey.

 

[Ted]

O&N (the same ones who do the Silver Eagle P210) is about to certify a 340 with Rolls Royce turbines. Should be a nice upgrade, but may be a trifle pricey.

I saw the plane when we took the Mooney in a few years back for the bladders, done at Factoryville, PA (not far from here). It's a really pretty airplane, and the general package seems appealing to me. The big thing I'd wonder about would be the range with such an upgrade. The turbines will burn more fuel, and without an increase in fuel capacity (eating into useful load), your range will suffer. I don't know if they've addressed that.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

With all the turbine upgrades of old planes, one has to wonder about putting $1MM into two new turbines for a Baron, Duke, or 340. If one has an existing plane they are upgrading, that's one thing. Finding a good one to have upgraded is another.

In my 58P, the Rocket conversion sounds great, but I would have just over $1MM in new engines and another 150 or so for the existing AF. I have a lot of other options for a new plane with that much money. Older planes are being looked at by the FAA for AF fatigue/spar issues. Parts may be very difficult to obtain and may be pricey. The Duke had a magnesium tail; it had fillaform issues and it's very difficult and expensive to replace. Another consideration is what a new 58P would cost today--$1.6MM might be a good guess (if they still made it). When you buy parts from Beech, they are for a plane of that price.

Lots of considerations. In addition to the cost of the turbine conversion, where does one have to go for problems with the installation/STC related issues. PT6s are very wide spread, but if you have to go back to the installer for an issue related to the STC or installation (as some folks have had to do) you may find that installer isn't quite as motivated to get your new upgrade done under warranty as he/she was to get the installation done.

Look closely at performance numbers. The numbers for turbines often show uninterrupted climb to best performance altitude and cruise there. Good luck on that leaving Dallas where you almost always get step ups when leaving and they bring you down early on arrival. Cruise at lower altitudes will be much less efficient. The cabin pressure differential on the P Baron would require use of a cannula at FL250 (cabin altitude would be 12,500). You may be enthusiastic about that, but most passengers aren't.

Best,

Dave

 

[Ted]

With all the turbine upgrades of old planes, one has to wonder about putting $1MM into two new turbines for a Baron, Duke, or 340. If one has an existing plane they are upgrading, that's one thing. Finding a good one to have upgraded is another.

In my 58P, the Rocket conversion sounds great, but I would have just over $1MM in new engines and another 150 or so for the existing AF. I have a lot of other options for a new plane with that much money. Older planes are being looked at by the FAA for AF fatigue/spar issues. Parts may be very difficult to obtain and may be pricey. The Duke had a magnesium tail; it had fillaform issues and it's very difficult and expensive to replace. Another consideration is what a new 58P would cost today--$1.6MM might be a good guess (if they still made it). When you buy parts from Beech, they are for a plane of that price.

Lots of considerations. In addition to the cost of the turbine conversion, where does one have to go for problems with the installation/STC related issues. PT6s are very wide spread, but if you have to go back to the installer for an issue related to the STC or installation (as some folks have had to do) you may find that installer isn't quite as motivated to get your new upgrade done under warranty as he/she was to get the installation done.

Look closely at performance numbers. The numbers for turbines often show uninterrupted climb to best performance altitude and cruise there. Good luck on that leaving Dallas where you almost always get step ups when leaving and they bring you down early on arrival. Cruise at lower altitudes will be much less efficient. The cabin pressure differential on the P Baron would require use of a cannula at FL250 (cabin altitude would be 12,500). You may be enthusiastic about that, but most passengers aren't.

Best,

Dave

All excellent points, and certainly where you fly makes a difference. For most of my flying, I spend a minimum amount of time at lower altitudes, and can generally get whatever altitude I want quickly. I also live in a place where the airspace isn't complicated and there's not much around me. Still, I prefer pistons from an efficiency standpoing and they fit my mission better. I would like turbos, though.

As to the cabin altitude of 12,500 ft requiring cannulas, well, it's sometimes nice for passengers to take a nap.

 

[Henning]

I have a friend that had the 340 Ram VII conversion and he never had "dispatch reliability" problems. He was very proactive on the maintenance and kept the airplane in immaculate condition.

I know a couple of other people in the same situation with 340s and 421s. They spend as much money as would a King Air owner but they're like me and hate the smell of kerosene burners.... I like working for those kind of people because they always appreciate a good job and never complain about a fair bill regardless what it reads. Their airplanes are always a joy to fly as well. Being vigilant does help keep the "big hit" costs down though as you never let little squawks grow to big issues.

 

[Henning]

The older airframe and increased complexity of the 340A does have me a bit worried, but I've heard great things about the RAM VII reliability. Disappointing to hear about their LOP policy - as an engineer, LOP just makes so much more sense. Can anyone speak to the reliability of the airframe and systems (i.e. non-avionics, non-engine)?

The King Airs are lovely but the costs would eat me alive and, as much as I love the way all Barons and Bonanzas feel, I really need the cabin class bit for kids and company.

My missions now are short and the Diamond is perfect for me. But this year - change in career and change in family situation - the missions will start to extend to where the average is more than 3 hours in the Diamond with many missions requiring a stop - we tend to be more bladder limited than fuel limited. Also, we're getting tired of being beat up by the weather (and near zero dispatch in the winter) and would like to spend a bit more time on top - and without nose straws.

Any thoughts on the resale potential of either choice? I think a highly refurbed 340 would have a very limited market and I'd probably take a bigger loss at resale than with the turbine, but other opinions certainly welcomed.


Thanks!

- Art

Have you walked through a 340 yet? They're actually 'kinda' cabin class in that they have a very narrow partition between the seats, I have a hard time calling it an aisle. The one annoying thing in the 340 with several passengers is the "A$$ in Face Walk" you do after securing the cabin door as you head for the pilots seat. You can get a 421B for much the same money as a 340A and you get a wider cabin and a potty which sounds like it will pay for its extra costs in saved fuel by being able to stay at altitude to your destination. The engines are thirstier, but not a whole bunch and you get a quieter plane with better load capability. It flies identically to the 340, in fact, all the twin Cessnas of that genre fly the same.

The airframes on all of them are quite solid. There were some issues with the landing gear torque tubes splitting and replacements not being available, but I understand that a new part is now available. Trim tab actuators are another thing to watch on them. If you are considering buying a twin Cessna, you need to give Jerry Temple a call, Google him Jerry Temple Aviation.

 

[Ted]

Have you walked through a 340 yet? They're actually 'kinda' cabin class in that they have a very narrow partition between the seats, I have a hard time calling it an aisle. The one annoying thing in the 340 with several passengers is the "A$$ in Face Walk" you do after securing the cabin door as you head for the pilots seat. You can get a 421B for much the same money as a 340A and you get a wider cabin and a potty which sounds like it will pay for its extra costs in saved fuel by being able to stay at altitude to your destination. The engines are thirstier, but not a whole bunch and you get a quieter plane with better load capability. It flies identically to the 340, in fact, all the twin Cessnas of that genre fly the same.

Agreed on most of the points, especially on cabin size in the 340 (note that the PA-46 isn't going to offer anything better). However, cabin class to us and cabin class to passengers can be different. To my mom, just having the stair door is what she's all big on, she wouldn't care if it was a 340 or a 421. In Art's case, I think his wife and kids would be similar.

The 421 would certainly be my bird of choice given the opportunity, but that's still dreaming for me ($$$). The 310 and 421 I've flown I both loved.

 

[wabower]

The Duke conversion has extra nacelle tanks, so the 340 conversion may have the same setup. The turbines must be mounted further forward than the recips, allowing room for the extra tankage.

I saw the plane when we took the Mooney in a few years back for the bladders, done at Factoryville, PA (not far from here). It's a really pretty airplane, and the general package seems appealing to me. The big thing I'd wonder about would be the range with such an upgrade. The turbines will burn more fuel, and without an increase in fuel capacity (eating into useful load), your range will suffer. I don't know if they've addressed that.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

They're doing that on the Baron Rocket conversion also, but it only adds about 30 to 40 gallons. It helps, but that's maybe 30 more minutes of fuel. (brings 190 useable to about 230).

Best,

Dave

 

[Art Fritzson]

To my mom, just having the stair door is what she's all big on, she wouldn't care if it was a 340 or a 421. In Art's case, I think his wife and kids would be similar.

Exactly right on that. Just no climbing over or under wings.

And I can't argue with the logic on the 421, but I just can't get my head around driving (and owning!) something that big. Prolly why I don't own an RV.

Nope, Kevin convinced me - a JetProp. The only other consideration I have is if Malibu Aerospace can get their Mirage M-6 FADEC mod approved, I'd consider an overhauled Mirage. Call me crazy, but I'm a big believer in FADEC as way to improve reliability (and probably power and economy) in piston engines.

Will keep you all posted. And thanks for all the great advice!

Art

 

[wabower]

I see the invoices generated by the shop and know all of the airplanes they maintain. Cabin-class turbo piston Cessnas and King Airs are a push on a year-to-year basis, except for the $500/mo for gear and prop O/H that come due on the King Air's every six years. Some owners think it's worth the extra cost, some don't. Personally, I wouldn't go back to a piston twin for all the tea in China, because I can't stand the aggravation. King Air's are usually in the shop once a year for something other than the required phase inspections (and usually air-conditioner related on the 200's) while piston twins are there much more frequently. The quality just isn't the same.

I know a couple of other people in the same situation with 340s and 421s. They spend as much money as would a King Air owner but they're like me and hate the smell of kerosene burners.... I like working for those kind of people because they always appreciate a good job and never complain about a fair bill regardless what it reads. Their airplanes are always a joy to fly as well. Being vigilant does help keep the "big hit" costs down though as you never let little squawks grow to big issues.

 

[Ted]

Exactly right on that. Just no climbing over or under wings.

My mom said that once she hits 70 she won't climb on the wing of my airplane anymore. I informed her there are plenty of options out there for aircraft that won't require that.

And I can't argue with the logic on the 421, but I just can't get my head around driving (and owning!) something that big. Prolly why I don't own an RV.

Having flown a 421 and sat in a 340, I can tell the size difference, but I don't think I'd really feel it. If anything, I like the 421's visibility a bit better from sitting up higher. If you look at a 340, 414, and 421 on the ramp, a lot of times it can be difficult to tell the difference between them if you aren't up on your twin Cessnas. I wouldn't discount it as an option.

Nope, Kevin convinced me - a JetProp. The only other consideration I have is if Malibu Aerospace can get their Mirage M-6 FADEC mod approved, I'd consider an overhauled Mirage. Call me crazy, but I'm a big believer in FADEC as way to improve reliability (and probably power and economy) in piston engines.

Enjoy the JetProp. You'll be cruising faster than I will in my piston twins.

As to the FADEC belief, well, the laws of physics don't change when you add electronics.

 

[jason]

Enjoy the JetProp. You'll be cruising faster than I will in my piston twins.

As to the FADEC belief, well, the laws of physics don't change when you add electronics.

Come on, Ted. Don't be a luddite. You're correct that the laws of physics don't change, but the most damaging piece of the puzzle is minimized. (The human making the mistakes in engine operation.)