Cabin Class Twin Info

P

PilotBob

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
6
Display Name
Display name:
PilotBob
You all were extremely helpful in providing training info for me in my other thread, so now another question has been asked of me. Apparently I've been deemed the aviation go-to guy since I know how to fly and apparently get answers for people.

I've been asked to look into what would be a good cabin class piston twin to purchase. The cabin class is a requirement due to the demands of those who will be flown around.

It seems like pretty much any cabin class will fit the potential mission criteria. Pressurization is a bonus, but probably not a requirement (this is part of the nature of my question). We'll need to have room for 6-8 people total. Personally, I think that having 7 seats total is probably about optimal, but we could live with 6 just fine. In this case, known ice is a requirement, not optional.

It seems to me the primary planes out there for consideration are:

- PA-31(P) series (Piper Navajos)
- Beech Duke
- Cessna 335/340/401/402/404/411/414/421

To give an idea of the standard mission and requirements I expect this plane to see:

- 2 people, probably with a bit of luggage
- Trip distance would probably be ~400 nm in general (regardless of people)
- Ability to go longer distances without stopping is beneficial for when longer trips are encountered
- Good speed with relative economy are always pluses

The pressurization is a bonus in this case because of the ability to climb higher. While not a bonus, I do see this plane going on IFR trips over areas where the MEA will be greater than 12,500 (or greater than 15,000, for that matter) and thus create a need for oxygen or pressurization.

If those of you with your collective knowlege would be so kind, I'd appreciate the following info:

- Expected purchase price for varying levels (needs some work but flyable, a "good runner", and top of the line)
- Expected pilot requirements for insurance
- General annual costs
- Fuel burn at what speed for both power cruise and economy cruise
- Any other information on weaknesses, considerations in purchase, etc., especially with regards to pressurization

Thanks in advance!

-Bob
 
PilotBob said:
You all were extremely helpful in providing training info for me in my other thread, so now another question has been asked of me. Apparently I've been deemed the aviation go-to guy since I know how to fly and apparently get answers for people.

I've been asked to look into what would be a good cabin class piston twin to purchase. The cabin class is a requirement due to the demands of those who will be flown around.

It seems like pretty much any cabin class will fit the potential mission criteria. Pressurization is a bonus, but probably not a requirement (this is part of the nature of my question). We'll need to have room for 6-8 people total. Personally, I think that having 7 seats total is probably about optimal, but we could live with 6 just fine. In this case, known ice is a requirement, not optional.

It seems to me the primary planes out there for consideration are:

- PA-31(P) series (Piper Navajos)
- Beech Duke
- Cessna 335/340/401/402/404/411/414/421

To give an idea of the standard mission and requirements I expect this plane to see:

- 2 people, probably with a bit of luggage
- Trip distance would probably be ~400 nm in general (regardless of people)
- Ability to go longer distances without stopping is beneficial for when longer trips are encountered
- Good speed with relative economy are always pluses

The pressurization is a bonus in this case because of the ability to climb higher. While not a bonus, I do see this plane going on IFR trips over areas where the MEA will be greater than 12,500 (or greater than 15,000, for that matter) and thus create a need for oxygen or pressurization.

If those of you with your collective knowlege would be so kind, I'd appreciate the following info:

- Expected purchase price for varying levels (needs some work but flyable, a "good runner", and top of the line)
- Expected pilot requirements for insurance
- General annual costs
- Fuel burn at what speed for both power cruise and economy cruise
- Any other information on weaknesses, considerations in purchase, etc., especially with regards to pressurization

Thanks in advance!

-Bob
Click to expand...

What kind of utilization, hours per year?

Look at what charter operators use. You see lots of 421s and Navajos in charter fleets, must be a reason eh? There's also a reason you don't see Dukes in charter fleets.

Trapper John
 
There aren't too many cabin class twins that one can fill six seats in with full fuel. Even the King Air C-90 which is a cabin class turbine is less than 1,000 pound useful load with full fuel (still about 1,000 NM range with full fuel). For the trip length you mention, the pistons could fit with less than full fuel, although, seven full sized passengers is fairly limiting. I would suggest looking at the C-421/414. The Duke is probably not a good fit. If the planes mentioned above don't fit, a twin turbine would be the next logical step. Several choices, but the King Air has sold more planes than all the other twin turbines combined over the years. Much higher operating costs; don't know your budget.

Best,

Dave
 
Don't forget single turboprops too! Depending on your need for speed and payload, the Caravan, TBM700, and PC12 might be an ideal choice. And I'd much rather be behind a single PT6 than behind a pair of pistons, any pistons, except possbily over the ocean.
 
Hopefully Ray will chime in here (anyone heard from him lately?). He's got tons of hours in the cabin class Cessnas.

Sorry that I don't have a ton of useful info for you on this. My instructor has a Navajo (PA-31-310) that I've flown a few times. It has a very high useful load and seats 8, and I've seen them in up to 10 seater configurations. As he puts it, "These things are so indestructible you have to work to break them." He certainly loves his, and it is a dependable plane. There aren't a ton of things that break on it. Last annual he needed to get the props rebuilt, replace the cabin heater, and his fuel gauges were screwed up. Not sure what else, but that's all I remember. Not bad, given the number of hours the plane gets. I know that the way he flies it, he flight plans for 40 gph total and it hits it about on the nose every time. That includes taxi, take-off, cruise, landing. It burns about 36 gph in cruise going I think 180 kts, can't remember if that's IAS or TAS. I'll have to ask. This is one that has the 310 hp TIO-540-A2C engines. The Chieftains have the TIO-540-J2BDs, which are great engines and make 350 hp each, but burn more fuel doing it. The Navajo C/R had 325 hp engines (forget the name on them). I've never seen him run the thing in economy cruise, so I couldn't tell you more there.

The P-Nav and the Duke have issues as far as the engines are concerned, mainly that they're not very well supported. The P-Nav has the TIGO-541s, and the Duke with the TIO-541s, both engines that were not built in large numbers and have minimal support. I can't speak much to the planes otherwise, but I understand that getting 541s (especially TIGO-541s) overhauled is at best a chore, and I suspect very expensive (not that engines for any of these aircraft are cheap, especially when you need to buy two of them).
 
Last edited:
Drop the P-Navajo and Duke from consideration -- their engines are maintenance nightmares. If your pax can handle wearing masks, the unpressurized Navajo is still a possibility.

On the Cessna side, don't bother with the 335/340 -- they may look like cabin class planes, but they won't feel like it to your pax. If you can get by without pressurization, the C-401 is a pretty good choice. The 402 is a stretched 401, and your needs don't require the extra fuselage. If you want pressurization, and aren't carrying big loads long distances, the 414 would do well. When you get up to the 421, you're talking about a plane which is pretty well known as a maintenance hog, especially on the engines, which are highly taxed.

Cost for insurance will depend a lot on hull value and how much liability you want. Since this will be insured in the Industrial Aid category, not Personal/Business like most of ours, you really need to talk to a broker about costs. For a good rate as a corporate pilot, you'll need probably need at least C-AMEL-IA, 1000 PIC, 500 ME PIC, a couple hundred instrument, and initial and annual qual training in make/model.

All these planes are in the 300-350 HP/side, and will be burning around 40-45 gph total while cruising in the 180-200 knot range. Purchase price will be a few hundred K. Beyond that, without knowing about utilization, cost is hard to say.

All that said, consider this a starter plane. For real corporate hauler, you need at least one turbine engine. For that reason, a PC-12 is a good entry-level corporate turbine aircraft, and a 90-series King Air will make your insurer happier.
 
Check the spar issues with cabin class Cessna's. Consider the Piper Cheyenne I turboprop. Good safety record. Basically a Navajo with turboprops.
 
I don't know where to begin here. He mentions Duke and Navajo in the same breath.

Sigh.
 
We've discussed single v. twin a lot, but when it comes to carrying VIPs: insurance needs to be higher and the second engine can really be worth it. Another Caravan just lost an engine and all perished in Central America this week; in the Caribbean earlier this year. My Sister-in Law's company carries over $20MM insurance on their corporate aircraft: was a King Air, now a Hawker Jet.

Who you're carrying and the cost of insurance can really factor into this decision when it comes to a turbine. As I've said before, my maintenance shop can count four King Airs that came in on one in the last 18 months or so: they were non events except for the engine replacement cost. In a single, might have been a lot different case. A lot of the military jet guys I know have lost one and came back on the second.

I go back and forth on this, but for VIPs that want to go in bad weather, over mountains, into high elevation airports and over water, I'd sure lean toward a turbine twin if it was an option.

Best,

Dave
 
Jeez, I've done 26 entire magazines in the last 26 months on this topic and feel like I've barely scratched the surface.

The bottom line is dollars, Bob. You have to be willing to spend 'em on the purchase, upkeep and operation. If the possibility of $60K annuals bother you, go get a boat. You do NOT want to attempt this on a shoestring.

Give us some numbers for capital outlay, usage and operating budget.

And, IMO, pressurization is a BIG deal in this market, because it allows for getting up high to take advantage of the turbochargers and tailwinds, it allows the slam dunk approaches you get in the Northeast, it's quieter for pax, it avoids scrubbing because of head colds, etc. It's just much nicer, much more professional all around.
 
everyone likes what they fly. ted's CFI loves his Navajo. I love the 421. It does seem to fit the mission well. i agree with Kens last paragraph, your passengers will like the pressurization and air conditioning. so will the pilot. neither wants to be sucking oxygen in the mid teens. they'll also like the silence of the geared engines. i put about half my passengers to sleep. it is a maintenance intensive airplane, but i dont think that our shop spends the most of its time on the engines. but we are gentle with ours, cruising at about 65% power and making smooth throttle adjustments, planning descents. basically any pilot who has made it to that level of flying should be able to handle taking care of the engines. sure there are 50 hour exhaust inspections, but most of our maintenance is chasing gremlins. keeping all the gauges reading properly, finding pressurization leaks, that kind of stuff. there are no spar ADs for the 421's, the carry through is totally different from the 402's etc.

2 passengers on 400 mile trips is easy to do. empty weights are in the 5000-5200 lb range depending on how stripped down the interior is and how modern the avionics are. max gross weight is 7450 stock (I think) or 7579 with VG's (which we have). full fuel capacity typically ranges anywhere from 196 to 248 gallons, depending on wing locker tanks.
 
Ron Levy said:
Cost for insurance will depend a lot on hull value and how much liability you want. Since this will be insured in the Industrial Aid category, not Personal/Business like most of ours, you really need to talk to a broker about costs. For a good rate as a corporate pilot, you'll need probably need at least C-AMEL-IA, 1000 PIC, 500 ME PIC, a couple hundred instrument, and initial and annual qual training in make/model.
Click to expand...

This will vary and time in type is a big help. Initially insurance company told me they wanted 250 multi for me to be insurable. i only had something like 120 or 130, but 80 of it was in 421's. They took it and insured me for pt. 135 ops at about 1600 TT, 100ish instrument, and no sim training. be willing to negotiate with your broker.
 
Cabin class pistons are no longer being manufactured. It is a mistake to assume that this is a terrible oversight by Cessna's management. Do yourself a favor and buy a new King Air.

I have spent years looking at this question, after traveling up and down the east coast on business using everything but a horse-and-buggy.

The only reason anyone would take a piston for this mission is that he thinks he cannot afford a King Air, or cannot figure out how to fly one. And I say, not a 90: go right to the 200.

If you cannot afford a King Air, you definitely cannot afford any of the piston twins mentioned above. And if you are nervous about flying a King Air, do not under any circumstances get into a piston twin.

The pistons will eat you alive in unscheduled maintenance. They are noisy, cramped, and altitude-limited. You will pay far more insurance per dollar of hull value than for a turbine, and your smooth limits will be capped much lower. The resale value will make you cringe, as will the turnaround time to sell. Parts will be a problem. The inspections on the aircraft will be difficult. Finding a good shop will be difficult. The engines will have questionable histories and their overhauls will always be well before TBO. You will always worry about what the FAA will come up with next on wing spars and starters and so forth. Your dispatch rate and maintenance downtime will be a crushing disappointment, and will cost you really big bucks for those large-load trips that cannot be made because your windshield heat does not work, or some such stupidity. Your cost per passenger mile may very well end up being lower in a new turbine.

As for safety, there is simply no comparison. That is why the liability limits are so much better for the turbines.

When it comes to paying the annual cost of any heavy equipment, including airplanes, unless you are very lucky, a used piece will cost, in maintenance and depreciation, a sum equivalent to the carrying cost of the capital for a nice shiny new one under warranty. That is the hard luck of used equipment. People buy used because they do not have the credit to buy new, or they do not recognize that it is a false economy. This is especially true given current tax law, which heavily favors new purchases.

Please, do not say, "Oh, you just have to find the right one." Sure, you just have to be the guy who leaves Vegas a big winner. Really, the average guy with an average mechanic should count on being an average sucker.

What a heck of a business the GA market is. Imagine people trying to pass off a well-maintained '88 Chevy as a great bargain. It is nothing more than a sentimental novelty. Same for a 414.
 
I have to side with Tony Condon on this one. The Cessna 421 is about as good as it gets, since you did ask about piston twins. You can purchase a 421A in good condition with mid-time engines for around 125,000. A 421B in the same shape will run closer to 200,000 and maybe a few dollar more depending on how it's equipped. Ron cites the engines as a problem, and that's true if the pilot doesn't know what he's doing. As Ron is pointing out, I think, too many pilots don't know how to handle the geared engines. For short blocks like your 400 nm, expect a fuel burn of around 45 gph. That'll put you in the 215 to 220 knot range. Maximum speed on the 421 is close to 260 knots, but that wouldn't be great for the engines and the fuel burn would be...a bunch. Other than for a couple of minutes, I've never pushed one that hard. There is a 421C, but I've never flown one so can't say much other than they have no tip tanks and prices start at the 300K level. I've flown the Navajos and as far as I'm concerned, they are no competition for the 421. 421 will take you up to FL250 and you can find them equipped for known ice. Altogether one of the nicest planes I've ever flown. For the flying you're talking about, I'd recommend the 421B. Sweet airplane. Unless the pilot you use is acquainted with geared engines, I'd HIGHLY recommend you have him talk to someone like Tony or myself since we both have a lot of hours in the planes.

Ray
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
On the Cessna side, don't bother with the 335/340 -- they may look like cabin class planes, but they won't feel like it to your pax.
Click to expand...

Any chance you could elaborate on this more, Ron? I've never seen a 340 in person, so I'm guessing you're referring to interior space? From what I've read they seem like an interesting package, although probably not suitable for Bob's mission.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
We've discussed single v. twin a lot, but when it comes to carrying VIPs: insurance needs to be higher and the second engine can really be worth it. Another Caravan just lost an engine and all perished in Central America this week; in the Caribbean earlier this year. My Sister-in Law's company carries over $20MM insurance on their corporate aircraft: was a King Air, now a Hawker Jet.

Who you're carrying and the cost of insurance can really factor into this decision when it comes to a turbine. As I've said before, my maintenance shop can count four King Airs that came in on one in the last 18 months or so: they were non events except for the engine replacement cost. In a single, might have been a lot different case. A lot of the military jet guys I know have lost one and came back on the second.

I go back and forth on this, but for VIPs that want to go in bad weather, over mountains, into high elevation airports and over water, I'd sure lean toward a turbine twin if it was an option.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

Certainly flying over hostile terrain and water makes the second engine look a lot nicer, but the turbine singles have a very good safety record.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Any chance you could elaborate on this more, Ron? I've never seen a 340 in person, so I'm guessing you're referring to interior space? From what I've read they seem like an interesting package, although probably not suitable for Bob's mission.
Click to expand...
335/340 is basically a 310 with an airstair cabin. Compared to the 400-series twins it seems cramped inside, and IMHO its handling is not as pleasant as, for example, a 401.
 
We're mixing a lot of apples and oranges together. The cost of moving into the turbine twin market are quite a bit higher than operating a used pressurized twin. We estimate the variable costs with fuel are just over $400 per hour on our P-Baron including an engine replacement reserve. The plane was just over $300,000 to purchase three years ago, and one has to factor in the cost of the hanger, insurance, charts, training and all other non-plane operating costs to look at the entire cost of ownership. Big assumptions that have to be made are estimated resale value and opportunity cost of capital used to make the purchase.

I just read through a Conklin & deDecker study comparing the C-90 King Air with existing -21 engines to one with the upgraded Blackhawk PT6A-135 engines. Over a ten year life with assumed trip lengths, variable costs were projected to be over $500 per hour for the older engines and $50 less per hour for the newer ones . Add to that, Fuel burn of over $400 per hour in the scenario they used; then, add, the cost to purchase the plane, hanger, insurance, training etc. and you can start to get your arms around the cost to run a King Air C-90.
I just took a demo flight in the Super King Air B-200 with -61 engines and the Raisbeck conversion. There was also a study on that; it showed variable costs at $806 per hour for older engines and $700 for the newer -61s; add fuel at $437 per hour to that. Then, add all the other stuff.

Moving up to the turbine twin is one big step. Newer costs more to acquire; older costs less initially, but has higher maintenance cost and more down time.

You really have to look at your mission. If it could involve losing an engine on a departure from a high mountain airport in IMC conditions; there just aren't pistion twins that will bring you home at gross. The older King Air C-90s may not at gross either without an engine upgrade. That's where the 200s began to shine, but it sure is more expensive to run them.

Best,

Dave
 
Pilawt said:
335/340 is basically a 310 with an airstair cabin. Compared to the 400-series twins it seems cramped inside, and IMHO its handling is not as pleasant as, for example, a 401.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I'd read they were based in some respects off of the 310 but also had a number of components from the 400 series. Thanks for the explanation!
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Ahh, I'd read they were based in some respects off of the 310 but also had a number of components from the 400 series. Thanks for the explanation!
Click to expand...

335/340 are really to small to be cabin class, Ted. They do have that aisle between the seats, but I always had to crab my way to the cockpit. Once everyone is seated, it's not so bad and the plane is not bad to fly, either. Fast, crisp, fun. Or so I found it. Never wanted to own one, though.

Ray
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I just took a demo flight in the Super King Air B-200 with -61 engines and the Raisbeck conversion. There was also a study on that; it showed variable costs at $806 per hour for older engines and $700 for the newer -61s; add fuel at $437 per hour to that. Then, add all the other stuff.
Dave
Click to expand...

You can count on at least $1200 an hour for a B200. Realistically, it costs $350/hr to run even a Seneca V, and that is if you are flying it yourself, and going 160 kts. Your dollars per mile per passenger are actually less in the B200 even if you are carrying only 4 people. The comparison gets worse with the cabin-class twins, which might do 190 kts, at a much higher burn of 100LL, and which cannot handle altitude or real weather nearly as well.

People like to think you can climb to 25,000 in a piston. Good luck if you hit icing up there (which is not at all uncommon in the NE). Good luck if you lose a pressurized magneto, or get induction icing, or any one of a thousand other things that happen to piston engines in the flight levels.

One more point on pressurization: you must have it for the mission you described. It is dangerous to take people over 50 years of age above 10,000 feet without pressurization or oxygen. You have a medical certificate; they do not. They may have emphysema or coronary artery disease, and those trips, with the adrenaline pumping and the oxygen low, may be really unfortunate for their comfort or their health. "Going to sleep" is not necessarily benign if you have small-vessel disease or narrowing of the cerebral arteries. Nasal cannulae do not cut it for the pilot above 15,000 (I know they say 18,000, but they are being optimistic.) Masks are very uncomfortable and the mike-masks work poorly in many cases.

If you are flying 400 miles, you will need to be in at least the mid teens or low flight levels, or the turbulence gets unacceptable for the passengers. Oxygen is way too uncomfortable for "civilians" for this duration. The cannulae leave your nose feeling like cube steak.

If it were my family I would insist on a turbine twin. C90 minimum; preferably a B200 or Citation.

Why not get an middle-aged Citation? They do not have any of the problems we are talking about; they are safe as houses; and there is a great market for them, always.
 
Easterner said:
Your dollars per mile per passenger are actually less in the B200 even if you are carrying only 4 people.
Click to expand...

probably true, if you fill the seats, but hes talking about taking 2 people and luggage.
 
tonycondon said:
probably true, if you fill the seats, but hes talking about taking 2 people and luggage.
Click to expand...
The OP says 6-8 people in one place and 2 people and luggage in another. That makes a big difference! He also wants to do trips where the MEAs are above 15,000'. I think the King Air 200 would be great for those trips but I am biased. :redface: Still, I don't know if he can justify the big jump in expense over a smaller piston twin.
 
Tony, do not get me wrong--I think of all the alternatives, the only piston he should consider is a 421. Still, the turbines are the way of the future, and unless the OP wants to take the risk of buying a dying animal, he should not go with a piston.

Notice I'm not recommending a twin commander, either. In this business, universal support is everything.
 
There is a big difference between say $600/hr for a 414 or 421 as compared to over $1200/hr for a King Air. If the OP is relatively low time, a lot of insurance companies would not touch him. One of my hangar neighbors, who had a lot of multi piston time, bought an F-90, only to learn that the insurance company required 200hours of dual, in addition to recurrent training. The cost of maintenance reserves was astronomical (I think hot sections were on the order of 25k for each engine), and of course hull insurance, and this was for a part 91 plane. He continues to fly his late model B-58, which really fills all of his mission requirements.
 
Letting this thread incubate seems to have provoked a very helpful discussion. Thanks for the info, everyone. The pressurization I think is likely going to be a requirement, and so the 414 and 421 series Cessnas are probably the best bets, if the 340 is too small to be considered cabin class. Tony and Ray, you two obviously have some excellent knowledge on these planes, is there any chance you could put a few more numbers to operating costs such as annuals, maintenance, etc.? Am I right that the Spar AD affects the 401, 402, 411, and 414, but not 421? That certainly will make a difference in my decision.

To clarify, I'm not sure who exactly the intended pilot is for this. If it is me, I haven't been told yet. I'm not sure if I'll meet the qualifications, although I certainly wouldn't complain if they put me through the training for it!

-Bob
 
bob,

the spar AD does not apply to the 421, it does apply to the 411. I can't really speak of the operating costs of the 421 as I let the FBO worry about that. Im pretty sure they figure about 375/hr in total operating costs, but they dont have to pay the shop rate for labor either.
 
Bob:

I still see a lot of apples to oranges comparisons here. The numbers I posted for the C-90 King Air and 200 are variable costs including fuel. One still has to consider acquisition cost, insurance, training, hanger, etc. Make sure you're comparing the same numbers. If the 421 burns 45 per hour in cruise--any Tony can help here: at $5.00 for 100LL, that's $225 per hour just in fuel. If new engine TBO is 1400 hours, just the engine replacement reserve would be $57 per hour assuming an $80,000 overhaul (and I know many folks are running past TBO but I would reserve to TBO). If you purchase a plane with mid-time engines--it'll be more per hour. You're now $300 per hour before normal maintenance just to get variable cost. Then, look at hanger, insurance, training, charts and reserves for other major parts like bladders etc. that will be needed on an older plane. That doesn't count acquisition cost or opportunity cost of capital. Will the plane be financed? Add loan payments. $400 per hour considering all of this looks pretty optimistic.

Best,

Dave
 
we climb at 60 gph and cruise at about 40. of course you could burn more gas and go faster, but then you have to adjust your TBO :)
 
Bit off the subject, Tony, but remember 421CS I told you about? Found an old pic.
 

Attachments

  • 421CS.jpg
    421CS.jpg
    398.2 KB · Views: 28
AcroBoy said:
There is a big difference between say $600/hr for a 414 or 421 as compared to over $1200/hr for a King Air.

He continues to fly his late model B-58, which really fills all of his mission requirements.
Click to expand...

Back onto the hobbyhorse for me! Last shot at it (much relief in the readership).

A B-58 is a great plane, just great. But it has certain serious problems. These start if there are more than three people in the plane; and they get rapidly worse if you have to climb over 10,000 feet in icing conditions.

If you were to build a P-baron today, it would never be able to compete with the C90 for cost-effectiveness. That alone says everything that I am about to say below, and it says it with thousands of voices that have dollars to spend.

The difference here is not just 600 versus 1200 dollars per hour. You need to add miles and passengers to the fraction, to make the resultant ratio, "passengers*miles per hour*dollars." You factor in:

200 kts versus 300;

FL 180 (radar TS avoidance) vs FL 280 (visual TS avoidance);

8 passengers vs four;

respect from ATC vs low-altitude routings into major terminal areas;

dunking the plane at 2000 fpm if needed, versus having to baby the geared engines;

two bulletproof P&Ws, each of which will carry the load with a yaw-damper and autofeather when they fail, which is almost never, versus a bullet-ridden geared engine;

a two-week sale when you need the money, versus six months on the ramp while everyone's mechanic takes it apart five times to see that it is, actually, still intact;

effortless reliable de-ice, versus "is this gonna work today". Good lord: vacuum pumps and magnetos at FL 210 feet? Come on, guys.

Good gracious, the list is endless for your $600 extra an hour. And these are not merely "nice to have," like walnut burl in your Gulfstream. In today's coastal IFR environment, they are must-have items. If the price means so much that you have to make these kinds of compromises, you should be driving or flying the airlines.

Of couse, you need to have the income to depreciate the plane against. But if you do not, why are you flying people around this way to begin with? Buy a bus.

With other forms of transportation, you can always argue with a car, "Just drive an old Toyota; it's cheaper to buy, but you may pay more maintenance."

That argument does not apply to planes. There is a certain minimum safety level, and a point at which dollars of capital yield a greater return on investment, not less. That happens in the turbine/piston comparison.

If you have a frank talk with the insurers, and ask about any 30-year-old piston twin as compared to a new King Air, the numbers will make the point for you. They're happy to insure $3 million hull for the same price as $300,000 in the piston, and they will give you $3M smooth liability, but only $1M in the piston. They insist that you train, and get two pilots for the turbine. Uhhhh....is this a bad thing in a plane carrying 4-8 people? What does that tell you about your safety in the piston airplane?

I long ago decided that if I could not afford to fly my mission safely for money reasons, that I would drive or fly SWA. In any mountainous area, all-weather, have-to-get-there flying for 2-6 people means kerosene, whatever the piston sales crowd likes to flog.

Anyway, I already tried all of your patience with my insistent repetitions. Sorry. I just do not want this gent to amke a costly error with a shiny, "looks-like-new" 414 or a 421. It is not all about price: it is about value, and only he can make the call.
 
Well, Sir, that's the reason they make Fords and Chevrolets, Cessnas and Pipers. I ran a very successful 135 operation for quite a few years flying 400 series Cessnas. I could never justify kerosene in the budget. As for 'bullet-ridden' geared engines, I've taken many sets to TBO with nothing more than routine maintenance. Guess it all comes down to your personal experience.
 
2256Q said:
As for 'bullet-ridden' geared engines, I've taken many sets to TBO with nothing more than routine maintenance.
Click to expand...

And, probably, good training on engine operation. I've heard lots of good things about those engines, IF operated properly.

If you can/must go high on every flight, than the turboprop makes sense. A piston is still a better option if you're going to spend time in the teens or less.

I really don't need the space, else I'd think long and hard about a 421. I'm very drawn to the 340. Stop me before I do something about it!!!!!!!!!

(Ray, I'd still rather fly that hotrod in your signature. You lucky SOB!!!)
 
flyersfan31 said:
And, probably, good training on engine operation. I've heard lots of good things about those engines, IF operated properly.

If you can/must go high on every flight, than the turboprop makes sense. A piston is still a better option if you're going to spend time in the teens or less.

I really don't need the space, else I'd think long and hard about a 421. I'm very drawn to the 340. Stop me before I do something about it!!!!!!!!!

(Ray, I'd still rather fly that hotrod in your signature. You lucky SOB!!!)
Click to expand...

If you don't need the room, the 340 is a great plane. I've flown them and, other than size, had no complaints.

Flying the hotrod in my signature was just about the most fun you can legally have. I've flown planes that were faster, planes that climbed more quickly and were more forgiving of pilot error. Something about the 104, though...it was just flat special! :yes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top