One of those fun, which plane for me threads

I get the Cessna and I too love the Aerostar, but why not a Twin Commander, don't some of those have a lav too?

Cable2010-D1_500U_Shrike_Commander_1398.jpg
 
docmirror said:
What scares me is the "G" in GTSIO.....

421 v Aerostar; No comparison. If you need a potty for a 3.5 hour flight, meh - other issues. I'd be all over a P version of the Aerostar.
Click to expand...

I was terrified of the "G" for years, I heard all the horror/hangar stories from all the guys that never flew then.;) I even bought a 414A because of the engine nightmares of the 421's! :dunno: Well, after a buddy of mine flew his 421C's engines 100 and 200 hours past TBO with very little unscheduled engine maintenance, I changed my mind.:D I owned Charlene (421B) for 3 years and I don't think we even changed a spark plug. My mechanic tells me the key to "G" engines is who overhauls them and how they are operated. As Henning said, you can push them pretty hard and run 75+% power at cruise, but the motors seem to like 65% much better.:D
I've got nothing against Aerostars, but it's an apples and oranges comparison, the Aerostar is a sports car and a 414/421 is a luxury SUV. Different ways to accomplish the same mission. Put 5-6 people in each on and fly 600 miles, it will be quicker in the Aerostar and more comfortable in the 400 Cessnas. :D
 
Twin commander should be added for sure. Thanks for the info on the 421 john. Great stuff!

Btw...just to be clear, a potty is NOT a requirement. Just something that came up in pros/cons.
 
N747JB said:
I was terrified of the "G" for years, I heard all the horror/hangar stories from all the guys that never flew then.;) I even bought a 414A because of the engine nightmares of the 421's! :dunno: Well, after a buddy of mine flew his 421C's engines 100 and 200 hours past TBO with very little unscheduled engine maintenance, I changed my mind.:D I owned Charlene (421B) for 3 years and I don't think we even changed a spark plug. My mechanic tells me the key to "G" engines is who overhauls them and how they are operated.
Click to expand...

Good info. My fears seem misplaced then. Good that they can make over TBO in some cases. Particularly due to the 1600 hr TBO limit on them. I got nothing against the 421, and I sure know jack about them, but the price of the toilet is a bit out there. I also like the structure of the Aerostar. They are like the Bonanza, rock solid and built hell-for-stout.
 
Aerostar is more than just stout, the airframe was designed to have two turbojets on it (which one does now).
 
Will a Comanche 400 do 200 knots? It's certainly got the range and the load carrying ability. The 400 would sure be a fun way to tackle this mission.
 
brywd said:
Will a Comanche 400 do 200 knots? It's certainly got the range and the load carrying ability. The 400 would sure be a fun way to tackle this mission.
Click to expand...


From Wiki:

The PA-24-400 Comanche 400,[7] while identical in platform to other single-engined Comanches, is structurally strengthened, primarily in the tail. The aircraft has an extra nose rib in the stabilator and in the vertical fin. The stabilator, vertical fin, and rudder of the 400 share virtually no common parts with the 180, 250, or 260 hp (190 kW) Comanches. In addition, the 400's rudder is aerodynamically balanced in a manner similar to that of the Piper PA-30 Twin Comanche and does not have the lead external balance weights of the lower-powered single-engined Comanches.[citation needed]
The Comanche 400 is powered by the 400-horsepower 8-cylinder Lycoming IO-720 engine, an engine developed specifically for the Comanche.[8]
The aircraft was produced from 1964 to 1966,[1] with only 148 PA-24-400s having been built. The aircraft's high fuel burn means that it is expensive to operate. There have been cooling problems with the rear cylinders of the horizontally opposed eight-cylinder engine. Even with the huge engine, the PA-24-400 manages a top speed of only 194 knots (360 km/h) and cruising speed of 185 knots (343 km/h), considerably slower than more modern light aircraft, such as the Cessna 400, operating with much less horsepower.[9]
The Comanche 400 has a three-bladed propeller and carries 100 US gallons (380 L) of fuel, or 130 US gallons (490 L) with optional extended tanks. Fuel burn was advertised as 16 to 23 US gallons (61 to 87 L) per hour, at 55%-75% power. The 400 had a typical empty weight of 2,110 pounds and a max gross weight of 3,600 pounds. New base price for 1964 was $28,750.[citation needed]
Click to expand...
 
SteveinNC said:
Kevin - Could the Mirage do 800 lbs of pax and luggage and get to key west in 3.5 hours (700 NM) with 20 gals ish remaining?

Also..what exactly is the glide ratio?
Click to expand...

It should do that trip. The earlier the ship the lighter they are. The PA46-310P (1984-1988 ) would work well.

I don't remember what the glide is but it's very good.

It's not the cheapest to keep in the air but you feel good when you get there with the pressurization.
 
I've owned both an Aero Commander and an Aerostar. They're diametrically opposite aircraft - the Aerostar is a little firm Ferrari and the Commander is a Chevy Tahoe. The Aerostar is more fun to fly (with its pushrod ailerons), but the Commander gives more utility. It's a bush plane, basically. The Aerostar will get you there at turbine speeds for piston money.

I never had any problems with my geared engines on the Commander. They were great. If you don't want geared engines, look for the 500A, B, S and U series. They have straight 470's and 540's.

A Commander many people forget, is the huge 685. It's the piston powered version of the turbine 690. It's a big bird with loads of room inside. It tips the scales at over 9000lbs MTOW. It's not a perfect plane by any means, but if you want comfortable, quiet (probably the quietest piston twin ever made), pressurised extreme long range, the the 685 could be a contender.

Some of its utility is gone as it needs a bit of rwy, and its not a great performer on one engine, but it will go 1500nm in great comfort at 200kts up high. You can walk around the cabin like in an airliner and they often came with potty. Because the fear of geared engines, and because it needs a landing gear overhaul every 5 years, these aircraft are at a record low in prices. You can snap one up for around $140K. It's a lot of plane for the buck.

66300_1192132436.jpg
 
Isn't that the one with the GTSIO-520-Ks in it at 425hp and hydraulic pressurization?
 
Henning said:
Isn't that the one with the GTSIO-520-Ks in it at 425hp and hydraulic pressurization?
Click to expand...

It's got the GTSIO's, but bleed air pressurisation. The GTSIO's are highly strung, but if flown correctly should be reasonably reliable.

It's the 680FLP and the FP that has the hydraulic pressurisation. Best to stay away from that.
 
stratobee said:
It's got the GTSIO's, but bleed air pressurisation. The GTSIO's are highly strung, but if flown correctly should be reasonably reliable.

It's the 680FLP and the FP that has the hydraulic pressurisation. Best to stay away from that.
Click to expand...

Ok, but they were the ones that had the GISO-540s (old style 480 case, not new style 540) then aren't they, that's why they needed the hydraulic pressurization, no bleed air. Hell with it, stack a set of turbos on giving you a ton of bleed air (I wonder what airframe mods for it to take 7.2 or better PSI?) to give you more pressure for the cabin and engines, though at some point you'd hit cooling issues and RVSM.

The GTSIO engines are fine, you're just not used to hearing aircraft engines turning 3400rpm, that is not high strung, that's just her having some reigns and stretching her neck out, opening an easy stride after shedding a bunch of load. I would have no fear running 520hp out of a GTSIO-520.
 
Last edited:
I love the 421 idea. If it's on your list and you can swing it, go for it. If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing! :D 3

Ditto with the Barons.

If you really would consider a piston single, what about a pressurized Cessna 210? P210N or preferably a P210R if you can find one. It is turbocharged, >200 knots (the R anyway), FIKI, can fly high without annoying masks/cannulas, hauls six, and a great specimen with your specs can be had for well under 500. Not sure what the weight penalty would be with a 'chute added on (if even STC'd for that) but something to consider.

You could throw in a 'chute and full glass cockpit and still be well under 500k.

But if you have the 421 on your list I suspect you won't settle for something as barbaric as a Cessna single! :D
 
Last edited:
With very little knowledge of any of the twins mentioned so far, I only know the SR22 is definitely the wrong plane for you and should be marked off your list. My only basis for that comment is that I will be in the market for one in 6-12 months so let me know when you want to sell :D.
 
Get a King Air, even if it's an old one. It's made by Beechcraft so the plane won't require any maintenance, and it's got PT6s that are essentially the most reliable engines in the world. It's very easy to fly and to operate it's systems, easier than a 421 (I've flown both). Granted at low altitudes you'll be burning quite a lot of fuel, but it climbs fast.

421 is a great plane that's very fun to fly and will work for your mission. The problem with them is they got geared and turbocharged engines, so expect more than average amount of maintenance. It's single engine service sealing is a bit on the low side for some reason. The visibility however is a big better than out of a King Air.

Me personally, I'd probably get a Meridian. Although I've never flown one of them. No need to waste money on the second engine when you have a PT6.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Can you actually buy any of them?
Click to expand...

No. Three of the five have flying prototypes though and working towards certification. The flight design one is likely to have a flying prototype very soon and the SSBJ is likely to remain a dream for the foreseeable future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top