Tell me about piston powered pressurized twins

jsstevens

jsstevens

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,726
Display Name
Display name:
jsstevens
What are the choices? What are the trade offs?

Cessna: 340, 402, 414, 421
Commander: 560, 690
Beech: Queen Air
What else?

John
 
I think some of the aerostars are pressurized. There is also a P337 from Cessna. The Duke from Beech is also pressurized.
 
Not the Cessna 402.
Beech has a 58P Baron
The Queen Air is only the Queen Air 88, other models not.
Piper has a P-Navajo
I've seen the Mooney Mustang brought up occasionally. No idea if any of them actually fly. (no matter, not a twin anyway) :)

All of the smart money I know says that a pressurized piston twin costs about the same as a small twin turbine to operate (MU2, Cheyenne, 425)... if the acquisition costs weren't 3X as much for those, I'd probably be in one.
 
Last edited:
I have been flying a 421C for the last couple months. It is a very capable mini-airliner.

I can't speak to maintenance or costs as I don't pay those.

It is a nice flying airplane, very stable. The geared engines are allegedly a maintenance problem, but I also read that's because people don't operate them gently. I do try to take care of them, but I haven't been flying it long enough to see any such maintenance problems yet.

However, the geared engines, with props turning only 1800 rpm in cruise, make the cabin very quiet by piston standards. The passengers don't wear headsets, which is very appealing.

TAS around 200-205 at altitude (I've been up to FL190 so far). Fuel burn is about 45 gph total in cruise.

Standard usable fuel is 206 gallons. The one I fly has an optional nacelle tank on the left side, bringing it up to 234 gallons. That means 1400-ish pounds of fuel, so "full tanks" is not the norm for my flights.

I have found that with fuel for, say, a 2.5 hour flight plus reserves it can hold pilot + 4 adults.

With the way I usually fly it (single pilot up front, all passengers (usually all adults), in the back), the CG takes some planning as it tends to be near the back of the envelope. I make sure to put all bags in the nose, and we have some lead shot up there as well. If it's close, I will have the larger passengers sit in the second row of seats (aft-facing in club arrangement). If you're flying with 2 people up front it helps a lot.

FIKI-approved, electric windshield, wing boots, etc.

Easy to land! Oh man, the trailing-link landing gear on the C-model makes you look good. I have literally not yet had a landing I wasn't happy with.

There is an on-board, non-flushable potty seat, but...

Feel free to ask me any additional questions you might have. Good luck on the search! Pressurization is such a game-changer as far as comfort and getting above and around weather.
 
Last edited:
I also have a little experience in the 340, but it is as an instructor doing instrument currency-type stuff.

It is a little narrower than the 421, making getting to the front a little more challenging, and the back a little less roomy.

Speeds are pretty similar to the 421 (the 340 I was in had the RAM upgraded 335 hp engines), with 200+ KTAS in the low FLs. Fuel burn was less than the 421 but I forget what exactly it was.

Also a very capable airplane.
 
The Duke is a really good looking plane.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
The old saw to get the aircraft that best meets 80% of your missions applies very well here. How far are you going? How often? With how many people? What kind of baggage? Answer these questions, and the choice can become quite clear. For example, 414/421 will carry 6 adults reasonably comfortably. A P-Baron, Aerostar, Duke, 340A won't. A 414A and 421 have impressive baggage room in the nose (a big plus if you need to carry skis, golf bags and such). Aerostars are fast. Most of these planes use Continental 520/550 TSIO engines. Lycoming also has a big bore turbo engine in a few. If range is more important than # of passengers, then check fuel capacity. It varies widely on these plane. Some of the mx on the planes can be very type specific, so pick one where there's an expert in your area. P-Navajo, Queen Air 88, Mooney Mustang and a few others are not so common (probably for good reason) and should be considered very carefully.
I personally don't buy the line that mx for a pressurized twin is as much as a single (or two) engine turbo prop, but this thread is supposed to be about pressurized piston twins.
The potty on my 414 has been used a couple of times. A curtained, non flushable potty may not be what you get on a Global Express, but it beats having nothing by a long shot.
 
Basically the ones that one could consider touching would be:

- Aerostar
- Baron 58P
- Duke
- 340/414/421
- P-Navajo
- Mojave

Duke and P-Navajo have orphaned engines. That's not a problem until it's a problem, and it will be a problem. Duke's cabin is wide but not very long. P-Navajo is a Navjao with pressurization - nice cabin. The props spin the wrong way. Don't try to spin them the right way, that won't work. :)

Aerostar and 58P have tighter cabins, but are fastest of the group. I like the fact that the Aerostar has direct drive Lycomings on it, but they are known for being maintenance hogs. Frankly the engines on the Aerostars are probably the best, and if you run them right probably the most reliable.

Mojave is a P-Navajo with direct drive turbo Lycomings. That'd be a good, reliable airplane (as much as any pressurized piston twin ever will be), but slower compared to its Twin Cessna brethren.

414/421 have the same cabin (generous, and nicer than a P-Navajo) but the 421 has geared engines.

340 has the same engines as the 414 but is a smaller cabin. Bigger than an Aerostar, 58P, or Duke. Engines similar to the P-Navajo.

All of them require maintenance. Wayne Bower used to say that the Aerostar was the only plane out of all the planes he owned over the years that ever tried to eat him out of house and home on maintenance. For me it was the 414.

Dave Siciliano loved his 58P, but he outgrew it (needed more room for pax and luggage) and thus the move to the King Air for him.

So what is it that you want - speed? Cabin? Efficiency? Range?

If I had to get rid of the MU-2 and go to a piston twin, I'd probably go to the Aerostar (ignoring the dog carrying need). I'd like to have Lycomings again if I went back to pistons. My piston engine flight time is pretty evenly split between Lycomings and Continentals, and after having owned both, I like Lycomings better and think they overall hold up better.

No matter what you get, expect 30-60 GPH average fuel burn depending on how hard you run it and how short/long your legs are.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the inputs so far.

I'm idly (so far) speculating on a traveling plane for my wife & I, plus a dog. A tiny dog. (10lbs). Occasional additional passengers would be nice.

But I want a twin. Always have. And I want to be able to get above at least some of the weather. But oxygen levels are OK for me and even my wife probably, what about the dog? Ergo pressurization. While I live on the east coast, I'd like to travel to the west coast and even Alaska. Now a turbine would be the cat's meow, but I think the acquisition is out of the question.

At any rate, that's what prompted the question.

How is a P-Baron on maintenance and such?
 
Any of these planes are classified as $500+/hr. Engines are your most common MX items but the planes are old and so you have various other airframe items that add up, plus the things that don't break until they do, and are expensive when they do. I'm talking pressurization.

Your missions sounds like Aerostar, 58P, or 340 to me. No point in going with the bigger cabins of the other options. Figure $500/hr for any of them as a ballpark.

My recollection is the pressurization on the 58P isn't very good, something around 3.8 psi. For the 340 it's 4.2 and I think the Aerostar is higher than that. Don't underestimate the benefit of cabin pressure differential for topping weather and making a long trip comfortably - more pressure differential is more better.

These planes are happiest in the low flight levels but can get into the mid 20s depending on the engine package that's on them. That will get you on top of most of the weather most of the time, above most of the bumps.
 
I have no experience with any of them, so feel free to entirely dismiss my post as ramblings from some idiot speaking about that which he does not know.

I think I'd rather try to rig a way to get the dog some of the bottled oxygen than maintain one of those. Even if I daydream about winning the lottery I don't consider one of those twins. A Cessna 337, I love that plane.

I think you need a Cirrus! Huh? Yeah, I said it, I meant it and I'm here to represent it!
 
i'm not normally the guy who says buy for your 80% mission, but i'd really think about something not pressurized if it's only the dog driving that. there are a ton of great planes that open up if you can give up pressurization, but still want high/fast.

56TC? No pressurization but 250KT cruise and 2,000 FPM climb at gross
https://www.globalair.com/aircraft-for-sale/Specifications?specid=8

Or the Duke, but MX might just be too much https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=166236&hilit=duke $190K and looks NICE. if it has the owner I think it does, it's probably a very nice bird.

I don't see 56tc's for sale right now, but that would be a sizzler. Maybe the Aerostar is a better bet for better supported airframe? o_O
 
I keep trying to get a ride in a P337 :) As a lazy pilot who is forever in search of reduced cognitive load -- there is a strong appeal there. Particularly those TSIO-520/550 versions. They seem really popular up here in the PacNW, so I assume they can carry some ice.
 
schmookeeg said:
I keep trying to get a ride in a P337 :) As a lazy pilot who is forever in search of reduced cognitive load -- there is a strong appeal there. Particularly those TSIO-520/550 versions. They seem really popular up here in the PacNW, so I assume they can carry some ice.
Click to expand...
I had no idea they put 6 bangers in them. I thought they were TCM 360's
 
The P337 is a cool plane, but not that big or fast.. my fetishes aside your mission does sound like a perfect candidate for an Aerostar..
 
My experience is with the 421A and C and the P-Navajo. I liked the Cessnas far more than the Piper. A 421 seems like a lot of airplane for the mission you describe...a 340 makes more sense unless you just like to fly empty seats around.

Bob
 
jsstevens said:
Thanks for the inputs so far.

I'm idly (so far) speculating on a traveling plane for my wife & I, plus a dog. A tiny dog. (10lbs). Occasional additional passengers would be nice.

But I want a twin. Always have. And I want to be able to get above at least some of the weather. But oxygen levels are OK for me and even my wife probably, what about the dog? Ergo pressurization. While I live on the east coast, I'd like to travel to the west coast and even Alaska. Now a turbine would be the cat's meow, but I think the acquisition is out of the question.

At any rate, that's what prompted the question.

How is a P-Baron on maintenance and such?
Click to expand...

Other than the desire for a twin and the lack of power only one engine would provide, the mission you describe is a near perfect fit for a Malibu.

No clue on P-baron maintenance costs but the nice thing about them is that they should fit in a typical sized t-hangar. The 337 and possibly the aerostar are the only other ones being tossed around that might fit. With your desires, I'd personally be looking at a 340 or Aerostar in a twin.
 
Assuming I think a P-Baron is my ultimate choice, but I need an interim training twin, is there advantage to using a BE55 over a 310 since the BE55 and P-Baron are both Beech?
 
There is vastly more similarity, IMO, in how a Be55 flies when compared to a 58P than a 310 compared to a 58P. So I would say yes, given the choice, you'd want a Be55 as the interim step. Even a Travel Air will work well if you have one for rent near you. Beech manners are pretty consistent in the Bonanza-derived planes.

We maintained a few 58Ps. I'd say budget 10-15K/yr as the typical annual, then maybe you'll be surprised when it's less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top