What is the most reliable cabin class piston powered airplane?

hindsight2020 said:
That is all a by-product of "revenue airplane" parts pricing. It's a sunk cost of course, if you need it for your mission, you need it.
Click to expand...
If that's true, Textron must think that every airplane that was ever made is a revenue airplane.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Now typically, these expenses will only hit you one at a time. But there's always the risk for "a bad year."
Click to expand...
This is how many twins end up as rotting hulks. Guys buy a cheap airplane with a lot of deferred big ticket items. New owner gets through a few years with no big issues and thinks he's won the game budgeting for $5k/year annuals and then BAM! Are those deferred items come to ahead at the same time. That's how you get $50k+ annuals on piston airplanes.
 
hindsight2020 said:
The more interesting question for me is the future of parts sourcing and procurement for some of these airframes. My buddy just got rid of his turbo Cessna 310; he was damn happy to see it go as he was looking at probably topping one engine and some other issues with the gear, where a la carté parts procurement of certain gear sub-components was going to be a real unobtanium scavenger hunt and an equal pricing scalp. Certainly opened my eyes to the realities of orphaned twin cessna ownership. The same commentary applies to the Comanche series, Apache/Aztecs et al. Seasonal batch ordering of gear conduits in the case of the comanche, et al.

At any rate, something to think about, as we all get older. The industry is not replacing these samples with a variety or at a rate that looks anywhere near sustainable. For those of us with more than 30 years of personal flying projected (God willing), that doesn't fare well for our "forever airplane" choices. Ironically enough, it is the clapped out work airplanes or commercial trainers that boast the biggest support by proxy, so long as one is willing to cherry pick amongst a relatively clapped out fleet. Judging by the listings out there, it's what we're doing already anyways....
Click to expand...

While some people are expecting these birds to be their "forever" airplanes, I think most of us with a realistic understanding know that at some point we'll have to get something "newer." Interesting question for me since 40 years is about the age that I seem to acquire airplanes. Bought the Aztec (1969 model) in 2009. The 414 is a 1977, got that last year. I suppose that means a 414A/421C is next up in another 8 years or so at this rate. Then it gets interesting since the late 80s and 90s didn't really have anything like that. You basically got a Malibu or a King Air.

But, when I bought the Aztec people were making the same musings about how you won't be able to get parts for these things forever. I've been doing this for 8 years now, and getting parts has never been an issue. No, Cessna/Piper is not always the source for those parts. Often it's a scrap yard or you make them yourself. We are continuing to have these planes show up in scrap yards, so there will continue to be parts for some time. The engines and props aren't going anywhere. Hoses, O-rings, etc. also haven't changed. So really, it comes down to various airframe/structural items, which do need to get replaced from time to time.

I never bought any part from Piper when I had the Aztec. I have had to buy some parts from Cessna for the 414, but very few. I'm hoping to keep it that way.

Fearless Tower said:
This is how many twins end up as rotting hulks. Guys buy a cheap airplane with a lot of deferred big ticket items. New owner gets through a few years with no big issues and thinks he's won the game budgeting for $5k/year annuals and then BAM! Are those deferred items come to ahead at the same time. That's how you get $50k+ annuals on piston airplanes.
Click to expand...

Exactly. My experience is that it's best to get an airplane that's been flying and spend your first few annuals as "good" annuals to get a lot of items. Defer little to nothing. It helps to give you a more constant stream of pain rather than a sudden attack.

A lot of times these cabin class twins will have a very painful first few years. The owners who focus on what needs to be done and things that keep the airplane flying usually can make it through. I've seen plenty who focus on shiny goodies like avionics, P&I, etc. and ignore what the plane needs. They usually end up selling the plane after not too long, usually take a big loss, and then the next owner has to dump a bunch of money into the MX items that were deferred.

One of the more common questions I get is why the 414 has the /A King stack from the 80s that it came with and I use portables heavily for the time being. Well, I'd love a nice panel, but it doesn't do much good if the fuel systems don't work, hoses burst, turbos seize, props come apart in flight, or the engine falls off the plane. The /A is a minor inconvenience, while the others are significantly more major.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Oh yeah, that can happen.

Exhausts on a Twin Cessna with (G)TSIO-520s are $10k/side. Turbos are $3k each. Wastegates I think around $1k each. De-ice boots, I think around $15-20k for an entire plane. $20k for windshields.

Now typically, these expenses will only hit you one at a time. But there's always the risk for "a bad year."
Click to expand...

I think that's what scares most people. One of the reasons why I am going to have a war chest built up before I buy.
 
midcap said:
I think that's what scares most people. One of the reasons why I am going to have a war chest built up before I buy.
Click to expand...

The general rule of thumb for one of these planes (really any plane) is that you should be in a position where having to replace an engine at any given time should be no sweat. That's a wise move, since it's not uncommon to see engines not make it TBO, or be running well and then need work for some reason. When you get into one of these more complex planes where you could need an exhaust, turbo, boots, etc. also on various unscheduled intervals, the potential work just gets higher.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The general rule of thumb for one of these planes (really any plane) is that you should be in a position where having to replace an engine at any given time should be no sweat. That's a wise move, since it's not uncommon to see engines not make it TBO, or be running well and then need work for some reason. When you get into one of these more complex planes where you could need an exhaust, turbo, boots, etc. also on various unscheduled intervals, the potential work just gets higher.
Click to expand...

that's about what I figured, 40-50k sitting ready to deploy.
 
midcap said:
that's about what I figured, 40-50k sitting ready to deploy.
Click to expand...

That's a good number.

If you are thinking of going this route, I help people buy twins. Feel free to contact me when you get to the point of being ready to pull the trigger.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That's a good number.

If you are thinking of going this route, I help people buy twins. Feel free to contact me when you get to the point of being ready to pull the trigger.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ted, it won't be for a while though. When the time comes, I'll make sure to look you up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
I think that if you own a large twin, you need to figure that every Jan 1st you need to be able to write a $30k - $50k check every year and put it in the "airplane fund" account. This is the cost to just own the plane each year even if you don't fly at all. Then you just tell yourself that the cost to go fly for any trip is the cost of fuel. :)

You want a turboprop? Write a $100k check. A legacy jet? $200k.

There is no such thing as long term cheap in this game. These are big complicated machines that need to be taken care of. Unless you're able to be like Ted, you're best off going to find the best example of whatever fits your mission and fly it very regularly.
 
James_Dean said:
I think that if you own a large twin, you need to figure that every Jan 1st you need to be able to write a $30k - $50k check every year and put it in the "airplane fund" account. This is the cost to just own the plane each year even if you don't fly at all. Then you just tell yourself that the cost to go fly for any trip is the cost of fuel. :)

You want a turboprop? Write a $100k check. A legacy jet? $200k.

There is no such thing as long term cheap in this game. These are big complicated machines that need to be taken care of. Unless you're able to be like Ted, you're best off going to find the best example of whatever fits your mission and fly it very regularly.
Click to expand...

I've always been the first to say that my situation is unique for a lot of reasons. What I'm doing with the 414 is a route I don't encourage for most people at all. That said, I have also put people not like me in some "budget" twins that were carefully chosen and it's worked out well for them. It just depends on the specifics of the person, the mission, the wants, etc. A big item that I look for is a plane that's been flying regularly.

In general being comfortable with $30-50k/year for one of these is a good place to be, and then also know that you may have other big expenses at any time, especially if you want to do upgrades. Any plane that isn't ADS-B equipped, you need to be prepared to fork over money for that. That could be as simple as a transponder, or it could also mean adding in a WAAS GPS. While you're there, there are a lot of other upgrades that would look nice... :)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
When you get into one of these more complex planes where you could need an exhaust, turbo, boots, etc. also on various unscheduled intervals, the potential work just gets higher.
Click to expand...
Reason enough to go turbine!
 
paflyer said:
Reason enough to go turbine!
Click to expand...

I would love to go turbine. A couple problems:

1) There was no way to get into a turboprop for anywhere close to what it cost to get into the 414.
2) The bills when something goes wrong with a turbine get way higher. Need a hot section? $50k. etc.
3) The various airframe side things like boots can still break and need to be done. Prices don't get lower for those.

Most people I talk to who go turbine from a cabin class piston are happy with the results and say the costs don't change all that much. I think in general that's true.

That said, the more I fly the 414, the less I think I want a turbine. I like the altitude flexibility of being able to go in the low flight levels or go at 2,500 MSL and stay below the headwinds. I'd like to go faster, of course, but the 414 does 200 KTAS in the low flight levels now. To get enough of a bump to make a significant difference, I'd need something that could do upper 200s. To keep a similar sized cabin that means Commander 690, Blackhawk Conquest I, Conquest II, or Cheyenne III/400. So, a huge step. However that could take the ~16 hour trips I now do over 2 days into trips I could probably do in 1 day.

Besides, I really like piston aircraft. I view piston airplanes as where the romance of aviation lives.
 
I don't think I'll ever be in the turbine game. Too much plane for me, unless it's a single turbo prop.

At this point of things, my dream plane for any future missions would be suited well by a Malibu, but that's only a SE airplane, twins have an added level of safety if one engine fails, like we have been talking about in this thread, twins can be more expensive to maintain and run.

At least I have plenty time to think about it. lol
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Most people I talk to who go turbine from a cabin class piston are happy with the results and say the costs don't change all that much. I think in general that's true.
Click to expand...

I've read that as well. I'm on the fence, but like you say, it's the cost of entry that is the big (3x, at least) leap.

I almost pulled the trigger on a Duke last year, but the seller was reluctant to fly it into my 3200' runway. He was relatively low time, as I would be, and he was used to a much longer field. I like the 414/421 (340 is smaller at same Opex). 414 will fit in my hangar (43' door clearance), but the 414A wing is a bit too long. A 421A/B/C would fit. What's your opinion on acceptable runway length (2500' DA is worst I've seen here)?
 
OTOH, if the auto-feather on the Conquest fails and one rolls back before I'm >140 kts I'm in serious trouble. I had that scenario in my last sim training and even though I knew which engine was going to fail and when I still barely flew out of it. If that scenario happens for real, my only hope is to pull both throttles(quickly) and take landing straight ahead. Either way I'm probably not going to fare very well.
 
paflyer said:
I've read that as well. I'm on the fence, but like you say, it's the cost of entry that is the big (3x, at least) leap.

I almost pulled the trigger on a Duke last year, but the seller was reluctant to fly it into my 3200' runway. He was relatively low time, as I would be, and he was used to a much longer field. I like the 414/421 (340 is smaller at same Opex). 414 will fit in my hangar (43' door clearance), but the 414A wing is a bit too long. A 421A/B/C would fit. What's your opinion on acceptable runway length (2500' DA is worst I've seen here)?
Click to expand...

The 421C wingspan is the same as the 414A. So if you can't fit a 414A, you can't fit a 421C.

The shortest I've flown this 414 into so far has been 3,500 ft with a takeoff at gross weight, it did fine. We were going to fly it into Gaston's last year (3,300 ft grass with the trees) and weren't too worried about it, either. If you're based at 3,200 ft it's doable, but you don't have a lot of margin and you won't have accelerate-stop distance if you have to abort the takeoff at a bad time or botch up your landing. Yes, an AoA is a good idea if you're going to do short field landings, and I would get one if I was going to do them routinely with the plane.

The 414 is the worst runway hog of the three (340, 414, 421). The 340 has the same engines and props with a smaller fuselage and less weight. One of my friends specifically chose a 340 over a 414 because he wanted better short field performance and didn't need the space of the 414. If you were considering a Duke and its cabin was acceptable to you, the 340 cabin will be just fine. However now flying a 414, I wouldn't want the smaller cabin. The 340 is a bit faster, but not a lot. MT props help takeoff.

The 421 is going to have the best performance for the same load, but the problem I have with the 421s is that the engines seem to have the highest rates of failures on takeoff. Even though the 421 would've been a better fit for what we do in a lot of ways, I decided the direct drive engines were a better idea. A friend of mine bought a 421B project at the same time we got the 414 project. We've both had our share of problems. Both of us had leaking props in short order. I handled it by getting MT props (which are a huge improvement on the 414), he's planning to do a reseal (way cheaper). We both have had fuel system issues. He had a heater issue (I haven't had one yet). I had a bad fuel selector. His reason for going 421 was because he wanted the larger cabin and the better takeoff performance from short runways. I'm trying to do everything I can to optimize the OEI performance of the 414.

The critical dimension with these planes is typically the back of the tip tanks to the tip of the nose. In my case, a 421B wouldn't fit in my hangar, but the 414 does.

414 does better in ice than the 340 as its wing is fatter. The systems are otherwise basically the same. I'm a fan of the alcohol windshield over the heated personally, but if FIKI is a big deal for you vs. non-FIKI de-ice, then you'll need a later model with the electric windshield. They offered it in '77 (the year of the 414 I fly) but this one has an alcohol windshield.
 
James_Dean said:
What part of a normal flight regime would the average light twin pilot would find themself below Vmc?
Click to expand...

Depends, if they are Vmc +5 on rotation or on final then it could a really serious issue if not dealt with immediately. Not saying that second engine doesn't help in most cases in terms of redundancy but there are some ways in which twins can be less safe than a single.
 
labbadabba said:
Depends, if they are Vmc +5 on rotation or on final then it could a really serious issue if not dealt with immediately. Not saying that second engine doesn't help in most cases in terms of redundancy but there are some ways in which twins can be less safe than a single.
Click to expand...

The period from rotation to 100 ft AGL is the most dangerous in a twin. When on final, I tend to keep speed at blue line until the runway is made for long runways. For short runways you can't, so your period of exposure increases.

Basically from takeoff roll to 1,000 AGL and then in the pattern or past the FAF until landing is when you need to be the most vigilant of an engine failure and ready to act quickly. An engine failure in cruise, if handled intelligently, is not a big deal. You should NOT land at a short runway OEI.
 
labbadabba said:
Depends, if they are Vmc +5 on rotation or on final then it could a really serious issue if not dealt with immediately. Not saying that second engine doesn't help in most cases in terms of redundancy but there are some ways in which twins can be less safe than a single.
Click to expand...

You will understand better once you get that MEL done, but you are correct that shortly after rotation is the most critical period, but in most light twins you will not let yourself get airborne that slow and your first reaction until reaching blue line will be to pull the throttles. If you're on final OEI and not at blue or above you done screwed the pooch.

Edit : On final and runway not made.
 
James_Dean said:
You will understand better once you get that MEL done, but you are correct that shortly after rotation is the most critical period, but in most light twins you will not let yourself get airborne that slow and your first reaction until reaching blue line will be to pull the throttles. If you're on final OEI and not at blue or above you done screwed the pooch.
Click to expand...

Instructors (at least good ones) are also really good at failing engines at bad times, so I hear. ;)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Instructors (at least good ones) are also really good at failing engines at bad times, so I hear. ;)
Click to expand...

That is true. Like when you're in a plane for the first time, in the pattern at an unfamiliar airport, and with an airliner full of people on final.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Ted DuPuis said:
That's a good number.

If you are thinking of going this route, I help people buy twins. Feel free to contact me when you get to the point of being ready to pull the trigger.
Click to expand...
that is great to know. i'm 3 years away or so. I live in Seattle, so de-ice to punch through the layer is attractive, and you basically only get that in a twin. otherwise, a Cherokee six would be the perfect plane for me.

If i were buying today, i'd be talking about this plane. https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1457873/1970-piper-turbo-aztec-d i'd prefer no turbo, but want a 430w or better, an AP, some time left on engines and De-ice.

this one is interesting too, but odn't the later ones have a lot more ADs and less useful load? https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/17365009/1977-piper-turbo-aztec-f only a 1650 useful, which seems TINY once you load a tanker of fuel in it.

how do you help people buy? percent of sale? fixed fee?
 
labbadabba said:
I start in earnest tomorrow afternoon!
Click to expand...

Keep us posted. I really enjoyed learning how to fly twins, but you are correct that a rusty twin pilot is a scary thing. It is serious business and there is no time for helmet fire. Practice, practice, practice.
 
labbadabba said:
Depends, if they are Vmc +5 on rotation or on final then it could a really serious issue if not dealt with immediately. Not saying that second engine doesn't help in most cases in terms of redundancy but there are some ways in which twins can be less safe than a single.
Click to expand...

Why on earth would you be that slow on final in a light twin, unless you've got the runway made and the throttles closed? That's just asking for trouble.
 
MIFlyer said:
that is great to know. i'm 3 years away or so. I live in Seattle, so de-ice to punch through the layer is attractive, and you basically only get that in a twin. otherwise, a Cherokee six would be the perfect plane for me.

If i were buying today, i'd be talking about this plane. https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1457873/1970-piper-turbo-aztec-d i'd prefer no turbo, but want a 430w or better, an AP, some time left on engines and De-ice.

this one is interesting too, but odn't the later ones have a lot more ADs and less useful load? https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/17365009/1977-piper-turbo-aztec-f only a 1650 useful, which seems TINY once you load a tanker of fuel in it.

how do you help people buy? percent of sale? fixed fee?
Click to expand...

I spent about 1,000 hours in my Aztec. It was a great plane, and the best I ever flew in ice. A few inches of ice didn't bother it one bit. Mine was a D model. I think the Ds and Es are the best of the bunch. I wouldn't want an F. They tried fixing problems that didn't exist. If you're out west, then the turbos offer advantages due to mountains, but they also do increase MX and fuel consumption. If I lived in Seattle I would want turbos. Also don't forget about T310s and 320s which are faster and more efficient than Aztecs, albeit not as good in ice (no surprise) and a smaller cabin. However the turbo Twin Cessnas have some design flaws in my opinion surrounding the turbo system. The FAA seemed to agree since they issued an AD about them.

I'll send you a PM about how I help people buy. :)

James_Dean said:
Keep us posted. I really enjoyed learning how to fly twins, but you are correct that a rusty twin pilot is a scary thing. It is serious business and there is no time for helmet fire. Practice, practice, practice.
Click to expand...

Over 2,000 hours into piston twins, I still learn something every flight.
 
If you look around, there are only four cabin class twins left in commercial use:
- a couple of 421s in charter use
- Queen airs with the excalibur conversion to ship boxes
- A smattering of Chieftains
- some very senior 402s used by Cape Air etc.

Take your pick.
 
James_Dean said:
How to play dog kennel tetris doesn't count.
Click to expand...

Last flight I had a dog and a cat escape from the cages in-flight. This required me going in back to get the cat back in its cage while flying (fortunately I had a co-pilot to hold the plane while I did that). I cannot express to you how difficult it is to take crates that are incapable of moving, move them, and put a cat into a crate while in an airplane. It's hard enough to do this while on the ground.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I spent about 1,000 hours in my Aztec. It was a great plane, and the best I ever flew in ice. A few inches of ice didn't bother it one bit. Mine was a D model. I think the Ds and Es are the best of the bunch. I wouldn't want an F. They tried fixing problems that didn't exist. If you're out west, then the turbos offer advantages due to mountains, but they also do increase MX and fuel consumption. If I lived in Seattle I would want turbos. Also don't forget about T310s and 320s which are faster and more efficient than Aztecs, albeit not as good in ice (no surprise) and a smaller cabin. However the turbo Twin Cessnas have some design flaws in my opinion surrounding the turbo system. The FAA seemed to agree since they issued an AD about them.

I'll send you a PM about how I help people buy. :)



Over 2,000 hours into piston twins, I still learn something every flight.
Click to expand...
thanks Ted. I'll look out for the PM. I'm still PP- ASEL. my next step will be to add instrument priviledges over the next two years, and then, when our house addition is completed, I can probably make the case to move from a club to ownership or a small partnership in a twin.

In my research, i come back to the Aztec due to a few reasons. The base being that I'll give up "elegance" and efficiency and speed for more margin for my errors and lower MX.

Example, VMC in the Aztec is pretty low. Aztec will take a pretty short field. Aztec big useful load. Aztec's informally "handle" ice well. Lycoming 540 seems very solid (especially in NA version. Stalls are reported to be benign due to the fat, inefficient wing.

They don't seem glamorous, but they seem like they have a lot more envelope on these dimensions than many competing twins. It's the same reasons I'd pick a Cherokee six over a bonanza. Not the right call for everyone, but probably the best call for a casual private pilot who does a CFI session 2x per year and flies 50 hours. my friends are also all 200+ pound dudes, so useful load is a big shopping criteria for me.
 
MIFlyer said:
thanks Ted. I'll look out for the PM. I'm still PP- ASEL. my next step will be to add instrument priviledges over the next two years, and then, when our house addition is completed, I can probably make the case to move from a club to ownership or a small partnership in a twin.

In my research, i come back to the Aztec due to a few reasons. The base being that I'll give up "elegance" and efficiency and speed for more margin for my errors and lower MX.

Example, VMC in the Aztec is pretty low. Aztec will take a pretty short field. Aztec big useful load. Aztec's informally "handle" ice well. Lycoming 540 seems very solid (especially in NA version. Stalls are reported to be benign due to the fat, inefficient wing.

They don't seem glamorous, but they seem like they have a lot more envelope on these dimensions than many competing twins. It's the same reasons I'd pick a Cherokee six over a bonanza. Not the right call for everyone, but probably the best call for a casual private pilot who does a CFI session 2x per year and flies 50 hours. my friends are also all 200+ pound dudes, so useful load is a big shopping criteria for me.
Click to expand...

All of that points towards an Aztec being a great choice for you. They are definitely excellent short field performers, very benign OEI and stall characteristics, plus a generous cabin. The parallel valve 540s are bulletproof. So yes, I'd say that's a good option for you to consider.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The 421C wingspan is the same as the 414A. So if you can't fit a 414A, you can't fit a 421C.

The shortest I've flown this 414 into so far has been 3,500 ft with a takeoff at gross weight, it did fine. We were going to fly it into Gaston's last year (3,300 ft grass with the trees) and weren't too worried about it, either. If you're based at 3,200 ft it's doable, but you don't have a lot of margin and you won't have accelerate-stop distance if you have to abort the takeoff at a bad time or botch up your landing. Yes, an AoA is a good idea if you're going to do short field landings, and I would get one if I was going to do them routinely with the plane.

The 414 is the worst runway hog of the three (340, 414, 421). The 340 has the same engines and props with a smaller fuselage and less weight. One of my friends specifically chose a 340 over a 414 because he wanted better short field performance and didn't need the space of the 414. If you were considering a Duke and its cabin was acceptable to you, the 340 cabin will be just fine. However now flying a 414, I wouldn't want the smaller cabin. The 340 is a bit faster, but not a lot. MT props help takeoff.

The 421 is going to have the best performance for the same load, but the problem I have with the 421s is that the engines seem to have the highest rates of failures on takeoff. Even though the 421 would've been a better fit for what we do in a lot of ways, I decided the direct drive engines were a better idea. A friend of mine bought a 421B project at the same time we got the 414 project. We've both had our share of problems. Both of us had leaking props in short order. I handled it by getting MT props (which are a huge improvement on the 414), he's planning to do a reseal (way cheaper). We both have had fuel system issues. He had a heater issue (I haven't had one yet). I had a bad fuel selector. His reason for going 421 was because he wanted the larger cabin and the better takeoff performance from short runways. I'm trying to do everything I can to optimize the OEI performance of the 414.

The critical dimension with these planes is typically the back of the tip tanks to the tip of the nose. In my case, a 421B wouldn't fit in my hangar, but the 414 does.

414 does better in ice than the 340 as its wing is fatter. The systems are otherwise basically the same. I'm a fan of the alcohol windshield over the heated personally, but if FIKI is a big deal for you vs. non-FIKI de-ice, then you'll need a later model with the electric windshield. They offered it in '77 (the year of the 414 I fly) but this one has an alcohol windshield.
Click to expand...
Ted, thanks for the detailed info. I've been using this as a source of info re T hangar fit:

https://www.bifold.com/airplane-size-chart.php#Cessna15

One thing this site doesn't provide is subtleties- like you mentioned- pertaining to wing tip tanks (similar issue with Aerostar's far-aft wing position).

Type WS
414 39' 11"
414A 44' 11"
414A II 44' 2"
421 39' 8"
421B 41' 8"
421C 41' 0"

My perception, from sitting in both, is that the Duke is roomier than a 340- both for passengers and up front .
 
paflyer said:
Ted, thanks for the detailed info. I've been using this as a source of info re T hangar fit:

https://www.bifold.com/airplane-size-chart.php#Cessna15

One thing this site doesn't provide is subtleties- like you mentioned- pertaining to wing tip tanks (similar issue with Aerostar's far-aft wing position).

Type WS
414 39' 11"
414A 44' 11"
414A II 44' 2"
421 39' 8"
421B 41' 8"
421C 41' 0"

My perception, from sitting in both, is that the Duke is roomier than a 340- both for passengers and up front .
Click to expand...

Hmm, well I suppose I was wrong on the 421C wingspan. I also check the Twin Cessna Flyer and they confirm that wingspan, so you're right there.

Regardless, if you look at one with tip tanks, make sure to get that dimension. There are TTCF members who can help you on that one. If you do want to get a Twin Cessna, I'd recommend joining TTCF (twincessna.org).

Interesting perception on the Duke. Having never sat in one, I can't compare, but I wouldn't have thought that. Most people who regularly are going to fly with 4+ people want the 414 or 421 because of the extra space. The 340 is very nice if you normally fly as just you or you and one other person. For us, a 340 would've decreased dog capacity, hence why the 414 was mandatory if we made the upgrade.
 
labbadabba said:
Really, not a Twin Comanche?
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't get the whole twins of cabin-identical singles. Useful load, I suppose. Comanche 400 took care of that, cartoonishly so mind you. They didn't have to go that far, putting a 300 IO540 on the Comanche would have driven the point home at much less engine expense.At any rate, the twins of that flavor introduce a complexity in the airframe that I'm just not sure pay for itself, with the notable exception of the overwater mission. But that's just me, religious believer in the omnipotent and omnipresent nature of the Lycoming NA 4 cylinder engine. :D
 
mondtster said:
Why on earth would you be that slow on final in a light twin, unless you've got the runway made and the throttles closed? That's just asking for trouble.
Click to expand...
Every airplane is different.

In my airplane, VMC+5 will have you overspeeding the flaps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top