I have been watching Controller for last 18 months. Seems like the the 414 garners a higher (list) price than similar year/time 421. Does not make sense to me for a lot of reasons.

Explanation(s)?

Why does it seem like there's an abundance of recent interest in Cessna 3XX / 4XX twins lately. Don't you guys go driving the prices back up now...

The 421 has a reputation for being hard to fly and/or pricey to maintain. True or not, I don't know, but perception drives fiscal reality here.

There may be an element of scarcity as well. The long nose came to the 414 in '78. The 421 got it in 1970. There were 1500 421 b/c built and only 500 414a. The number of ram ($$$$) converted 414a is even smaller whereas all 421s came factory with 375hp per side.

"Really nice" aircraft of all kinds are in short supply, especially later in the production runs.

Anything updated, with reasonable interior, paint and engine times gets snapped up pretty quickly, and my guess is pretty near the ask, if the ask is reasonable.

Don't forget, a lot of twins were run in -135 or corporate 91, where they racked up a LOT of TT. This makes the availability of lower time versions even more rare than your garden variety 182.

Best,
Rich

Mark,

A 414 is essentially the same airframe as a 421B. A 414A is the same airframe as a 421C (except the later 421Cs have trailing link gear). There are some spar differences that have different SID implications, but I have forgotten the details on that.

When I started down the path to a pressurized twin (12 years ago; made my purchase 10 years ago), the 414A was my first choice. Relative to a 414 with tip tanks, the wet wing and hydraulic gear of the 414A are more maintenance friendly - and I correctly realized that the cost of maintenance and operation would quickly dwarf the purchase price.

I shied away from the 421C, even though it has the same airframe as the 414A, because I was well aware of all of the geared engine horror stories. The airframe difference that most impacted me: the 414A has slightly longer wingtips (needs more wingspan to climb with fewer horsepower). The 414A's additional foot or two of span would prevent me from occupying a T-hangar at my preferred airport. The 421C would fit in the T-hangar. It would cost me $15-20k per year extra to hangar the 414A.

Based on hangar cost, I decided that I had better investigate 421Cs. When I talked to people in the know (mechanics & owners), I learned that GTSIOs are beloved by those who operate them and are an outstanding engine. From my research, I concluded that GTSIOs were a problem back in the day when charter fleets were full of 421s and relatively inexperienced guys (who weren't paying the bills) were flying them around. GTSIOs don't like to be abused: started when cold, taking off before the engine is up to temp, operating near zero thrust so that the gearbox chatters (though Continental says it has never seen a problem due to this), and rapid changes in power. In the owner-pilot world, GTSIOs seemed to do great.

So I bought a 421C. I figured that even if my GTSIO research were wrong, the $15-20k per year that I saved on a hangar would cover a lot of GTSIO maintenance.

After 10 years of ownership, I love my GTSIOs: quiet (due to the low prop rpm), smooth, great induction system with a factory intercoooler, run cool even in climb, no cowl flaps, . . .

The 421C I bought had mid-time engines. I hope to get a couple hundred more hours out of them. I was able to run them over TBO by about 200 hours. Neither engine ever had a cylinder removed during its life: not by prior owners and not by me. I put Continental NEW engines in a few years ago. I wanted new cases. Case cracking does seem more common in GTSIOs - indications are that high-time cases are more prone to cracking.

I am exceedingly happy that I went the 421C route. The 421C climbs much better than the 414A Ram IV that I have flown. The extra useful load on the 421C is important to me since I fly some long legs. The exhaust system on the 421C is superior to the 414A. The 414A has the wastegate bypass pipe snaking around the forward spar / engine beams in a complicated, convoluted, inaccessible way. The 421C exhaust system does not snake - much more open and easy.

As a former 421C skeptic, I can assure that I am now a 421C believer. I would pay a substantial premium for a 421C over a 414A (even if I did not have a hangar issue). To the extent that the market favors 414As over 421Cs, 421Cs are an incredible value.

Although I can wax poetic on the merits of a 421C relative to a 414A, all pressurized piston twins are essentially dinosaurs that are 30+ years old. The operation and maintenance of these aircraft is akin to managing a flight department. Being able to pilot these things safely requires a huge commitment, as does managing the maintenance (and intricately learning the airplane so that you are competent to manage the maintenance).

These may be fun planes in the eyes of passengers: quiet, capable, and comfortable. For owner-pilots, they are a tremendous responsibility. They are best-suited to those who enjoy spending many ground hours for every flight hour. Turbine singles (Meridian, TBM 700) are a much better fit for most people to the extent that the non-flying burdens are much lower - and the flying burden is much lower.

If you are a romantic with a hankering to experience the romanticism of piston twins (and have your eyes wide open), dive right in. If you are looking for something practical or sensible, turbine is the way to go.

Could be:

Negligible performance difference

421 Geared engine O-haul 90k
414 engine O-haul 40k

Great write up Dan. Your last two paragraphs ring very true..

Rocky

You can get a new gtsio for $70

421b has the long nose, 414 has short nose

The gear and fuel system is slightly less complex in a 421c ... But there are a lotta moving parts in any 400 series.

Ummm... No. Do some basic research before posting completely incorrect information please.

Continental reman was $54k for a GTSIO earlier this summer. I'm pretty sure the price hasn't risen that much since then.

Robert

I have owned a 414 and now I own a 421B. The basic systems are almost the same as is the cabin part of the fuselage. The stories about the GTSIO engines are completely unfounded. The GTSIO runs smoother and cooler and is very easy to handle. The 421 burns an average of 5-7 gph more than the 414, but the 421 will run 15-25 ktas faster.
A tip tank 414 at 65% will typically go 180-189 ktas and a 421B will give you 205-217 ktas. BTW, the wing is different on the 421B than the 414.

Thanks for the great write up and feedback Dan. Your comment about many ground hrs:flight hrs I'm sure is quite true and may cause me to lose my newfound interest in these birds. I don't have the time to monkey with mx and really only have an interest in flying right now. I despise downtime and mx headaches, especially having to fly the airplane back and forth to multiple mechanics. We've done through this recently with the Seneca on a few squawks and it drives me bonkers. I'm sure the 421 would be much more involved.

I owned 414a ram VII with winglets. I flew at 20k and 213 kts on 42 GPH all day long.

The late model 414a had the same fuselage/nose as the 421.

Mike

Ummm... No. Do some basic research before posting completely incorrect information please.

Continental reman was $54k for a GTSIO earlier this summer. I'm pretty sure the price hasn't risen that much since then.

Robert

Dan, what kind of maintenance are you performing during these "many hours"?

In nine years and 1500 hours I have not had to cancel one trip in my 421C due to MX. My 421C has been very reliable for a complex pressurized twin. To achieve this reliability I have repaired at every annual anything that needed attention.