Well, sort of.

If it is 100 knots at 20K, then you are usually going to get 30-40 knots at 6K and it can be often bumpy down that low, so you have to slow up for turbulence and the advantage is lost. Your true airspeed also goes down with altitude.

If you are flying over terrain, say Boise to Denver, you don't want to be too close to the rocks where it is really bumpy so you have to be clear of them enough that you get into the real wind.

My plane is about 100 knots faster than yours, so when I have a 100 knots on the nose, that is the same as no wind in a 421.

The lowest cruise ground speed I've had is 180 knots. I was at 16K, doing 308 knots true, going at max performance. If I had a 421, it would have been at 6K where the wind was a paltry 60 knots, so a 421 is doing about 130 knot ground speed at that altitude, if it isn't bumpy.

There is no altitude where a 421 is better than my plane in a headwind.

Mike C.

A Cessna 182 can do that. :-)

Mike C.

I'm 6'2". Another MU2 pilot I know is 6'5".

When I bought the airplane, I had extended seat tracks installed as the taller pilot said this was the key to making it work for him. It also allows the copilot's seat to be pulled further back in case a non pilot is sitting there.

Turns out that I fly with the seat in what would have been the last factory notch, so I didn't need the extended seat tracks. But I do like the copilot room they provide.

There's only one way to really know, go sit in one. Your welcome to try mine on if you are in the area.

BTW, the plane the tall pilot was flying is for sale:

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 375663.htm

This is a VERY nice airplane, nicer than mine, well kept. Has extended seat tracks!

Mike C.

Huh? He was talking about the 421 primarily and also referenced numerous other aircraft. I certainly appreciate the perspective. Thanks Mike!

No complaints about mentioning a 441, Merlin, or Commander. Hmmm.

Seems someone has a double standard.

Mike C.

No complaints about mentioning a 441, Merlin, or Commander. Hmmm.

Seems someone has a double standard.

Mike C.

Not on a 1300 nm flight as I said:

"Considering that you will face headwinds often, if you really have a 1300 nm trip you need to make reliably, then a 421C won't do it, nor will any MU2. You need Cessna 441, Commander 1000, Merlin, etc."


MU2 is the answer to "how much performance can I buy for 421 money?".

Mike C.

For folks who say 1300nm not good in a piston, I have done in all conditions both directions in my Malibu (non stop always east bound and occasionally west). Never had a bad trip, though some take longer than others.

WAs just curious if any other piston could pull it off ns. Thought a 421 might. hopefully I figure out how to put a turboprop in the hanger soon.

The 421 will be slightly faster than your Malibu, carry a bit more, and have a bigger cabin. Otherwise, it is not materially different in capability than a Malibu in terms of its speed/range/altitude/weather capability. It will take a lot more money to run, but otherwise not really change your life.

Mike C.

Several models of commander can do that not just the 1000

840,980,900, and a 690 with aux tanks.

A question was posted about a C421 doing 1300nm. The consensus is no. Mike chimed in with some alternative aircraft that could do that mission that cost almost the same to operate as a C421. It was a reasonable continuation ("thread drift") to the question. When did it become a bad thing to make a reasonable suggestion? Anybody considering a C421 should also be considering a turboprop. That is good advice.

I think you're taking things too personally, and frankly, acting like a bully. If you don't like Mike's post go ahead and scroll past it. It's not your place to censor contributors. You may not value the perspective but others do.

I have about 400 hrs in a 1982 Cessna 421C. It had standard fuel tanks.

My longest flight was from Flagstaff to Chicago Midway with a very healthy tailwind. I think that was about 1200nm.

From what I recall, I basically would get about 195 knots at 32 GPH lean of peak.

I actually flew the 421 out Ada Oklahoma for the advanced pilot seminar to hone my knowledge of lean of peak flying. I ended installing the GAMI injectors and nice engine monitor. That was all very worthwhile to do IMHO.

It was a great plane.

I had a 421 for several years. It only had 222 gal, and I found that it was good for 800nm with an hour reserve. I know you can squeeze more out of it, but realistically, I found with no wind at FL170-180, during the 1st hour, you would go about 175nm, burning 50-52 gal, thereafter, cruise would be 207 ktas, burning 43gph.

Now I have an MU2 Solitaire. Comparing the 421 to the short MU2, is performance vs comfort. If 200-210 ktas in a piston plane is ok for you there is no comparison. The 421 is 10 times more comfortable. There is no way one can say siting in a short MU2 is comfortable. The pilot seat is very upright and doesn't articulate at all. The rear bench is also upright and uncomfortable. The long body MU2 does offer better comfort options for passengers. That being said, getting places 33% faster plus all the other benefits of a TP, make the MU2 worth it.

I have to agree that the pilot seat in the 421 is great. It's offset a little from the side giving you great elbow room and a feeling of space.

Doesn't the couch on the MU-2 recline?

I have a short body and the rear bench does not recline. Only the rear facing seats recline.