It seems you are comparing a stock or early RAM 340 to the C55. These numbers are out of whack for a RAM VI or VII 340. There's a big difference in performance and load carrying capacity (5990 vs 6390 MTOW) between the two. 18 minutes to 21k is hardly slow climb. I also fly a Baron 55 and it will run out of breath at 10k. If I'm flying a short trip in the flat lands the Baron is nice, quick and economical. If it's a long trip or over rocks - I don't even think about it - the 340 by a long stretch.

Oh and the Baron is a lot noisier. My wife and PAX hardly consider traveling in the 340 a sacrifice - in fact it's quite the opposite.

If you have a chance go drive a RAM VI or VII 340. I am confident your opinion will change - radically. It is a completely different airplane.

Alex you are correct. The Ram VII will maintain METO power to 25,000 feet. I still have a Colemill President Two Baron I fly on shorter trips solo and a Cessna 421C. My family always prefered the 340 or the 421C.

What are the big differences between the 421 and 340?

I've heard the 340 needs the ram package. It's mandatory. Is this true with the 421's?

What are the speed differences? Costs (obviously geared engines will make a difference)?

Price wise, the acquisition costs are close. I'd be interested in knowing the pros and cons of both.

What are the big differences between the 421 and 340?

I've heard the 340 needs the ram package. It's mandatory. Is this true with the 421's?

What are the speed differences? Costs (obviously geared engines will make a difference)?

Price wise, the acquisition costs are close. I'd be interested in knowing the pros and cons of both.

Garrett the 340A and the 421C are both good planes. They are not perfect and have faults just like Barons and Dukes. The 340A is a great plane with the Ram VI or VII. The VII has a new design intake system and a 40% larger turbo charger that allows MAX take off power to 25,000 feet. My Ram VII had spoilers, VG's, engine beam blankets, fire EXT., and stainless steel cross feed lines plus FIKI. I did not have to worry about a wing burning off. The gear is tall so no high speed turns off the runway. The seven would haul anything that would fit in the cabin and take off and land from a 2,000 foot runway. The 340 does not fly like a Baron or duke, but does fly well.
My 421C will go as fast as the 340 Ram VII on less fuel or faster on the same fuel flow. The 421C has a large roomy QUIET cabin with a private potty in the back. The engines are not difficult to operate if you have an above average IQ. My 421C will also operate from a 2,000 foot runway if you are a better than average pilot. The GTSIO engines are about 15% more to OH than the 340 engines. I still have the Baron and 421C. I sold the 340A to a good friend because it was hard for me to fly all three.

Nice collection Jerry. You had the best of all worlds.

Thanks, Alex but I have nothing that compares to your panel. Your 340 is just outstanding
In every way. Congrats. Jerry

I must say that 340 with the tip tanks looks bad ass!

+1 on the tip tanks!

Nice shot of all three. I looked at all 3 before settling on my Baron.

Very sharp, all of them...



Warren

I've been flying a C340A with stock engines and the American Aviation Intercoolers (RAM IV "like") for the last 2 1/2 years and over 800 hours. I'm in it 1-3 days a week, depending. I came from a B36TC and was flying it too hard and it was single engine and TKS (not "Known Ice"). The other 340 drivers have given you detailed and accurate numbers. In comparison, I flight plan for 190 knots and 40gph and so far I haven't been late and I always have extra gas. I would flight plan 200 if I was planning a Flight Level trip which I typically won't do unless I'm at least 2 hours flight time or dealing with weather. To me, it's not worth the wear and tear and I live in the flat midwest. I have 1200 hours on the engines and haven't had a cylinder off...... yet. At 13,000 feet at 30 inches and 2300 RPM I see 192-195 and I burn 36 GPH and I don't fiddle with fuel settings much (lazy, I guess) but that's about 75 ROP and I'm 1430-1480 and 330-375 on the cylinders, depending. I do whatever I need to keep the cylinders cool and that means, pulling the power back, or giving it more gas, whatever is appropriate. The RAM VII is faster as mine won't run much over 205 maybe 210 when I'm up high and still keep the engines at a respectable temp. If you're a pilot and mostly by yourself or with 1 or 2 others the 340 is a pilot's airplane, not a people hauler. If you want to haul and don't mind additional overhead the 421C and the 414 RAM VII with winglets all "modded" out run nearly side by side. The 421's don't have any true engine mods like the 340/414 as those geared engines fit the airplane and are super quiet. Cessna got it right but they burn more fuel because they have more horsepower (375 stock), simple. When you see a 421 with RAM that just means RAM did the engines. There is no horsepower or Intercooler or power setting modifications that I know of.

After owning 2 Beechcraft and now a Cessna, I can tell you each has there attributes the other doesn't have. It's that simple in my mind so it goes back to what it always goes back to. It's all machinery so pick the one that fits your mission the best and the one you like the most.

I greatly appreciate all the replies. I really like the 340. And most of my time in multis has been in the C55--which is a fire breathing dragon & bargain of the century by all accounts.

A 421 is out of the question on account of costs, but the 340 seemed like it might tick all the boxes. I just thought it would be a solid 200kts, especially above 15k msl. The creature comforts are impressive nonetheless. Just not sure the acquisition costs and insurance costs and simcom costs make a 340A viable. I sure did enjoy the ramp presence and room though. I can see why they have a following.



John

ALL twin cessnas need the Ram conversion...and they are still pigs. I last flew a Ram VII 340 this past June. I'll take a plain old 58 over that any day. If you need to go to 17,000 and above get a King Air.

Just my opinion...

ALL twin cessnas need the Ram conversion...and they are still pigs. I last flew a Ram VII 340 this past June. I'll take a plain old 58 over that any day. If you need to go to 17,000 and above get a King Air.

Just my opinion...

and that's where you lost me Gerry.......Baron's perfect......just spot on perfect!