If your experience was not in a RAM VII 414 with either winglets or strakes then we're not talking about the same airplane. I disagree with your statement that the 414A is not in the same "league" as a 421C. The two airplanes are identical and have identical performance. The 421 is quieter and the 414 is more forgiving during the initial failure of an engine. The 414 is also more efficient due to the longer wings and smaller engines.

I don't see how that could be the case. The 421 has at least 80 more HP and more efficient props to use it with.

When loaded with the same cabin load and fueled for the same range, the 421C is definitely faster than a 414A, even one equipped with RAM engines.

At a certain range/load point, the 414A reaches gross weight and the 421C has something left over. So if performance includes payload, then they are not identical.

Mike C.

Technically, the 414A and 421C have completely different wings. The 414's wings are similar to the older fleet with extensions where the main tanks were mounted and a wet wing, whereas the 421C has the wing that's a derivative of a Citation. Of course, there is no AD on the 421C wing.

The Ram conversion on the 414's is almost a necessity, even on the 414A's.

I haven't flown with winglets, but a friend flew a corporate 421C a lot and said the only performance change he noted was related to their great ability to collect ice.

Jason

I don't see how that could be the case. The 421 has at least 80 more HP and more efficient props to use it with.

When loaded with the same cabin load and fueled for the same range, the 421C is definitely faster than a 414A, even one equipped with RAM engines.

At a certain range/load point, the 414A reaches gross weight and the 421C has something left over. So if performance includes payload, then they are not identical.

Mike C.

Sure...ummmm...

1. I loved my Baron's IO-550's - they ran turbine smooth LOP. These TSIO-520's do not.

2. When the airplane is loaded, at takeoff and climb, it feels underpowered. Of course this is why it's so efficient (relatively speaking) in cruise, like a Malibu.

3. I don't have much faith in these engines. I am concerned I'll someday have a catastrophic engine failure. Yes, I train for this regularly, but I consider myself an average pilot and would not like to have myself proven as a super-pilot. I have a bunch of employees and six young daughters (yes, 6) who rely on me.

4. My airplane is at RAM right now due to a cracked case.

5. I want a Conquest.

For reference I have a RAM VII conversion with winglets and hubcaps. It's about as good as it gets for a piston twin.

Thx for the AC and A/P input.

Anyone have actual experience b/t straight and trailing link gear? I need useful lbs and approx. 100 lbs worth of trailing link is a lot. If you work on technique and get descent rate down in flare couldn't you have greasers with a straight leg? Only thing I can think of the benefit of trailing link is short field work and your in "aircraft carrier mode".

All I can think of is "boy I just made a better landing with this T/L but I'll be waiting on my luggage to arrive from Fedex b/c I had to ship my bags.

Mission is 1,300 lbs payload, 300-500 miles. Speed is not as important, I enjoy the experience. I've already got my speed by going straight line and avoiding red lights.

Thx, Bob

Bob - I suggest you call Juan Oviedo at DFW Aero and discuss what you are looking for - nobody that I know of has more experience flying and maintaining the entire rainbow of options and configurations for 421s & 414s along with all available options. This will be a good way of getting past POH comparisons. He can provide a candid comparison of TL and SL, B&C, strakes vs no strakes, winglets, no winglets, etc.

If interested, there is also an absolute cream puff perfect 414AW in his shop that will be on the market soon. 70 hours on RAM VII engines, excellent MX, all glass, beautiful new interior and stunning paint.

Haven't flown a TL but I thought the SL landed nicely. I suspect TL was a selling point in a time when 421s were largely corporate, competing with turbines, and keeping things pillow soft for the boss was a priority.

IMO-- Trailing Link is hog wash !!! $50k bump on price for a so trailing link gear for smooth landing !!! No thanks.. A lot more goes into an aircraft evaluation than a smooth landing...

It's like buying an Escalade rather than a Yukon and spending 15k more for some crome and a shiny hood.. They both are the same inside...

Trailing link gear is very nice, especially on short field landings. It is not necessary, but still a nice nice option. Is it worth the extra money? Depends on the buyer.

Gerald- I was not aware of an advantage having Trailing link gear on short field.. Can you explain??
Is the distance to Takeoff or Land reduced??
Any other advantages?? Besides a " Better Landing"

My understanding is that braking effectiveness is higher for the straight leg due to trailing link rotating from brake drag.

The perceived advantage may be the ability to put the plane down "harder" so you can start braking sooner. But you can put the straight leg down firmly, too.

But you also have 100 pounds more weight to stop if you are trailing link, and that also increases approach speed as well.

If short field was important to me, I'd want the straight leg, if for no other reason to be 100 pounds less.

Mike C.

Tim go fly one and make your decision. TL is no help on take off, only landing. The extra 90 pounds is not a problem for me. It is my understanding the TL's also have a longer wing life.

I've seen and flown both 421s with straight leg and T/L.. The higher sitting ramp presence was the only noticeable difference...

A couple hundred feet of landing/takeoff distance would not sway me.... I'm looking for $50k worth of benefits...

I think the 50k comes back at resale. You only park it in the airline .

I was happy with my B model. I felt it was the best value

To each is own.