BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Nov 2015, 08:35

Username Protected wrote:

Thanks Alex, I'll be calling Juan soon. I've got some others to get info from as well. Definitely believe in pre-buys and buying right.

I'm hung up on useful because I feel it is a direct correlation to safety factor. I'm legal flying the Baron at gross but the rubber band is pretty tight when OEI in takeoff phase. I'm looking to gain useful with a 421 but not load it to gross thus having some cushion. It will cost more than the Baron, but I count that up as insurance.

I believe and have read a few hundred pounds less than gross on a 421 really makes a difference in OEI performance. I know it does in the Baron. With same payload in Baron, I'll be under 300 or 400 pounds in 421. Can anyone confirm this is all true. I'm getting this info from reading (Internet) and would like to have real world confirmation.

Also, high temps can be replaced for pounds above, same effect.

Thx ,Bob...

Bob you hit the nail on the head! When I'm at 7100lbs or below it will climb at 4-500 fpm on one without trying too hard....they also do really well with the engine feathered....on my aircraft full rudder trim and the prop feather puts the ball out 1/2 almost no pressure on the rudders.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Nov 2015, 09:12

Tim[/quote]

Or how much better the Aerostar is :whiteflag:

[/quote]

Yup. But the thread started about passenger comfort. As great as the Aerostar is, it really is a sports car, so you will get there fast, in style and looking good. But due to how the passenger's sit, it always "feels" small in back; so :shrug:

Tim

[/quote]

Tim-- IMO-- The Aerostar is not signifantly faster than a 421 but it is significantly less room for comfort.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Nov 2015, 09:19

Username Protected wrote:

I believe and have read a few hundred pounds less than gross on a 421 really makes a difference in OEI performance. I know it does in the Baron. With same payload in Baron, I'll be under 300 or 400 pounds in 421. Can anyone confirm this is all true. I'm getting this info from reading (Internet) and would like to have real world confirmation.

If that is your ultimate driving factor then I would shop for a '76-'79 421C with winglets, strakes, and hubcaps (I don't think you can put winglets on a post 1980/trailing link 421). An instructor with a lot of single engine instructing time in both said that winglets on the 421 nearly eliminate VMC, especially below gross. He believes that it will stall prior to VMC. While that seems optimistic, I do know I've been close to POH stall numbers during VMC demos before we chickened out...well below gross of course.
I really don't think the actual winglet has a lot to do with it. I'm guessing it's more about the 3' longer wing that comes with it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Nov 2015, 09:45

Username Protected wrote:

I believe and have read a few hundred pounds less than gross on a 421 really makes a difference in OEI performance. I know it does in the Baron. With same payload in Baron, I'll be under 300 or 400 pounds in 421. Can anyone confirm this is all true. I'm getting this info from reading (Internet) and would like to have real world confirmation.

If that is your ultimate driving factor then I would shop for a '76-'79 421C with winglets, strakes, and hubcaps (I don't think you can put winglets on a post 1980/trailing link 421). An instructor with a lot of single engine instructing time in both said that winglets on the 421 nearly eliminate VMC, especially below gross. He believes that it will stall prior to VMC. While that seems optimistic, I do know I've been close to POH stall numbers during VMC demos before we chickened out...well below gross of course.
I really don't think the actual winglet has a lot to do with it. I'm guessing it's more about the 3' longer wing that comes with it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Nov 2015, 10:38

Username Protected wrote:

The VGs alone (which almost all of the fleet has) pretty much get rid of VMC in a 421.

Robert

And increase GW by 150ish lbs, but don't, to my knowledge, meaningfully increase OEI climb. The 421 OEI charts are really revealing. Anything above ISA MSL above 7200lbs and it is a DOG.

I operated mine out of HKS (5500') and after looking at the charts decided if I were to ever need a max gross take off in the summer, I'd hop to JAN (8500') to get pax and bags.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Nov 2015, 10:50

Username Protected wrote:

I operated mine out of HKS (5500') and after looking at the charts decided if I were to ever need a max gross take off in the summer, I'd hop to JAN (8500') to get pax and bags.

That only helps with the engine failure shortly after takeoff. The doggy OEI climb rate applies no matter how long the runway is.

421C ISA, SL, GW, OEI climb is 350 fpm. But change things to 2000 MSL, 100F, and you are down to 100 FPM. Your service ceiling (50 FPM) under those conditions is only 4,000 MSL and it will take you forever to get there!

Even on the long runway, if your engine fails with gear down, nothing you can do to climb out, you have to set it back down. The 421C is strongly affected by temperature.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Nov 2015, 11:10

Username Protected wrote:

I operated mine out of HKS (5500') and after looking at the charts decided if I were to ever need a max gross take off in the summer, I'd hop to JAN (8500') to get pax and bags.

That only helps with the engine failure shortly after takeoff. The doggy OEI climb rate applies no matter how long the runway is.

421C ISA, SL, GW, OEI climb is 350 fpm. But change things to 2000 MSL, 100F, and you are down to 100 FPM. Your service ceiling (50 FPM) under those conditions is only 4,000 MSL and it will take you forever to get there!

Even on the long runway, if your engine fails with gear down, nothing you can do to climb out, you have to set it back down. The 421C is strongly affected by temperature.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Nov 2015, 13:48

On the 421C a windmilling prop is worth a minus 400 fpm. If you can't or don't get it feathered right away you are going down. I check prop feathering before every take off and if it's not working properly I stay on the ground.
All of these old large piston twins are "dangerous " in the hands of a low time, inexperienced or rusty pilot. Just because they are cheap does not mean you can just get in and fly it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Nov 2015, 13:58

Username Protected wrote:

On the 421C a windmilling prop is worth a minus 400 fpm. If you can't or don't get it feathered right away you are going down. I check prop feathering before every take off and if it's not working properly I stay on the ground.
All of these old large piston twins are "dangerous " in the hands of a low time, inexperienced or rusty pilot. Just because they are cheap does not mean you can just get in and fly it.

Jerry, do you just bring them back to 1,000 or do you actually feather them on the ground so you see them in full detent?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Nov 2015, 14:06

Username Protected wrote:

Jerry, do you just bring them back to 1,000 or do you actually feather them on the ground so you see them in full detent?

I bring them past the detent on every run up - I'll listen for a sound change and watch for a rpm drop (1-2 seconds) and then push them back up. No, it's no guarantee that they are actually going to fully feather, but I know I have control of the props and the rigging is moderately correct.

Robert

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Nov 2015, 14:08

Username Protected wrote:

On the 421C a windmilling prop is worth a minus 400 fpm. If you can't or don't get it feathered right away you are going down. I check prop feathering before every take off and if it's not working properly I stay on the ground.
All of these old large piston twins are "dangerous " in the hands of a low time, inexperienced or rusty pilot. Just because they are cheap does not mean you can just get in and fly it.

Jerry, do you just bring them back to 1,000 or do you actually feather them on the ground so you see them in full detent?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Nov 2015, 14:21

Username Protected wrote:

I operated mine out of HKS (5500') and after looking at the charts decided if I were to ever need a max gross take off in the summer, I'd hop to JAN (8500') to get pax and bags.

That only helps with the engine failure shortly after takeoff. The doggy OEI climb rate applies no matter how long the runway is.

421C ISA, SL, GW, OEI climb is 350 fpm. But change things to 2000 MSL, 100F, and you are down to 100 FPM. Your service ceiling (50 FPM) under those conditions is only 4,000 MSL and it will take you forever to get there!

Even on the long runway, if your engine fails with gear down, nothing you can do to climb out, you have to set it back down. The 421C is strongly affected by temperature.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Nov 2015, 14:33

Username Protected wrote:

On the 421C a windmilling prop is worth a minus 400 fpm. If you can't or don't get it feathered right away you are going down. I check prop feathering before every take off and if it's not working properly I stay on the ground.
All of these old large piston twins are "dangerous " in the hands of a low time, inexperienced or rusty pilot. Just because they are cheap does not mean you can just get in and fly it.

Rocky, I check them at 1200 and do not let them go below 900 so I don't damage the latches. I do a full feather check on the ground at annual. It is not practical or wise to do a complete feather to a stop before take off.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Nov 2015, 23:51

Username Protected wrote:

Tim-- IMO-- The Aerostar is not signifantly faster than a 421 but it is significantly less room for comfort.

That is funny. My normal cruise was over 20 knots faster in the low 20s compared to the RAM upgraded stats at 65% power compared to the 75% power on the 421C. And if I climbed all the way to 25-27K I could easily hit 245 KTAS without trying to hard.
Then when you add climb performance and descent?

Every plane is a trade off, rarely do you find a plane which sucks at everything. However, in this case, Cessna went for cabin comfort in the 421, while the Ted Smith Aerostar went for speed. :shrug:

Not saying one is better, I just know which one I prefer to fly, and which one I prefer when stuck in the back. :cheers:

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Nov 2015, 08:29

"Significant" isn't necessarily a linear function. Would you rather make a three hour trip in pants that fit and a 200kt plane or a 2:40 trip in a plane that is 10% faster wearing pants 10% smaller

Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421