BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Jun 2014, 11:59

Straight 421's,421A's IMHO are not good planes. Different wing and fuselage so they don't fly as well. Starting in 1973 the 421B's had a longer wing and in 1975 they were FIKI. Starting in 1976 all 421C 's had the early citation wet wing and in 1980 the trailing link gear. Supply and "Demand" will determine the price for any plane.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Jun 2014, 12:22

Username Protected wrote:

If you only have 4-5 people and want a wonderful airplane for 1/3 the money you buy the Duke.

Todd - You forgot to add - if you have lots of time to waste looking around boneyards looking for spares, and don't really mind being left stranded here and there - into the mix of reasons to buy a Duke.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Jun 2014, 12:42

Username Protected wrote:

One point, though, Doug. More than 100 miles and you fly?

I routinely need to go to Indianapolis downtown. It is 139 miles and takes about 2:20. If I fly it takes 20 minutes to flight plan, check weather, and pre-flight. It takes another 15 minutes to warm up the plane and secure the hangar. It takes 15 minutes to get to the airport. The flight is 35 minutes if VFR and 50 if IFR with an approach. I then have to park the plane at the FBO and secure it which takes 10 minutes. I then have to rent a car and drive 20 minutes to where I am going. I then have to drive back to the airport, return the car, and do everything again. There is no time savings and it is much more work to fly anything less than 300 miles or so unless it is in a helicopter or your business is accomplished at the airport.

My hangar is 1.2 miles from the house, and 5 miles from work. I file and check weather/notams on fltplan.com in the morning with my coffee before I leave the house. My rocket is pulled out of the hangar by hand. I've called the fuel truck to meet me at the hangar when I arrive, walk around and add a quart, if needed, while they are fueling. I hop in and I am gone.... Most of my business is at an airport, or with someone who will pick me up. Returning home, I taxi up, push the door remote, taxi in, hit the remote again, and I am on my way before the hangar door is closed.... I have left work at 10 am for a noon meeting in Kansas City which is 5 hrs by car, had lunch and a meeting in KC and been back in by office by 4 pm. 100 miles is usually my driving threshold. I haven't driven anywhere over 150 miles in several years....

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Jun 2014, 14:13

Username Protected wrote:

I love my Baron but after flying the 414, having the extra two seats and potty are a huge upgrade. When you can actually belt 8 it gives huge flexibility without having to move to a king air or a pilatus. 421 is way ahead than the Duke....way ahead

Exactly! If you need the cabin you buy the 400 series. If you only have 4-5 people and want a wonderful airplane for 1/3 the money you buy the Duke. With 8 people you are not going very far and you are taking zero bags anyway. The 400 series are good planes, but they are nothing special at the price they are at.

Now, Teslas are pigs and will not run LOP.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Jun 2014, 15:07

Username Protected wrote:

Straight 421's,421A's IMHO are not good planes. Different wing and fuselage so they don't fly as well. Starting in 1973 the 421B's had a longer wing and in 1975 they were FIKI. Starting in 1976 all 421C 's had the early citation wet wing and in 1980 the trailing link gear. Supply and "Demand" will determine the price for any plane.

Post 1979 421's cannot have winglets and are 2-400lbs heavier depending on when they were built. They finished some of the last with Conquest parts which are heavier, the trailing link is on it's own about 200lbs heavier. You'll need vgs to get another 100lbs useful. Winglet net are about a 110lb gain in useful. We stripped the vgs and gained a couple knots.

That is why we chose the straight leg model. Like anything, if you're competent enough to fly it, you'll learn to land it. The strakes made a big change in landing technique. The strakes obviated the need for a YD and were only about $5,000 more than a YD (IIRC) and yes they added about 6-7 KTAS.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Jun 2014, 15:43

Username Protected wrote:

Straight 421's,421A's IMHO are not good planes. Different wing and fuselage so they don't fly as well. Starting in 1973 the 421B's had a longer wing and in 1975 they were FIKI. Starting in 1976 all 421C 's had the early citation wet wing and in 1980 the trailing link gear. Supply and "Demand" will determine the price for any plane.

Post 1979 421's cannot have winglets and are 2-400lbs heavier depending on when they were built. They finished some of the last with Conquest parts which are heavier, the trailing link is on it's own about 200lbs heavier. You'll need vgs to get another 100lbs useful. Winglet net are about a 110lb gain in useful. We stripped the vgs and gained a couple knots.

That is why we chose the straight leg model. Like anything, if you're competent enough to fly it, you'll learn to land it. The strakes made a big change in landing technique. The strakes obviated the need for a YD and were only about $5,000 more than a YD (IIRC) and yes they added about 6-7 KTAS.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Jun 2014, 15:54

So which 421 is the cream of the crop? And what will one have to spend to call it their own?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Jun 2014, 16:09

Username Protected wrote:

Tim you are correct about 1980 to 85 models being heavier. The 200 to 400 pounds is not correct. The trailing link gear added only 90 to 100 pounds on the 80,81and 82 models.The 1984 and 85 models did have conquest one parts and a lot of extra corrosion proofing for a reason and they were about 200 pounds heavier than the rest. Notice there are no 1983 models? When Cessna stopped production after 56 planes finished in 1982, they had 18 left over airframes in various stages of completion. They stored these 18 planes outside until 1984 when they finished 12 with parts from the conquest one line and added a lot of heavy extra corrosion proofing because of the outside storage. In 1985 they completed the last 6 the same way. A 1984 or 85 is really a 1982 plane and not worth the extra money some owners want because they claim they were the "last off the assembly line."

I'll buy that on the gear and you are absolutely correct on the final models. I do know every plane I saw built post 1979 was at least 200lbs heavier.. it may be other things as planes tend to gain weight deeper into the productions cycle.. look at a new 58 Baron compared with a 1975.

The wing was modified to make it easier to reach the fuel sending units (there are three of them), that added weight. That is also why no winglets.

Most of them were known ice i.e. heated glass windshield, that is heavier. Known ice in a light twin is a contradiction in terms. Fire suppression adds weight and a lot of cost when replacement time comes ect.

I stand by my 200# (avg) weight differential with the proviso that the gear added 90lbs. If you find a post 79 421C that has an empty weight near 5200lbs, I'll buy you a steak dinner.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Jun 2014, 16:25

Username Protected wrote:

Tim you are correct about 1980 to 85 models being heavier. The 200 to 400 pounds is not correct. The trailing link gear added only 90 to 100 pounds on the 80,81and 82 models.The 1984 and 85 models did have conquest one parts and a lot of extra corrosion proofing for a reason and they were about 200 pounds heavier than the rest. Notice there are no 1983 models? When Cessna stopped production after 56 planes finished in 1982, they had 18 left over airframes in various stages of completion. They stored these 18 planes outside until 1984 when they finished 12 with parts from the conquest one line and added a lot of heavy extra corrosion proofing because of the outside storage. In 1985 they completed the last 6 the same way. A 1984 or 85 is really a 1982 plane and not worth the extra money some owners want because they claim they were the "last off the assembly line."

I'll buy that on the gear and you are absolutely correct on the final models. I do know every plane I saw built post 1979 was at least 200lbs heavier.. it may be other things as planes tend to gain weight deeper into the productions cycle.. look at a new 58 Baron compared with a 1975.

The wing was modified to make it easier to reach the fuel sending units (there are three of them), that added weight. That is also why no winglets.

Most of them were known ice i.e. heated glass windshield, that is heavier. Known ice in a light twin is a contradiction in terms. Fire suppression adds weight and a lot of cost when replacement time comes ect.

I stand by my 200# (avg) weight differential with the proviso that the gear added 90lbs. If you find a post 79 421C that has an empty weight near 5200lbs, I'll buy you a steak dinner.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Nov 2014, 16:07

Hello BT,

Yes, I am reviving this thread on the 421.

I have read most of this thread (not the off topic stuff).

I am looking at this thread in light of the recent activity in aircraft on the market, and soon to be on the market. Cessna 421's and Dukes.

In the last few months and weeks there have been some attractive 421's come up for sale.

It appears that the price of the Cessnas are now really starting to crash.

In light of this going forward, how would some of you compare the two airframes now that price deltas are shrinking.

What are your opinions...

:cheers:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Nov 2014, 20:43

Username Protected wrote:

Hello BT,

Yes, I am reviving this thread on the 421.

I have read most of this thread (not the off topic stuff).

I am looking at this thread in light of the recent activity in aircraft on the market, and soon to be on the market. Cessna 421's and Dukes.

In the last few months and weeks there have been some attractive 421's come up for sale.

It appears that the price of the Cessnas are now really starting to crash.

:cheers:

What makes you think the prices are crashing?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Nov 2014, 20:57

The bottom is nowhere in on the Cessna twins yet. Give them a another year or so.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Nov 2014, 21:07

Username Protected wrote:

The bottom is nowhere in on the Cessna twins yet. Give them a another year or so.

Todd,

I want to short sell Twin Cessna future's. Where's next year's bottom?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Nov 2014, 21:20

If you want a large comfortable plane that can haul a minivan load of stuff a 73 or later 421 is the plane for you. It is quiet, has large first class size seats, great air conditioning and will speed along between 207 and 225 ktas. The tip tank "B" models will out perform the straight wing "C" models below FL210, above which the "C" models will go faster. The Bs climb better than the Cs, unless the C has Ram winglets. Here is an example of the difference between the Duke and the 421, a few weeks ago, I had 2 adult bikes and 2 large duffel bags in the nose with plenty of extra room for more stuff, in the very back of the cabin I had a 46" flat screen TV. I still had room for 6 people. Also, the 421 has a potty and cabinets for food, drinks, and some have coffee canisters.
BTW, from what I understand the Duke does go faster but it burns more fuel.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Nov 2014, 21:36

My Dukes were roughly 210 knots on 39 GPH in cruise. The 421 definitely has more cabin room. Neither climb worth a darn IMO.

Flying the 421 today.