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

LOL, You are right Michael, what was I thinking to make a comment like that on BT. It had nothing to do with the fact I have owned the same Baron since 1974. My Baron has been to Europe, South America, Central America, Mexico, All 48 States, Alaska and Canada without a break down or a major problem. I have always maintained it to factory new standards. My 340 also never had a major problem when I owned it.

There is nothing like rumbling through the sky in a piston twin! Curious on your perspective though Jerry, having such a storied aviation tenure... if you didn't already own the 421 and the Baron, what would you buy today?

Adam my adopted father (the doctor is the pilot that flew my Baron to Europe and South America, I have done the rest with the exception of a couple states). TBM 700C,850, PC12 or Black Hawk C90. Also a KA 200 if I still want to take the whole family. The 421C will probably go next year and I will keep the Baron when I move up.

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...

those are fighting words mister

those are fighting words mister

Sorry Folks,, I can't follow this argument.

I've flown, and maintained all three models.

A plain B58 is not in the same class as a Pressurized Cabin twin which you can get up and walk to the aft cabin, (or after squirming past the pilot seat) is not in the same class as a Baron, which you stay, more or less, in your seat for the trip.

One client can fly his RAM VII 340A at 11-GPH per side at 170 knots plus. Another client can fly his 421B at 190 knots at 15.5 GPH.
His kids/passengers get to pull down the table and the overhead video screen and while away the time.. and get up to bother their mother who sits in the copilot seat..

Of course, both planes can go 195-200 + and more if they want to push the fuel through them..

There are items that the pressurized cabin can cost.. and the gear rigging of the Cessna..

After that.. annual costs should be about the same...

P.S. WIth a good working relationship with your maintenance, Yearly maintenance costs can be held at $~15K per year, provide no major expensive parts break..

(Hope you don't need a $3K Keith Ac Motor)

Like A mag failure in a 421's GTSIO engine can provoke the EQ service kit to have to be installed to replace the crank gear.. That kit is about $3500.


I seen a handful of invoices from other shops that amounted to $25K-$35K due to a lot of nickel and dime items... (like one line item.. replacing 10 cent screws at $80 shop rate)

etc..

Be aware of what type shop you deal with..

Consider the 414 with RAM mods. Same cabin as the 421. Wider cabin (eliminates the narrow aisle on the 340), wider door, easier to get to the pilot seats, longer cabin (with a 7th seat emergency potty). Same engines--but the larger airframe makes it about 6 knots slower than the 340 on the same power settings.

I have 4000 hours in Barons and almost 10,000 in King Airs, and currently operate a Travel Air and King Air 200 in addition to the 414. Our 414 Ram VII has 13000 hours on it now. In 7 years, we haven't missed a trip.

This is the 3rd 414 I've operated. I USED to fly them in the low 20s, but rarely do so any more--we take the King Air for longer trips, and it's not worth the climb for shorter trips. It may just be happenstance, but the engines seem to last longer when the airplane is operated in the teens--the present engines have 2400 hours since TBO (the cylinders were changed out at 900 due to the ECI AD). I just came back from hunting in Canada--a 15 hour round trip--used 1 qt. per side on oil.

The 414 and 340 cost about the same to buy--the engine overhaul is the same--but the insurance is a little lower on the 414. Why not have the bigger cabin?

I don't take a Baron over 10,000 if I can help it. If I needed to do that, I would go to a C90.

I don't take a Baron over 10,000 if I can help it. If I needed to do that, I would go to a C90.

My original statement was that they (twin Cessnas) need, as in are improved by, RAM modifications. That is a true statement. A stock 340A with enough fuel to be usable won't carry more than me (200lbs.).

As for moving up, from a stock 58, to a C90, that is the progression I would make. I have flown both the 58P and the Duke. Neither makes a good corporate airplane in my opinion. I base that on 35 plus years in corporate and charter aviation and providing what CEO's need (as opposed to what they think they need, and most of them don't have a clue).

Why not a new jet? Because I want to keep my job. Yes, I am operating on someone else's money but at no job as chief pilot have I not had to justify any and all expenditures. The jets are both expensive to buy and expensive to operate.

At one job, the CEO himself, who insisted on buying the 340, made the decision, after only 10 months, to replace it with a C90 because he realized that the 340 would not do the job he wanted done just as I had told him. And it is the correct decision economically as well for the job that I have to do. (3x? You are mistaken.)

And, finally, this is BEECHTALK. I like and fly Beechcraft for a reason. If you want to fly something else, be my guest.

Got to defend my bird here... While I don't disagree that the 340 and 414 can benefit greatly from RAM horsepower increases, there are no engine upgrades available for the 421.

Cessna got it right with the 421 and GTSIO combination. 375hp a side, smooth and quiet. No, they aren't PT-6s, but I think it's the best turbocharged piston engine Continental produced.

Please don't lump all "Twin Cessnas" into the same group.

Robert

Why not? It is fun!

Tim