09 Dec 2025, 04:33 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 27 Aug 2019, 21:21 |
|
 |

|

|
Joined: 01/24/10 Posts: 7446 Post Likes: +5135 Location: Concord , CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1967 Baron B55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Our 441 has had 99.9% dispatch reliability. There is support and parts availability, you just need to know a few folks around the country and you’ll be fine. It’s a hell of a bird and we’re in our 5th year year of owning it.
Our 421C was way worse, and if we did get to go, we usually had our eye on something that wasn’t quite right. I’m biased against the 421 as i lost and engine on takeoff. For those who never had that issue, your mileage may vary. There’s a lot of pilots who lost an engine on a 421, I don’t know anyone who had it happen to them in a 441. I do it has happened more than once. They are nicknamed Garrett Grenades for a reason.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 27 Aug 2019, 21:23 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 10/27/10 Posts: 10790 Post Likes: +6894 Location: Cambridge, MA (KLWM)
Aircraft: 1997 A36TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Well, that part was subjected to a lifetime of vibration on the GTSIO (greater amounts than would be typical of a TPE331 or PT-6 for instance), so maybe the correlation isn't 0.0. GTSIO vibrates? Why don’t I feel it? Every piston engine vibrates when running. It's why they have counterweights in the crank to partially dampen it.
Piston engines (aka "reciprocating" engines) have a whole lot of inherent monkey motion to make things go. That causes vibration and vibration causes fatigue (of aluminum and of people).
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 27 Aug 2019, 21:25 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 05/17/11 Posts: 1878 Post Likes: +1322 Location: KFRG
Aircraft: 421C
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Every piston engine vibrates when running. It's why they have counterweights in the crank to partially dampen it.
Piston engines (aka "reciprocating" engines) have a whole lot of inherent monkey motion to make things go. That causes vibration and vibration causes fatigue (of aluminum and of people). Correct. I have seen nothing specific to the GTSIO as some have implied.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 27 Aug 2019, 21:43 |
|
 |

|


|
 |
Joined: 02/09/09 Posts: 6551 Post Likes: +3252 Company: RNP Aviation Services Location: Owosso, MI (KRNP)
Aircraft: 1969 Bonanza V35A
|
|
|
Three years ago, a customer of mine made the transition from a C-421C to a 441. I don't have the number directly available, but operating cost are only slightly higher in the 441 only because we use an outside shop for the larger maintenance items. I have flown two 800NM trips exactly the same, one in the 441 and one in my Superstar 700 Aerostar, and fuel burn was $60 more for the 441.
I can count the items on one hand that we have had to take care of between 100/200 hour inspections in the 350 hours that we have had it. The airplane has only been out of service once during that two and a half years, and that was due to a lightning strike at an unknown time. We have had zero parts availability issues, and the shop that maintains it has said that parts availability is not an issue (they maintain four of them total).
The Cessna Phase inspection program is intimidating for the 425/441, but once you dig into it you will find that it's not really that difficult to comply with if you are savvy with Excel, etc. You need someone that knows the inspection programs to do the prebuy or you can get into trouble. Ours had records kept by WestStar, and WestStar missed approximately 15 inspections that our preferred shop caught before the airplane arrived (and ended up being ferried to the prebuy).
If you don't fly much, I'd give a lot of consideration to the Bacon LLIP program.
In my opinion, the C-441 is the perfect personal airplane. I can't personally afford to purchase one. I love my Aerostar, but I would take another C-421C in a heartbeat only because of the comfort for the charity flights that I fly.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 27 Aug 2019, 23:42 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 08/21/14 Posts: 293 Post Likes: +90 Location: KPDK
Aircraft: C421B MU2-40 Solitai
|
|
|
[quote="Michael Pyle"]So how does the LAV work on a early 421C? It looks like a bucket with a bag? If so how do you dispose of it? If someone goes #2 I can’t imagine you just throw the bag in the garage? But maybe it’s like Diapers and It’s just what’s done?
Can anyone shed some light on the process of a dry LAV?
That's exactly what you do. I used to line the plastic bag with a Depends. Frankly, my rule was if you needed to do #2 you had to step outside into the smoking section. In all my years that never was needed. I guess if you have small kids that might be a real issue.
On another note, if you carry more than 2 people, a 421 is the best Piston twin out there. I must say my MU2 is the best, most reliable plane that I have ever owned and other than my prop overhauls and batteries the operating cost difference is marginal.
_________________ Sandy
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 28 Aug 2019, 00:08 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20807 Post Likes: +26310 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: As for the actual failure, I think it's safe to say it didn't really have anything to do with the GTSIO engine other than that's what the fuel line was connected to. Parts, even those not connected to the engine system in anyway, simply last longer on turbine aircraft. You can see this when you compare 414/421 to 425/441. More clearly, the folks who flew a Malibu/Mirage and then converted to JetProp also say part failures are way down even though they are the same part for both the piston and now turbine versions. The most logical explanation for this is that a piston engine induces a lot of vibration in the airframe, even small ones you can't feel at frequencies you don't perceive. This microshaking of everything wears out connectors, wires, mechanical doodads, hardware, pipes, etc. It can even break electronic parts on circuit boards. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 28 Aug 2019, 08:18 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/20/09 Posts: 2666 Post Likes: +2245 Company: Jcrane, Inc. Location: KVES Greenville, OH
Aircraft: C441, RV7A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: So how does the LAV work on a early 421C? It looks like a bucket with a bag? If so how do you dispose of it? If someone goes #2 I can’t imagine you just throw the bag in the garage? But maybe it’s like Diapers and It’s just what’s done?
Can anyone shed some light on the process of a dry LAV?
Mike Here you go Michael. This makes it really easy. No mess, no smell. On a long flight with four kids I'll sometimes add a depends to the bag also. https://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Product ... g=btalk-20
_________________ Jack N441M N107XX
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 28 Aug 2019, 08:32 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20807 Post Likes: +26310 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Just vents the pee overboard onto unsuspecting civilians on the ground. It evaporates long before it hits the ground. Relief tubes are bad ideas for airplane corrosion. Travel Johns are a better solution. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 28 Aug 2019, 13:27 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 11/18/10 Posts: 458 Post Likes: +114 Location: Chicago
Aircraft: C441, C310N
|
|
|
I had similar, though not quite as drastic, experiences as Marti with the 421 and 441. I loved flying a 421 but it is not possible to operate one well without good mx, preferably on field. The 441 needs good mx too, just much less of it, and I don't mind flying it across the country when it needs it.
I still miss how quiet the 421 was though. I can't imagine a more comfy piston exists.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|