Keep your 421, it fits your mission perfectly.

Anything turbine is going to make flying low very expensive.

Do note that the 100 knot headwind is a LOT more tolerable if the plane is going 300 knots rather than 200.


How so?

Mike C.

I looked into them at some length.

Chronic corrosion, fatigue, structural problems. In flight breakups. Lightly built. Such a large wing that the ride in turbulence is no fun (MU2 is opposite, no wing).

The few shops that work on both said unequivocally that the MU2 was lower maintenance. My results have been very good.

Hard to hanger, big wing, tall tail.

Excellent passenger egress, low to the ground. More docile handling. Quieter than an MU2, especially at ground idle.

People who have them generally like them.

Mike C.

Been a distressing number of recent 421 accidents initiated by engine failures and pilots not handling them correctly.

If you fly a 421 (or any twin) and have not gotten sim training, do so.

Mike C.

Then you aren't up to the skill level of a 421, either.

I've flown both. Any pilot who can properly handle a 421 can handle an MU2. In many ways, the MU2 is easier.

Mike C.

I transitioned to the MU2 from a Cessna 210. I had only 13 hours multi time when I transitioned, and 10 of that was getting the rating in a Seminole.

The MU2 was my first twin, first turbine, first pressurized, first known ice, first cabin class airplane.

I'm not some super pilot jock. I'm just careful and methodical and got proper amounts of training and mentoring. I recommend you do the same.


The nice thing about a turbine is that %#$@ happens far less often.

The other nice thing is when %#$@ does happen, you can still climb at 700 FPM on one engine.

The 421 is very nice airplane, but recent history shows that it is intolerant of bad piloting should an engine fail. Please get some sim training.

Mike C.

Tony,
You're going to love it! If I had half a brain I'd keep it. My family has absolutely loved the plane. We have flown it all over the country in all types of weather. It is a plane that gives you air conditioned, pressurized, first class accommodations. Frankly, it is a very easy and forgiving plane to fly. If you lose an engine on takeoff in any plane other than a jet you're going to have your hands full. Training and a mindset that on every takeoff you could lose an engine is what will make you a safer pilot. If you look at the recent negative history on twin Cessnas you would find that the pilots have done some serious stupid. Only one occurred on take-off and that plane just came out of MX (KLNA). One recent accident the FBO put Jet A in it with the pilot watching.
Sandy

Most 421 accidents are not from an engine failure on take off. The accidents are caused by other stupid stuff or bad MX. Read the 421 accident files in the NTSB records and you will see only a very small percentage are from engine failure during take off.

From owning a Cessna 310R, a Cessna 421B and now a Colemill Baron, I have found that each is no more or less difficult than the other, for a bunch of reasons, some canceling out others. For example, a 421 has only two more "buttons", a pressurization and air conditioning switch. So while it's an additional task to remember each of these, it's also a lot more comfortable environment to be in to remember...with more room to put up your checklist. And the capability to get above turbulence and some weather makes for an easier flight most times.

Unfortunately, there has been a number like that, more than in the past. Here's a sobering list of 421s that had fatal accidents following some sort of engine problem, a lot of them in the last 5 years:

8/27/2014: Las Cruces, NM, misfueled with Jet-A, right engine failed.

9/24/2013: Lyon, France, suspect engine failure on takeoff.

12/8/2012: Lake Worth, FL, engine failed on takeoff, Vmc roll over.

12/9/2011: Sioux Falls, SD, left engine failure, unable to make it back to the runway.

7/9/2011: Demopolis, AL, engine failure in cruise, lost control on approach.

3/10/2010: Tegucigalpa, Honduras, engine failure on takeoff.

5/6/2010: Oakland Park, FL, engine failure on takeoff.

9/6/2008: Oaxaca, Mexico, engine failure, unable to return.

11/14/2006: Big Bear Lake, CA, engine failure on takeoff.

12/17/2004: Englewood, CO, engine failure on takeoff.

12/2/2004: Apison, TN, engine lost power after takeoff.

9/23/2004: Bee Caves, TX, lost power near destination, couldn't control it.

This is an inordinately large list of fatal accidents due to engine problems in what should be a twin capable of handling that.

I encourage all 421 pilots to get some sim training.

Mike C.

Mike I have read almost all of those reports. In most of those accidents the plane was capable of returning to an airport. It was the pilot that screwed things up. This is the case in most piston twins.
In one example in TX the ATP took off knowing there was an engine problem and the gear would not retract .
In Demopolis AL the plane lost an engine in cruise at 21,000 feet and the pilot still failed to land it.
In FL the pilot failed to retract the gear and the plane would not climb.
In almost every case it was the pilots failure to fly the plane that caused the crash and this is true even in MU2's. In the last 40 years the number of accidents where the plane was not capable of returning on one engine is low. Unfortunately in most cases the pilot was not up to the task.
Yes , 421 pilots and all twin pilots should get regular training and use good risk management to maintain a high level of safety.

I agree.

There has been a noticeable up tick in 421s crashing after an engine failure. One can argue about whether the "cause" of the accident is the engine failing or the pilot's lack of adequate response, but that's just semantics.

The important point is that 421s are crashing fatally after an engine fails, many on takeoff. We have way too many instances of this to dismiss it as a low probability event. Pilots need to be prepared.

IMO, the only truly satisfactory training method for handling engine failures on takeoff is a sim. I would encourage all 421 pilots (and other twins too) to get sim time.

Mike C.

Are we sure we know that? You rarely hear of the successful cases of landing on one engine, but that's not because they don't happen.

While there is no way to really know, I would expect engine failure of a 421 results in a safe single engine landing about 80% of the time, maybe more.

I agree that it is rare to have an engine failure and not be able to return. There is potentially a period of time between reaching a speed you can no longer stop on the runway, and the speed and altitude from which you can clean up and fly away. In some cases, that period of time is zero on a long runway at low altitude, you are never unable to stop or fly. In some cases it might be minutes long when departing high, hot, heavy and would be unable to climb engine out. In most cases, it is a few seconds, like 10 seconds. Outside that "zone of risk", you should be able to get it on the ground safely.

The 421 POH has a really good description of this (they call it "area of decision") in the expanded emergency procedures section.

Mike C.

Mike how many hours do you have in the 421?

I am not twin rated, so please dont shoot me.
Based on the above and on my personal observations, it seems that the most "dangerous" phase of flight for singles, twins or jets appears to be right after lift off.
I do brief myself and any passengers on what the plan is, but as I reflect on my own training and now my flying habits, I think I will place more emphasis on this in future.
I am fairly confident that I can get the Bo or anything else I am likely to fly down from a given altitude and walk away from the event. Heck with the General we practiced so many power off landings that engine power almost became a distraction after three days of this.....
I know mountains, water etc obviously affect the outcome, but, ... reality is that we need to be very sharp for EVERY take off and focus on what could happen. I now have close to 450 hrs on my Bo in the 2 years I've owned her. I want to make sure that this comfort level and familiarity with her doesn't become complacency.

Sorry about the thread hijack.

Oh, and I'm getting a twin rating in 2015!

I was astounded looking at the 421 performance charts the first time. I'm based at 500msl, 5400' and frequently see temps above 90F. No way I'm departing anywhere near gross in the summer - hot and heavy the 421 is functionaly a single unless you have 10,000 feet.

Sim training is great, but flight planning is the major need!