1700 32" FL200 18gph per side 199 TAS heavy. 204 light

Better than a 414 or 340. The 421C has quite a bit more wing loading having more weight and less wing than a 414A.

Don't buy a 421 with winglets if you want the best ride. They add extra wing area.

Mike C.

Better than a 414 or 340. The 421C has quite a bit more wing loading having more weight and less wing than a 414A.

Don't buy a 421 with winglets if you want the best ride. They add extra wing area.

Mike C.

This is probably optimistic. I would say most 421s probably cruise in the 195-200 range. I have a friend with a 421B and he would see about 185 ktas. My 340 was an honest 200 ktas cruise.

OK, I stand corrected... I'm guessing my friend's version had something out of whack.

B models are slower. The tip tanks do cost some drag.

There was also steady improvement in the engines, GTSIO-520H in the B, GTSIO-520L in the early 421C, and GTSIO-520N in the later ones. Each got progressively better at higher altitude power from improved turbochargers and intercoolers.

My 1976 POH says the 421C can reach speeds of 256 KTAS at FL200 at maximum power, and 240 KTAS at 75% and FL250. These seem quite optimistic and maybe can be achieved with rear CG, lightweight, etc.

Some 421Cs seem to be able to do 210-220 KTAS reliably.

Mike C.

I thought I would share my 414AW ownership experience.

I have own a my 1979 414AW for 3 1/2 years and flown around 500 hours. It has RAM Vll's, Scimitar props, Winglets, VG's, Ram Hubcaps, RAM GW Increase, RAM ZFW, certified FIKI. When I was looking I started my search for 412C models (1976-1979) and then considered the RAM Vll 414A model from 1979 on. The 1979 and on 414A's after Serial #200 (I believe) has the higher spar compliance time (15,000 hours from what I recall) vs the 1978 414A (I think that year is around 9,000 hours...please check).

My reasoning for the 421C or 414A Ram Vll: I wanted the larger nose baggage (6' long with 3 access doors), club seating with a decent sized aisle (400 series), air conditioning, hydraulic landing gear, and simple fuel system ... L&R 106 gallons usable per side, certified FIKI, and the ability to go 200+ knots in the teens and flight levels. Also having a potty, although never used yet, somehow relaxes passengers knowing it is there...just in case.

From what I have read, the 414's have a good overall safety record in comparison. Although all the turbocharged 300/400 series planes have complex, hard working engines, the non geared engines seem to have fewer catastrophic events. That being said, the GTSIO are good engines but need to be OH'd and maintained by very knowledgeable shops and like all planes....flown regularly by a well trained pilot. I know several 421 owners that have routinely gone to TBO with only typical, but thorough maintenance.... and yes, the 421's are noticeably quieter.

I ended up with the 414AW because it was in very nice condition, had a good previous owner, had many of the upgrade features, and was within my budget.

My operating costs run around $500 - $550 /HR (without financing), depending on fuel cost, hours flown and unplanned maintenance.

General performance (I run rich of peak):
- Plan for about 50 gallons average for the first hour (could be more or less depending on ATC vectoring, climb restrictions, and what final altitude you are planning to fly). I plan to burn 1 gal/minute (total for both) for T/O, climb, and level off... then 40+/- GPH for cruise and decent, can range from 39 to 41GPH. I climb at 130 KIAS, typically cruise at 190 KTAS in the low teens, 205 KTAS in the high teens, 210 KTAS at FL200 and up to 220 KTAS at FL230, depending on load and temps. Haven't gone any higher. The RAM Vll's run cooler with the larger cowl flaps, larger intercoolers, and larger turbo's.

As far as handling with winglets, it's very smooth and stable. Flies steady in the flight levels. I haven't noticed any particular issues with handling turbulence, but only have had a few flights in non wingleted 414/421's so I really can't compare. I use it mostly for business and haven't had any complaints. If someone is motion sensitive, I suggest they sit behind the pilot/copilot. Less overall movement in that position, but they do face aft.

My wife is somewhat motion sensitive and has not had any issues in the 414. She was just O.K. in my Mooney, better in my last plane (C310J) and is much more at ease in the 414A. She usually sits in the co-pilot seat. Likes to see what's going on and absolutely loves the view, especially on a clear day and in the flight levels near sunset. I believe the larger cabin with comfortable seats, the cabin class easy entry/exit door, a decent sized aisle to get to the cockpit and the ability to move about the cabin.... helps passenger perception of the overall flying experience. Maybe feeling less closed in helps a passenger handle turbulence better?? Plus the huge nose baggage storage can keep the cabin less cluttered. It holds an amazing amount of bulky items. Your challenge will be to find a rental Car/SUV that can carry it all when you land....seriously.

Overall, I don't know of a better, more comfortable, more capable pressurized piston twin with a comparatively decent safety record. Although not cheap to operate, in my opinion, nothing else comes close to do what a 340/414/412 can do for the $$. My only next step would be to a turbine...which I have been seriously considering.

Good luck in your search. If you're ever in the south Atlanta area, let me know. I would be more than happy to spend some time sharing the positives and things to watch out for as an owner, show you the 414 features and benefits and go stir up some air.

Fred

Good and thorough summary Fred. I agree with your assessment and numbers. Finding a good airplane that has been properly maintained is the key to a good and long lasting ownership experience.

As far as motion sickness is concerned, my girls turn green just by going to the grocery store. I have found that getting above the clouds expeditiously and flying in the flight levels helps resolve this for the most part.

I fly a 75 B model and a 77 C model. The C model is 10kts faster than the B at the same power settings at FL210.

I would agree with that 100%.....The few 421B's that have strakes pretty much make it the same speed as the C

I am just in the Nashville area, and would love to be able to bring my wife down to take a look and hear some of your experiences. I will PM you for sure.

Amazing... Five pages of posts and no one has left the OP topic. This is really a great read. I'm not in the market for a twin cessna, but there is a lot of real world knowledge on this forum.

Thanks to all! Wouldn't a MU2 be as cheap to operate?
Kevin

Agreed, Kevin. I'm not in the market either, but these are some of the most enjoyable and informative posts I've seen on BT in a while (which is saying something).

Can a 421 driver post their takeoff procedure? i.e. power settings on take off and climb, cowl flap positions, climb airspeed etc...

Asking for a friend...

Full power on takeoff 39" 2235 rpm, verify gauges, rotate 95, gear up at briefed point (usually positive rate for me on 5k urban airfield) usually 120 indicated for first couple hundred feet is a comfortable deck angle, let airspeed build to 140, 1000' agl pull back to 35" and 1900 rpm 140 indicated or 7.5 degrees. No cowl flaps on the plane. The book says 125 indicated for climb, and you could do that. 140 Is pretty conservative and the hottest CHT I've ever seen is 350. Mixtures stay full rich until cruise.