BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Mar 2014, 11:06

Username Protected wrote:

I think it would be interesting to here why you chose the C over a B model.

I was originally looking at B models purely for price reasons. However, I was able to find a C model at a nice price and snapped it up.

I have a "straight legged" C model which means it doesn't have the trailing link gear. The trailing link was added in 1980 with serial number 801 (there was also a change in the metallurgy of the spar, but otherwise no other changes). The trailing link adds about 100lbs to the airplane and also $50k+ to the price of the plane.

Some differences between the two:

- The only B that is FIKI capable is the 1975. All Cs are FIKI capable and most (all?) rolled off the factory that way.
- The fuel system in the C is simpler - Just two main tanks. Easier to manage fuel plus less cost in fuel pumps, tank sealing, etc.
- Gear in the C is hydraulic and dirt simple (however, the only gear issues I've ever had was in my 421 when the nose wheel collapsed. Go figure...)
- Better switch layout (minor issue, but the switchology of the C is pretty good)
- Overall, just newer and better - I'm sure there are 1,000 things that Cessna changed or made better between the B and the C. They just got it right with the C.

I wouldn't have hesitated to purchase a good B, but I am very happy I got the C...

Robert

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Mar 2014, 12:49

Username Protected wrote:

I think it would be interesting to here why you chose the C over a B model.

I was originally looking at B models purely for price reasons. However, I was able to find a C model at a nice price and snapped it up.

I have a "straight legged" C model which means it doesn't have the trailing link gear. The trailing link was added in 1980 with serial number 801 (there was also a change in the metallurgy of the spar, but otherwise no other changes). The trailing link adds about 100lbs to the airplane and also $50k+ to the price of the plane.

Some differences between the two:

- The only B that is FIKI capable is the 1975. All Cs are FIKI capable and most (all?) rolled off the factory that way.
- The fuel system in the C is simpler - Just two main tanks. Easier to manage fuel plus less cost in fuel pumps, tank sealing, etc.
- Gear in the C is hydraulic and dirt simple (however, the only gear issues I've ever had was in my 421 when the nose wheel collapsed. Go figure...)
- Better switch layout (minor issue, but the switchology of the C is pretty good)
- Overall, just newer and better - I'm sure there are 1,000 things that Cessna changed or made better between the B and the C. They just got it right with the C.

I wouldn't have hesitated to purchase a good B, but I am very happy I got the C...

Robert

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Mar 2014, 14:52

Username Protected wrote:

These reasons, and when the cost to buy an airplane is 4.5 years of operating cost it seems like a no brainer to get the nicest, best maintained aircraft you can.

Agreed, to a point. I found that there are a LOT of overpriced 421's out there. The range for a "nice one" is $300-$500k and purchasing a $500k 421 doesn't mean it has better maintenance. It definitely won't go faster or carry more!

I suspect the above is true of any airframe and not just 421 specific...

Robert

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Mar 2014, 14:58

Most B models have been updated to 1600 hr TBO
The B model got a cabin stretch for the '73 model.
While most B's are not FIKI they have a robust "full deice" package in most cases. Should be fine for most part 91 ops.

Apples to apples, B models seem to run about $100K less than a straight leg C model.
When you look at the $750ish/hr operating cost of a 421, that's a fairly minor delta.

All that said - no reason not to buy a good B if you find it. For instance
http://42yz.homestead.com/

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Mar 2014, 15:09

I emailed on YZ a couple weeks ago and it was under contract. I assume it's sold by now, as the broker hasn't called me back to come take a look.
That was a nice B.

The C systems are definitely preferable though. The hydraulic gear specifically would be a strong preference of mine, though I'd still consider a very nice B.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Mar 2014, 15:38

Username Protected wrote:

The C systems are definitely preferable though. The hydraulic gear specifically would be a strong preference of mine, though I'd still consider a very nice B.

I agree - 42YZ was an example of something you shouldn't pass up if it fell into your lap at a good price. You can spend a lot of time and money finding a good 421. Considering B models might reduce those transaction costs/hassles.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Mar 2014, 15:57

Username Protected wrote:

These reasons, and when the cost to buy an airplane is 4.5 years of operating cost it seems like a no brainer to get the nicest, best maintained aircraft you can.

Agreed, to a point. I found that there are a LOT of overpriced 421's out there. The range for a "nice one" is $300-$500k and purchasing a $500k 421 doesn't mean it has better maintenance. It definitely won't go faster or carry more!

I suspect the above is true of any airframe and not just 421 specific...

Robert

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Mar 2014, 19:09

Username Protected wrote:

As a relatively new (3 years or so) 421 owner/pilot, I would echo a great deal of what Jesse (no relation!) and others have said.

I believe the 421 is simply the finest piston travelling airplane ever made. Yeah, I know, the Duke, Aerostar, and other guys may argue that, but there simply isn't another piston airplane which has the combination of pressurization, speed, range, space, and comfort that the 421 has.

It's a very comfortable airplane for 6 adults and all the luggage they can carry. The nose compartment is simply massive and the wing lockers provide additional loading flexibility. We rarely carry much in the cabin, and we tend to travel with a lot of stuff.

Passengers do love the airplane. When I was shopping I looked for an airplane that had a 6 place intercom, but frankly no one ever uses headsets in the back unless they want to talk with me! The slow turning props make a world of difference.

To move "up" in the airplane world, I'd have to get at least a KA200 or maybe a Blackhawk 90 (OK, a 441 or PC12 would work too!). The issue with the 90 is lack of storage space - Giving up the nose locker would be hard to do. Also, a stock 90 is about the same performance as the 421 so not much is gained.

I use the plane for a mix of business and personal travel, and have found the airplane quite reliable. Generally speaking, if the airlines are flying I can be flying as well (doesn't mean I always choose to though).

The 421 is about as close to a personal airliner as you can get and still be burning AvGas.

Robert

The 421 is a nice aircraft, in my case I chose the Aerostar because I did not need the size of the 421. Plus the Aerostar is a little faster. All of those light P twins are nice actually. Interesting discussion on the real performance and info on the 421

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Mar 2014, 19:29

For me the Aerostar felt at least 25% too small all over. I have more room in my Baron. If you're going cabin class and pressurized, I need more space but I'm also 6'4. I suppose were it bigger it wouldn't be nearly as fast though.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Mar 2014, 20:48

I had my first ride in a 421C this year. Wow! Impressive all around. The nose baggage dwarfs the main cargo capabilities in most aircraft. The cabin was roomy, very comfortable and the very definition of cabin class in my mind. The cockpit was very comfortable and plenty of real estate on the panel for lots of goodies. The one I flew in had a GTN750/650 combo with a single screen aspen - very nice setup.

For any family trips with 4 or more, especially those who are heavy packers, the 421 is a dream. I would love to have access to one for the 4-6 family trips we take per year. It would be absolutely perfect. However, given that 90% of my flying is just me in the airplane, I could never justify hauling around that much air on every trip. If you regularly take several pax and go on overnights frequently, I think the 421 is the Cadillac of cabin class twins.

It's sad to see these great airplanes age with but it appears that many of the ones still running are highly loved and well cared for.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Mar 2014, 21:34

Username Protected wrote:

For me the Aerostar felt at least 25% too small all over. I have more room in my Baron. If you're going cabin class and pressurized, I need more space but I'm also 6'4. I suppose were it bigger it wouldn't be nearly as fast though.

Adam,

Go visit Jim Christy in Idaho and him adjust the seat and give you a demo ride.
I have two friends who fly with me a fair amount, one is 6'6" and fits very easy, the other is only 6'3" and fits decently (headset touches the ceiling).

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Mar 2014, 21:36

Username Protected wrote:

The 421 is a nice aircraft, in my case I chose the Aerostar because I did not need the size of the 421. Plus the Aerostar is a little faster. All of those light P twins are nice actually. Interesting discussion on the real performance and info on the 421

I agree, the speed is addicting. But I like a lot of the these old twins for some reason, even an old Piper Seminole for some reason.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Mar 2014, 22:59

Username Protected wrote:

If you regularly take several pax and go on overnights frequently, I think the 421 is the Cadillac of cabin class twins.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

I tend to fly long missions and often with the family onboard. Dallas to upstate New York is a mission I fly at least 5 times a year - sometimes myself and sometimes with the family. Even on trips where it's just me, the plane often makes sense - I can beat the airlines routinely (and fly on my schedule).

Hopping in the plane and taking a ski trip to NM or CO is also a great mission - skis and associated junk in the front, leave town at 3, dinner by the slopes.

However, where the plane really shines is when we load her up. We did a trip last year to Destin from Dallas with the four of us and my parents and a ton of misc junk. Very comfortable with my Mom riding co-pilot! That's why I bought the 421.

The 421 is definitely not the fastest or even most efficient, but when it comes to airplanes, I'm a suburban guy not a porche guy. I like taking my skis and golf clubs with me, even if I end up being 15 minutes later than a faster plane (Aerostar or whatever).

205-215kts in the flight levels with heat/AC, pressurization, and a potty is hard to beat.

Robert

P.S. Please don't take any of the above as knocking another plane! The 421 fits our mission now, but not everyone's.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Mar 2014, 23:03

Username Protected wrote:

All that said - no reason not to buy a good B if you find it. For instance
http://42yz.homestead.com/

That's a nice looking 421

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Apr 2014, 09:55

Username Protected wrote:

The movie server is the device on the seat. It is a Seagate wireless server. You load all of your MP4s onto the drive, and then when it is turned on it sets up a WIFI network which any device can log into. Log on to your browser, and the Seagate menu comes up offering your choice of 500 movies (or however many you loaded it with).

Jesse - thanks for the heads up on the Seagate box. It's pretty darned cool, and I'm taking my first trip with it tomorrow.

For a couple of hundred bucks and some time ripping DVDs, I now have an in flight entertainment system better than most airliners!

Robert

Cessna 421C Golden Eagle