BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Nov 2015, 10:10

Username Protected wrote:

Today...
Right engine likes a little more fuel than left, anxious to see how that plays out LOP.

Looking at your attitude being so low for a 421 , do you have Strakes or winglets? Also to the poster that asked this a 421C

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Nov 2015, 10:13

Username Protected wrote:

How do those engine monitors come up with 86% power at those settings? My performance tables show in the high 60's - 70%

Good question...I haven't figured out how to adjust it yet but it's miscalculating something for sure.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Nov 2015, 12:17

Username Protected wrote:

I have flown a 421A, 421B, 421C SL and a 421C TL. I have never seen or heard of a 421B out performing a 421C at the same Gross Weight and Density Altitude.

Thanks for the response.

With your experience, what is your take on the differences between the B and the early C models.

Is there any difference.

There seems to be quite a difference in price points between the two models.

And one would think there is a difference without those big tip tanks out there.

Thanks.

:cheers:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Nov 2015, 14:22

Looking at your attitude being so low for a 421 , do you have Strakes or winglets? Also to the poster that asked this a 421C[/quote]
Yes, it's a '79 C. With winglets and hubcaps, no strakes.[/quote]

Your plane is one of the most efficient cabin class twins available ! I've see 230kts from 42gph on a plane like yours that had strakes.... That's King Air C90 and conquest speed....

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Nov 2015, 14:29

I'm adding Strakes and removing 12 antennas from the bottom of my 421B. My goal is to be able to do 200kts at FL180 on 32GPH LOP. I'm not doing it to save money but to be able to have 1300nm range with the 248gal tanks that I currently have...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Nov 2015, 14:36

32gph LOP should be very do-able. Glad to hear you are dressing your plane up,with strakes.

It will be one of the best B models in the country!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Nov 2015, 17:00

Hello Gerald,

Username Protected wrote:

Hello Gerald,

Thanks for the response.

With your experience, what is your take on the differences between the B and the early C models.

Is there any difference.

There seems to be quite a difference in price points between the two models.

And one would think there is a difference without those big tip tanks out there.

Thanks.

:cheers:

Don, get a POH for the B and the C. Then compare performance at the same weight and DA. The early B models (70,71,72)have the short wing and do not perform the same as the 73-75 B models. I flight plan the B at 195kts and the C at 205kts. The 75 B is the "only" B model that can be FIKI "provided" it has the correct factory equipment.
The 76 thru 79 models provide the best value for the Dollar. The 80,81,82 TL's are very nice and cost more. There are no 83's and the (12) 84's and (6) 85's that were sold are just 82's that were finished in 84 and 85 and not worth the extra money.
I do think the B rides the bumps a little better.
Don you already own the best GA plane the "E55". When I fly with just two people and the WX is not a problem I take my Baron. My 421C is the family SUV?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Nov 2015, 20:18

Username Protected wrote:

I manage a early 421C. Prior to that, we leased a 340 Ram VII. We have also maintained the 421C since purchase two years ago, and a 1975 414 since the early 1990's.

The 340 and 414 (non-"A") will have the exact same operational costs. The engines, wings, fuel system, avionics, deicing is the same, the only difference is the fuselage and tail. For the most part, they will fit in the same hangar, however the 340 tail is taller. The 414A will similar operating cost, offsetting the simpler fuel system, slightly higher maintenance hydraulic gear system, and potentially pending spar strap installation.

When my customer went looking for an airplane (while leasing the 340), we were looking at 414A's, with the Ram conversion for increased GTOW. We called on, and looked at many airplanes and came to the conclusion that a good airplane was tough to find. Many were high time, damage history, poorly maintained, etc. Then when we started looking at the spar AD (note the hour difference at S/N 200), we decided to start looking at other aircraft. Most had a payload of ~2000#.

The 414's that do not have the Ram conversion (335HP) are a DOG!

We eventually started looking at 421C's and stumbled upon the one we purchased. If it were me making the purchase, and I was going to be flying my (young) family around in it, I'd buy a 421. The primary reason is it's significantly quieter than the 340/414. The fuel cost is only slightly higher (4 GPH we found ROP), the speed is essentially the same, the useful load is the same or more if the Ram mods have not been done on the 340/414, etc. The 421B will have most of the same systems at the 340/414. The 421C has the early Citation wing, is very slightly slower. We find that we can operate the 421C for the same cost as a 340 because we are able to tanker lower cost fuel with the same payload. The 421 is a flying Suburban, and we're continually amazed how much you can stuff in it legally. I'll take the 421C into airports I've never considered taking the 340/414, like a 3500' (no-obstacle) runway near GTOW. The 421's run at a much lower CHT (50-100 degrees!) than the 340/414's. Our payload is 2200#.

We usually run at 65% power, 45GPH 100 ROP, or 36 GPH LOP (still setting this up). True Airspeed is a straight line between 178 KTAS at SL to 226 KTAS at FL250. We can work about 10 KTAS faster from it at 75% power, about 5 GPH higher, but we rarely do that.

If it were me buying, I'd look for the following:
-First run engines, as the GTSIO's seem to have a history of cracks on the second or third overhaul,
-Non-Cessna autopilot. Our Cessna 400B autopilot has been by far the highest maintenance cost on our airplane, and it's support (i.e., some parts) are becoming difficult to find,
-If you look at the 421C, the cost is significantly lower for the early models with the stiff gear. The trailing link gear are nice, but not $100k nice!,
-One (or more) aux fuel tank(s) in the C model, or both in the B model.

I haven't flown the 421B, or the 414A. I have alot of time in the 402C (unpressurized 414A) and found it a joy to fly.

Just my $0.02 worth,
Jason

We run a 1976 421CW (winglets). We run LOP AT 36~38 gph and consistently get well above 200ktas in the mid teens. +2ktas per 1000ft. We're mid time on engines now at roughly 850 hours.

In training at mid weight 2 Pilots 800# fuel engine cut on RE failed to restart for 10 minutes. Departure field was sea level but 35c on the ground. After mixture to ideal cutoff at 2000 ft with right engine windmilling managed 250fpm climb while eternity passed with a hot start air start. With simulated zero thrust on another day, approximately similar weight on a 30c day in southern Florida got nearly 800fpm climb. The book says neither can happen.

I should mention we also have strakes and Peter Dantos hubcaps.

A 421 is a legal 414 with at least another 300# of useful load. Plus hottest cylinders are 350 not near 400. If you want to throw 50gph out the gas hole the damn thing will do near 250ktas. I think 60~65% LOP will make the engines last a long, long time.

Winglets on a 421C make a big difference. People who only know the short wing factory version will never appreciate that. It's too bad Cessna didn't mate the longer 414 wing to the 421C. I know they were looking for advertising numbers. Speed kills..

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Nov 2015, 20:39

Username Protected wrote:

Maintenance is the same or less depending on the use.

There is an additional joint in TL gear that SL don't have. So there is some added costs in bushings and bearings that at some point have to be serviced/replaced.

Quote:

TL is 90 pounds heavier for a reason. It's much stronger

It is 90 pounds heavier because the trailing link arm is all additional weight over a SL gear. The TL still needs an oleo strut, so the trailing link arm is all additional weight.

Being heavier and being stronger are not the same.

Also, the gear itself is stronger than the mounting points in the wing just due to the nature of having the strut and castings. So stronger gear does nothing for you in the end, the gear still rips out of the wing on a severe impact. I don't think I have ever seen a 400 series Cessna where the gear broke from weakness and the upper trunion was still attached to the wing.

Quote:

the TL gear was designed and used for the conquest I which has a much higher gross weight than the 421c.

It is not clear to me the parts are the same, and even if they were, the 425 GW is not overly more at 8600 lbs versus 7450 for the 421C.

I favor SL for the simpler, lighter system. I don't believe the TL gear any stronger.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Nov 2015, 20:40

We did our last family trip in the 421C before the new owner picks it up. The flight aware track is here to show that it cruises very nice. I landed with 1;30 minutes remaining fuel.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N100 ... /KDTS/KHGR

The 421 is the perfect family hauler and I saw a big difference from the previous aircraft our family of 5 flew around - 58P. The comfort and roominess is really the difference maker. My 13 year old ( 6 foot 1 ) could stretch out along with everyone having the ability to move around somewhat was great. My 2 daughters would come from the back to the front to visit.
I also saw a difference in entering the aircraft.. The rear stairs are nice. You just can't fill the plane up...
I saw another difference in the cruise sweet spot of the 58P vice the 421. The P liked 16000- FL190 and the 421C was a bit higher FL190- FL230.
The engines run sooooo cool on the 421- 58P you have to watch them. The engine management time is reduced on the 421.

For those of you considering the 421- I'd highly recommend it if you are traveling with 5 - 6 pax.

The 58P is a great 2-4 pax hauler...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Nov 2015, 21:14

Owned one for 2+ years/600 hrs. It will never do anywhere close to 250kts in cruise, but it's a fantastic family hauler and a very capable twin.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Nov 2015, 21:47

Username Protected wrote:

I manage a early 421C. Prior to that, we leased a 340 Ram VII. We have also maintained the 421C since purchase two years ago, and a 1975 414 since the early 1990's.

The 340 and 414 (non-"A") will have the exact same operational costs. The engines, wings, fuel system, avionics, deicing is the same, the only difference is the fuselage and tail. For the most part, they will fit in the same hangar, however the 340 tail is taller. The 414A will similar operating cost, offsetting the simpler fuel system, slightly higher maintenance hydraulic gear system, and potentially pending spar strap installation.

When my customer went looking for an airplane (while leasing the 340), we were looking at 414A's, with the Ram conversion for increased GTOW. We called on, and looked at many airplanes and came to the conclusion that a good airplane was tough to find. Many were high time, damage history, poorly maintained, etc. Then when we started looking at the spar AD (note the hour difference at S/N 200), we decided to start looking at other aircraft. Most had a payload of ~2000#.

The 414's that do not have the Ram conversion (335HP) are a DOG!

We eventually started looking at 421C's and stumbled upon the one we purchased. If it were me making the purchase, and I was going to be flying my (young) family around in it, I'd buy a 421. The primary reason is it's significantly quieter than the 340/414. The fuel cost is only slightly higher (4 GPH we found ROP), the speed is essentially the same, the useful load is the same or more if the Ram mods have not been done on the 340/414, etc. The 421B will have most of the same systems at the 340/414. The 421C has the early Citation wing, is very slightly slower. We find that we can operate the 421C for the same cost as a 340 because we are able to tanker lower cost fuel with the same payload. The 421 is a flying Suburban, and we're continually amazed how much you can stuff in it legally. I'll take the 421C into airports I've never considered taking the 340/414, like a 3500' (no-obstacle) runway near GTOW. The 421's run at a much lower CHT (50-100 degrees!) than the 340/414's. Our payload is 2200#.

We usually run at 65% power, 45GPH 100 ROP, or 36 GPH LOP (still setting this up). True Airspeed is a straight line between 178 KTAS at SL to 226 KTAS at FL250. We can work about 10 KTAS faster from it at 75% power, about 5 GPH higher, but we rarely do that.

If it were me buying, I'd look for the following:
-First run engines, as the GTSIO's seem to have a history of cracks on the second or third overhaul,
-Non-Cessna autopilot. Our Cessna 400B autopilot has been by far the highest maintenance cost on our airplane, and it's support (i.e., some parts) are becoming difficult to find,
-If you look at the 421C, the cost is significantly lower for the early models with the stiff gear. The trailing link gear are nice, but not $100k nice!,
-One (or more) aux fuel tank(s) in the C model, or both in the B model.

I haven't flown the 421B, or the 414A. I have alot of time in the 402C (unpressurized 414A) and found it a joy to fly.

Just my $0.02 worth,
Jason

We run a 1976 421CW (winglets). We run LOP AT 36~38 gph and consistently get well above 200ktas in the mid teens. +2ktas per 1000ft. We're mid time on engines now at roughly 850 hours.

In training at mid weight 2 Pilots 800# fuel engine cut on RE failed to restart for 10 minutes. Departure field was sea level but 35c on the ground. After mixture to ideal cutoff at 2000 ft with right engine windmilling managed 250fpm climb while eternity passed with a hot start air start. With simulated zero thrust on another day, approximately similar weight on a 30c day in southern Florida got nearly 800fpm climb. The book says neither can happen.

I should mention we also have strakes and Peter Dantos hubcaps.

A 421 is a legal 414 with at least another 300# of useful load. Plus hottest cylinders are 350 not near 400. If you want to throw 50gph out the gas hole the damn thing will do near 250ktas. I think 60~65% LOP will make the engines last a long, long time.

Winglets on a 421C make a big difference. People who only know the short wing factory version will never appreciate that. It's too bad Cessna didn't mate the longer 414 wing to the 421C. I know they were looking for advertising numbers. Speed kills..

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Nov 2015, 22:32

32.5 + 1750

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Nov 2015, 00:01

Username Protected wrote:

I should mention we also have strakes and Peter Dantos hubcaps

Tim, did you add strakes after winglets? If so, did you see improvement?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Nov 2015, 10:14

Yes we did add strakes. Winglets were on the bird when we bought it. The strakes are an easy 8-10kts. Hubcaps probably 3kts but 100fpm climb. I believe the hubcaps are most effective at higher angles of attack.

What was amazing is the descent when we added the strakes. Before strakes coming out of the flight levels we left power at cruise and dialed in 1600fpm descent on the 55X (max on the 55X). That would give us about 210 indicated. Once the strakes were on, we were bucking up against redline. That's proof positive of their effectiveness.

The pilot that flew it out to Colorado Springs to have the strakes installed famously said "I get it now, the faster you go the faster it goes!" We never let him live that down.

There is something about doing 210ktas on 36~38 gph on long trips. We don't use the aux tank anymore, can't sit in it that long. Well I could but don't want to. Now if the dog could just handle the rudder pedals.

Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421