banner
banner

25 Apr 2024, 06:37 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Greenwich AeroGroup (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 561 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 ... 38  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 21:42 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/09/09
Posts: 5599
Post Likes: +2559
Location: Owosso, MI (KRNP)
Aircraft: 1969 Bonanza V35A
Username Protected wrote:
I am going to install these at annual.

http://www.premiere-aviation.net/produc ... 4a-421c-3/

those are some mighty big claims they are making. Cant wait to get your report.


I don't have the data anymore (well, I might, but am too lazy to dig it up), but we did the first series on the 421C that I managed about five or six years ago and I recorded a noticeable difference in the rate of climb and the cruise speed. I was surprised how much difference a simple hubcap could make. The first version that we had didn't have doors for the air, so you had to take the three screws out each time you needed to check the tire pressure. It took about an hour to install them, and I did it without removing the wheels from the airplane.

I'm not sure why we didn't choose to put them on the 441...

It's one of the cheapest, simplest speed mods you can do on a Twin Cessna that doesn't have full landing gear doors.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 21:54 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/09/11
Posts: 1739
Post Likes: +2058
Company: Naples Jet Center
Location: KAPF KPIA
Aircraft: EMB500 AC95 AEST
Username Protected wrote:
This was missing from the previous email


That’s fine and it’s nice to look at but it really says nothing. It’s reminds me of the Tamarack winglet; if the strakes are that helpful, the 421 doesn’t have enough power or wing for that regime. Entirely possible. Strakes can be really effective at adding lift to the plane. But they look almost vertical on the 421 application. Look at a Lear and you can see where they would add lift at relatively high AOA.

Anyway, seems like there is no reason there isn’t published data other than it doesn’t really work as good as the marketing. IMHO of course. Even more so with hub caps. You could take those off and on on the same day easy and do back to back flights with some semblance of an experiment.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 21:56 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/19/15
Posts: 1402
Post Likes: +1205
Company: Centurion LV and Eleusis
Location: Draper UT KPVU-KVNY
Aircraft: N45AF 501sp Eagle II
Anyone know of a good TransAtlantic Ferry pilot with lots of 421 experience? I want to bring a 421 to Utah from Germany.

Mike

_________________
InstaGram @Mtpyle company @CenturionLV @eleusisdigitalcanvas race team @strappedracing


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 22:00 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/27/12
Posts: 955
Post Likes: +916
Location: Outer Banks
Aircraft: F33, 421C
Username Protected wrote:
Hub caps do work. I flew a 1000 hours without them and 600 hours with them.


+1 For the hubcaps. You will see a difference! :D

_________________
The “Rattler”


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 22:29 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 08/20/09
Posts: 2408
Post Likes: +1881
Company: Jcrane, Inc.
Location: KVES Greenville, OH
Aircraft: C441, RV7A
Max's observations may be a bit anecdotal, but they can't be completely ignored. He clearly observed a change in performance with the strakes. I don't get the feeling he's making a commission on strake sales.

The hubcap performance is probably somewhat overrated...I'm sure there's benefit, likely not as much as they claim...but for the price, who cares.

IMO the mod that improves a 421 more than any other is the wing extension (sold as winglets). Essentially the 414A wingspan on the 421.

_________________
Jack Stull


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 22:41 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23622
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
those are some mighty big claims they are making. Cant wait to get your report.

"Our Cessna 405 series III Speed Covers offer fuel savings 5-10%. Horizontal distance flown reduced by 18% with an increased rate of 25% on climb. Extra lift, reduced drag, lower angle of attack in climb, cruise and descent."

Sounds like it reduces range by 18% while saving 10% on fuel. Weird.

If you like the way they look, go for it. If you want 10% fuel savings, you are looking in the wrong place.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421
PostPosted: 30 Aug 2019, 10:49 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12799
Post Likes: +5226
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
The easy test for hubcaps is install just one and see the rudder required


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421
PostPosted: 30 Aug 2019, 11:18 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/19/15
Posts: 1402
Post Likes: +1205
Company: Centurion LV and Eleusis
Location: Draper UT KPVU-KVNY
Aircraft: N45AF 501sp Eagle II
Username Protected wrote:
This was missing from the previous email



Worse part of this graph is the stock 421 is under 400fpm from FL200 to FL2500? that can't be true? Man that's worse than my Mirage.

Mike

_________________
InstaGram @Mtpyle company @CenturionLV @eleusisdigitalcanvas race team @strappedracing


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421
PostPosted: 30 Aug 2019, 11:27 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/16/13
Posts: 51
Post Likes: +92
Aircraft: CE-510
Worse part of this graph is the stock 421 is under 400fpm from FL200 to FL2500? that can't be true? Man that's worse than my Mirage.

It's been several years since I sold my 421C, but she really wheezed above FL200. I think I only climbed to FL250 once because the last few thousand feet were so painfully slow.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421
PostPosted: 30 Aug 2019, 11:36 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 10/27/10
Posts: 10861
Post Likes: +6885
Location: Cambridge, MA (KLWM)
Aircraft: 1997 A36TN
Username Protected wrote:
those are some mighty big claims they are making. Cant wait to get your report.
"Our Cessna 405 series III Speed Covers offer fuel savings 5-10%. Horizontal distance flown reduced by 18% with an increased rate of 25% on climb. Extra lift, reduced drag, lower angle of attack in climb, cruise and descent."

Sounds like it reduces range by 18% while saving 10% on fuel. Weird.
I think that's the quoted distance and fuel to the top of climb point. In other words, the airplane climbs at a faster rate and a steeper angle.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421
PostPosted: 30 Aug 2019, 14:55 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/10/10
Posts: 941
Post Likes: +622
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Aircraft: Conquest
I put hubcaps on my 414A several years ago and they worked as advertised. They really helped with climb and high altitude cruise speeds.

I recently put them on my 425 but they don't seem to make any noticeable difference. Why is that?

_________________
----Still emotionally attached to my Baron----


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421
PostPosted: 30 Aug 2019, 15:08 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/31/10
Posts: 13101
Post Likes: +6970
Username Protected wrote:
I put hubcaps on my 414A several years ago and they worked as advertised. They really helped with climb and high altitude cruise speeds.

I recently put them on my 425 but they don't seem to make any noticeable difference. Why is that?


On my 421C, they helped at the highest AOAs the most. That made for a significant improvement in the 20s where the pistons really struggle for altitude. The 425 doesn't have that issue.

Just an educated guess.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421
PostPosted: 31 Aug 2019, 19:53 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/09/09
Posts: 5599
Post Likes: +2559
Location: Owosso, MI (KRNP)
Aircraft: 1969 Bonanza V35A
Username Protected wrote:
This was missing from the previous email



Worse part of this graph is the stock 421 is under 400fpm from FL200 to FL2500? that can't be true? Man that's worse than my Mirage.

Mike


At gross weight, especially ISA+10 or more, our 421C was a 500 FPM airplane after 10,000' at 140 KIAS. I spent many days climbing for 45 minutes to get to the low 20's. It would climb, but it was a dog.

The other problem I ran into is once you get into the flight levels, you usually end up in ice. At ISA+10 days, you just plain run out of energy to climb. I ran into a situation where I couldn't climb out of the tops at FL210 one summer day due to light rime ice and just not enough power.

I usually climbed at the top of the green on MP/RPM, even though it was certified to climb at full MP/RPM.

That was one of the very few negatives with the 421C.


Jason

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421
PostPosted: 31 Aug 2019, 23:31 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/19/15
Posts: 1402
Post Likes: +1205
Company: Centurion LV and Eleusis
Location: Draper UT KPVU-KVNY
Aircraft: N45AF 501sp Eagle II
Jason

Surprised by the low climb rates. But I think at 140 and lower power settings that makes sense.

When you could not climb thru the ice did you have full power? I personally would have wanted to get thru and on top ASAP. Climbing thru ice scares the heck out of me. In the PA-46 ice penetration speed is above 130 and even at full power the Mirage would not do well at all once it got a little ice on it.

Here is the page from the 421 POH about cruise climb and full
Climb power.

Mike


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.

_________________
InstaGram @Mtpyle company @CenturionLV @eleusisdigitalcanvas race team @strappedracing


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421
PostPosted: 01 Sep 2019, 01:47 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23622
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
At gross weight, especially ISA+10 or more, our 421C was a 500 FPM airplane after 10,000' at 140 KIAS. I spent many days climbing for 45 minutes to get to the low 20's. It would climb, but it was a dog.

The POH suggests you weren't configuring it for good climb rates.

See the climb chart (1976 421C):
Attachment:
421c-climb-rates.jpg

The red lines represent the following altitudes:

0 MSL - 1950 FPM
10K MSL - 1550 FPM
20K MSL - 1200 FPM

This assumes ISA and gross weight (7450 lbs). Climb speed is 111 KIAS to 20K. So using max power and best climb speed seems to make a very big difference.

The cruise climb chart uses 1900 RPM and 32.5 MAP and 120 KIAS and achieves:

0 MSL - 1220 FPM
10K MSL - 960 FPM
20K MSL - 720 FPM

If a 421C is realistically a 500 FPM plane above 10K MSL, I am sure glad I didn't buy one.

Mike C.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 561 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 ... 38  Next




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

Jump to:  

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 2007-2024

.ei-85x150.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.tat-85x100.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.SCA.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.puremedical-85x200.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.