18 Apr 2024, 21:24 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 07 Jun 2018, 22:40 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/24/14 Posts: 1760 Post Likes: +2217
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The Marquise is the same interior size as the 421, it doesn’t have as much external baggage capacity, the most expensive part isn’t less than 75k, and ‘roughly’ is pretty broad on cost/hr. Not sure where you got that idea. You're not even close. The Marquise interior is almost TWICE the size of a C421. https://www.globalair.com/aircraft-for- ... specid=476https://www.globalair.com/aircraft-for- ... specid=362When I sold my C340 and bought a Marquise of the same vintage, my maintenance costs decreased and my dispatch rate increased.
_________________ Jay
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 07 Jun 2018, 23:02 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/20/09 Posts: 2406 Post Likes: +1879 Company: Jcrane, Inc. Location: KVES Greenville, OH
Aircraft: C441, RV7A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The Marquise is the same interior size as the 421, it doesn’t have as much external baggage capacity, the most expensive part isn’t less than 75k, and ‘roughly’ is pretty broad on cost/hr. Not sure where you got that idea. You're not even close. The Marquise interior is almost TWICE the size of a C421. I could be wrong, but what I've found: Marquise is 4-3 tall, 4-8 wide, 16-1 long C421 is 4-3 tall, 4-6, wide, 15-10 long
Marquise is 2" wider and 3" longer...
_________________ Jack Stull
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 07 Jun 2018, 23:46 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/24/14 Posts: 1760 Post Likes: +2217
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Marquise is 2" wider and 3" longer... There is definitely some sketchy info online. I think you're comparing the instrument panel to rear bulkhead distance in the 421 to the cabin size of the MU2. I've spent significant time in both aircraft and owned a Marquise for 4 years and can guarantee they are NOT about the same size inside. The Marquise cabin is slightly larger than the Conquest II and about 10% smaller than a B200.
_________________ Jay
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 07 Jun 2018, 23:47 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: most expensive failed component cost of $75k or less 421 doesn't meet that criteria. Broken nose gear link puts the plane on the nose, gear repair, fuselage repair, two props, and two engines. Ask Robert Johnson who had that happen. There's nothing wrong with a 421. Best airplane burning avgas. If you have one you like, keep it and lavish it with care and new engines. Fantastic. But the fear of turbine engines is misguided. I had it too and was "this close" to buying a 421 instead. But I've put 1300 hours on my turbines and have changed the oil once and cleaned nozzles 5 times. That is the totality of my engine work. You won't find such a short list for that length of time on a GTSIO-520. No mags, no plugs, no exhaust, no valves, no fuel injectors, no turbo, no wastegate, and so on. You literally do nothing to the engines during routine inspections. The other fallacy is that when something goes wrong, it's always major bucks. Not so. The vast majority of cases are fixed with relatively low cost, and are detected by analysis well before it becomes severe. For example, oil analysis said a bearing in the torque sensor was going out for someone I know, the analysis is so sensitive they identified the exact bearing. $12K later, fixed before it even failed. Even burning up a first stage wheel will very likely be less than $75K. The other fear is that one nanosecond of pilot inattention cooks the engine into a useless heap. Not really so. It is relatively hard to cook the engines and it would take a really clumsy pilot to do it, the same kind of pilot who would go full throttle on the GTSIO-520 with the mixture lean, a perfectly analogous kind of thing. GTSIO-520 is $75K OH and it runs for 1600 hours, $47/hour. TPE331-10 is $225K OH and it runs for 5000 hours, $45/hour. That hour of the TPE331 is way more miles. The last thing is that the King Air is among the most expensive turboprops to maintain. Since they are so numerous, that tends to be what people think of as general turboprop maintenance. That isn't the case for a lot of turboprops. That would be like saying you would never buy a 421C because a Duke costs so much to maintain. My message is simple: turboprops are more affordable than most people think. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 08 Jun 2018, 00:04 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I could afford the maximum probable maintenance event (MPME) on the aerostar (~75K ) Gear up or gear collapse landing. You are way over $75K. Quote: I could not afford the maximum probable maintenance event on a turboprop. (New engine 250K) That is HIGHLY unlikely, an engine that is totally destroyed, which is rare among already rare failures. Things to consider: You can buy used engines, for way less than $250K. This is common in the turboprop world, not so much in pistons. This can get you back flying for an exceptional event. You can get an engine program. You pay $/hr and they take care of HSI, OH, and unscheduled events. You never face a big bill, just money all the time per hour. Very common in jets, not as much in turboprops but available, and unheard of in pistons as no vendor would take that risk. FOD is perhaps the largest realistic "big" risk, but that is included in many turbine insurance policies. My policy covers FOD with a $25K deductible. If a rock gets thrown into my engine, and takes out the entire high speed group, then I'm out $25K, insurance pays the rest. Your piston insurance has nothing like that. Quote: Now that I've experienced an engine failure and MPME my estimate was off... I blew an engine and all told it was about 110K for everything... I have yet to hear of a $110K event in a TPE331. I'd think the engine would have to literally fall off the airframe to cost that much. Worst case I ever saw was an MU2 K model with TPE331-6 engines where the prior owner had burned those engines to a crisp by repeatedly flying it well past temp limits from total lack of understanding. Yet the plane was still flying. A borescope revealed half the first stage wheel was gone. They did a hot section, $75K per side, new first wheel, new first stator, put everything right. This is the worst event I know of. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 08 Jun 2018, 00:16 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/24/14 Posts: 1760 Post Likes: +2217
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Marquise is 2" wider and 3" longer... There is definitely some sketchy info online. I think you're comparing the instrument panel to rear bulkhead distance in the 421 to the cabin size of the MU2. I've spent significant time in both aircraft and owned a Marquise for 4 years and can guarantee they are NOT about the same size inside. The Marquise cabin is slightly larger than the Conquest II and about 10% smaller than a B200. Here's another data point that supports what I'm saying. GlobalAir is comparing apples to apples, which is the cabin dimensions excluding the cockpit. You're taking the full interior length of the 421C and comparing it to the cabin length excluding cockpit. Here are the full interior dimensions of a Marquise:
http://www.air1st.com/component/content ... -body.html
_________________ Jay
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 08 Jun 2018, 00:34 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/05/09 Posts: 286 Post Likes: +130 Location: Portland, Oregon
Aircraft: MU-2F
|
|
Mike, what does the 2500hr hot section inspection on a -10 engine go for? Just a point for the perspective TPE331-10 owner to keep in mind...….HSIs on -6 and -1 engines are at 1800 hours, with a 5400 hr TBO and there are some gear box inspections in there as well as I recall......just stuff to be considering when looking at turboprop ownership. Seems like there are more than a few turboprops with hot section inspections in their immediate future for sale.....
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 08 Jun 2018, 00:42 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13 Posts: 6355 Post Likes: +5538 Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Mike, what does the 2500hr hot section inspection on a -10 engine go for? Just a point for the perspective TPE331-10 owner to keep in mind...….HSIs on -6 and -1 engines are at 1800 hours, with a 5400 hr TBO and there are some gear box inspections in there as well as I recall......just stuff to be considering when looking at turboprop ownership. Seems like there are more than a few turboprops with hot section inspections in their immediate future for sale..... They can be anything from $20K to maybe $100K, worst case scenario. I would say the average is around $50-70K. Not a trivial sum, but I've calculated that you'd almost save that on not having to do oil changes every 25hrs, and mess with plugs. It adds up. The Aerostar was easily $500 per change with labour.
_________________ Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 08 Jun 2018, 00:45 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: One correction is the new GTISO520’s have a 2,000 hour TBO. News to me, thanks. What change allowed this? Now, how often do you get there? Without a top? Apparently, this change has not made it into the TCM SIL98-9 OH docs. It shows all GTSIO-520 engines at 1600 hours or less. I've attached the latest SIL98-9 that I can find, dated 2015. You got a newer one? Quote: I only talk to ATC when it’s required ,you have to talk to them all the time. Mostly correct. I can, and do, fly VFR sometimes, but it is rare. If you want to do the majority of your flying VFR, then a 421 is a better fit. I find VFR flying far more work than IFR, I have to do everything including airspace and traffic avoidance. Guess it is just what you are used to. Quote: My 421C works perfectly for the type of flying and places I will going for the Next five years. Cool. Have fun with it! 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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 08 Jun 2018, 00:53 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Mike, what does the 2500hr hot section inspection on a -10 engine go for? Typically about $35K. The -10 engines are FAR better at HSI than the -5, -6 engines. Quote: Just a point for the perspective TPE331-10 owner to keep in mind...….HSIs on -6 and -1 engines are at 1800 hours, with a 5400 hr TBO and there are some gear box inspections in there as well as I recall For the -1, -5, -6 engines, 1800 first HSI, 3600 second HSI and "TBO extension", which is really a gear box inspection (sometimes called GBI). Then OH at 5400 hours. Typical HSI for -1, -5, -6 engines is $60-70K. GBI is ~$20K. So they do cost more for mid cycle work, so their per hour cost is a bit higher than -10, about $70/hour instead of around $55/hour. The funny part is that my gearbox is a -6 gearbox since my engines are -6 converted to -10AV. Yet, by some magic, Honeywell says my gears can go 5000 hours with no GBI. But, a -6 engine, with the same gears, can only go 3600 hours. Yeah, don't make sense. Further, depending on the burner can setup, my engine could be eligible for 3500 HSI and 7000 OH, no gear box inspection. So my gears can now go 7000 hours. Sometimes these intervals make no logical sense, but the takeaway is that the engines last a REALLY LONG TIME, and they routinely get there without trouble. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 08 Jun 2018, 01:36 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: So my gears can now go 7000 hours. One last insight: The FAA recently clarified that overhauls are not mandatory for part 91. This has always been true, but the FAA letter really makes it clear and official. What that means is when I reach the supposed overhaul time of 5000 hours, I can elect to do the HSI, since inspections are required, and then fly another 2500 hours to 7500 SMOH. We already know the gear box is good for that based on what Honeywell allows. At my current rate of flying, ~150 hours/year, this is ~40 years from now. My plane would be over 80 years old. Translation: my engines will likely never be overhauled, they are "lifetime" engines. The next 6000 hours, if the airframe makes it that far (and it certainly can), will cost me two HSI ($35K/each) and that's all I need to do. Including the 1000 hours or so I have already achieved, that works out to $10/hour for engines for ~7000 hours of use. The kicker is that my engines will go to 7500 hours no problem. Some airline operators and ag operators take the TPE331 to 9000 hours. And if, by some miracle, the engines reach 7500 hours and are running fine, then do another HSI and go to 10,000 hours! Going past TBO in a GTSIO-520 is clearly possible as well, but not nearly to that extent. The intervals in turbines are just so large as to be effectively infinite for the owner operator. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
|
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
|
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
|
|
|
|