To all the C340 guys out there...

I came across a nice looking C340A that is available for rent for what seems to be a reasonable rate. It's a 1977 C340A with Ram IV engines and 183 gallon fuel capacity. It's not terribly close to me, so it's hardly convenient but my plan is to use it for the occasional missions in which more room and pressurization would be nice (family trips and trips with several business colleagues onboard) and for extended periods of time when the Seneca is not available. It also allows me to dip my foot in the water of larger, pressurized twins without significant financial exposure or commitment.

I'm looking at doing the training soon and wanted to hear any tips or advice from the C340 crowd regarding transition training and what I should emphasize in my study prep. I currently have about 1,000 hrs TT, 300 hours in the Seneca II and am flying about 180 hrs / yr.

What's a reasonable expectation as to the time / effort required for transition? Given that I fly a Seneca II regularly, how many hours / yr in the C340 would you feel is reasonable to maintain proficiency?

Also, does anyone have a 1977 C340A POH in electronic format they could share?

Thanks much ahead of time!

Don't do this if you wish to remain happy with your Seneca.

Pressurization is a game changer.

Mike C.

What Mike said.

I did my ME training in a wiener Seneca I.....in the summer.....

After, my next twin trip was in a 340(with an IP)......wow, what a difference.

Actually, now that I stop and think about it, pretty much ANY twin was better than that S-one.

Don't do this if you wish to remain happy with your Seneca.

Pressurization is a game changer.

Mike C.

I haven't flown a Seneca I but am told there's a dramatic difference in performance and handling between the I and II/III/V. The I is a dog from what I understand.

Piper also made significant changes to the control surfaces from the I to the II and handling was greatly improved. There's also a significant difference from a 'standard' Seneca and one with all the Lopresti mods like mine has. I've flown standard IIs and they aren't as fast and typically not nearly as well maintained as mine.

Still, I'm sure a pressurized twin is going to cause me to look very differently at the Seneca.

To be fair, that poor old Seneca I was wore out tired, so......it got the job done.

Looking at the tail number, seems it "retired"......N41665, according to FlightAware, "landed 8 years ago..."......

Paging Doug.....
Owns arguably the nicest 340 in the country now that he's done transforming it....

HI Don

Let me take a guess -- are you thinking of renting the 340 from T&G Flying Club in Cleveland?

How many hours/trips per year do you plan on using the 340? What sort of missions/weather?

Are you only interested in flying the trips as sole pilot, or are you OK bringing an instructor along?

I used the 340 for a combination of multi training alone with instructor, multi training during family trips, and then trips as sole pilot with family - then transitioned to a 421. Let me know a bit more about your mission and I'll give you a sense of what sort of training is likely to be realistic.

You got it Richard. Not difficult to guess as there aren't many of those available to rent. My best guess is that I'd use it 4-5x / year, basically doing all the multi-pax missions with it. Family trips are only ever in VMC or MVFR as we generally have flexibility in timing to wait out poor wx and my wife isn't thrilled with long extended trips in IMC. In terms of hours, I would guess around 30-50 hrs / yr.

I'd prefer to do the trips solo as the only reason I would use it would be to carry pax and would need the UL.

I've had my MEI for a couple years with about 300 ME hours so far.

It's a real airplane and I would only do it if you plan to dedicate enough time to become very proficient in the airplane. Jumping in a few times a year and blasting off IFR into the flight levels could be a bad recipe.

My transition training was dictated by insurance underwriter requirements which turned out to be quite adequate I felt. They asked for 25 hours of time. That particular part may have been driven by my total twin time which was minimal at the time. My only twin time was the amount of time I flew to get the ME rating and that was in a Travelair. They also required an actual course by an insurance company approved instructor. The course had to provide a written syllabus, have hand out materials, have a power point lecture on systems and provide flying time that included a high altitude and pressurization check out. It was over 3 days. I found the instructor thru the Twin Cessna Flyers Group which has a website and a pretty good magazine.

I have a 1980 340A.

Insurance will be the limiter-- they will likely require the ground school and some dual. My particular carrier required the ground program and 24 hours of dual. I used National Flight Sim in Nashua NH since they were the cheapest- and I had a good impression when I initially talked to Steve (the owner).

My insurance company required any instructor I used to have the ground course and currency in M&M. Not common for that bird.

Proficiency is hard to measure. I would raise my personal Mins if I hadn't flown the 340 regularly.

I'll reinforce what others have said- I cannot imagine flying a nonpressurized plane anymore. It's sweet.

+1. It's not a difficult plane to fly, but there's a lot to keep in your head if the thing is on fire...

I don't think the 340 is meaningfully harder to fly than the Seneca - particularly for the missions he describes.

Yes, it could be an extreme workload if the goal is to regularly to to FL270 and cross the Cascades and Rockies in icing and convective weather.

But if the goal as he says is to fly on VFR to MVFR days, cruising say between 11,000 and FL190, he'll need to think a bit faster due to the speed (but not that much faster) and he'll enjoy the overall performance and cabin size. Understanding the pressurization system and its potential failure modes is important but does not meaningfully add to the workload of the flight.

** That said, the one item that is a workload on the 340 - and particularly N3938G - is the fuel system. There are 2 main tanks, 2 aux tanks, and 1 nacelle tank. Long-range trip planning can be a challenge to keep track of where all the fuel is, particularly if you don't fly the plane often enough to intimately know its fuel burn and particularly since there is no fuel totalizer in this aircraft. If you plan to always be on the ground within 3 hours of takeoff no matter what, it's a lot simpler; keeping it in the air safely with reserves longer than that requires close study of the fuel system.