banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 15:07 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: 340 with runout engines
PostPosted: 11 Jul 2017, 19:24 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 07/04/11
Posts: 1712
Post Likes: +242
Company: W. John Gadd, Esq.
Location: Florida
Aircraft: C55 Baron
Username Protected wrote:
340 definitely a little smaller than the 414/421. But it's plenty big enough for us. We easily fit- on the ramp it looks huge.

I didn't want to deal with the wing spar AD issues in the 414, and I thought the 421 would be too expensive to operate.

Considering moving to a SETP, but with the initial capital investment this platform is hard to beat.



The 340 is utterly impressive on a variety of levels. Nice room. Reasonable performance and gph.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 with runout engines
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 00:59 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/24/12
Posts: 79
Post Likes: +17
Location: Riverside, CA
Aircraft: King Air, A-36,C-340
Username Protected wrote:
Charles, as you are well aware from past experience, there is a lot more than just the motors on any pressurized piston aircraft. Specifically on the 340, if it is an airplane that has been sitting idle for a while you would have to look very carefully at the pressurization system, the fuel system, the electrical system, the cabin heater and environmental systems, the de-ice and vacuum systems, O2 system, the windows (there is more than just cosmetics to them), etc.

The only way I would suggest getting into something like this is to skip a so called "pre-buy" and go straight for an annual as a pre-purchase inspection and have a reputable Twin Cessna shop like DFW Aeromechanix at KADS or TAS in Ohio perform the inspection. Any airworthiness items found should be the seller's responsibility. If the owner doesn't agree to this - walk away.

Before I would move the airplane for the annual, have someone like Juan Oviedo and his team (DFWAM) fly out with you to look at the airplane and see if it is even worth moving. I would say proceed with caution. These are complex airplanes that don't do well with neglect or with sitting idle for long periods of time - it could cost you substantially more to do catch-up maintenance than what the airplane will ever be worth when you're finished.

Bottom line - I would rather get a nice clean 340 with good MX history, that has been used regularly and is 90% where you want to be and go from there. If you are seriously looking into this, PM and I'll be delighted to help. I have a lot of info that could help you make the right decision.


I would totally agree with that comment. Bought a 79 340 Ram VII in January. Very well maintained and equipped. 900 hour engines and all the avionics I wanted. Needed the 12 year exhaust--factored that into the purchase price. Flown regularly. It is a great family airplane. Plenty of power on takeoff at sea level and 8K DA. I would take it anywhere I would have taken my A36 550TN. And it does it with all six seats and reasonable fuel. I have no complaints. Fly it at 16500 to the flight levels. Temps are cool, FF is great, and speed is 205-210 LOP. Great buy!


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 with runout engines
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 01:59 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7090
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
I think when you factor in all the 'wink, wink' costs that trickle, the older pressurized twins are damn expensive to run and maintain. Any money you put into them is dead money.........yes, yes, Gerry A can run is lower than most, but he's a legend, has owned his airplane for a fair bit of time and is a hands on owner........his airplane is cherry..........

a 340 like this with runout engines is not cherry, fly it more than 50 hrs a year and I put money on a PC12 being cheaper to BUY :eek: and maintain........

what you call a 340 with runout engines :scratch:

a brick :D

yeh, yeh, trying to spice things up tonight........long day at the field and no end in sight!!!

_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 with runout engines
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 06:08 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/05/09
Posts: 4082
Post Likes: +2731
Location: Small Town, NC
The most expensive 340 I have ever seen was 450k. the cheapest PC12 I have seen is in the 1.5M range.

how's the Pilatus cheaper to buy? (I know there's one on controller with 24,000 hours for 600k- but I think that's an exception, and a bit of an exception).

_________________
"Find worthy causes in your life."


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 with runout engines
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 08:59 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/28/09
Posts: 198
Post Likes: +125
Aircraft: C-310K
Username Protected wrote:
The most expensive 340 I have ever seen was 450k. the cheapest PC12 I have seen is in the 1.5M range.

how's the Pilatus cheaper to buy? (I know there's one on controller with 24,000 hours for 600k- but I think that's an exception, and a bit of an exception).



Gary,

Didnt you know? the PC-12 is cheaper than a piton twin?

The PC-12 drivers firmly believe this....there was even a thread with like 17 pages where people kept trying to "prove" this was so...you need a degree in congress math to figure this out.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 with runout engines
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 10:04 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 01/24/10
Posts: 6730
Post Likes: +4406
Location: Concord , CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1967 Baron B55
If you compare a PC12 at 100 hours per year and a well maintained pressurized twin at 100 hours per year the twin is cheaper on a per hour basis of 100 hours per year.

If you fly a PC12 400 hours per year the hourly cost goes down to the level of a well maintained pressurized twin. The problem is , the total cost at 400 hours per year is about 350,000 dollars compared to 60,000 for the pressurized twin at 100 hours per year.

Most pilots don't have a need to fly 400 hours a year or the time.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 with runout engines
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 10:21 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/05/09
Posts: 4082
Post Likes: +2731
Location: Small Town, NC
Username Protected wrote:
If you compare a PC12 at 100 hours per year and a well maintained pressurized twin at 100 hours per year the twin is cheaper on a per hour basis of 100 hours per year.

If you fly a PC12 400 hours per year the hourly cost goes down to the level of a well maintained pressurized twin. The problem is , the total cost at 400 hours per year is about 350,000 dollars compared to 60,000 for the pressurized twin at 100 hours per year.

Most pilots don't have a need to fly 400 hours a year or the time.


That's my point. In my best year I was only flying around 200- it felt like a lot!
Where the variable cost line crosses one's ability to afford the total out of pocket $$ for the SETP is juuuuuuuuust out of reach for many of us mouth-breathers still constrained to burning leaded gas.

_________________
"Find worthy causes in your life."


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 with runout engines
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 12:29 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7090
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Username Protected wrote:
If you compare a PC12 at 100 hours per year and a well maintained pressurized twin at 100 hours per year the twin is cheaper on a per hour basis of 100 hours per year.

If you fly a PC12 400 hours per year the hourly cost goes down to the level of a well maintained pressurized twin. The problem is , the total cost at 400 hours per year is about 350,000 dollars compared to 60,000 for the pressurized twin at 100 hours per year.

Most pilots don't have a need to fly 400 hours a year or the time.


Gerry, great points.......I'm only 1.5 years into ownership here but have had some expensive items needing fixing. I'm lower than your 350k mark by a large margin, mostly I believe because I get very cheap fuel and my first run HSI was exceedingly inexpensive.

I'm all in at the currently around the $500 mark, so 400hrs is running me about 200k. I do long trips at flight levels, so fuel consumption has been good. I'm not counting refurbishment or the like, which I'm sure is not contained in your 60k per annum number.

Thumbs in the air gut feeling has me thinking that 150hrs a year is where the breakeven starts IF you review on a per mile basis.

_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 with runout engines
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 12:53 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 01/24/10
Posts: 6730
Post Likes: +4406
Location: Concord , CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1967 Baron B55
Username Protected wrote:
If you compare a PC12 at 100 hours per year and a well maintained pressurized twin at 100 hours per year the twin is cheaper on a per hour basis of 100 hours per year.

If you fly a PC12 400 hours per year the hourly cost goes down to the level of a well maintained pressurized twin. The problem is , the total cost at 400 hours per year is about 350,000 dollars compared to 60,000 for the pressurized twin at 100 hours per year.

Most pilots don't have a need to fly 400 hours a year or the time.


Gerry, great points.......I'm only 1.5 years into ownership here but have had some expensive items needing fixing. I'm lower than your 350k mark by a large margin, mostly I believe because I get very cheap fuel and my first run HSI was exceedingly inexpensive.

I'm all in at the currently around the $500 mark, so 400hrs is running me about 200k. I do long trips at flight levels, so fuel consumption has been good. I'm not counting refurbishment or the like, which I'm sure is not contained in your 60k per annum number.

Thumbs in the air gut feeling has me thinking that 150hrs a year is where the breakeven starts IF you review on a per mile basis.


You are doing well at 500 per hour. Most PC12 owners are about 700 per hour but they have 350 to 500 NM legs average. The big difference is the cost to purchase and the depreciation. If you don't need all those seats and can't afford to tie up 3.5M then a very good pressurized twin for 250,000 to 500,000 makes "cents" for GA pilots that fly 100 hours a year or less and don't have the income to write off 3.5M dollars.
Twenty years ago when my kids were little and we traveled as a family the PC12 would have made "cents". Now I fly mostly by myself for my own pleasure and my hangar building hobby so the 421C works great.
Enjoy the next ten years those great kids of yours will grow up fast.

Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 with runout engines
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 00:01 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/27/10
Posts: 331
Post Likes: +196
Location: GTU - Georgetown, Tx
Aircraft: 65 Deb C33, RV-6
I'm trying to wrap my mind around the exhaust issue in the 340.

If I'm correct, it is essentially a design flaw. The mounting of the exhaust is not sufficiently isolated nor dampened, resulting is failure of the exhaust system and or a nearby spar.

What does it cost to replace an exhaust system on a single motor?

_________________
B-25 co-pilot
RV6 Formation
Debonair
CFI/CFII/MEI
Washed up Fighter Pilot (F-4s, F-16s)


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 with runout engines
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 00:15 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 01/24/10
Posts: 6730
Post Likes: +4406
Location: Concord , CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1967 Baron B55
The 340 engine beams are hollow and go through firewall. If an exhaust pipe breaks the exhaust can go through the beam and through the firewall. Right behind the firewall is the aluminum cross feed line.

On my 340 I had the engine beam blankets" that prevent the exhaust from going into the beam and through the fire wall. I also had stainless steel cross feed lines.

I would not own a 340 that did not have the engine beam blankets and the Stainless Steel cross feed lines. If someone buys a 340 that does not them they can be added at any time.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 with runout engines
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 02:19 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/01/11
Posts: 964
Post Likes: +599
Company: Well, it's UA now
Location: Houston, TX
Aircraft: B-787 & C55
Username Protected wrote:
I'm trying to wrap my mind around the exhaust issue in the 340.

If I'm correct, it is essentially a design flaw. The mounting of the exhaust is not sufficiently isolated nor dampened, resulting is failure of the exhaust system and or a nearby spar.

What does it cost to replace an exhaust system on a single motor?



I don't know why I have this picture but I do, so I labeled it a bit so you can see what a Turbo 3-400 series Cessna has to put up with.

The turbo is not mounted to the engine but to the airframe. The exhaust is mounted to the engine, obviously, so now you have an engine that moves and a turbo that does not. The exhaust system does endure some stress b/c of this. Cessna has updated the exhaust system with better joints to allow for movement and better clamps in an effort to prevent cracks and failures. The exhaust system runs along the engine mount beams. As Gerald stated the beams are just made up of sheet stock (looks like some stamping/forming as well) and are hollow inside.


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


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 with runout engines
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 08:14 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/27/10
Posts: 331
Post Likes: +196
Location: GTU - Georgetown, Tx
Aircraft: 65 Deb C33, RV-6
Bob,

Very nice. Your picture really helps illustrate the exhaust issue on a 340

_________________
B-25 co-pilot
RV6 Formation
Debonair
CFI/CFII/MEI
Washed up Fighter Pilot (F-4s, F-16s)


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 with runout engines
PostPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 19:48 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/13
Posts: 1913
Post Likes: +1167
Location: KCRQ
Aircraft: Breeezy, 182,601P
To be fair, a lot of turbo charged aircraft have had similar issues.

The Aerostar has a 50hr A/D on the stock tail pipes, and an A/D that requires a fire sensor be installed on the firewall, because failed tail pipes have melted through structure causing an inflight failure.

The fact is that to run a turbo charger at altitude you need to generate some exhaust pressure. Any faults or cracks in this pressurize exhaust system will make a blowtorch that eats whatever its pointed at. Add to that that a turbo system has lots of parts, beyond the normal exhaust system turbos, waste gates etc... then you have issues.

Its not like you never find leaking exhausts or cracked exhaust systems in a non turbo aircraft, you find these things all the time. The down side when this happens in a pressurized system is just bigger....


I believe there have been bad in flight failures in mooney's, and TN bonanza and barons as well.
See:http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/turbocharger-trouble/#.WZOHVlGGPZQ

and

http://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/i ... 099-1.html


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 with runout engines
PostPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 20:12 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/08/12
Posts: 12587
Post Likes: +5181
Company: Mayo Clinic
Location: Rochester, MN
Aircraft: Planeless in RST
Waiting for Doug to chime in here.,
He owns the queen of the US fleet 340 and did it the hard way!

_________________
BFR 8/18; IPC 8/18


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  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

.blackwell-85x50.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.