BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Feb 2018, 23:25

Username Protected wrote:

Heck, why not have too wife’s, the operating costs are similar.

Two spouses would be 250% the expense and not just 200% plus we all know that two engines are more dangerous than one so, with that logic, two spouses would be more dangerous than one. It most certainly applies to children! I would argue that two kids are triple the cost of one and two boys most certainly are three times as destructive than one. It is just like operating a multi-engine plane! A PC-12 is cheaper and more reliable than a twin but only has the fuel burn of one turbine engine! One kid, one spouse, one engine.
:popcorn:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Feb 2018, 23:36

So Bob, how many wife’s do you have.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Feb 2018, 09:28

Username Protected wrote:

Heck, why not have too wife’s, the operating costs are similar.

It's just like 2 engines. Have trouble with one and the 2nd one might not save you.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 25 Feb 2018, 00:46

Username Protected wrote:

So Bob, how many wife’s do you have.

In the marriage department I am a SETP kind of guy! If I had two engines I can guarantee a CFIT!

Years ago I flew a 401 and LOVED it! I have also had some right-seat 414 and 421 time. If I were in the market for a 414, and could put several hundred hours a year on it, I would buy a 421, likely a C built in the 80s because I really like the trailing link landing gear. However, this isn't my $$. Aforementioned kidlets put me into a Baron or TravelAir budget vs. a 421 budget.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 25 Feb 2018, 01:11

Bob I have a Baron and a 1980 421C with TL year. My Baron is my absolute favorite plane to fly.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Mar 2018, 22:45

Username Protected wrote:

414A with Ram IV's still carries 1,100lbs of people and stuff after full gas; 204 ga.

Roughly 4 hr duration with IFR reserves.

Without jumping to turbines, not much else that I know of will do that.

You sure about those UL numbers?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Mar 2018, 07:14

From memory, the RAM IV conversion increases the gross from 6,700 and change to 7,100 and change. Say, 7150 minus 1224 for gas. Empty with fluids around 4700 leaves 1,100. I’ll post from POH next time at the hangar.

Burning ROP, I figure 50 gph climb and 37 cruise.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Mar 2018, 12:49

Username Protected wrote:

From memory, the RAM IV conversion increases the gross from 6,700 and change to 7,100 and change. Say, 7150 minus 1224 for gas. Empty with fluids around 4700 leaves 1,100. I’ll post from POH next time at the hangar.

Just for comparison's sake, my 421C is 5238 empty and has a max takeoff weight of 7579 (with VGs). Useful load of 2,341, payload of 1,105 with main tanks (206 gallons - 1,236lbs) topped off.

I'm surprised that a 414A would be that much lighter than a 421C (straight legged - not trailing link). Not sure where the extra 500lbs would come from.

Robert

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Mar 2018, 18:30

414A Book shows:

Empty (with fluids and 9.6ga gas) 4,801.8
Max Ramp 7140
Max T/O 7105
Useful 2,338.2
Fuel 204G usable (213.4 total)
Useful after full fuel (6,025.8) 1,114.2

The only variable I see is if the scales were off?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Mar 2018, 18:48

Username Protected wrote:

414A Book shows:

Empty (with fluids and 9.6ga gas) 4,801.8

Does that include optional equipment like the copilot and passenger seats?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Mar 2018, 18:49

Username Protected wrote:

414A Book shows:

Empty (with fluids and 9.6ga gas) 4,801.8
Max Ramp 7140
Max T/O 7105
Useful 2,338.2
Fuel 204G usable (213.4 total)
Useful after full fuel (6,025.8) 1,114.2

The only variable I see is if the scales were off?

Now I'm even more confused... 421C book says the "Standard Empty Weight" is 4578, 4763, or 4979 depending on the model (various avionics packages I guess).

Always thought my 421 was light, but I guess not. May be time to actually weigh her.

Robert

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Mar 2018, 19:29

Yup on on the seats.

To add to the confusion, the Fltplan program sample 414A Ram IV shows 5,000 empty

I think I'll take a nap :thumbup:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Mar 2018, 19:35

Anyway, I've been close to gross max in the 414A many times and it's T/O performance is well within the numbers. Lousy climb to stay above blue line pretty much heavy or light. Definitely no sporty baron feel. But nice stable with lots of wing. Great on approaches.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2018, 00:01

Username Protected wrote:

I'm surprised that a 414A would be that much lighter than a 421C (straight legged - not trailing link). Not sure where the extra 500lbs would come from.

Much heavier props, heavier engines. That's probably most of it.

Structure is a bit heavier for the higher weight.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2018, 09:18

Username Protected wrote:

I'm surprised that a 414A would be that much lighter than a 421C (straight legged - not trailing link). Not sure where the extra 500lbs would come from.

Much heavier props, heavier engines. That's probably most of it.

Structure is a bit heavier for the higher weight.

Mike C.

Early Cessna 414's...