A buddy of mine is considering an early tip tanked version and is asking for my help to find one.

He is coming out of a 401 but it is one of the nicest I've seen and he has maintained it well. He wants the same airframe but pressurized. He says the 414's have a great safety record helped by the huge tail and rudder which supposedly make single engine events more forgiving. He doesn't want the skinnier 340 or the stronger 421. He also can't afford an A model 414 which seems like a great all-around plane. His mission is wife and 3 smallish girls and up to 800 miles.

Seems like some dislike these early models but I can't remember the reasons why. Every plane is a compromise but can these 414's be good family haulers? I've noticed the '70-'72 models are shorter than the '73 models. I'm guessing that these would be lighter and offer a little better performance on the same power but I'm not that familiar...

What are your thoughts??? The good the bad and the ugly...

This could be potentially very ugly:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-0 ... -02551.pdf

Sigh... I really with people would read the AD before posting it.

It's an inspection that kicks in at 11,000-15,000 hours (depending on the specific model). Total non event for 99% of the owner operated fleet.

Robert

Absolutely. The 414 doesn't have the long nose of the A models - but if the 401 works, 414 should too.

At this point, model difference are going to be totally overwhelmed by condition of the individual airframe. Find one that is flown frequently and you'll be 80% there.

I would try real hard to get a 414A.

Vastly simpler fuel system, vastly simpler gear system, better performance due to longer wing and tip tank, generally better equipped, obviously newer.

The difference in purchase price after flying it 5-10 years won't make much difference, and you get it back on resale.

Note that all 414A are known ice but not all 414 are. Think that change was around 1974 or 1975.

Mike C.

I would try real hard to get a 421C.

Robert

I would try real hard to get a 421C.

Robert

I was being a bit cheeky with that comment, and teasing Mike a little bit, but I do think the 421C is a better airplane than a 414/414A.

However, I would probably get a 414A over a 421B. The 421C and 414A have simpler systems (gear and fuel primarily) than the 421B and straight 414.

The 414A and 421C are very similar airplanes. The primary difference between the two is the engine choice. The 421C, of course, has the GTSIO engines which everyone who operates loves, but everyone who hasn't seems to be afraid of.

Speeds, fuel burn, maintenance, and acquisition cost are going to be pretty similar between a 414A and a 421C. However, the 421C has a noticeably higher useful load, and is markedly quieter in the cabin due to the slow turning props.

Nothing wrong with either straight 414s or 421Bs - all great airplanes.

Yes, I'm a 421C owner so I'm likely biased.

Robert

Read this thread. Some breathtaking operating costs are thrown around for 414's and 421's.

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=148021

Edit...I guess it's just 421's in that thread. Not sure of the delta in ownership costs between them.

The "complex" systems of the 414 and 421B are the same systems on a 340 or 310. The 414A/421C are definitely improved/simplified but the earlier models are fine. You're not buying something that has a steam pneumatic gear system that can only be lubricated with whale oil.

As for purchase prices vs. opex ... these are planes that can break $1000 for a topoff. Not at all hard to spend $50K/year operating one. There are people who poo poo the idea of buying anything less than the newest/latest/greatest because the older ones surely haven't been maintained. I find that unconvincing, but agree with the general sentiment that you can't really save money on the purchase price. A $100K 182 is going to be much less expensive for total ownership costs than a $400K 182. For a 400-series cessna at $400K and $200K and $100K , the life-cycle ownership costs are going to be very similar.

414's with all the goodies tend to be a bit low on useful load, a consequence of the big cabin, small engine combination.

He might make his mission and might not, depending on the usual facotors.

Personally I like the shirt nose of the straight model.

The wing on the straigh model and fuel / gear system is the same as the 340A. In 1600 hours I never had an issue with that in my 340.

If the guys wants the 414 I can’t see it being an issue, they have to be cheaper then the A model which is great plane too.

Andrew

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.

I had a 1970 414. Its a great plane. I removed the rear cabinetry and we could haul a minivan full of stuff. There are 3 negatives with any early 414. 1st make sure you're getting an NB engine, the J engines are weak. 2nd For pre-1973s the JB A/C stinks, from 1973 onward if it has the built-in ventilation system, it works well. 3rd the weekest point of the plane is the cylinders. I had a really bad time with Ram.
Your friend is completely misinformed about 421s, A 73-75 421B is the best of the twin Cessna family. It is the best piston twin out there. More reliable, faster, and quieter than any other piston plane. If you want to haul your family around in a piston plane then a 421B is the plane to have.

IMO the 76-79 421C is the best value.
More HP, cooler running engines, and quieter than the 414A.
Simpler systems than the earlier 414 & 421B.
Same plane as the 80-85 421C, with a higher useful load, and at lower price point.

But...purchase price is almost insignificant. As Charles R. has said many times...it's all about the specific example you buy. Any of these five models could be perfect for you, but if you buy a neglected one the purchase price will look cheap compared to the maintenance over the next few years.