Looking for some advice from all you experts. We are contemplating a 421 for our company. First the mission; 200 mile trip, twice a week, probably 2-4 passengers plus pilot. One of our Owners is not very comfortable with flying, but is getting there. We like the idea of pressurized, plus a little room in the cabin. I think we have decided to stay piston.

All that said, looking for suggestions on people/process to get started on locating and buying.

What model 421? I operate a 421C, the big thing with a 421 is you can’t just chop and drop on the power and altitude. You must plan your decents or you risk burning up the engines.

If you’ve decided on the 421, or any twin Cessna, get TAS Aviation at Defiance involved from the start...419-658-4444 ask for Marla. It costs a few $, but well worth it.
They have a great acquisition and inspection process and often have ‘off market’ planes available.

You can also try Premier Aviation (Peter Danto). http://premiere-aviation.net

Peter owns a 421B and is super, super knowledgable on the type. At a minimum buy his speed covers which are a great bang for the buck.

1) Look at a Navajo or Chieftain - lot of options to look at and almost equally useful for a 200nm trip.

2) what's your purchase budget.

3) Operating expense is in the $750k/1000hr range, and it comes in lumps

4) Most corp operators go for the trailing link gear C models which is '80-'82. Improved systems and cushier landing gear for the boss.

SETP!!!!

Two 200nm trips a week, that’s about 5 hours per week or 200 to 250 hours per year.

Your all in hourly cost for a plane in good condition should be about 650 dollars per year which will vary with location, fuel prices etc.

I fly my 421C on a 280nm trip twice a week or about 300 hours per year. For 200nm you don’t need to go very high (low to mid teens) and the cabin could be at sea level.

If you can, buy a C model in good condition and make sure you have a really well qualified person or shop do the pre buy. There is a lot of junk out there with good looking paint, radios and interior. DO NOT GET BLINDED BY THE CHROME!!
Jerry

You really aren't using the 421's main feature, cruising at high altitude in a pressurized cabin, on this trip.

That being said, I recommend the 1976-1979 straight leg 421C. Lots cheaper to buy than the 1980 and later trailing link gear, but lighter, better, and not worth the money difference for somewhat software landings.


Your mission has "turboprop" written all over it, however. If you want dispatch reliability, that is, the plane goes every day you want it to, it isn't broke down, then you want turbine. The turboprop will get you to nicer weather far more often than the 421, too. The operating costs won't be much different.

Given Ohio location, ability to operate in icing will be important. No piston airplane can do that as well as a turboprop.

Mike C.

Turbo prop without a doubt. Year round flying and # pax’s with pilot offer both options of SETP or twin TP. No offense meant to any piston twin drivers, but if you need to be there on a “schedule” it’s a turbine. From both weather and dispatch perspectives. Particularly if you don’t have an expert on your field that is also expert in your plane.

In the last 13 years and 1700 hours I have flown my 421C, I have never had a AOG or cancelled trip up and down the west coast , Alaska, Canada and coast to coast.

Now I may have jinxed myself by mentioning it.

FWIW, my annual spend including absolutely everything (hangar, insurance, training, charts, MX, subscriptions, prop tax, fuel) except engine and prop reserves for 125 hours in a 425 last year was $85,000 or $680 per hour. Add maybe $150-$200/hr for reserves. Admittedly that was a good year maintenance wise and others will be higher but still if the cost is in the same neighborhood might as well go turbine. On the other hand it would be hard to justify a turbine for a 200 mile trip. It won't be appreciably faster but it would have some advantage in dealing with icing and overall reliability. And the 421 (even a C model) will be cheaper to acquire. A 421B will be a lot cheaper.

Scott my 650 an hour includes engine reserves. Your 680 an hour plus 150 to 200 would be 830 to 880 an hour. On the same 290nm regular trip my my neighbors TBM850 is only 15 minutes faster. On a 200nm trip the difference would be less than 10 minutes.

Yeah that's what I'm saying. For 200nm the additional cost of a turbine is not going to buy you much. But personally if the cost were close enough (and in my opinion within 25% qualifies) I'd rather buy the more capable airplane in case longer trips ever came up.

I agree with this.

Part of that is to look at the specific two airports you will be using. In some cases, due to contract fuel, you can buy Jet-A for half that of 100LL. In other cases, some FBOs gouge turbines with high fees (oddly, airports in SW Michigan are terrible about this) and not so much piston twins. If I knew the two end points, I can tell you how it would go.

Once you get a more capable airplane, I bet there are other trips besides the 200 nm milk run that it will be used for. Every use you get makes the costs lower per mile.

Last year, 170 hours, $87K, $512/hour, for my MU2. This included two inspections and both prop overhauls. Long term average is ~$700-750/hour (over 10 years), no engine reserves (~$50/hour each engine, very similar to GTSIO-520). When factored per mile, very competitive with a 421.

Not at all saying MU2 is the right plane here, just an example of turboprop economics.

Mike C.

I fly a Navajo on 100 mile legs 3x per week and a C90 and 200 on 150-200 mile legs.

On the shorter legs the piston is not that much slower, and substantially less fuel used. However, the extra power and ability to climb higher, quicker and descend faster are worth a lot.

It does come down to economics. If you ever go on longer trips, the turbine will be appreciated.

That said, the 421 will serve your mission just fine. Just might (emphasize might) take more ticky-tack maintenance in between trips. It will certainly use less fuel than a C90.