banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 10:26 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: 421 Purchase
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 08:25 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23615
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
It will certainly use less fuel than a C90.

But perhaps not less fuel money. The price advantage for Jet-A can be substantial.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: 421 Purchase
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 09:03 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 02/17/10
Posts: 600
Post Likes: +822
Company: JCrane, Inc.
Location: KVES
Aircraft: C441, RV7A
Username Protected wrote:
Quote:
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.

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.


Wow, is any of that free capital available to the rest of us? ;) I make this comment because it seems to be the usual presentation of the benefits of TP (no denying there are many), and ommiting the significant additional cost of the investment. Which matters to some, probably doesn’t matter to some, but is a real cost nonetheless.
Good discussion, as usual, carry on!

Gary S


Top

 Post subject: Re: 421 Purchase
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 09:07 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/21/14
Posts: 280
Post Likes: +86
Location: KPDK
Aircraft: C421B MU2-40 Solitai
Since you are staying with a piston plane a 421 is a great plane. Its fast, comfortable and quiet. Flying in the Ohio area during the winter will lead you to the FIKI models which are 1975 or later. I owned a B model for years and loved it. I would go out and buy the best 1975 or later plane that you can find. Find one that shows pride in ownership. Like all twin Cessna, their weakness is their cylinders. I would not spend extra for Ram products. Finally, don't take training lightly. Slow SE flying of a 421 can be a handful until the props are feathered, those props are big!

_________________
Sandy


Top

 Post subject: Re: 421 Purchase
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 09:49 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/29/10
Posts: 2528
Post Likes: +2187
Location: Dallas, TX (KADS & KJWY)
Aircraft: T28B,7GCBC,E90
Don't let people scare you away from a 421 - they are wonderful airplanes. I've had mine about 6 years and put over 1,000 hours on her.

Let me know if you have any specific questions.

Robert


Top

 Post subject: Re: 421 Purchase
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 12:02 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/31/13
Posts: 1227
Post Likes: +600
Company: Docking Drawer
Location: KCCR
Aircraft: C425
Quote:
Wow, is any of that free capital available to the rest of us? ;) I make this comment because it seems to be the usual presentation of the benefits of TP (no denying there are many), and ommiting the significant additional cost of the investment. Which matters to some, probably doesn’t matter to some, but is a real cost nonetheless.
Good discussion, as usual, carry on!

Totally agree, acquisition cost is a huge factor. That's the reason why I bought a $650K C425 rather than a $3MM PC-12 (not that I had the $3MM laying around anyway so it was an easy decision). I could probably operate the PC-12 for around the same cost and it's a nicer, larger, newer, more capable airplane than a 425. But spending an additional $2.35M (even if I had it) would be a really big deal and not worth it given my mission.

_________________
ATP, CFI-I, MEI
http://www.dockingdrawer.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: 421 Purchase
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 12:26 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/15/11
Posts: 2388
Post Likes: +1055
Location: Mandan, ND
Aircraft: V35
Username Protected wrote:
It will certainly use less fuel than a C90.

But perhaps not less fuel money. The price advantage for Jet-A can be substantial.

Mike C.


Well....I did a comparison using our local, contract price (because both planes would make the trip out and back without refueling) for Jet and 100LL. Compared the C90 to the Navajo and it was substaintial. Like $300 more to fly the C90, for a 200 mile (2x 100 mile legs) trip. I didnt calculate the 200, as it would have been even higher.

Top

 Post subject: Re: 421 Purchase
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 12:39 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23615
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
That's the reason why I bought a $650K C425 rather than a $3MM PC-12

There are tons of turboprops under $650K.

And 421s.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: 421 Purchase
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 12:41 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12798
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Username Protected wrote:
Well....I did a comparison using our local, contract price (because both planes would make the trip out and back without refueling) for Jet and 100LL. Compared the C90 to the Navajo and it was substaintial. Like $300 more to fly the C90, for a 200 mile (2x 100 mile legs) trip.


That's idiosyncratic to your airport. Makes sense for you, but could be different elsewhere.

Might be cheaper (for you or others) to fuel at the possibly more competitive contract price at an outsation.

There are places where fuel burn/nm costs less in a C90 than a 421


Top

 Post subject: Re: 421 Purchase
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 12:56 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23615
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Well....I did a comparison using our local, contract price (because both planes would make the trip out and back without refueling) for Jet and 100LL. Compared the C90 to the Navajo and it was substaintial. Like $300 more to fly the C90, for a 200 mile (2x 100 mile legs) trip.

Assuming this is KBIS based on your Mandan location, 100LL is $5.70 and Jet-A can be had for $3.39 (using the contract fuel options I have).

100 nm in a 421 is about 38 gallons, 76 gallons both ways, $433.

100 nm in a C90 is about 70 gallons, 140 gallons both ways, $475.

I don't see the $300 difference. Navajo isn't going to be that much less than the 421.

Are we really talking about only a 100 mile leg? So a car would do it in 2 hours? That's going to be very close, door to door, with flying a 421 or a C90. Maybe you save 30 minutes. Some days, the plane will be slower, and some days it will be in the shop.

Maybe you need a comfy work van:

https://midwestautomotivedesigns.com/sp ... rinter-van

For all but the driver, you'll have Internet, cell phone, comfy seats, door to door service.

I would find it hard to justify these planes for a 100 mile destination carrying staff.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: 421 Purchase
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 17:53 
Offline

 Profile




Joined: 02/24/11
Posts: 3
Location: Jackson, OH
Aircraft: Piper Arrow III
Thanks for all the great responses. I have reached out to those suggested companies to get the process started. I will try to keep information updated as we traverse the process, and will reach out to some of you current 421 operators as questions arise.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 421 Purchase
PostPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 07:46 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 03/11/15
Posts: 152
Post Likes: +114
Company: Trailhead Partners
Location: Austin, TX
Username Protected wrote:
Maybe you need a comfy work van:

https://midwestautomotivedesigns.com/sp ... rinter-van

For all but the driver, you'll have Internet, cell phone, comfy seats, door to door service.


Really not a bad idea for a trip this short. I mean these guys seem to be enjoying the...comforts.


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


Top

 Post subject: Re: 421 Purchase
PostPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 08:39 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/04/10
Posts: 3539
Post Likes: +3198
Aircraft: C55, PC-12
You could buy a big Bus-size RV and hire a driver. Sit in the back, watch TV, use the internet, have a meeting, take a nap or use the bathroom - that'd be a rockstar way to travel and cheaper than a 421!

_________________
John Lockhart
Phoenix, AZ
Ridgway, CO


Top

 Post subject: Re: 421 Purchase
PostPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 09:29 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/08/14
Posts: 102
Post Likes: +118
Company: Innovation Two
Aircraft: Piper PA 60
Don't overlook a nice pressurized 340 - meets many of your requirements and a 200 mile trip is pretty short in either. Costs are lower - but maybe harder to find a good one.

Bob


Top

 Post subject: Re: 421 Purchase
PostPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 21:39 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/13/13
Posts: 1397
Post Likes: +4959
Location: Conroe, TX
I owned a 421 and IMHO it is by a wide margin best-in-class. Easy to fly, no real "gotchas", and realy comfortable. The engine reserve is a little more but I would not consider anything else between a 310 and a turbine.

But I would not buy another one. I'd go to a Turbo Commander, MU2 or Merlin instead. With Garrett economics and performance the cost difference becomes smaller than one might think, and the intangibles carry the day. SE rate of climb is a safety margin. Power and altitude capability are meaningful, especially with ice and everyone is OK with speed. Lots of people tell me that they will spend less time in the shop than 421. Never owned one, but I doubt it'd be more.

Here's another angle. An older -5 Commander or -3 MU2/-3 Merlin aren't much in the turbine world, but pound for pound, knot for knot, or dollar for dollar they make a balls-out 421.

A bit of wisdom on BT I had not really tuned into is the value of havng a top rate shop nearby for any turbine (or a 421, which has nearly the same systems and more troublesome engines). There are things I don't fancy about MU2's, but if a great shop was next door, I'd get over it. Pretty sure it was Mike C that made me think about that.

King Airs are ubiquitous, a real advantage, and they are comfortable. They are slow per horsepower/fuel burn, and I can't get past that. They one REAL advantage to a KA is that for most of them used engines are easy to find . Not so for many of the Garrets.

_________________
Strive for a ruthless understanding of reality.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2




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

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