banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 10:50 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: 340 or a PA-31?
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2024, 15:20 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 06/24/17
Posts: 138
Post Likes: +27
Location: Alaska
Aircraft: S35
I’ve been looking for a step up that has twin engines, known ice and more cargo space, ideally wing lockers and space then my Cherokee six or bonanza.

I was looking at chieftains but it’s hard to sort through the freight dogs and find a decent one under 250k. I would love a 421 but the overhaul cost with those motors and extra expenses and size puts it in my uneducated guesstimations to be approaching turbo prop levels of expenses.

I have seen some 340s come on the market it seems like a similar class plane to a Navajo, smaller obviously but the later 340A models are FIKI from what I understand since they’re outside the scope of the twin Cessna icing AD.

I fly off of gravel runways sometimes, are the props on a 340 lower to the ground then a Navajo?


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 or a PA-31?
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2024, 17:08 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/15/17
Posts: 668
Post Likes: +335
Company: Cessna (retired)
I think FIKI was optional on 340's, but pretty much all have it.

Look at useful load. with all the typical goodies (known ice, radar, air conditioning, etc.) it is easy to turn it into a 1 or 2 person airplane with full fuel.

340 versus Navaho is not really an apples to apples comparison.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 or a PA-31?
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2024, 17:19 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/05/16
Posts: 3097
Post Likes: +2222
Company: Tack Mobile
Location: KBJC
Aircraft: C441
As Bill said this isn't really an apples to apples comparison.

The 340 with RAM engines is a 225 knot pressurized plane for the flight levels. With the gross weight increases it will haul just about whatever you put in it.

The Navajo is bigger if you don't need the altitude performance. I can't speak for the MX cost of a navajo, but I would imagine they are comparable.

A 414A is probably the best compromise. It costs about the same to own as a 340, you just lose about 15 knots in exchange for the larger cabin, which is significantly bigger. It also has an enormous nose baggage area. I would get a later model, there are significant differences, and look for one with the RAM engines as the older stock airplanes are underpowered and engine out performance goes from mediocre to terrible. If I did not have an aircraft partner I would probably be in a 421, they are very quiet which to me is worth the additional overhaul cost.

Also probably the biggest piece of misinformation on twin cessnas is that icing AD which never seems to go away. It doesn't make any of them non-FIKI it simply mandates a placard in the airframes that don't have FIKI (and never did have FIKI). The second is that the fuel system in the 340 is complex (well it is, but it's not complex to use).


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 or a PA-31?
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2024, 17:59 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 06/24/17
Posts: 138
Post Likes: +27
Location: Alaska
Aircraft: S35
Username Protected wrote:
As Bill said this isn't really an apples to apples comparison.

The 340 with RAM engines is a 225 knot pressurized plane for the flight levels. With the gross weight increases it will haul just about whatever you put in it.

The Navajo is bigger if you don't need the altitude performance. I can't speak for the MX cost of a navajo, but I would imagine they are comparable.

A 414A is probably the best compromise. It costs about the same to own as a 340, you just lose about 15 knots in exchange for the larger cabin, which is significantly bigger. It also has an enormous nose baggage area. I would get a later model, there are significant differences, and look for one with the RAM engines as the older stock airplanes are underpowered and engine out performance goes from mediocre to terrible. If I did not have an aircraft partner I would probably be in a 421, they are very quiet which to me is worth the additional overhaul cost.

Also probably the biggest piece of misinformation on twin cessnas is that icing AD which never seems to go away. It doesn't make any of them non-FIKI it simply mandates a placard in the airframes that don't have FIKI (and never did have FIKI). The second is that the fuel system in the 340 is complex (well it is, but it's not complex to use).

The icing AD is a bit confusing, the SB it references lists many years and models by serial number, I didn’t see the part where it acknowledged factory deice just that it wasn’t originally listed in the AFM. I don’t intend to be poking around in the ice but the airport I go to frequently has jet traffic in and out and light icing pireps are nonstop when it occurs.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 or a PA-31?
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2024, 18:23 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 11/30/12
Posts: 4006
Post Likes: +4410
Location: Santa Fe, NM (KSAF)
Aircraft: B200, 500B
Username Protected wrote:
I fly off of gravel runways sometimes, are the props on a 340 lower to the ground then a Navajo?

Depends on the props, but generally yes. A Navajo is better plane for gravel than a 340.

_________________
Be Nice


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 or a PA-31?
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2024, 20:10 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/07/18
Posts: 2646
Post Likes: +1764
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Aircraft: Baron 58, Lear 35
You can put 4-bladed, Q-tip props on a Chieftain (probably a Navajo or 340 too). Then you’ll have lots of ground clearance, but you’ll pay for the clearance at prop overhaul time.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 or a PA-31?
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2024, 22:22 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/06/14
Posts: 2978
Post Likes: +1967
Location: MA
Aircraft: Cessna 340A
Username Protected wrote:
I think FIKI was optional on 340's, but pretty much all have it.


FIKI is only possible on S/N 340A0200 or later, that's 1977 model year and on. Earlier may have de-ice, but can never be FIKI, for what that's worth.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 or a PA-31?
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2024, 01:37 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/15/11
Posts: 2388
Post Likes: +1055
Location: Mandan, ND
Aircraft: V35
I ran a -325 Navajo for a few years. We got to an engine overhaul situation and let the plane go for about $125k. This was with nearly run out engines, 5/10 P&I, 750, 530w, GTX345, Aera 796, and KFC200. So deals are out there, just have to bide your time.

Considered it a fair deal.

Inside cabin on a Navajo is bigger than 340, but obviously not pressurized. The TSIO-540s are superior to Continental IMHO.

If you want to haul low and slow, go with Navajo.

If you want light loads in the Flight Levels, go with 340.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 or a PA-31?
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2024, 01:46 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Inside cabin on a Navajo is bigger than 340, but obviously not pressurized.

Pressurization is a huge benefit for passengers. On that basis alone, this is no contest, the 340 wins.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 or a PA-31?
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2024, 01:49 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/23/15
Posts: 275
Post Likes: +199
Location: South Jersey KVAY
Aircraft: F33A IO550B CE-472
[quote="John M Myers"]As Bill said this isn't really an apples to apples comparison.

The 340 with RAM engines is a 225 knot pressurized plane for the flight levels. With the gross weight increases it will haul just about whatever you put in it.

How much truth is there to this?? Pics on a glass panel? I've researched the 340 and watched some owner experience videos on YouTube and I've heard everything from "it's an honest 180ktas at altitude to what your claiming; 225ktas. This is quite the range.. What would the fuel burn and altitude be at these speeds? How are expenses on the c340 compared to the c310, Navajo, or pressurized aerostar?

We should also compare max range.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 or a PA-31?
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2024, 02:27 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/05/16
Posts: 3097
Post Likes: +2222
Company: Tack Mobile
Location: KBJC
Aircraft: C441
Username Protected wrote:
As Bill said this isn't really an apples to apples comparison.

The 340 with RAM engines is a 225 knot pressurized plane for the flight levels. With the gross weight increases it will haul just about whatever you put in it.

How much truth is there to this?? Pics on a glass panel? I've researched the 340 and watched some owner experience videos on YouTube and I've heard everything from "it's an honest 180ktas at altitude to what your claiming; 225ktas. This is quite the range.. What would the fuel burn and altitude be at these speeds? How are expenses on the c340 compared to the c310, Navajo, or pressurized aerostar?

We should also compare max range.


I did it on nearly every flight for several years. We had a RAM VII aircraft, most aren’t, but the bigger issue is most people don’t fly them high enough to take advantage of the aircraft. Some also don’t make max differential and can’t have a comfortable cabin that high. We also had balanced injectors, an EIS, and I was able to fly the plane LOP.

Everything on our plane worked, which might be the only 340 I have seen I could say that about.

This is cheating a little at FL260 which I never did with passengers due to the cabin altitude, but the RAM VII with the larger turbo is happy there. With passengers 220-225 is more typical. If it’s hard to read it shows 229kts @ 35.4gph. I think I lost a knot or two when I pulled the right engine mixture back slightly to get the CHTs below 390. We had 183 gallons including the extra nacelle tank. The longest flight I took was Milwaukee to Pensacola and back, non-stop both ways.

The worst part about the plane was the maintenance. If you want everything to work, plan on putting it in the shop for a week every couple of months, and for a month once a year.

We had new boots and they worked well, as did the heated windshield. I never stayed in ice long enough to say how it flies with significant buildup.

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


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 or a PA-31?
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2024, 08:56 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/06/14
Posts: 2978
Post Likes: +1967
Location: MA
Aircraft: Cessna 340A
I only took the 340 to FL250 once for just a short while... it does like it up there and will go fast, but my typical speeds are never near 225. I haven't been running LOP in a while, mostly using the RAM VII 69% power setting which is ROP and 34 GPH. TAS vs altitude I see is as below.

Shorter flights (250-350 miles) I'll usually be in the teens unless winds make it better to be higher or lower. Low teens give around 190 kts. Longer trips (350-650+) are where I'll go to FL190 to FL230 and get in the 200 kt range.


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


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 or a PA-31?
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2024, 09:00 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/08/13
Posts: 437
Post Likes: +228
Company: Citation Jet Exchange
Location: St. Louis
Aircraft: 58P C510 C525 Excel
That is gorgeous! I went back and forth for years deciding between a 58P and a 340. I went with a 58P but still have 340 envy (I owned two 310s prior and decided to try a different brand due to the mx issues with the 310s).

I'm in the same boat with the 58P, I'm trying to make it perfect and the downtime has been high. I've never been left AOG but it is a tremendous amount of work trying to get to this level. I will say the new squawks have been minimal, just trying to correct the initial and ongoing issues.

_________________
The Citation Jet Exchange
www.CitationJetX.com
CJs, Mustangs, Excels


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 or a PA-31?
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2024, 09:32 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 03/23/08
Posts: 6908
Post Likes: +3552
Company: AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx.
Location: KDVT, 46U
Aircraft: IAR823, LrJet, 240Z
I’ve eyeballed 340s.
I see more of them with a fat compliment of Garmin equipment already installed.

There may be more 340s closer to a starting position than Navajo.

T

_________________
Tom Johnson-Az/Wy
AssuredPartners Aerospace Insurance
Tj.Johnson@AssuredPartners.com
C: 602-628-2701


Top

 Post subject: Re: 340 or a PA-31?
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2024, 12:20 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/24/14
Posts: 1754
Post Likes: +2213
I owned a '78 340 with Ram VII engines. I think they are the best engine/turbo combination available on the 340. The Ram VI had a smaller turbo and it ran at a higher manifold pressure to put out the same HP as the Ram VII.

I ran mine LOP some, but probably more often ROP. I don't remember the specific MP/RPM settings, but I usually saw 200-205 KTAS. I think it is an honest 200 knot airplane. I usually flew upper teens, lower 20s. I don't think I ever went as high as 250, mainly because of the cabin altitude.

I agree that comparing the pressurized 340 to the Navajo is an unfair comparison. If the smaller 340 cabin works for you, then it will be more comfortable to fly in than the unpressurized Navajo. You'll also have more difficulty topping weather in the Navajo as it is unlikely you'll have everyone on oxygen.

The biggest point I would make is the care and feeding of a twin engine piston aircraft. John Myers is right, plan on it spending significant time in the shop, just to keep it in good flying condition. I was picky about the setup of my engines and it seemed like we were always tweaking them to match RPMs, FF and MP. Every time it went in for an inspection, we had to spend significant amounts of time setting them all up again.

My perception is the Navajo might be a little less of a maintenance hog, but I don't have first hand experience owning one.

The Ram VII 340 is a great airplane and very comfortable. If you're ok with all the TLC it will require, it will serve you well.

_________________
Jay


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  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

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