I looked at both the 340 and the 421 before I decided and did not think the delta between the two was large enough to be concerned. Fuel burn is probably 6-8 gallons more an hour on the 421. All the systems are pretty much the same on both with the exception of the engines. Yes they are a bit more to overhaul but they usually make it to TBO and often without a top while running smooth and quiet on their way. Good luck with whatever decide, they are wonderful airplanes.

I concur with the above. The geared engines are feared but I think that is without merit. I was particularly fond of the 1976 to 1978 straight leg 421C. Let others pay a premium for the later trailing link gear which is heavier and more expensive to maintain.

The 421 is the best traveling airplane burning avgas.

I was all set to buy one, but made the jump to turbine instead. You really aren't too far from turbine cost per mile in a 421 (or a 340 for that matter) if you get the right turboprop. 300 knots changes your life unlike 200 knots in a piston. A 421C flying west against a strong winter headwind is painful, GS might go under 100 knots, or you fly low and get beat to hell.

Mike C.

200 knots in a piston changes your life vs 120 in a 172, vs 150 in the mooney, vs 165 in the twin comanche. You fly what you can afford.

A turbo plane will burn the same GPH at any altitude. I can fly my 58P at 8-10k feet coming west at 30GPH. It will likely be smooth, and the headwind will be less. In my 6500 hours of flying, I rarely see 100+ knots of wind in the mid teens, maybe a few times per year.

I agree with all of the above. A 421C is the queen of the piston fleet. If you can afford a bit more cap cost a 425 is more reliable and does better in headwinds, and is in the same league as far as maintenance cost and will have a much higher dispatch rate. I think a 425 is a better value if you can swing the initial purchase.

Apart from the maintenance downtime, the issue I had with the 340 is headwinds and no potty. I don't mind, I like flying, but for passengers on a 6 hour one stop trip it is not as comfortable as an airline, even accounting for TSA, assuming there's a direct available.

If you have $400,000 to spend, I'd get a 414A. The maintenance will be nearly identical to a 340 and you'll love the cabin and baggage space. If you have a little more to spend, a 421C gets you the best of both worlds.

On the other end, a Malibu has the performance of a 414A with the cabin of a 340 (but less baggage). It will be much cheaper to own. No extra engine.

Given the maintenance these planes demand, I would not look at a PA-31 just because the ecosystem isn't as broad. Twin Cessna type club is very active and several shops specialize in them, as do several boutique businesses making parts. Maybe doesn't apply for you but crossing the rockies in a non-pressurized plane is much less practical.

I had a 1981 340 RAM VI for about 470hrs over 4 years. loved every minute of it.

I flew it everywhere, all seasons, day and night, over water and mountains, and saw as much as an inch of ice on it. it would go to FL250, but it didn't love being there (CHTs)

I usually saw 200kts true, at FL200 on 40GPH. I had a UL of just under 1700lbs.

I kept every system in full working condition. it wasn't a maintenance hog, but there were a ton of little things to keep up with (oil changes, mags and mag timing (critical), hoses, prop governers, synchphasers, prop-heat, de-ice valves, boots, more stuff I'm forgetting).

it has way way better ramp presence than most other piston twins (except other twin Cessnas). they are beautiful, and stately on the ramp. the 340 isn't a big cabin, so try it before you buy one. we've had 5 adults in it; none were big people.

avg cost per hour, all-in (except capital)- $260-$520. annuals ran 8k - 22k (22 was unusual).

I'd buy another, if I was looking for a piston twin.

I owned an '81 414A for a couple of years. I agree that it took a lot of down-time to keep everything in tip-top condition. In my opinion, of the three popular models of pressurized twin Cessnas, the 340, 414 and 421, you might as well get a 421. There's not enough difference between any of them to change the overall cost of ownership. Just know, to own one, you either need to be mechanically inclined with time to spare or have a really good relationship with your maintenance shop. These are old airplanes in a constant state of restoration.

Personally, I'd buy an '84 or newer straight 58 Baron. It's the best general aviation piston twin ever made, for a lot of reasons.

Just tossing this into the mix.

OP’s bio says he’s from Alaska.

There are still a fair number of PA-31s working for air taxis in Alaska.

That means maintenance and parts support should be better than what is going to be available for a pressurized turbocharged Cessna twin.

I would put a really high emphasis on reliability if flying around Alaska. Being AOG somewhere is a major ordeal to get fixed and can be, in some cases, dangerous. A turbocharged piston twin doesn't sound like a fit to me.

Additionally, cold weather ops isn't great for piston engines.

If there is anyway to swing a turboprop, I would do it for that operating environment.

There is an F model MU2 for sale at $310K on controller, something in the $200s will buy it most likely. F models are inexpensive and will perform well in Alaska. Any PA-31 or 340 in good condition will cost similarly. The MU2 has high prop ground clearance which helps with snow and gravel runways.

Then you can enjoy 260-270 knots and a rugged airframe with turbine reliability.

I bet the operating costs per mile will be similar to the turbocharged piston twins.

Mike C.

>On the other end, a Malibu has the performance of a 414A with the cabin of a 340 (but less baggage). It will be much cheaper to own. No extra engine.

All the pressurized pistons are pretty high strung.
I would not go for a pressurized piston single.

Single Turboprop sure, pressurized piston single no...

I currently own and am flying a 1980 601P.

340, 421,414,58P, p-navajo, Duke, Aerostar are all of similar vintage and the cost to maintain will be higher than you imagine. I have my A+P (so I can fix minor nits etc..) and I've found maintaining the plane to be a continuous struggle.

If I could go back in time and redo my choices I'd skip the aerostar and get a MU-2 ,conquest or smaller King Air. My cost per mile (650 or 700hrs in) is probably higher in the aerostar including Capital than it would have been for an MU-2.

Given that, 220 knots and pressurization is a game changer.
I've flown the Aerostar all over Mexico, Alaska, Florida, DC, Oshkosh,
(only corner of the U.S I've missed in east coast north of DC)

If I were to upgrade, my next upgrade would be an older Citation....skipping the turboprop world...

However I'm 62 and choosing to slack off a bit on the business front so unless something big and unexpected falls in my lap, the aerostar is likely the pinnacle of my aircraft ownership experience.

Why not a 310R over the baron? I have no experience flying either but I know the 310 cabin is supposedly much bigger and cruise speeds are around the same. I would think being a 414 owner you would promote the c310.

I saw that MU2, it is in my price range to acquire but to maintain two mid to high time turboprop engines gives me pause.

My mechanic is familiar with Navajos and twin Cessnas at the airline level, but in talking to others up here it’s a little harder to find those with recent experience in twin Cessnas in my area, but plenty with chieftain time. I figure at a 200-250k acquisition cost and 100k reserve for the first year to work out snags I should be ok. Knock on wood.

I think a turboprop is in my future perhaps in a few years but will likely be a used 208 or Kodiak. Not flashy at all by beechtalk standards but useful to me. It wasn’t until I got time in our pc12ngx that I really appreciated the newer avionics and it really spoiled me. I spend more time pushing buttons than the yoke in that bird.

Why not a 310R over the baron? I have no experience flying either but I know the 310 cabin is supposedly much bigger and cruise speeds are around the same. I would think being a 414 owner you would promote the c310.

Owned a 340 and a 421 20+ years ago.

In the 421 you are paying for speed (a little) and comfort (a lot...less noise is a big deal, at least to me)...and...performance. Sure, the 421 goes a little faster. But...look at the SE performance of a 421 loaded up like a 340, and you'll like what you see. SE climb rates that actually give one a little hope.

Cost: The geared engines deserve respect, but they are great engines. Not sure you'll spend significantly more maintaining the GTSIO's over the TSIO's. Having longer wings and a larger cabin isn't really a maintenance issue. Much of the maintenance cost is driven by stuff, like radar and fire bottles and boots, and airplanes with more stuff cost more. So IMHO the cost delta is mostly engine reserve, fuel and insurance. And windows. The 421 can have alcohol squirters, a plastic heated windshield (cheaper) or a glass windshield (cooler).

Overall I'd expect a 421 to cost more on average, but if you made a scattergram with costs to maintain and operate both models, I'll bet discerning two cost groups would be hard. Lots of overlap.

As has been mentioned, I'd go back to a straight leg (pre 1980) 421C. If that's a little rich, look at later 421B's. The last couple years of those can be known ice.

They are both easy to fly. I used to get the 421 set up in cruise and watch it lumber along for a good bit without engaging the autopilot or touching anything.

They both are near enough in cost to lower end (Garret powered) turboprops, which is a thing to think about. That's a whole 'nother world I know nothing about.

The 414....couldn't think of a reason to bother with it.

A friend has an MU-2 F model he has flown about 1500 hours. His unscheduled engine work is close to zero, nothing major.

I flew my MU2 M model for 1600 hours, zero unscheduled engine work. I only did one oil change in that time.

Don't transfer your piston engine experience to turbines, totally different world. Turbine engines need almost no regular maintenance and just keep running. Yearly engine inspections were about 1 hour labor per engine. Nothing to do.

For example:

https://www.controller.com/listing/for- ... p-aircraft

A King Air C90 with one engine at 6050 SMOH (TBO is 3500). That gives you some idea how turbine engines can run for ages.


Now that's a plane for Alaska, except they cost major $$$$ and go slow. The insurance on a $1.7M C208 in Alaska will pay for all the extra fuel an MU2 would use and then some. The MU2 is cheap enough to not insure, also.

Mike C.

So many great recommendations about so many great airplanes.

I chose a PA-31 to refurbish. I love knowing the aircraft, love everything perfect, and lucky to be able to swing it. If you want perfect PA-31 see Mike Jones's Sun N Fun Lock and Key appraised by VREF at 1.7million.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfdfDvcyjeI&t=351s
see 5:30
If you want perfect and organize it yourself.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/WoT9Y6iecrU8jwyr6
Enjoy going through the mental exercise of what to fly and then have fun.