About to be in the market for a Cessna 340. I'm looking for pros and cons and any advice anyone might have on them or things to look out for. I'll give some history so I can answer most questions first:

-I settled on a 340 because it fits the mission I have better than anything else I can find (within the price range I want of course). I currently have an Aerostar 601P with a partner. Selling my half to him. We fly almost all the way up and down the west coast and the 601P can do it most of the time if the winds are right. But on both ends of the mission we're about to end up using shorter runways. (3500 at sea level and 4500 at 1000' with warmer temps). After flying the Aerostar for a few years we decided it wasn't safe for that mission with the single engine performance (and it's a long runway airplane anyways for both T/O and landing). The 340 has MUCH better performance in that department, particularly with RAM upgrades. It also has slightly longer legs with the 203 gal fuel option, even though you're burning a little more per hour. That will help with the occasional stop we've been making for winter winds. Also, cabin space is a little tight in the Aerostar and this will help.

I'll go through other airplanes I thought of and what turned me off of them:

-58P, great airplane but my wife said no. She's a pilot and will fly this too and she wants cabin class. I won't argue with that. It's almost the only other airplane that fits the entire mission well though.

-Duke, performance data isn't great for the short runways.

-P Navajo or Mojave, parts and support concerns.

-C414, straight models lack the range as they're slower than the 340 with the same fuel. A models are just too expense for us.

-C421, purchase and engine overhaul costs are too high.

-I'll also mention turbine isn't really the best option as on one end of the trip the airport only has 100LL and I get it at cost. I'd REALLY prefer not to fly over to the neighboring airport every single time we do this trip. It's our primary mission and we've been doing it with the Aerostar and it's annoying.

For a 340 I'm looking at only A models (1976 and later) with FIKI and the 203 gal fuel option. I would prefer a RAM VI but a IV would probably be fine. VII is also probably off the table for me because it seems to add way too much to the purchase price and isn't THAT much better than the other RAM options. Electric AC is a must. I'd like nice paint. Nice interior would be decent. Avionics need to be reasonably alright but I don't need the $600k 340 with every Garmin device available. All that said, there are approx 45 340s for sale at any given time and those items narrow it down a lot. I also have a lot of Twin Cessna knowledge, I used to manage a 414A up until a couple years ago.

340 seems like the perfect fit. So... what am I missing and what should I look out for?

There is no place I'd take a 340 that I wouldn't take my previous 414 or 601P/SS700. With the 44 gallon aux tanks (209 Gallons), the Aerostar will outfly a 340 by almost 25% range. Do the simple fueling trick and you'll add another 20 gallons or so for 230 gallons.

Straight 414's have essentially the same range as a similarly equipped 340A. 203 gallons is 203 gallons in either airplane. You will not notice the ~20 mile difference on any flights.

That said, I wouldn't discount a 421, especially a 421C. Approximately 50% that are on the market today were there a year ago. The market is definitely a buyers market and an equal 421B/C will likely be less than a 340A. I hope to close on my 421C in the next two weeks. I'd take a 421C into airport that I wouldn't touch with the 340 or Aerostar. The shortest I'd done is 3500', no obstacles with six passengers and two and a half hours of fuel on board or 3000' light. Both were easily done.

Another advantage of the "wide body" 414 and 421's is the availability of the full heated windshield. You are not looking through a tunnel like the 340's add-on heated windshield.

If you are set on 340A's, I definitely would want a VI or VII. My understanding is a IV with the American Intercooler (aka Aerostar) intercoolers are very similar performance to a VI. I'd prefer the factory AC as it's a simple General Motors system with no extra motors, etc. to maintain (and vibrate). To get maximum range with the factory AC, you will need the Griggs fuel tanks, but they are "relatively" easy to install, readily available as of a few weeks ago, and relatively low cost.

You will like the Twin Cessna cabin compared to the Aerostar. It's one of the only reasons I changed airplanes. There are times I wish I had the Aerostar back, but it's too late now.

Lot of good data there, thanks Jason! Particularly in regards to AC and fuel tanks on the 340s. I should have mentioned, my Aerostar is a factory non intercooled 601P. I find it very anemic in takeoff and initial climb performance. I’m sure any of the SS series or a 700P would be much better but they seem to be a lot more money than comparable Twin Cessnas. Either way I think we’d like the bigger cabin.

Use the search function, there is a lot of 340 information for you to educate yourself.

These RAM engines are working hard for the power and are not cheap, either.

A 421C is not clearly more engine cost since the engines tend to last longer and are not as highly stressed despite making more power.

The 421C is a much better passenger experience. It is probably the best traveling airplane burning avgas.

I know you said no turbine, but given the coming end of 100LL and the speed and reliability of turbines, I'd think about it pretty hard. Oddly, the runway length you mention are just fine for many turboprops and even jets. I'd have no problems with them in my Citation, and my takeoffs distances include an engine failure by design.

Also, icing is a thing in the PNW. A turbine airplane is WAY better at managing that, the increased climb and more viable altitudes are the very best anti icing tools there are.

We have a date now for the end of 100LL, end of 2030:

https://www.faa.gov/unleaded

Whatever the replacement fuel is will be more expensive, perhaps by quite a bit. 2030 is not nearly as far away as it feels. The west coast is where the unleaded fuel issue will be first felt, too, and already has to some degree.

Mike C.

For God's sake Mike, give up on pushing a turbine airplane on people that clearly don't want them. It's getting very old!

I was also going to suggest a turbine. I was considering a Cessna 340 a little over a year ago. My mechanic/friend said don't do it. He recommended a Piper Cheyenne. Found a nice one almost 1 year ago. As many have said - "should have gone turbine a while ago."

Just a different feeling. I will admit even burning "cheaper" Jet A, my fuel costs are up there. Had a bit of catch up maintenance, but after that, not too bad on maintenance. No oil changes every 30 - 40 hours. No spark plug issues, no wastegate issues, no high CHT issues. I could go on.

I'm not going to pretend that you can own and maintain it for the same cost as a 340 or 421. The events will be more predictable and typically "on schedule," but they are not cheap.

I’m a 9 year straight 414 owner. Before I bought it I was looking at the 340A. My mission of wife, son, daughter in law, 2 granddaughters and me turned me to the much roomier cabin of the 414. The speed difference is very small, and I’m glad I went the way I did. One other thing that may affect you is the height of the 340 tail is more than the 414 and could be a clearance problem for some hangar doors.

Just stopped in to say I love flying my 340 (VII).

You mention short runways: I avoid max gross weight on shorter runways, particularly if terrain is an issue. You also mentioned 203G. Watch out for useful load; with 203G, my plane can only take 3 people (assuming they are skinny).

I'd prioritize either a VII or one with the AA intercoolers.

Just make sure you understand the fuel system.

For God's sake Mike, give up on pushing a turbine airplane on people that clearly don't want them. It's getting very old!

BTW: you mentioned FIKI, that requires 1977 or later, S/N 340A0200 or higher.

Calm down....All opinions are welcome here.[/quote]

Haha I don't mind the advice from people, I asked for it! A couple notes so far:

-While I appreciate the input, no turbine airplanes for me. One end of my trip doesn't have Jet A available, and I get 100LL at cost on that end.

-421C is definitely not off the table. I think I'd prefer a 340 just for size but also curious what thoughts are on the GTSIO-520s long term? Are they realistically nearing the end of their life in the next 10-20 years or not so much? That said, I think it's unlikely I'll get one, they are just a little bigger than I'm looking for.

Thanks!

They are good engines. The extra piston speed keeps cylinder walls well oiled so they tend not to have as much top end wear as the direct drive engines. The slower prop is more efficient and quieter, which means the power increase is more effective than the raw numbers would suggest.


I think they are as viable as any TSIO-520 in a 340 or 414.

Flight Safety in Wichita used to have a 421 sim which I flew, briefly, 20+ years ago. I'm sure they no longer have it. It would be nice to find some sim somewhere to get practice on various things, particularly engine failures. This is true for any piston twin. Engine out handling is far more critical and far more likely to occur in piston aircraft.

I would have bought a 421C (1976 to 1979 straight leg would be my choice) had not an MU2 come into my life. The MU2 was the right move, though.

Mike C.