Does anyone know anything about these? I am sick of looking at Aerostars, they are failing their prebuys left and right. Last one had a 100k squawk list. The nice ones are in King Air price territory and probably have some deferred maintenance also.

Anyways, any thoughts?

Mike

Mike,

I've almost bought one twice. I'd buy an MU2 before I'd get one of these. Here is the reasons that I didn't

1. Cost to operate
2. Not a short field airplane.
3. One has to be a contortionist to get into the pilots seats.
4. Puny useful load.
5. Unless it has the Ram mods its not very good.
6. If it has the Ram mods you have to deal with Ram which greatly increases the cost.

BTW, I think Tim is considering selling his Aerostar.

Rick,

Neal has mine listed.

Tim

The lineage of Tim's airplane is second to none.

Tim purchased it from a friend of mine, where it was superiorly maintained.

My friend bought it from Fred Astaire's 5th wife, who was an accomplished pilot in her own right.

All of the above individuals have taken and spent the money to keep this plane in A1 shape.

I have 200 hours in this airplane, it is one great Airplane.

I like tims bird but im looking for a 300k bird, not a 500k bird. No offense tim, your aerostar is amazing but i dont think they sell at that price although i KNOW you have way more than what you are asking in her.

Mu-2s pique my interest for sure.

Mike.

The MU2 is a nice plane for a little above that price range. It is a little more to operate than my Baron was so far. I have only been running for a few months now. I am averaging about 75gal an hour on my trips as they have been less than 400 miles. True air speed has been around 270-275. Transition was not bad.

Is the picture shutter speed fast or is that engine prop really not spinning?

R

My next plane will an MU2.

1) I've only 3 years of data so far. My 100 hourly averages about $ 5000.00. I fly LOP and on Thursday was FL190 ISA+4 TAS203 burn 29.6 GPH.

2) they are not the best short field, that being said I operate out of a 2800ft strip and it's never an issue even at max weight ( which I rarely do) on a 30degree C days.

3) my BEW is 4365, max take off 6290 and I can take 163 USG.

4) I'm 6 ft 2" and it's not an issue for me. I weight 176 lb.

5/6) I don't have RAMs in mine so can't compare. It works fine for me with my mission which is 500nm, 4 POB. I've done angel flights with 6 POB no issues. Biggest issue is to load the nose to keep COG with load in rear.

Plane suits me perfect and passengers love it. It's nice having an air stair and the pressurization is a game changer for me.

Join the twin cessna flyer and go to a systems and engine course you'll meet some good contacts. Contact Jerry Temple. Better still go to the convention next week at Branson.

Andrew

I have owned a 340 for 10 years. It is a great airplane for 2 people for long trips and 4 people for short trips. I fly mine coast to coast a couple times a year and 200 - 300 mile trips every week.

It is suggested that someone who "almost bought one twice" the negatives

1. Cost to operate
Compared to what? I don't think it costs any more than a comparable pressurized twin. Yes it is expensive to maintain but what plane isn't?

2. Not a short field airplane.
Yep - true. I don't fly into short or unpaved runways with my plane for that reason.

3. One has to be a contortionist to get into the pilots seats.
Once you get the hang of it, you slide right in.

4. Puny useful load.
Carry a lot of gas or people and/or stuff - but not both at the same time.

5. Unless it has the Ram mods its not very good.
VG's are important, but Ram is not the only supplier.

6. If it has the Ram mods you have to deal with Ram which greatly increases the cost.
Huh?

If you are serious about a 340, join The Twin Cessna Flyer organization. You will get the specifics on what to look for (and look out for) when buying one. Better yet, come to Branson, MO next week and attend the Twin Cessna convention.

It is a very capable airplane plus it is fun to fly.

Jim

Agree twincessna.org

Jon Carlson (current MU2 operator) had a 340 for 10 years based SQL. 2600 feet I think. 340 isn't a plane for a 1500 foot grass strip, but it's fine for typical GA use.

$300K should get you a plenty nice one.

What's your mission?

Well put Jim. I use my 340 mostly for business, flying it 30-40 hrs x month and it has provided exceptional service and reliability. There are many options out there, but the 340 offers a good balance of speed, cost and excellent support for the money.

+1 on the Convention. You will be able to meet the many suppliers that support the engines and airframe, talk to other owners, see many fine examples of the airplane and get a good overall feel of what you'll be getting into. It may be the best money you'll spend researching your next purchase.

OK, I owned a RAM VI 340A for 7 years before I bought the MU2 (Solitaire). I was a big fan of the 340 when I owned it, and I love the MU2, but these airplanes really shouldn't be considered in the same category, one is a piston twin and one is a twin turboprop, and they are different categories.

1. 340 costs less to operate than the MU2, whether you measure per mile, per hour or whatever. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves. I would not go back to the 340 because I now find turbine ops completely worth the extra, and I remain convinced that the MU2 is tremendously good value for a turbine. But... they do not cost the same.

2. I operate out of KSQL, 2600' runway at sea level (both airplanes). Never had a problem. 340 performance is fine, going out at gross on a hot day would be sporty if the engine failed in the several second window of danger, but the window doesn't last very long. So I don't know what counts for short field, but if you don't land it way too fast (which many twin owners seem to think they should do for some reason) then it's perfectly fine. That said, when I had to replace brakes on the 340 I did the brake upgrade instead (they swap the original 3 puck brakes for 4 puck brakes from the 421) it stops a heckuva lot quicker if needed. A very worthy upgrade since the cost to buy new brakes versus upgrade brakes was quite similar.

3. I'm 6'3" and have somewhat long legs (34" inseam), I found the 340 cockpit perfectly comfortable, substantially better than a Malibu, a Bonanza/Baron, and even a 421 which has the yoke in a different angle that made it less comfortable on the long legs. There are many airplanes much worse to get into than the 340.

4. My RAM VI had max gross of 6,390 lbs and empty weight of 4,589 lbs. Useful was 1801 lbs, I had the 203 gal tanks and so could fly 11-1200 nm (roughly 6 hours endurance) with 600 lbs payload. Never thought it had a puny useful load. Couldn't load all seats and all tanks, but any aircraft you can do that was designed with insufficient fuel capacity IMHO. Was perfectly fine for my family of 4.

5. Mine had RAM VI mods. I thought it was good. RAM VII is supposed to be a great engine setup. You don't want a 340 without VGs, it's 300 lbs of gross weight increase for free. Basically none exist anymore anyway.

6. I don't think RAM raised costs much. I found pricing from RAM to be generally better than Cessna parts, so to a large degree it was at least no worse. Most of the RAM stuff is paperwork and turning up redlines on gauges, so most of the parts are the same anyway if you prefer to shop around. Only one or two minor exceptions.

Rick, no offense but most of your points about the 340 I didn't find particularly true at all in the 7 years I owned mine. Does it cost more than a Bonanza? Absolutely. Same as the MU2? No, definitely less. Was it a good pressurized/turbo'd/deiced twin? IMO yes. Like most things Cessna builds, it was a very utilitarian airplane that had a nice set of features with reasonable compromises (good baggage, good fuel tankage options, fast "enough").

Difficult as it is to believe, one CAN fly the MU2 with an engine caged and survive!