Since I was out for most of the time the "Duke vs. 421" discussion took place I felt kinda left out and disappointed no one mentioned my good ol' 414 - so I posted a short clip of a recent flight at FL230. I figure somebody's bound to have a good argument as to why a Duke is better.

I fly an '81 model RAM VII with winglets and hubcaps and most of the time I run LOP. I've had it now for about 6 months and so far I'm really enjoying it. On short trips it's a couple of minutes slower than my old 58 and on long trips it's a few minutes faster, but overall block to block they're pretty similar. I ran the Baron LOP with a cruise fuel flow of about 25 gph getting about 188 ktas. The Chancellor I also run LOP in cruise at about 31 gph getting anywhere between 195 to 210 ktas depending on altitude, weight and temperature. Yes it's faster in cruise but the long climb gives the Baron the advantage on shorter trips.

I really like the pressurization and don't know if I could ever go back to unpressurized. It really is more comfortable. I don't think there's much to be discussed in the way of cabin comfort.

As for performance the Baron was much more of a hot rod and much more nimble. It also had a better climb rate - but I usually had to limit it to 1000' fpm for passenger comfort. In the Chancellor, 1000 fpm is about all she'll do when loaded and that's only to about 12,000 feet. But descending is a lot more fun in the 414 in that I can zip down at 1200 fpm and limit my exposure to the hot Texas thermals.

Overall, I'm pleased with my decision. At this point the 414A fits my mission and my budget well.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2WliwSknIRU

I manage and fly a 421C that we bought last fall. We looked at multiple 414A's lat year at and under $400k in the Midwest/NE before buying this 421. The problem we ran into was trying to find a descent quality 414A that was fairly represented. One beautiful one (that's still advertised) showed up at our home airport with some ugly repairs that we were not told about. We flew 600 miles to look at another (that's also still advertised) had an Earl Schibe paint job, with some pretty serious corrosion. I laughed when the owner showed up with the big name broker that had never seen the airplane, and didn't have half the logbooks, but we could fly 30 minutes to the MX shop that had them (yea, right). The next, was missing logbooks that they didn't know about. There were several more also...

In the end, we found we could spend $100k less on a similar 421C, wouldn't have to worry about the spar AD, Ram conversion to get the GW increase, and ended up with a quieter airplane. We would not have been unhappy with the 414A, but would not have been as happy as we found we are with the 421C.

The 414A's seem to demand a premium in price, which I expect to see slowly increase as the good ones become harder and harder to find. The 421C's are the same fuselage, different wing, and those "horrible GTSIO's."

Jason

Yes, I ran into the same problem when looking for this airplane. It seems you can get a well equipped 421C for less money than an apples-to-apples comparable RAM VII 414A. Wonder why that is...?

John,

Great question. I have been looking for a 414 or 421 and cannot understand why anyone buys the 414 at current price points. Seems like there are more 421s at better value.

Mark

I flew a 414 for 20 years. I really could have used the dreaded GITSOs. I was lucky to get 700-800 fpm climb.

The 421 was released in 1968. The 414 made its debut in 1970, apparently because of the GITSOs short life. But speaking as a 414 driver, you can tell that Cessna designed that airframe for more power.

I have a llot of time with geared engines. It is my belief that as long as the prop drives the airplane and not visa versa, you should get normal life out of them.

Now I fly a B55. I don't really miss the pressure or the space. It is just so much cheaper and easier to keep running.