The life limited issue is a major concern based on acquisition and resale based on 200-250 hours per year. My family does like the comfort of the 421.

I've read this thread with much interest. I bought a KA to live-out a fantasy but it was always my plan to sell it. I've had it for about six months (of availability between maint & upgrades) and have flown it about 180 hours. Coming from a P baron before it, I continue to be amazed at the dispatch rate (never cancelled a trip!). I did delay one trip for icing/braking (nil) but we still left the same day. I can't imagine that a pressurized piston twin could be nearly as reliable. Everything on a KA is built for high utilization. A piston twin breaks more often - partially because things are not built as heavy duty and partially because things on a turbine are inspected and replaced on a much more regimented (and expensive) schedule.

Anyhow, when the KA does sell I want to replace it with something. I could get a less expensive 90 but the cost/nm is about the same as the 200 or I could get a MU2, 441 or Commander or something like that but the operating costs are still quite expensive compared to a piston. A 421 is an interesting proposition (and probably the most expensive pressurized piston twin to fly). For $600/hr I get a nice pressurized cabin, decent range and 200kts. Downside is piston reliability, and a number of seconds in the "danger zone" on every flight. I can live with a slow climb, the P baron was no rocket ship either.

An MU2 is about the closest overall cost to the 421. I believe that its possible to operate for less than $1000/hr and since its faster than a 421, the cost/nm is close. Doing some very rough math (at cruise speeds) the 421 (200kts@40GPH) gets 5 MPG and the MU2 (270kts@70GPH) gets 3.8 MPG. This is not the important calculation, what matters is fuel cost per NM. I've been getting Jet A for $5 or less and watching 100LL prices at those same places and they've been running around $6.50. So with the 421, 40GPH=$260 or $1.30/nm & MU2 70GPH=$350 or $1.29/nm. Both the 421 and the MU2 are harder to fly than the KA so I'll call it a wash. The 421 will require more of my time to maintain because it will break between annuals and the MU2 won't (generalization) - since I don't enjoy chasing maintenance problems I add the value of my time to this cost and so my calculations on maint for a 421 are very high and therefore I call it a wash with maintaining a turbine (very much a justification but this is MY spreadsheet!!). Hangar is about the same, insurance I don't know but the hull value of an MU2 is maybe 150K more than a 421 (at least the ones I'm looking at). Training is probably double the cost in an MU2. So in my situation, the MU2 looks like a possible option along with the 421.

John,

I have about 200 hours in the KA200. Once you fly it you will throw rocks at anything lesser and will most likely puke if you fly a 421. I know your thoughts on the KA200 from a cost standpoint. It is a $1500+ per hour airplane.

I would probably go for the MU2 if you are thinking about downgrading as I agree that the AVGAS problem is not going away and prices will continue to go up. JETA will be the only fuel available other than MOGAS in another 20 years.

Tim, I wish I could afford pressurized twin but the $300/hr I'm spending now is about all I can stand. I've already seen it eat into my fun flying as I just don't do it as much as I did with the Bonanza. $500 to $700 per hr in a Aerostar or 421 would keep me from doing all but my long range trips. Maybe in a few years my situation will change.

But for now I'm loving everything about this 58. Plus if I got a non beech I wouldn't get to fly formation with the Beechnutz!

Todd, I keep thinking about your situation and can't help but think this. If you could swing the purchase price an Eclipse Jet is what you need to transport your wife. Besides the high purchase price, it sure seems like its not that much more to operate than a pressurized piston twin.

When I read these threads it makes me really happy with my Baron. I will say though, one thing I love about Barons and Bonanzas is the huge windows and stellar aerial view. I like flying low and experiencing the flight, and sharing that with my kids. Sometimes I'll fly the Baron at 175 kts at 3500 ft... I don't do many 1000 NM flights though.

Of of the pressurized lot, I think the 421 has the best windows. I haven't flown in a Duke, but I sat in one in the hangar and it seemed to me the windows were like looking out the slits of a tank. The Meridian also has windows that are too small as well.

John, my 421C has been very reliable and I have not had to cancel a flight for MX reasons in the last 1,500 hours or nine years. I maintain it like a turbine and do inspections every 75 hours. I replace starters, vacuum pumps etc on a schedule. I don't wait for them to break. The 421 is not a KA 200 but it will do 80 percent of KA C90b performance on half the cost. When you are west bound with 80kt head winds up high it is nice to be able to fly low without a huge fuel penalty.

I spent many years flying a 414, which climbs even worse than the 421. The reason is simple - with a climb angle-of-attack - the 400 series with its "wide oval" cabin present a really fat cross-section to the airstream. That is why the 340 with the same engines climbs so much better than the 414.

And you have to go really high to get any sort of TAS out of those 400s. But they are sure R O O M Y inside.

I now fly a B55 and am perfectly happy with the narrower interior. I usually have only one or two pax, and I can get decent cruise speeds at 10-12 thousand.

Not to mention that the Baron costs far less to maintain.

comparing piston twins to twin turbines... crazy talk.

and then trying to make the numbers the same for both..bwawwhhahh

Matt,

The only Eclipse I could afford is an early one and they are junk in my opinion. The autopilot will track the heading and that is about it. The de-ice is not certified either. Ground power box is required for any temperatures under freezing I believe and it is a special unit for the Eclipse. Insurance is expensive and training is madatory as well. Not a good plane at al IMO.

Like others, I've been reading this thread with interest but have held my tongue until now.

I really don't understand the enduring desire to compare the 421 with the Duke. They are totally different airplanes. The Duke's cabin and load hauling capability is more akin to a 340 than a 421 - If you're just flying with a couple of people and limited baggage, then fine, but otherwise both the Duke and 340 become uncomfortable quickly.

I've owned my 421 for about three years and have been very happy with it. Yes, it took a little time to get the plane up to my maintenance standards, but we're pretty much there now. I use it for business and personal travel around the country with anywhere from one person (me) on board to 6 full sized adults and gear.

With full standard fuel (206 gallons) I can carry just over 1,000lbs of payload and go a pretty good distance (call it 800nm with 1 hour reserves in no wind). I can also load the aux tank to get another 28 gallons and that brings the still air range close to 1,000nm. I generally fly up in the 20's to get above weather and get nice performance - Generally 205-215kts at around 40gph. The cabin altitude is around 7k feet and it's quite comfortable with nice environmental systems.

I fly 180-200 hours a year, and often go from Dallas to upstate NY with a full load. We do the trip in one day with a single stop for lunch/gas/potty, but sometimes will break it into two days if the schedule calls for it.

One of the best things about the 421 is the ability to carry "stuff". Skis, golf clubs, fishing rods, back packs, lots of luggage, whatever - The nose and wing lockers give you a great deal of flexibility. The ability to toss my skis or golf clubs in the nose baggage area was a huge plus for me when looking at airplanes and a feature I use all the time.

The cabin is huge, roomy, and has a potty. I've been surprised how often the potty is used on family trips (for #1, NOT #2!) and it's been a nice feature. Four full sized adults are quite comfortable back there (and I mean real comfortable, not "GA airplane" comfortable).

As has been mentioned, the cabin is also very quiet and none of my passengers ever wear headsets. Of course, that's because the engines are turning those big props slowly.

The GTSIO-520 is, while often maligned, perhaps the best engine Continental ever produced.

My guess is that if you average out the maintenance costs on a Duke, 340, 414, or 421 they are all going to be pretty close over a 5 year period. The acquisition cost for a 421 is going to be a little higher of course, but you'll recoup that when you sell.

For my mission, it wasn't really a choice - The 421 was the best fit of cost, performance, range, payload, and comfort.

Robert

The Acqusition cost of a 421C is 3x a Duke. The cabin is more comfortable for sure and the nose baggage is tremendous. 10 years from now you will lose 3x more on the 421 than the Duke because both will be worth little to nothing with $8-$10 Avgas. Look at what fuel prices have done in the last 10 years, then 5, and even now just 1 year ago.

I only compared the Duke to the 421 because I kept hearing 421 drivers tell me what a pig a Duke is in performance compared to their 421. They are really pretty similar. That was my point.

Efficient Diesels and turbines will be the norm for the new planes coming out over the next 10 years. Clown planes will have Rotax. The Legacy piston twin pressurized planes will be scrapped. Nobody is going to pay $1 million per A/C model to certify an engine for an aging fleet of pressurized twins.

Excellent posts here gentlemen. BT at its best. Keep it going.

Ten years from now the GA fleet will be a lot smaller and the majority will still be old legacy planes. The price difference between new and old will be huge. Jet A will also go up to ten dollars a gallon and a replacement for 100LL will be in use. The Dukes will go first and the 421's will last longer because they are more cost effective transportation. LSA's and home built planes will have a larger market share. A large diesel powered GA fleet won't happen in the next ten years, look what happened to the VLJ boom and bust pipe dream. There will not be enough new wealthy young pilots to create the demand required for large scale production IMHO. Others can disagree this a WAG. Jerry

Actually I think ten years from now most new aircraft will burn Jet-A. Gas consumption will be trending downward and this will likely signal the death knell for most of the GA fleet.

Tim