I really like everything about the 421 especially the C models except that they are piston twins which makes them dinosaurs. Still, it took a long time for the dinosaurs to finally die off and I suppose if you had the right kind of saddle they would have been a ton of fun to ride off into extinction.

What the big twin Cessna's have going for them is comfort and style. Sort of like the great big Caddy's of yesteryear. Now, those land yachts were no Tesla's for sure. They probably had about the same sized batteries but they were mostly used for powering up the cigarette lighter. Which, of course, was used for what God intended, and that was population control.

Another thing I really like about the 421 is that three or four wives can bring all the shoes they want and still not have to lose any weight to do it. All of us of a certain age want our wives to not have to lose weight as an economizing measure. Otherwise, they want to go see the plastic surgeon to get the fat in the bra strap replaced with something else - and that's expensive.

As far as real pilots are concerned - frankly I cannot understand why there is not a universal love affair with this plane. After all, real pilots only want to see pictures of the panel and this plane has got the most real estate outside of the Hindenburg. What's really cool is you can update the thing for a couple of decades without ever tearing anything out! Tell me that's not freakin' awesome! I mean I know Loran isn't worth anything anymore but it's another complicated looking piece of gear to impress your friends with right? We all know that's why pilots really upgrade anyway.

One other great feature of the 421 is that toilet in the back. Now, we all know a Duke just has that little bitty under the seat cushion white trash potty imitation where the 421 has a real, honest to goodness latrine. Just thinking about filling the seats in the Duke and then trying to hit the target in turbulence gives me the willies. It may be popular on some porno sites but I'd rather be able to close the curtain and have a little allowance for poor aim. Especially as I age and my eyesight and coordination begin to suffer.

The only real complaint I have about the 421 - and this here's serious - is it's too damned quiet. I read all these guys over on the Twin Cessna forum ecstatically waxing practically poetic about how quiet it is in the cabin and how you don't even need to wear headphones. Obviously most of these guys are either corporate types or divorced. Personally, I want a really loud plane. It's a chance to get a few hours of peace and quiet if you know what I mean!

Now you guys feel free to go back to arguing with Todd about cars. But leave him alone about making sense and staying on topic will you? We all know its Todd we're dealing with here and by my watch it is cocktail hour anyway!

Amen Tony...

Run your plane at 1800 RPM and it will be very quiet as well.

I sure with the 2300 rpm restriction wasn't there. My plane so quiet with the MP below 20" (read that WOP above 10K) and props back to 2100.

Seems to me if you want to compare the Duke to a Cessna product, it would be the 340. I suppose the Queen Air would be the closest comparison to the Cessna 400 series, but I have no dog in this fight (runs and hides).

Looks like I'm late in catching up... Plus one should not discuss politics or religion in polite company, and this whole thing is BOTH politics and religion.

Have no dog in this race, don't work for BP etc. My social function is to allocate capital, giveth to those who use it productively and taketh away from those who destroy it. Part of my job description is to be skeptical, and as such I happened to come across a lot of good shorts in the solar and batteries. Ironically they were all terminal shorts (i.e. they end up being zeros) but I'm a weakling and covered way too early: A123 in batteries , Evergreen Solar etc.

Tesla I didn't mess with. It was a "start-up" backed by $454 million government money (+ an ongoing $10,000 / sales unit taxpayer subsidy), and frankly an appealing concept, camped in a money-no-object demographic, not my kind of bet.

Incidentally, Big Oil is pretty good at destroying capital, too.

Energy - and energy storage - DOES regulate human development. All the way through ~1800s, 99.99% of human race lived like expensive cattle, largely because all the energy available was that of man, horse and the occasional water/wind mill.

Speaking of history on energy density, Mr. Watt's invention (1781) had only a few years head start on Mr. Volta's (1799). Oh, and there is a great piece on the bright future of electric cars in the New York Times. Of January 20, 1911. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9406E4DA1331E233A25753C2A9679C946096D6CF

There was a good point made about the grid and peak v. non-peak. One type of battery "breakthrough" that I thought wasn't just vaporware are flow-batteries, which deal exactly with this issue.

re: putting a 747 in the air, lift still comes down to the square of speed (I guess you can have 50 square miles wings, kind of like all those solar / wind farms in the desert). And that means going from zero to (mv^2)/2. Let's see here, say 33,000 lbs of Jet-A average T/O & climb for a 747, will give you 25% propulsion efficiency electric vs. turbine (generous), at a 50x density energy between Jet-A and best battery, you'd still need 1.4m lbs in batteries, about the gross weight of the heaviest thing that takes to the air, the Antonov 225. So energy density still matters.

Nothing wrong with "feel good" decisions. For oneself. Banning things you don't like and making things you like mandatory for everybody is a whole different proposition. One that Trotsky summarized as "you may not be interested in [commun-]ism, but [commun-]ism is interested in you"

Oh man, I'm not sure where to start here......

You are a capital allocator yet you talk about shorts and stocks. Your above post it wraught with mis-information. A capital allocator, re-allocates other people's money. I'm a bootstrap guy, I bet on myself, and I use my own money. Hard, stressful, but I sleep well at night (if it's not a payroll week).

Let's review if we may....

Tesla was funded by a bunch of investors, one of the largest of which is the current CEO and largest shareholder. When the coffers ran dry he bet his own farm, he laid it out there, every single dime, unlike capital allocators. His product is incredible. Even Todd, who'll crap on me for everything else, if asked honestly, will tell you that is one incredible car.

Tesla asked for a loan from the Department of Energy. Tesla has repaid every single gubermint dollar, way ahead of GM, BoA and a bunch of other companies. Way ahead of schedule. Tesla also launched the only new car company to be listed in the public markets for at least oh....50 years. And it was electric.

So, you said a lot, but made no relevant sense.

Kinda reminds me of one of my favorite movie scenes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4bftQ4xxFc

I'm not sure why these conversations are getting so out of hand so quickly...

Stocks DO serve the social purpose of efficient capital allocation. And my whole point was that with an open analyst mind, I mostly found battery, solar etc. companies as great shorts.

Also, why do you assume it's not my own money in first (and out last)? How do you know when I started worrying about making payroll and if I still do?? This ad hominem stuff is really lame.

I made it a point to state that I formed no (investing) opinion of Tesla. But now that you want to scratch this, I'd say we're in trouble if we've become an economy of startups depending on half of billion tax payer funding (and bribing each customer with $10K of OPM ). Because, guess what, as with any start up, for every Tesla that paid back its loans, TEN others haven't. And they ALL got hundreds of million each. Government is a terrible capital allocator. And yeah, of other people's money.

But then again, this IS just Babble Talk. I'd be happy to take this on some other forum, and get educated about what in my post was misinformation.

As I said originally, facts are stubborn things. The relative energy density of various fuels is a fact. The cemetery of lavishly taxpayer financed "alternative" energy bankruptcy is a fact.

Let's take it easy, no? I'll be working on some tailwheel currency tomorrow, humility is good for the soul.

Not out of hand at all. Just discussion. Even posted a humorous video.

During the previous posts we babbled about the various subsidies in all energy related areas, of which oil is a huge benefactor. Tesla did not have a level playing field and their loan was relatively small compared to other bailouts at a very interesting economic time.

I assumed when you spoke about capital allocation, you did not mean personal investing. Once again, vernacular is very important. Did not know what ad hominem meant and felt it would be impolite of me to google it and pretend I knew

I would agree wholeheartedly about your points of gubermint allocation of capital. I got no dog in the fight either, just a bunch of babble.

That being said, Tesla is a fine, fine car. Very comparable to an oil driven car with a different energy source. I'm not to smart about energy density and things, I leave that up to Tim.

So please note that I'm definitely taking it easy and I wish you all the best in the world on your tail wheel currency today. I struggle with regular landings!

As for the 421, Tony's points are incredibly valid about the need for ladies to bring 12 pairs of shoes and not be viewed with a critical eye. Flew a 414 again and compared to the Baron the cabin is simply ginormous. Have not flown a Duke yet but I need to. I'll pay for gas

Michael, Alex,

If you want a discussion on energy density and its application, start a new thread with a question.

Tim

What the hell does any of this have to do with flying a 421?

Nothing, but we wonder off topic once in a while. Want to discuss your Cirrus?

Tim

Nothing, but we wonder off topic once in a while. Want to discuss your Cirrus?

Tim

Tony, only negatives about the Cirri please, only negatives!