So your saying I can operate a 421 a 100hrs a year for $50k a year. I'm really starting to like the idea of that!

If you can keep anything from breaking But $75K might be doable.

There are definitely some cheap 421s out there, but you always get what you pay for. If they're cheap there is a reason. If you buy one that isn't well taken care of, you will be spending a fortune getting it right. On the other side of the equation you have seller's like myself that have spent the money making the plane stellar and are having to take a huge loss because the crap out there is setting the market. Unfortunately, the only way buyers will realize this is if they buy the junk and start feeding the mechanics. A perfect example, I saw a 421 with new paint and interior and reasonably low time engines out there for peanuts. If you look more closely at its history you would find that it was sitting for 5 years before the lipstick. I'd be willing to bet that if you buy that plane you will be replacing everything in a year.

Hello Charles,





Thank you for that excellent analysis. It is very well done.

If I may, I will parce it a little.

I currently own a couple of hangars, and I plan to aquire more in the future. That cost will be far less for me.

I like to do work on my Baron, so I can do some work on the other aircraft. Oil changes will be less I think.

Because I have quite a bit of family both here and in Mexico, this type of aircraft would be used to transport us. With a bit of sharing of cost of fuel as I do now with my baron, the fuel bill could be a bit less.

Now throw in a partner, say 50/50.
.
Now these aircraft become much easier to reach financially. The $100K to $200K cabin class twin is now much more affordable.

And again, as Todd and many others have said, I believe that todays +$200K Cessna 421 will be tomorrows +$100K aircraft.

My analysis is definitely based on an owner like me who has neither the time, skill or inclination to do work on the plane.

Your situation certainly helps minimize costs. That said ... there's a LOT of stuff to break an even if you are just buying parts and gas split between two people it can get $$$ quick.

But for the scenario you envision, $50K/yr might be quite doable.

So your saying I can operate a 421 a 100hrs a year for $50k a year. I'm really starting to like the idea of that!

Hello again,





Thank you for that excellent analysis. It is very well done.

If I may, I will parce it a little.

I currently own a couple of hangars, and I plan to aquire more in the future. That cost will be far less for me.

I like to do work on my Baron, so I can do some work on the other aircraft. Oil changes will be less I think.

Because I have quite a bit of family both here and in Mexico, this type of aircraft would be used to transport us. With a bit of sharing of cost of fuel as I do now with my baron, the fuel bill could be a bit less.

Now throw in a partner, say 50/50.
.
Now these aircraft become much easier to reach financially. The $100K to $200K cabin class twin is now much more affordable.

And again, as Todd and many others have said, I believe that todays +$200K Cessna 421 will be tomorrows +$100K aircraft.

Hard to know. The 421 shares a lot of parts with the 310/340/401/404/414/421

I think the graying of maintenance expertise and gradual worsening of parts prices/availability will be a slow process that moves people toward ever more affordable turbine options. Nobody would have ever bought a new 421 if they could've gotten a 20-year-old E90 in great shape. That process is going to play out in the used market over the next 20 years

If you're a 100-150 hr a year guy, what turbine does what a 421 does for less than twice the cost?

A 421C will do 80% of what a C90 can do on half the cost. The direct hourly operating cost of a 421C is 500 to 600 dollars per hour. A C90 is twice that and the MX meter runs while you sleep. On a 421 the MX meter only runs when the propellers go around.
Yes turbines are getting cheap to buy but the hourly operating costs are still high and not declining.

MU2, easy

MU2, easy

MU2 hour to 421 hour is the wrong comparison. An MU2 is 50% faster block to block than a 421. Assuming (big assumption) you don't get into mission creep, the MU2 will be less than twice as expensive as a 421 at $1800/hr.

Many of the underlying costs of a 421 and MU2 are fixed and similar. Hangar, insurance, taxes, training (if doing annual sim in the 421). Maintenance on the MU2 is typically more predictable than the 421.

Fuel is the big driver with the MU2 about 50% faster on twice the fuel burn at 2/3 the cost per gallon. Call it 180 vs 270 on a 540 mile trip. 421 burns 120 gallons in 3 hours, MU2 burns 160 in 2 hours. Fuel cost is a wash and not hard to make it less in an MU2.

MU2 HSI is 1800 hours or 2500 hours depending on the engine. At 100 hours/yr (equiv to 150 in a 421) most owners won't do a hot section (or any other engine maintenance). Engine time is a depreciation cost subject to market forces.

I've been through this. If you are comparing planes across bariers such as single/twin/turbine you have to look at variable cost per mile. Then add in fixed cost. They do not change per mile or hour of flight. Then you can get an idea of what it will cost. Throw in an unexpected $50,000-$100,000 surprise. If you are OK with the numbers then and only then should you move forward. You can't say it cost $xyc per hour to run a plane. That is not an effiencent way to look at it. If you fly less you pay less per year and more per hour. If you fly more you pay more per year and less per hour. The whole hourly cost thing is nuts.

roger, so approximations per Conklin & D

421 = 600 p/hr at say 210 knots = 700/210 = 3.33 per nautical mile
MU2 = 1800 p/hr at say 300 knots = 1300/300 = 4.33 per nautical mile

I'll leave out the unexpected surprise.

One for Charles