One slight correction, the 414A and the 421C are the same fuselage, but a significantly different wing. If I remember right, the 421C wing is very similar to the earlier Citations. Therefore the reason the AD/SID applies to the 414A and not the 421C.

We (customer and I) looked at several 414A's before we bought an early 421C. The price of a similar equipped 421C was ~$100k less, operating cost are about the same, no spar AD/SID, and much more comfortable due to the reduced noise level.

Jason

Thanks Tom. Sorry if I came off as a bit harsh, but I'm just tired of seeing that particular incorrect piece of data out there... RAM publishes their engine prices and you can see that there is a small delta between a 414 and 421 engine, but nothing that's going to break the bank...

Robert

One slight correction, the 414A and the 421C are the same fuselage, but a significantly different wing. If I remember right, the 421C wing is very similar to the earlier Citations. Therefore the reason the AD/SID applies to the 414A and not the 421C.

We (customer and I) looked at several 414A's before we bought an early 421C. The price of a similar equipped 421C was ~$100k less, operating cost are about the same, no spar AD/SID, and much more comfortable due to the reduced noise level.

Jason

Dan saved me some time by posting an excellent summary of the 414 vs 421 conversation. Like many others, I just don't understand the price differences between the two airframes.

One interesting thing to look at: RAM has several engine upgrade packages available to the 414, but none for the 421. When Cessna designed the 421 with the GTSIO engines, they did it right - it is an excellent airframe/engine combination that is hard to improve on.

My eyes do keep wandering to the turbine singles, but except for a PC12, I don't think there is a SETP that can do what my 421 can do. The sheer volume of space in the 421 is impressive, especially when you want to carry golf clubs or skiis.

Also, the cost of entry and the resulting insurance and money costs add a huge amount to the annual operating costs of these planes. The cost to operate a TBM, when you include capital and insurance, has to be higher than a 421.

Robert

Gerald, can you provide a realistic average cost of annual + mx over those 1500 hrs, excluding any prop/engine overhauls you may have done during that time?

You can always tell who actually owned a 421, and who heard about them in the hangar.

The price difference goes to show how powerful OWTs can be.

Both models can be nice, but I would never choose a 414 over a comparable 421. GTSIOs are quiet, smooth, cool, and very reliable engines with jugs that make it past TBO.

well, I think Cessna improved upon it greatly by strapping PT6's on the airframe. The Conquest 425 is hard to beat.

well, I think Cessna improved upon it greatly by strapping PT6's on the airframe. The Conquest 425 is hard to beat.

Gerald, can you provide a realistic average cost of annual + mx over those 1500 hrs, excluding any prop/engine overhauls you may have done during that time?

Steve,

I spent a few days (working with my local shop) this year setting up a test rig to confirm that my new oil pressure transducer was not accurate. Then many more days to convince the manufacturer that its transducers were defective.

I spent a few days on a NLG actuator R&R. We changed the wiring to the actuator so that all the splices and service loop are under the nose baggage area rather than in the wheel well.

I spent 6 days last year on the fuel tank float valve AD. The test box that we rented was defective, so we then had to perform the invasive test. The valves passed the test when wetted (which is approved in the AD), but the rubber seals were as hard as ceramic. I made the decision to replace all of the float valves.

I spend a week or two each year working on the annual inspection.

It took two years of troubleshooting to find the cause of high compressor discharge temp on one engine.

Every oil change involves lots of chafe patrol.

Boots need to be wiped of bugs and treated on a regular basis. Exhaust stains aft of the exhaust stack and oil streaks need to be cleaned on a regular basis: both to avoid corrosion and to keep the plane clean so that it is apparent when something goes wrong.

Are most 414s/421s airworthy without this level of owner involvement? Probably, but I know that my airplane would not be what it is without my micro-management. And my systems knowledge would not be what it is were it not for my involvement.

Pressurized piston twins are about the most complicated/delicate thing flying. Yes, a King Air and a Mustang are more complicated, but the complicated turbine equipment is built to a higher standard since there is more performance margin that allows for components to be heavier, the people working on them are generally operating at a higher standard, and the maintenance manual is mandatory (for twins anyway). Pressurized piston twins are thousands of compromises in formation. I see it as a whole different world than a normally-aspirated piston twin.

It doesn't take many failures among those thousands of compromises to severely impair the safety of the aircraft. On one engine, my 375 hp needs to keep 7,579 lbs of airplane flying. That's over 20 pounds per HP. Look at all the threads on flying a Bonanza at 4,000 gross. If the Bonanza has 300 HP, it would need to weigh 6,000 pounds to be in the neighborhood of the performance of a heavy pressurized piston twin on one engine - and the Bonanza has the advantage of centerline thrust. Imagine flying a 3,000# Bonanza and at rotation engine power is suddenly reduced to 50%. A 3,000# Bonanza at 50% is in the ballpark for a pressurized piston twin on one engine.

The 4,000# Bonanza threads mention that the plane is OK once it gets to 120 KIAS. On my 421C, rotation speed is 95 knots; the accelerate go/stop tables are based upon an engine failure at 100 kts. Envision an engine failure at 105 kts: the pilot may need to bring up the gear, feather, fly the obstacle speed of 105 kts, and then accelerate to blue line of 111 kts. After the airplane is cleaned up, it is akin to flying (I know there are differences in wing loading) a Bonanza at 6,000# with asymmetric thrust.

The single-engine performance is why I spend so much time on maintenance. It is why I ensure that my engines make redline MP and RPM even when hot. There is no chance of having book single-engine performance if the engine is not making rated power. Almost everyone knows that MP is high with cold oil. RPM is likewise high when cold. I do not know whether the speeder spring has higher tension when cold or what the cause is, but McCauley Propellor has confirmed the existence of the effect of temperature. Turning on prop synch increases the max rpm. If a prop governor is set to make redline on a hot day, it will overspeed (probably beyond Continental's 2% allowance) on a cold day with prop synch on. Believe me, when I dived into 421 ownership, I never envisioned or desired that I would be pulled into this morass of details. But I don't like to give away safety margin, especially given how little performance margin there is on one engine.

Fortunately, for as old these planes are with systems that are not over-built, mechanical failures are less important than pilot error. Pressurized piston twins pilots undoubtedly have a higher fatal accident rate due to mechanical failure, but the bulk of the accidents are the same cause as accidents in turbines: pilot error. I try not to let the engine failure bogey distract from the real risk: the person I see in the mirror.

I agree with Robert that a Meridian or a TBM does not have the cabin and baggage space of a 414A/421C. There is a price increase to move to the turbine world (though some MU-2 owners say that the delta can be miniscule), but the spread is decreasing as piston operating costs go up. The hidden cost for piston twins is the owners' time. The management burden is big.

This is the advice I give when someone asks me about buying a 421. The response applies to all pressurized piston twins: If you have enough money to own and operate a 421, you probably don't have enough time to manage it. And if you have enough time to manage a 421, you probably don't have enough money. I don't mean to be flip or to insult anyone, but it rings true.

I don't want to bump my aviation budget by 50% or more to go to the turbine world, and the time devoted to my 421 brings me some pleasure as a hands-on guy, so the 421 is a good fit for me. But the impractical realities of these planes should not be ignored. For someone looking for practical transportation rather than being an airport bum who is immersed in the flying experience, I would send him to a normally aspirated twin or to a turbine.

Well THAT'S a sobering post...

There is nothing better than two well maintained engines on a 421. Every owner/pilot should have a factory sevice and parts manual that they have read cover to cover.

I guess I'll need to provide the counter point...

I actually spend less personal time working on my 421 than I did with my 210. Dan's point about "if you have the money, you don't have the time" is pretty much dead on - I don't have the time nor inclination to do work on my own 421.

My 210 was maintained by a great guy who really knew 210s. He was a one man shop, inexpensive, and I trusted him. Downside is that he was at a different airport than I was and I had to fly the airplane over there and waste a day whenever I needed work done.

With my 421 I use a great shop based on my home field. If I return from a trip and something is broken I just call them and say "fix it" - They will come down to my hangar, take the plane to their shop, fix it, wash it, and return it back home. We have great communication and they know my threshold for having to call me to make a $ decision on a part.

I run my 421 150-200 hours a year and use it for a lot of my business travel.

Could I run and maintain my 421 cheaper by being more involved? No doubt. However, I'd rather use my time in other ways [note: I am very involved in the maintenance, just not actually doing the work or spending time in the shop].

I have had my fair share of issues with my 421... I think it's mostly just bad luck, but I suppose time will tell.

Every time get Jet A fever and run the numbers it comes out the same: A comparable Turbine (King Air, MU2, whatever) is going to cost a lot more to purchase/insure/operate. I hope to burn JetA someday, but right now I can't justify the increase is cost over my very comfortable and capable 421.

Robert

For what it's worth, the 421 SE numbers improve wildly by being just slightly under gross which is generally very doable.

WERD

That last few hundred pounds makes a dramatic difference. The good news is you are starting with 2,400-2,500lb UL so you usually have 500lbs to give.