30 Nov 2025, 03:11 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 06 Nov 2015, 10:12 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 10/27/10 Posts: 10790 Post Likes: +6894 Location: Cambridge, MA (KLWM)
Aircraft: 1997 A36TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Looks to be just a little more than a casual observance from Mr. Sokoloff...  Hah. I can't even tell you how many spreadsheets I have for 421C vs Mu-2 vs C90 vs 501. None fit the "expense reduction specialist" moniker, though...  The left side of the main spreadsheet started with 182, I skipped over the P210 and Aztek columns, and I'm slowly marching to the right. I guess it's time to increase the flow into the top of the bucket... 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 06 Nov 2015, 10:18 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20781 Post Likes: +26295 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
|
Maintaining a GTSIO-520 and a TPE331 are not a lot different in price.
Don't forget the exhaust system on the twin Cessnas. By AD, it has to be inspected when the engine is overhauled, and that can be $10-20K a side depending on what is wrong. Very important, there were lots of accidents related to poor exhaust on turbocharged twin Cessnas.
Roughly speaking:
GTSIO-520 overhaul: $70K/1600 hours Exhaust: $10K/1600 hours Oil changes: $250/50 hours Magneto work: $1500/500 hours Top overhaul: $15K/1600 hours (one per TBO) Fuel: 22 GPH block/hr, $5.50/gal
Total works out to $68/hour without fuel, $188/hour with fuel.
TPE331-10 overhaul: $225K/5000 hours Exhaust: none Oil changes: $400/900 hours Fuel nozzles: $800/400 hours HSI: $40K/5000 hours (one per TBO) Fuel: 37 GPH block, $3.50/gal
Total works out to $55/hour without fuel, $185/hour with fuel.
Within the accuracy of this exercise, it is a tie. You can play with fuel prices, maintenance prices, etc, and make each engine come out a little ahead of the other, but at the end of the day, they just aren't that much different in $/hr.
Once you normalize for speed, the TPE331 engine costs less per mile than a GTSIO-520.
This doesn't put any value on the reliability difference, which is huge. Plus no misfueling accident, no threat of 100LL going away, 300 knots changes your life, etc...
This is the math that convinced me to look at MU2 numbers. The MU2 is the answer to the question "what is the most performance I can get for 421 money?".
Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 06 Nov 2015, 10:18 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/19/11 Posts: 3308 Post Likes: +1434 Company: Bottom Line Experts Location: KTOL - Toledo, OH
Aircraft: 2004 SR22 G2
|
|
Me too Jim. Every time I open up the spreadsheets, I somehow expect the numbers to have gotten lower but they haven't. Then I go to the company bank account and expect the numbers to be much higher but they're not. You're exactly right - gotta put some more cabbage in the funnel. No problem...
_________________ Don Coburn Corporate Expense Reduction Specialist 2004 SR22 G2
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 06 Nov 2015, 10:38 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/20/09 Posts: 2666 Post Likes: +2242 Company: Jcrane, Inc. Location: KVES Greenville, OH
Aircraft: C441, RV7A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Are the geared Continentals still factory supported? Yes. You can buy a factory new one as well. They also stock many of them according to the inventory list on their website.
_________________ Jack N441M N107XX
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 06 Nov 2015, 14:08 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/27/08 Posts: 6058 Post Likes: +1031 Location: St Louis, MO
Aircraft: Out of airplane biz
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Does anyone know where I can get a pdf version of the POH for a 421B? Steve, Are you thinking about coming to the dark side of twin Cessnas? I love mine!!! Yes Tony, a cabin class twin is on the medium term goal list. Pressurization, AC, and potty . . . all the better.
_________________ User 963
There's no difference between those that refuse to learn and those that can't learn!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 06 Nov 2015, 14:39 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/29/10 Posts: 2824 Post Likes: +2745 Location: Dallas, TX (KADS & KJWY)
Aircraft: T28B,7GCBC,E90
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Sorry, had too many glasses of wine when I wrote that and was too confrontational. Didn't mean to imply that 421 owners are suckers by any means. Wrong wording. I should have said that it just makes it less financially advantageous, that's all.  Apology accepted! As others have pointed out, Continental does a great job of supporting these engines - Noting at all like the orphaned Lycoming. You can purchase brand new GTSIO-520's from Continental and they will build them up in Mobile for you! Continental also offers factory remans and of course RAM will sell you an overhauled engine. There are a number of shops who will overhaul them for less $ as well. The GTSIO is slightly more expensive to overhaul than the 520's that are on 340 & 414s - RAM shows $60k for a GTSIO-520 and $50k for a TSIO-520, so there's a $20k difference between a 414/340 and the 421 over the life of two engines just for overhaul costs. There are those who would argue that the difference is less because the GTSIO runs cooler and doesn't go through cylinders as fast, but that's likely offset by the starter adapter inspections. Over 1600 hours, the $20k difference in engine overhaul costs is $12.5/hour. Worth it for me. Robert
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 06 Nov 2015, 14:44 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20781 Post Likes: +26295 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: There are those who would argue that the difference is less because the GTSIO runs cooler and doesn't go through cylinders as fast My research suggest this is true. I'd rather have the GTSIO-520 than the TSIO-520. The TSIO-520 in the 340/414 feels like it is working quite a bit harder despite being lower power. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 06 Nov 2015, 16:18 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 01/09/13 Posts: 1249 Post Likes: +246 Location: Frederick , MD (KHGR)
Aircraft: C421 B36TC 58P
|
|
|
The cost of the 421C engines is precisely why I 1st looked for low time engines when I purchased mine.. Just look at controller and see the cost some of the owners are asking for the 421 with 200-400 hrs left till 1600.. Pretty crazy...... $140k in the engines....
I believe the new engines have a heavy case that has been designed to mitigate the case problems...
_________________ Good Luck,
Tim -------------------
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 06 Nov 2015, 16:52 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 11/18/10 Posts: 458 Post Likes: +114 Location: Chicago
Aircraft: C441, C310N
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I went and looked at my first 340 today, and for all the people who said my family would probably out grow it in a few years, I have to agree. After looking at it, it is bigger then the Baron, but the nose baggage was smaller then what I was hoping for and since most people fly with the 5th seat removed, and I will need that seat in there alot, we have decided to scratch the 340 from our looking pull and just look at 414's and 421. All the advice has been great so far, I really appreciate the time everyone who has responded has put into their posts. My 78 P210 has a useful load of 1370 pounds. It has tip tanks - so nearly 7 hours with no reserves. I work on 5 hours with reserves, which takes us 900 nm in nil wind. This gives us 620 pounds for passengers and baggage. Our family of 5 (3 boys, 8, 6, 3 yrs old) only weighs 480 pounds at this stage - so we can still take 140 pounds of bags. The 210 has been a wonderful travelling machine for our family - very frequently we all pile into it. However I am very mindful of how quickly we are outgrowing the 210 - 3 boys grow before your eyes. Plus our 210 doesn't have any ice protection. I always thought a 340 or baron would be our next plane - but like Cliff I am starting to think a 414 or 421 is what we need. To compare to my 210 - how many pounds of people/baggage can a 421 carry going 900nm with 2 hours reserve?
900nm with 2 hours reserve is pretty much going to be max endurance even for the 262g 421cs. Depending on the plane 500#-850# full fuel payload, with fixed gear on the higher end and trailing on the lower.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 340 vs 414 vs the 421 Posted: 06 Nov 2015, 17:25 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/29/10 Posts: 2824 Post Likes: +2745 Location: Dallas, TX (KADS & KJWY)
Aircraft: T28B,7GCBC,E90
|
|
Username Protected wrote: $140k in the engines....
Not that much different than a 340/414/P Barron though. In fact, RAM lists the PBarron engine at $54k vs $59k for the 421 engine. For some reason many people think the GTSIO 520 is crazy expensive to overhaul. It's just not true... It's between $5 & $10k more expensive to overhaul a GTSIO-520 than a non-G TSIO520. Robert
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|