Don't agree with that. A 58 might be 80% the cost of a 421C per mile, but that doesn't count the benefits of the 421C operationally.

Being pressurized and FIKI increases performance in actual travel. The 421C is going to be flown higher, fast, smoother, safer, more often. That saves cost that isn't expressed in the per hour number because the 58 is using more hours, and more hotel rooms, over the 421C.

The 421C is the best family hauler airplane burning avgas.

Mike C.

I doubt it, and even so, this is a transient first year issue at best.


Not having boots grounds the airplane some days, making it useless. Boots are enabling.


Fuel bladders are $0 on a 421C (they have none).


Not a big expense, commonly done.


Not generally. Applies to things like G500 versus G600, but other things, like GTN750 make no difference.

Mike C.

My mission is pretty much exclusively family hauling

Flew a Baron 55 for a year then a 421 for a year. 421 is indeed luxurious and I'm a big fan. But it's like a suburban vs. an accord. Both work fine for family travel. My operational range didn't really differ between the two. If you were routinely taking loooong trips 4-5 hours, then a 421 would be notably better ... but then you'd clearly be way over a $50K/yr budget just based on hours flown.

Not generally. Applies to things like G500 versus G600, but other things, like GTN750 make no difference.

Mike C.

421C has a wet wing, no fuel bladders

Don't agree with that. A 58 might be 80% the cost of a 421C per mile, but that doesn't count the benefits of the 421C operationally.

Being pressurized and FIKI increases performance in actual travel. The 421C is going to be flown higher, fast, smoother, safer, more often. That saves cost that isn't expressed in the per hour number because the 58 is using more hours, and more hotel rooms, over the 421C.

The 421C is the best family hauler airplane burning avgas.

Mike C.

I'd say it's more like suburban vs 15 passenger van! No way you can fit all the crap I stuff in my Baron in a accord.

Don't agree with that. A 58 might be 80% the cost of a 421C per mile, but that doesn't count the benefits of the 421C operationally.

Being pressurized and FIKI increases performance in actual travel. The 421C is going to be flown higher, fast, smoother, safer, more often. That saves cost that isn't expressed in the per hour number because the 58 is using more hours, and more hotel rooms, over the 421C.

The 421C is the best family hauler airplane burning avgas.

Mike C.

A 421 will cost more to operate than a straight Baron, but it's a lot more plane for a family.
Personally, on the east coast, I am a fan of B models. They are 100k less than a C, and at the typical altitude that you would fly them for your mission it's better performer. Yes it has bladders, big deal, they last for years and when you rarely have to replace them they are around $1500. If you buy a good plane with good boots, you could easily go 10 years without replacing them. Avionics, fuel pumps, tires, oil changes and other miscellaneous items won't be significantly different than a Baron. With any plane there is always a risk for a big item. I hear Barons need to have corroded skins replaced at a large price. Yes, a Baron burns less fuel, but if $40/hr will break you, you shouldn't be playing this game.

BTW, even though I think the 421 is the piston plane to have, a tip tank 414 73-77 Ram VI or VII will meet your needs and burn 35gph at 190ktas.

The purchase price of any Twin C is near inconsequential considering OpX. If you are ready to pay to fly one, you might as well buy the most refined----421C.

When I bought my 421C I owned and operated a Ram VII 340 and a Baron. I owned and flew all three until a friend wanted the 340. I know the cost difference between all three. I sold my friend the 340 and kept the 421 and Baron. The kids are all adults now and it is just my wife and I using the planes.
My wife will only ride in the 421C on trips more than one hour.

That's why I can't let my family ride in a 400 series. They are perfectly happy traveling when ever and were ever we want in the Baron.

Yeah it's not as big and comfy. And I'm not at 20,000 cruising above all the weather.

But in down at 8-10 most of the time in smooth air. And once again I'm spending half the bucks or the other way to look at it ( and us how we do) is traveling twice as often.

I'm pushing 300 hrs since February this year already!

A 421c indeed has a wet wing. It also has bladders. Generally 1, sometimes 2.

Mine had one...and I had to replace it :D

If the $50K is a hard limit, a 421 is totally out of the question. As is any TP. And serious overkill for the "typical mission".

Personally, if/when I upgrade the 36, pressurization, FIKI, 200+ TAS, and larger cabin class interior are must haves. The 36 is so good, capable and inexpensive to operate that not getting ALL of these is NOT a sufficient upgrade to justify the increased opex in my mind. FWIW, 90% of my flights are solo, so it makes justifying something like a 421 impossible.

Given above, viable options in my mind that would be nice "step up" upgrades, but not stupid expensive to operate are:

Twins: 58P, 340, Navajo/Chieftain/P, Aerostar, and Aero Commander 500 (of which I know nothing about)

or

Singles. One option, Malibu/Mirage.

I am partial to, and searching hard for, a 2006-ish Mirage, primarily due to the "opex vs incremental utility" equation that I can't seem to get to favor a twin.