Nothing wrong with it except the giant tailpipe looks odd on a single.

A "straight out the back" Garrett tailpipe looks better on a twin. If it weren't for the inertia and installed base of the PT6, the Garretts would have been a great choice for the Sky Courier.

I flew a 441 for a while. It's OK.

If you are coming from a Twin Cessna, you will feel right at home. But, I did not and always felt it was a bit "odd" and some things felt "cheap".

Like the right front windshield, plastic instead of glass. Low cabin ceiling made it more of a "crawl" to the front. Not like a Meridian, but less than it's peers. The cabin tapers towards the back a bit, IIRC. The cabin door feels a bit flimsy and the weird 2 parts to it. Fuel computer failure leads to trickier landings (not as easy as when fuel computer working). Hydraulic flaps can sag when parked and looks dopey (In my personal opinion).

The good; the switches and circuit breakers are mostly all on your left arm. Passenger seats have rollers on them and slide around like on glass. Like mentioned, no center pedestal. Sit down and swing your legs in. Gear and flaps speed the same (200kias). SRL kinda nice. Starting nearly for the brain dead. Speed is nice. Performance is great, as is fuel consumption for speed. Slightly higher cabin diff than some of its peers.

They most are all 40ish years old planes. But, just maintenance expense is more in line with a $10mm plane than a $1mm plane. Having a Conquest expert shop is critical (again, IMHO) as lack of local knowledge can be costly/time consuming.

I think if owner flown, with owner heavily "involved" in MX; 441 is the business.

If owner rides in back, there are better passenger experiences, and better uptime experiences with other (slower) types.

YMMV. My $0.02.

EDIT--Just saw who OP was. Jack, a 441 will feel like old home week. Just with way better "stuff". If you can stay on top of 421 MX, then this is probably in your wheelhouse.

I fly and manage 3 three 441's and a 425. The 441 is an amazing aircraft. As for noise in the cabin, that is a function of sound deadening and which props are installed. The original Hartzell's are definitely noisier that the alternatives.
The ACM is hit or miss. We have one that will freeze a bottle of water laying on the flood duct. Another that will barely keep you from a heat stroke while setting on a hot ramp.
I have stumbled on a shop in Orlando ( Red Aviation) that are 441 whisperer's. They can rig engines and props like very few others, and routinely claim 330 knots out of their own fleet aircraft.
The only real downside is price. Since the secret is getting out, a nice example will be close to $2million, and anything under $1.5million will probably cost you $250k to get up to par.
They can be very sensitive to W&B issues, but 150lbs in the nose will usually take care of that problem.
The RVSM, as said above, is just not worth the investment IMO. 28,000' is the sweet spot, and at 300ktas, you can go around any convective weather with little penalty.

Not the answer you're looking for ... but I think that's not a very useful question. A private owner isn't going to fly enough to make that number reliable from month to month.

Turbines have some big, predictable lumpy costs (hangar, insurance, training)

Had someone tell me once that if you can fill up a plane without flinching too much, the rest will follow. Looks like both those planes could routinely take 300 gallons before a flight. Call that $1500-$2000. If $5K/month of gas doesn't make your accountant sad ... move forward.

(And yes there are fuel programs and even fuel farms and if you are careful and/or lucky your cost/gal may be lower, but 1000 gallons/month is still not cheap)

Those are non fixed costs.

Insurance, hangar, taxes, training need to be added to the mix.

The last number I heard from accounting for the 441 that I managed (and am getting back this week) was $170k for 130 hours last year. I believe that also included the cost of the full time pilot. Based on previous number, that would make sense.

$900/hour was the cost that another operator told me based on over 100 hours/year. It's also close to what I calculated when I was looking at buying the one that I managed.

We were right at $1000/hr for the 421C, so the hourly cost were about the same, we just flew the 441 more...

The offset tailpipe is not as efficient as the straight back on the twins (though some twins have side pipes, like the Commander).

The TPE331 produces about 130 lbs jet thrust, so a side pipe loses some of that due to angle and that causes a bit of an asymmetric thrust that changes with power.

Mike C.

I agree. We fly at 320-350 every flight, unless it is a very short distance. The fuel burn is much less and weather is a non-issue. I haven't done the math on the fuel difference, but I would think over the life of the airframe the savings would more than pay for the certification.


Bruce, what don't you like about the fuel computers?


The noise in the cockpit of a 441 (and probably all of these airplanes) is much higher than in the back. I get 88+db in the cockpit.


A 441 has a 50 ft wingspan, which is annoying/ expensive because it will not fit in a 50ft wide hangar. I would be surprised if it was easier to hangar than a Commander.


Both windshields in all 441s are plastic, as far as I know. They are heated from bleed air and have no elements in them, which is nice if anything like a Zoleo or GDL is placed on the glareshield.

Cabin tapers rear of the door (usually potty seat/luggage). Fuel computer failure is pretty rare, I'm not sure how that makes landings tricky though. Flaps are usually left in TO position for parking, if there is a hydraulic leak they can sag.


The seats work well with new seat tracks, with old ones it's frustrating.


I would disagree with the cost. The 441 and 340 have about the same MX costs. It's a turbine, so as far as owner involvement, there is less decision making than with say a 340. Overall I think it is more tolerant of "throw them the keys and ask for the bill" maintenance than some other types, but this will always be more expensive than an involved owner.

I think a 441 is up there with any other turbine in terms of dispatch reliability.

I like the Jason Crandall method of cost calculations. A 441 should be somewhere in the $60,000 range for the first hour of operation on January 1st, then about $600/hour for every hour flown after that.
The $60,000 is assuming you own your own hangar. If not, add that additional cost and you will be close.
This rough fixed estimate should cover insurance, and scheduled maintenance. The hourly cost accounts for fuel, engine reserves, and miscellaneous variable costs.

I just wouldn't fly that day, too expensive.

Mike C.

88db is crazy loud for the cockpit. People says it’s a no headset plane. That’s just not the case. My solitaire was 85db in the cockpit. Log scale - that’s a good but quieter but still headset land.

I just wouldn't fly that day, too expensive.

Mike C.

[quote="John M Myers"]
Bruce, what don't you like about the fuel computers?

[quote]

John, Other than the fact that they can kill you, nothing, they are normally great and make the pilot think everything is lined up perfectly so they make for a good looking set of gauges. They are just a little hard to trust relative to raw data and I’m guessing they don’t get more reliable as time goes on. But like all of the rest of this stuff, it’s just another piece of the puzzle and design compromise.

For 150 hrs/yr do the inspection requirements favor one over the other?

I've never heard of a fuel computer killing anyone on a 441, but I have heard of pilots killing themselves without one. I did hear of a guy who went into the grass once after a temp probe failed.

If you're concerned about takeoff/landing the limiters are easy enough to flip off for takeoff/landing (that is what FSI teaches).