Cessna 340

[KeroseneSnorter]

Cessna 340 Questions

Family member is considering one. Asked me what I knew about them. I only flew one for a few hours so I told him "not much" But I know some people that can give him the lowdown!!!

So you folks out there in flightinfoland......anybody dealt with a 340 long enough to give the good and bad points, fuel burn, real world TAS, maintenance issues, performance gripes and attaboys for the plane? Models and mods to stay away from or look for?


The plane would be for personal use, would not be a working bird so part 135 issues are not a factor, just 91. This guy is retired airline and this would be his retirement bird so to speak. Over the years he has had everything from a super cruiser to a couple of light twins, old school airline......before the dark times...before the RJ!!! <insert evil Darth vader breathing here> You know when airline pilots still made lots of money!!!

Anyhow, wants to make sure a 340 won't suck his wallet dry quicker than a Legacy carrier CEO, so I came to the experts.....whadda ya think!!!

 

[PC12Cowboy]

Kerosene...its a really great 3 person plane with full tanks.....the wing AD did not go away..its just hibernating till the next 300/40 series goes in under questionable circumstances....

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Kerosene...its a really great 3 person plane with full tanks.....the wing AD did not go away..its just hibernating till the next 300/40 series goes in under questionable circumstances....

The last article I read did not name the 340 in the wing spar AD. Read it out of the cessna owners magazine. They named the 400's except for the 421. They specifically excluded the 310 and 340 from the AD concerns. If you have some more up to date info I would appreciate it.

 

[TrafficInSight]

The wing spar AD only named the 400 series initially, but since the 300 series has the same type of wing structure it was assumed the AD would expand to the 300 series eventually.

 

[CandlerWun]

Sorry for the multi-post response; my computer is a pile:

I have 200-300 hr. flying 135 in a 1976 340A with a Ram VI conversion. It was a great pilot's airplane, and I have often said that it would be an excellent personal airplane, but it wasn't the best charter airplane because of its rather small cabin and minimal baggage space. The airplane had a rearward weight bias, but the nose baggage area was too small to fit very much, meaning that large (and heavy) items usually ended up in the aft cabin. Loading was often an issue that required having a passenger ride in the right seat, which is cool for some people, but not very relaxing. We usually carried 50 lb. of ballast in the nose to help out. However, if your relative wants it for personal reasons, he'll probably be pretty happy since he'll be familiar with the limitations of the design and can simply plan around them (that's not feasible with most charter passengers).

 

[CandlerWun]

Part II

The Ram VI conversion gave a 400 lb. gross weight increase and 335 hp engines (up from 285, I think?). This set up is very capable and gave a TAS of a few knots either side of 200 kt. above 10,000 ft. Some odd limitations arose from the Ram conversion, the main one being that the tip tanks were required to be full for takeoffs at gross weights above 5990 lb. (max TOW was 6390 lb.), so to use that extra 400 lb. you basically had to have the tip tanks full. This created a situation where you sometimes couldn't load the airplane for a given operation; e.g. lets say with the required fuel load of 80 gallons you are at 6300 lb. Well, technically, you need to have the tip tanks full, and at 50 gallons each (if I remember correctly), thats an extra 20 gallons or 120 lb., which now puts you over max weight. However, I think that most times the zero fuel weight was more restrictive than this particular scenario.

 

[CandlerWun]

Part III

The fuel system is like any other tip-tank cessna, which is to say that it is relatively complex and requires a lot of monitoring. I think our 340 had 10 fuel drains. But, all that tank switching does help to pass the time. Just make sure that you don't use the aux tanks too soon (or for too long, in the above scenario), or you'll start venting fuel overboard.

The only other things to be aware of are the relatively low speeds for first flap extension and gear extension, because the airplane is clean and will pick up a lot of speed while descending (especially with power to avoid shock cooling), and it can take several miles to slow down in level flight. It requires some planning, but that shouldn't be a problem for a retired airline pilot. Also, there is a pronounced pitch-up tendency during flap extension that you need to watch out for--it can lead to a significant altitude gain if you aren't expecting it.

 

[CandlerWun]

Part IV

Fuel burn was about 42 GPH at 65% power (31" and 2400 RPM was typical).

Oh, one more thing: the cabin is fairly loud. A propeller synchrophaser helped a lot, but I think that for everyone to be really comfortable, some noise-cancelling headsets would be in order. It does get quieter at higher altitudes, however.

Hope that helps,

Josh M.

 

[CandlerWun]

Part V

Originally this should have gone at the bottom of Part II, but it didn't show up and my computer issues won't allow me to add it. Apologies...

Another issue is if you have to make a short hop to pick someone up; well, you are required to take off and land on the tip tanks, which are the main tanks, so you basically can't land with full tip tanks; however, if your new load puts you over the 5990 lb., you will then need to buy fuel just to meet the limitation, even if it wouldn't be needed to actually complete the flight. If you're good you can burn off the aux tanks for a few minutes to fill the tips back up, but you have to time it just right and even then they won't really be "full" by the time you land on the tips.

Josh M

 

[casper1nine]

pm me with your e-mail address, i have one i want to sell. flown it for about 700 hrs and been really happy with it. don't have the time right now for too many details, but if you have some specific questions about the charateristics, i will be happy to answer them.

my typical mission profile is 300nm or less, and weight for me has not been too much of an issue. since i don't require full fuel, i have been able to get away with 3 adults, two kids, and bags.

fuel system is not THAT complicated, the one i fly has a ram mod, but it's not have the one that requries full tip tanks at take-off.

the ram mod is pretty expensive for the amount of performance increase. a combination of cheaper mods, vg's and aftermarket inter-coolers are the best bang for the buck.

tas 207kts at 15,000'.

pitch does change with flap extension, just hit the pitch trim while the flaps are deploying and you won't even feel it.

great plane, miss it already!

like i said, e-mail me if you have any specific questions or want a spec sheet.

-casper1nine

 

[FN FAL]

Family member is considering one. Asked me what I knew about them. I only flew one for a few hours so I told him "not much" But I know some people that can give him the lowdown!!!

So you folks out there in flightinfoland......anybody dealt with a 340 long enough to give the good and bad points, fuel burn, real world TAS, maintenance issues, performance gripes and attaboys for the plane? Models and mods to stay away from or look for?


The plane would be for personal use, would not be a working bird so part 135 issues are not a factor, just 91. This guy is retired airline and this would be his retirement bird so to speak. Over the years he has had everything from a super cruiser to a couple of light twins, old school airline......before the dark times...before the RJ!!! <insert evil Darth vader breathing here> You know when airline pilots still made lots of money!!!

Anyhow, wants to make sure a 340 won't suck his wallet dry quicker than a Legacy carrier CEO, so I came to the experts.....whadda ya think!!!

Tell him to look up "aviation consumer" used airplane guide on www.google.com and buy their used airplane guide for the 340. It's only 12 or 15 bucks and has data in it...not hanger flying.

I flew 340's in 135 operations as well as the 414...but to be fair to aviation consultants and places like aviation consumer that make a living off charging for that stuff, I would have to ask your relative for a retainer and an hourly fee for information rendered as his personal aviation consultant, or he can hand walk my resume into his old airline and I'll waive the retainer and charge only the hourly. The choice is his...

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Tell him to look up "aviation consumer" used airplane guide on www.google.com and buy their used airplane guide for the 340. It's only 12 or 15 bucks and has data in it...not hanger flying.

I flew 340's in 135 operations as well as the 414...but to be fair to aviation consultants and places like aviation consumer that make a living off charging for that stuff, I would have to ask your relative for a retainer and an hourly fee for information rendered as his personal aviation consultant, or he can hand walk my resume into his old airline and I'll waive the retainer and charge only the hourly. The choice is his...

Well, his old airline has a bunch of guys furoughed right now.........soooo I doubt it would do much good, but he can probably walk the resume in anyhow!!

 

[414Flyer]

42 gallons per hour sound, was that with the RAM conversion? That just seems a bit high from what I remember, I was in a normal C-340A.

A normally aspirated baron might be a bit cheaper to operate (although Beech parts are apparently very costly), turbocharging and pressurization is nice to have. .But you do pay for that in increased maintainance.

A 340 is a VERY easy plane to fly though.

 

[bigD]

Can't really add much beyond what was written here, but here's another data point:

The RAM IV 340A I fly (325 per side) at 32" and 2400 drinks about 21.5gph/side. No real bad habits, but as mentioned above the hardest part is getting it down to 160 for the first notch of flaps.

 

[rfeathe1]

C 340

I flew one about 250 hrs FAR 135. It had a fairly small cabin & one had to be careful, when loading, to not get out of aft CG limits. Useful load was not much. What you gained in TAS in the lower flight levels was sometimes canceled out by the cowl flaps. The higher you got, the more you had to open the cowl flaps. I remember a TAS around 195k at 18000. I would hesitate to buy one for personal use b/c of the high maintenance costs. Just my .02 cents worth.

 

[DGdaPilot]

I've got a few hours in one. Things I remember is that it is a little difficult to slow down for an approach if you've picked up all that speed in the descent. I think between 8000 and 9000' MSL we'd usually get about 165 true (with VGs). VGs incread MTOW to 6290. Fun airplane, but I would think that as with most old Cessna twins, it's becoming hard to find parts for them. Oh yeah, I second the statement that it's a pretty loud airplane. My passive Flightcom Denali's weren't doing the trick at all. Very forgiving twin, though, once you get used to it. Oh yeah, the one I flew had 50 or 100lbs of ballast in the nose and only 3 seats in the back because of the CG issues.

 

[dhc8fo]

I am flying a 1979 340A right now (I am also a "retired" airline pilot). It has the VGs but no RAM conversion (only 310 hp per side).

I second most of what everyone has said. It can be tricky to slow down and come down, but your relative should be able to handle it.

I don't have a vast knowledge on other 340s, but my 15 degree flap speed is 160 kts and we cruise at about 160 kts indicated most of the time, so dirtying up is not too hard. It trues at about 185 kts and burns about 20 gals per side at 31.5" and 2400 rpms.

It is a tight cabin for strangers, but OK for family who don't mind climbing all over each other. Since ours has the VGs, it increased our ramp and takeoff weight by 300 lbs and reduces Vmca to 71. Not too shabby since the useful load is crap. We took out of one of the four seats to make more room and since we can't carry four big guys and full fuel.

I can't speak for the maintenance costs, but I just bought four static wicks for it and it cost almost $200! Ouch...

It is a nice plane though. If I had the money, I would own one. It puts my Cherokee to shame.

Hope that helps.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Thanks for all of the responses folks.