Cessna 414 or 421 - which would you buy?

[Sphincter Boy]

I'd get the P Navajo over the 421.

 

[mizzouguy]

The 414 is a pretty nice airplane to fly but if that wing spar ad comes up it would be pretty expensive. The FAA told us the other day it is not a definate thing and if it is it will be a while before it is in place. We fly two and don't have too much problem with them. A King Air 90 might be a better airplane

 

[DAS at 10/250]

The wing spar AD is possible but total BS. In April 1999, a C421 had an inflight seperation of a wing while in the descent for KOKC. The airplane had a hard landing 18 years prior and the repair was deemed as inadequate. There is no evidence to support a fleetwide AD. However, Cessna is pushing the AD to retire the older 400 series airplanes. The FAA expected cost is $45,000, but the field estimates are coming back as $60,000. The rumor is that the AD will also emcompass the 300 series as well.

If your budget will allow get a C90. I don't think I'd want to fly any $100K cabin twin.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001205X00460&ntsbno=FTW99FA123&akey=1

 

[414Flyer]

Actually it was a C402 freighter it happened to, Texas Air Charter (name at the time)

 

[deadstick]

I'm pretty sure that wing AD will not hit the "short-nosed" 414's. I think those were out until 1976.

 

[Alchemy]

I believe the wing seperation accidents were a result of operating with excessive zero fuel weights. I'm not certain if the 400 series cessnas have a zero fuel weight limitation, but both of the 400 series wing seperation accidents that I know of may have been a result of repeated misloading.

The following links and text are from westwingsinc.com

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/04-1658.htm



This a federal document that provides some background on the problem.



http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001205X00460&ntsbno=FTW99FA123&akey=1



This is a narrative of the NTSB accident investigation that prompted the original Airworthiness Directive against the 400-series Cessnas. Note that the blame is placed on a manufacturing defect, but that does not diminish the role that repetitive misloading may have played in the failure.



http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X21530&ntsbno=MIA00FA208&akey=1



This is narrative of an NTSB accident investigation of a Cessna 402 engaged in Part 135 cargo operations that crashed into the Caribbean Sea. Only parts of the aircraft and some cargo were recovered, and no probable cause is listed.

However, known circumstances outlined in this report point to wing spar failure, the report suggests that misloading played a factor. The radar tracking data indicates that the aircraft descended from 7000 feet to the last radar return at 1100 feet in 53 seconds (the last 5400 feet took 24 seconds). This descent rate is consistent with in-flight breakup. The report estimates the weight of the airplane at the time of the accident at 6800 pounds, 50 pounds below the maximum allowable takeoff weight of 6850. Of this 6800 pounds, 1517 pounds consisted of mail, as reported by the U.S. Post Office.

 

[DAS at 10/250]

414 flyer

You are correct. I was operating off memory until I looked up the report I was familiar with and I forgot to change the 421 to a 402.

Dooh! Another missed checklist item.

 

[Rick1128]

There are actually two different problems. The 421s have, I believe, a manditory service bulletin requiring a corrostion inspection in the spar area. It is requried and must be done by April of this year. It is my understanding the possible AD note covers all the 300 and 400 series except the 421. I have flown both and prefer the 414C with the RAM mods. Nice preformance with reasonable engine reliability. The P-Navajo is an orphan. The engines are tender like the 421s. And parts are a problem. If you go Aerostars, stay away from 601Ps. They are pigs. 602 are a little better.

 

[Dan CFI/CFII]

414C eh?

I'm thinking he means 421C (the 421 without tip tanks).

The 414 without tip tanks was the 414A.

They're hairs, but if I don't split them: who will :>

Dan

 

[bugchaser]

As I understand it, the proposed AD will not effect the 421's. But who knows what will happen in the end. The exhaust is a weak area on these airplanes and needs to be looked at closely. I think they are great airplanes if operated correctly. The engines are fairly sensitive and need to be taken care of properly. We have had very little problem with ours. We have more problems with the older avionics, etc in the airplane. These are complicated airplanes with complex systems that require a good deal of maint. Also be prepared to go to school to make the insurance gods happy. All in all, it is a lot of airplane for the money.

 

[414Flyer]

421 is a different wing than 414.They do share the same cabin though. The wing spar inspection on 414 is rather costly and time consuming. A 421 is not a bad plane, but if you are not carrying 6+ people routinely, its more capacity and cost than you need.

They are both fine planes, but just dont buy more capacity than you need.

I have heard similar comments about P-navajo in regards with it being an orphan, especially in regards to engine parts.

 

[DAS at 10/250]

I have heard similar comments about P-navajo in regards with it being an orphan, especially in regards to engine parts.

Try getting a nose gear actuator overhaul on a regular navajo. Three weeks to find the part after the previous owner tried to nose land ours.

The Navajo (Chieftain) is a good airplane if you don't need more than 10K feet.

 

[jumppilot03]

Push for a Cheyenne 1 or IIXL. Great airplanes, easy to fly, PT-6's and not very expensive to buy or operate.