Pick an Airplane...

[NoPax]

Got asked what I thought about purchasing a Cessna 421C for a single airplane, single-pilot flight department, and for the most part, I feel really good about them, however...

How do you think the annual budget would compare to a Cheyenne IIXL, or Aero Commander 690 with -5 or -10 engines?

King Airs (C90s and earlier) are out of the equation - can't justify the purchase price to performance, and anything bigger/newer just costs too much.

The guy wants the airplane to be able to carry 4-5 adults, with bags, mostly fly within Texas and the surrounding states. Seldom go further - possibly western CO, WY, MO. He's sure he has a need to fly it a couple of times a week, and wants the availability of an airplane, overall, I'm thinking a total of between 250-300 hours on the 421C

The main nagging doubt I have over the 421C, is the wing-spar AD on the very similar 402C, and 414A. Maybe a mechanic can chime in and explain the differences between the 421C spar and the other airplanes. If there is little, or no difference, and the reason the 421C isn't included in the AD is due to FAA 'logic' then I completely understand!

I'd like his first aviation purchase to go smoothly, and for him to be happy with it for years to come.

 

[Lostdog65]

The Commander (-5 or -10) can be maintenance hogs. Good airplanes tho...fast and can carry the weight. 421 not bad but slower than the turbines.

Eric

 

[Headwind]

Engine reserves for the GTSIO-520 (short TBO) and the PT-6 are close per hour with the PT-6 a little more. It's 50,000 each per (if you're lucky) 1600 hours or 100,000 per 3500 hours on the PT-6. The Cheyenne II XL cost more to purchase and should be much more reliable if flying 300 hours per year.
I have operated both and feel safest in the Cheyenne.
With the Cheyenne we did scheduled maintenance every 100 hours. With the 421 it was unscheduled maintenance every couple of trips.

 

[onthebeach]

This comes up a lot

Folks feel they can't afford to buy a new twin-turbine, but figure they can afford to feed & fix a 25-year old recip.

Guess they figure they can also afford to take a bath at re-sale time.

The best advice you can give your man is to think outside the box and look at a used PC-12...if you can find one. If that's still too rich for his blood, tell him to find a partner. Two principals flying a plane 400 hours a year...AND splitting the payments...is a lot more economical than one flying 200 hours a year and watching the paint craze and the seals dry the rest of the time.

 

[HawkerF/O]

Seriously look at the Commander. It does VERY VERY well in known icing (TKS Equipped), and like previously said, it can carry the weight. For a pre-buy and MX, get in touch with Central Air in Kansas City (MKC) and let them do the work. It's not the best place in the world to be a pilot in terms of pay, but you will never hear one of the Central Air guys talk about broken airplanes or $hitty MX. Bob Hoover used them for some of his MX and I know that cause I was working line at the time and personally put it in Hanger 5B to have the work preformed.

 

[oldxfr8dog]

Folks feel they can't afford to buy a new twin-turbine, but figure they can afford to feed & fix a 25-year old recip.

Guess they figure they can also afford to take a bath at re-sale time.

The best advice you can give your man is to think outside the box and look at a used PC-12...if you can find one. If that's still too rich for his blood, tell him to find a partner. Two principals flying a plane 400 hours a year...AND splitting the payments...is a lot more economical than one flying 200 hours a year and watching the paint craze and the seals dry the rest of the time.

Single-engine is OK. Day VMC.
I know, I know, turbine reliability. I have had a jet engine failure. I have a friend that bobbed in a raft for 8 hours in the North Pacific after his PC-12 PT-6 failed. Could have been worse. It could have been at night over the Rockies.

 

[Ultraman]

Which Commanders were TKS-equipped?

 

[HawkerF/O]

Which Commanders were TKS-equipped?

http://www.centralairsouthwest.com/saftey.html

http://www.centralairsouthwest.com/aircraft.html

 

[HawkerF/O]

I have a friend that bobbed in a raft for 8 hours in the North Pacific after his PC-12 PT-6 failed.

Would love to hear more of this story if you feel like posting it. If not, no big deal, just thought I would ask.

 

[dhc8fo]

My company just did the wing spar on the 421C because the plane hit 10K hours. Not required, but peace of mind. 40 grand a side. Not as bad as I thought it was going to be, really.

 

[NoPax]

Hawker F/O, I know all about Central Air Southwest - I'm currently working for them and agree completely - I love the Commander! However, I'm flying the piston version, TKS equipped etc, but if I sold the guy on the AC-690, I would definately try to use Central's Maintenance for the work required.

Another airplane came to mind - the Conquest I. Would this possibly fall prey to same Wing Spar AD worries too?

Same question again - how much to budget for annually, after the purchase of all of these airplanes.

I've figured, very roughly, that flying the 421C for 250-300 hours per year comes to about $90,000, in fixed and variable operating costs (excluding the 'Chief Pilot' salary). One way I'm looking at this is 250-300 hours per year in a 421C is maybe around 47,500-57,000 NM (using a 190kt average block speed).

The AC690 operates in the low 20s, time to climb is 20 minutes then cruise is 260kts (-5) or 300kts (-10). Figure an average block time of 240 and 280 respectively, and that's 200-240 per year (-5), or 160-200 per year (-10) -almost half that of the 421C.

Is the above sound logic?

 

[G100driver]

I cut my teeth on the AC-690B with -10's. It was a great airplane ... key word was. The newest airplane that you can find is 20 years old. Ever try finding NEW parts for a 20 year old airplane.

They are maintenance hogs and noisy as heck. You cannot fly above FL240 without a 10,000' cabin. I could go on about the micky mouse steering and the leaky fuel bladders but I think that you get the point.

Get a King Air. At least they are still in production and parts are more readily avialable.

 

[NoPax]

Get a King Air. At least they are still in production and parts are more readily available

I'm aware of that, thank-you. No King Air!:smash:

There's nothing wrong with the steering on the Commanders...it's just different!

 

[some_dude]

He's comparing it to a 421, for crying out loud. I think the 690 is a fine alternative for the money.

Yes, they're old, but so are the 421s. And I doubt the Commander would be any worse from a maintenance perspective.

Everything in that price range is going to be the same age-- Cheyennes, 421, Conquest, Commander, so I'd say age isn't a big factor.

I cut my teeth on the AC-690B with -10's. It was a great airplane ... key word was. The newest airplane that you can find is 20 years old. Ever try finding NEW parts for a 20 year old airplane.

They are maintenance hogs and noisy as heck. You cannot fly above FL240 without a 10,000' cabin. I could go on about the micky mouse steering and the leaky fuel bladders but I think that you get the point.

 

[421Driver]

We have 4 of the old 421B's, and used to have a C. Boss sold that one to standardize the fleet. The 421C is a nice plane, quiet for the passengers, and runs well when properly maintained. The trick is finding someone who is experienced in maintaining your type. The trailing link gear is nice if you aren't used to landing 421's, but not necesssary IMO.

The wing spar AD applies to the B model type wing (and may not be included depending on which FSDO inspector you talk to) with tip tanks. Our costs were in line with dhc8fo's for the spar. The 421C was not included.

With your access to mechanics for the 690, that may be a solid choice. Just remember that a $400k airplane is a $400k airplane. If you are looking at two planes with different performance at the same price, there's a reason for that.

 

[Lead Sled]

We have 4 of the old 421B's, and used to have a C. Boss sold that one to standardize the fleet. The 421C is a nice plane, quiet for the passengers, and runs well when properly maintained. The trick is finding someone who is experienced in maintaining your type. The trailing link gear is nice if you aren't used to landing 421's, but not necesssary IMO.

The wing spar AD applies to the B model type wing (and may not be included depending on which FSDO inspector you talk to) with tip tanks. Our costs were in line with dhc8fo's for the spar. The 421C was not included.

With your access to mechanics for the 690, that may be a solid choice. Just remember that a $400k airplane is a $400k airplane. If you are looking at two planes with different performance at the same price, there's a reason for that.

I love how a lot of guys react to threads like this. A simple question is asked about some $400K airplanes and the next thing you've got guys recommending stuff costing $1.5 million or more. I've got a couple of thousand hours in 421s and a thousand hours or so in the GTSIO-powered 411s and a bunch of time in Turbo Commanders, Cheyennes, and King Airs. They're all excellent airplanes, but hardly interchangeable.

Personally, I've never really liked the Cheyennes - it always seemed to be Pipers idea of "What's the least amount of engineering we'll have to do to put P&Ws on a P-Navaho?" Their performance is good, but not "eye watering". What can be "eye watering" is the price and availablity of certain replacement parts. If you go that way, make sure you have a good Cheyenne shop nearby. The Commanders are great flying and performing airplanes, if not the roomiest ones on the market. The Garrett engine are solid, reliable, and (for a turbo-prop) comparativley economical. It would be a good choice, but your operating costs - when all is said and done - will probably twice as much as the 421's.

Personally, I liked the 421s - they're good solid capable airplanes. A lot of people bad-mouth the geared engines. Personally, I've found that they're not an issue if operated properly; but they'll eat you alive if you don't know what you're doing. Like all geared engines, you don't want to "baby" them and reduced-power takeoffs are really asking for trouble. They're not something to fear, but you do need to respect them.

One thing that you will want to look at with any twin Cessna is the avionics package. Some of them still have the old Cessna installed ARC stuff - they were little more than boat anchors 20 years ago. They haven't gotten any more reliable in the intervening years.

'Sled

 

[421Driver]

Personally, I liked the 421s - they're good solid capable airplanes. A lot of people bad-mouth the geared engines. Personally, I've found that they're not an issue if operated properly; but they'll eat you alive if you don't know what you're doing. Like all geared engines, you don't want to "baby" them and reduced-power takeoffs are really asking for trouble. They're not something to fear, but you do need to respect them.

I agree with 'sled. I knew some people who operated the 520's with reduced power takeoffs claiming it "saved the engine", when it actually has quite the opposite effect. Look to John Deakin's columns at Avweb for some data off JPI GEM's. Make sure and read up on Torsional Vibration if you pick the 421. Not being a "throttle jockey" will keep your engines safe for the most part, but instruction from an experienced 421 operator is the best medicine.

One thing that you will want to look at with any twin Cessna is the avionics package. Some of them still have the old Cessna installed ARC stuff - they were little more than boat anchors 20 years ago. They haven't gotten any more reliable in the intervening years.

Truer words are rarely spoken. Pick a plane with a new auto-pilot and you will skip many a trip to the avionics shop with hard to replicate problems. The nav-o-matic 800 series installed in most of the 421Cs are nice, but skip the 200 and 400 series unless you enjoy paying the price of the auto pilot in MX.

Here's the definative site for wing spar info on the twin Cessnas

http://twin.cessna.org/

 

[G100driver]

He's comparing it to a 421, for crying out loud. I think the 690 is a fine alternative for the money.

Yes, they're old, but so are the 421s. And I doubt the Commander would be any worse from a maintenance perspective.

Everything in that price range is going to be the same age-- Cheyennes, 421, Conquest, Commander, so I'd say age isn't a big factor.

Still does not discount the fact that it is a pile of crap. It someone is trying to stretch a 421 to a turbo prop flight department, better stay away from this maintenance nightmare. Get something simple and still in production with support of the orginal manufacturer.

I'm aware of that, thank-you. No King Air!

When was the last time you got a "new" fuel controler that was not completly out of adjustment? That is what I thought ... pile of crap.

Also, why is that commander guys have such a hard on for King Airs? Every time I went into the shop with the commander (which was often) the owner of the company would tell me what a superior airplane to the King Air. All I could do was laugh ... I guess that is why they still make King Air's.

 

[H.Agenda]

Single-engine is OK. Day VMC.
I know, I know, turbine reliability. I have had a jet engine failure. I have a friend that bobbed in a raft for 8 hours in the North Pacific after his PC-12 PT-6 failed. Could have been worse. It could have been at night over the Rockies.

You know him!! I heard Pilatus wont let him talk to much about it. I heard, correct me if I'm wrong (I know somebody will) the engine never quit but was shaking so violently that he opted to put in her in the drink under power...

 

[Lead Sled]

You know him!! I heard Pilatus wont let him talk to much about it. I heard, correct me if I'm wrong (I know somebody will) the engine never quit but was shaking so violently that he opted to put in her in the drink under power...

Wasn't there another Pilatus that ditched because it lost the fuel controller?

Turbine engines are great, but they still fail - only less often. You can't ignore where, when, or how you fly them.

'Sled