Pick an Airplane...

[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

 

[hawkerjet]

The best bang for your buck would be a Merlin IIB. The IIB is somewhat of a slug with it's dash 1's, however it offers the biggest cabin by far as well as the operating efficiency of a turbine. If you're flying around the Texas area I would consider this. It's cheaper than the 421. Having flown both I can honestly say I prefer the MerlinIIB.As an old aircraft you will need to do a thorough prebuy ( I can recommend a service center in Texas if you pursue this) . If you would like to spend $400,000 or more then maybe a Merlin III would suit you fine, There is no comparison in performance between the IIB and the III. The Merlin III will fly circles around most of it's competitors while also being reliable and low cost to operate. I just thought you might want to consider these 2 also, as another option.

 

[Photoflight]

I say the 421 then since he's gonna need a pilot and I have 400 series cessna experience and live in TX.....he should hire me.

Damn I'm good at this networking thing.

 

[NoPax]

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.

I don't. It may be a good strategy to hold off on suggesting it, if all other alternatives have been exhausted..then...'hey...howabout this...its still in production, resale value etc etc'

Generally speaking, people that have 400k plus to buy an airplane without needing to finance it, don't like being told off the bat that their idea sucks, and they need to cough up another 400k on top of that for a decent airplane. I'd rather play along with their ego a little and exhaust all alternatives first.

If I went to the boardroom with G100 attitude I'd be flying freight in this fine 'tough bird' for years to come.

Thanks for all the replies.

Hawkerjet: I saw an old Merlin IIB in Austin (old tail, and sat low to the ground) looked real nice. The owner kindly showed me around it, and called it his 'suburban'. Are you talking about the SAT Swearingen facility?

 

[G100driver]

I
If I went to the boardroom with G100 attitude I'd be flying freight in this fine 'tough bird' for years to come.

LOL that is funny. If I did not have the attitude that I have my boss would have gotten a G200 and been miserible for it. Tell the truth backed up by facts and you will never go wrong. Too many pilots get excited about flying a new airplane that they forget the to do their due deligence when researching aircraft.

Put lipstick on a pig and you still have a pig. There is a reason why they have not made any since 1984 (correct me if I am wrong)

PS I did not tell the owner of the airplane that the turbo-commander was pile of crap, I told that to the owner of the maintenance facility! Saying that to the boss would be like telling him his girlfriend was fat!

 

[G100driver]

No pax, all kidding aside, anytime your employer wants to invest in aviation it is a good thing. It sounds like you have done your research. Good luck ... and oh yea ... get a King Air!

 

[hawkerjet]

That's right, SAT was where they were made and have the best support and training. If you go through with it there aren't many examiners around, pm me and i'll give you the name of the guy that did our class.
There is also a facility inTyler, but I can't remember their name now.
A guy from CNO just flew his out there to get a generator problem fixed and it will remain in texas. Good Luck

 

[some_dude]

I don't think the King Air you are thinking of is much like the King Air he'll get for $400k!

The 690 might not look so bad after all!

Incidentally, the Merlin IIB is truly ancient, probably not something you want to deal with. If you want to increase your budget to $800k or so, the Merlin IIIB would be a good choice, however.

No pax, all kidding aside, anytime your employer wants to invest in aviation it is a good thing. It sounds like you have done your research. Good luck ... and oh yea ... get a King Air!

 

[icefr8dawg]

I know three people that flew a 421 for a living. One lost an engine out of TEB, another had a cylinder pop off and through the cowling (and make a nice hole) over Nevada somewhere, and the third spent over $100,000 doing engines 200 hours before tbo... Other than that it's a nice quiet ride with those geared engines... How does an MU-2 compare? They sure are cheap. I found some operating costs on this guys website http://www.internet-jet-sales.com/operating_costs.htm

 

[NoPax]

Well I've almost finished with the AC690 cost analysis, and except for a few touchups here and there it seems it would cost between $45000 -$50000 more per year to operate in the given scenario.

I've yet to do the Cheyenne II, or Conquest I. MU-2 is looking good - thanks icefr8dawg for the input and link.

Merlin IIB/III isn't an option.

Looking at other pistons - mostly modified direct drive, pressurized ones that are more within the 421C price range & operating cost

 

[icefr8dawg]

no prob. I'd tack on a little since the numbers haven't changed since I last checked his website in 2003. You might try giving him a call, he used to hang out at my airport with his MU-2's and piston twins.