Realistically...

[FN FAL]

That would do the job, but you will need $1.5 million for a low time 3 year old Van, vs 300-350K for the 414.

Yea, but if you want to compare apples to apples, a new 414 would cost you two million and it still wouldn't be able to do the scenario we are talking about.

But I understand what you are saying...you can buy a used twin and three beaters for spare parts and a lifetime of fuel for the price of van, but you're still going to make two trips to carry eight people anywhere in a 414 with a margin of safety comfort.

 

[Lead Sled]

It's been about 18 years since I flew one, but a C-421 might be able to do 8 people on a 90 minute leg. That would require about 2.5 hours (including reserve) fuel on board. I'd check it out.

I always liked the 421 (even the geared engines!) and enjoyed every minute of the 2000 hours I have in them and what is essenctially an unpressurised C-421 - the 411. The 414, on the other hand always seemed like an underpowered 421. There was just too much temptation to overload that big cabin.

'Sled

 

[dhc8fo]

I don't actually have the empty weight info yet on this particular plane I am considering.

I don't intend to bust any weights, so I was more realistically trying to acess whether or not it was doable.... on paper it seems like it could fly (no pun intended), but I was looking for real world experience as far as performance.

I have a 340 and I *KNOW* there is no way in hell I can fill the seats with six average people and even take a 1.5 hour trip. I imagine either way it is like the 340 and we are going down on takeoff if I lost one, but I was looking for a little hope.

I can't afford a turbine all by myself. If I could, I would, believe me....maybe down the road, but not yet. You guys talked me out of the pressurized Navajo and led me to the 414....I appreciate your opinions.

 

[FN FAL]

I don't actually have the empty weight info yet on this particular plane I am considering.

I don't intend to bust any weights, so I was more realistically trying to acess whether or not it was doable.... on paper it seems like it could fly (no pun intended), but I was looking for real world experience as far as performance.

I have a 340 and I *KNOW* there is no way in hell I can fill the seats with six average people and even take a 1.5 hour trip. I imagine either way it is like the 340 and we are going down on takeoff if I lost one, but I was looking for a little hope.

I can't afford a turbine all by myself. If I could, I would, believe me....maybe down the road, but not yet. You guys talked me out of the pressurized Navajo and led me to the 414....I appreciate your opinions.

are you talking about licensed empty weight or the basic empty weigth?

 

[dhc8fo]

are you talking about licensed empty weight or the basic empty weigth?

I have never heard of "licensed empty weight"...you don't mean zero fuel weight, do you??

One thing I was trying to figure out is ROUGHLY what the difference between the basic empty weight (I know, this varies by plane, but ROUGHLY) and the max takeoff weight. I've got that info now. Otherwise, I was just wondering if I could do this type of flying with this plane decently enough.....

thanks

 

[Lead Sled]

Could I load a Cessna 414 (Ram VI) up with 8 people on a hot day and fly a 1.5 hour trip FAIRLY comfortably?? By the book you can, but I want to hear from the real-life guys.

Based on you guy's input and guidance, I am thinking this is plane now....

I've been playing around a bit on our Flitesoft program using the generic C-414A and C-421C aircraft performance files. It would sure help your C-414A cause if you could tell me that a few of your passengers were less than standard weight. If you were going to carry some 120 to 150 pound women along with the normal lard-a$$ guys it would probably work. However, when you start loading 170 pounders (or more) you start going out the back end. The best thing you could probably do is talk to someone who has one and play with the numbers that you will realistically be using.

'Sled

 

[dhc8fo]

I've been playing around a bit on our Flitesoft program using the generic C-414A and C-421C aircraft performance files. It would sure help your C-414A cause if you could tell me that a few of your passengers were less than standard weight. If you were going to carry some 120 to 150 pound women along with the normal lard-a$$ guys it would probably work. However, when you start loading 170 pounders (or more) you start going out the back end. The best thing you could probably do is talk to someone who has one and play with the numbers that you will realistically be using.

'Sled

Thanks Sled. That is some of what I was looking for. I only know two things... one pax is about 130 and the others are probably all "standard" weight (about 180) and they will vary from trip to trip.

 

[Lead Sled]

Thanks Sled. That is some of what I was looking for. I only know two things... one pax is about 130 and the others are probably all "standard" weight (about 180) and they will vary from trip to trip.

If that's the case, you're going to have problems with just about anything that's pressurized in your price range (around the price of a C414A). It may be time to talk to the boss about expanding his horizons even further. Especially if you're serious about carrying 7 passengers all of the time. If you tell me that you normally only carry 4 or 5 and just make the occasional trip with a full boat then the 414 might be perfect for you - you just might have to make a fuel stop when you're loaded up. Remember, when it comes to airplanes, you can always find something that can carry what you want, as far as you want, at the speed you want, but seldom at the price you want.

'Sled

 

[dhc8fo]

If that's the case, you're going to have problems with just about anything that's pressurized in your price range (around the price of a C414A). It may be time to talk to the boss about expanding his horizons even further. Especially if you're serious about carrying 7 passengers all of the time. If you tell me that you normally only carry 4 or 5 and just make the occasional trip with a full boat then the 414 might be perfect for you - you just might have to make a fuel stop when you're loaded up. Remember, when it comes to airplanes, you can always find something that can carry what you want, as far as you want, at the speed you want, but seldom at the price you want.

'Sled

Actually, this IS the worst-case scenario. 4-5 would probably be the norm. I am just pretty sure that I will be doing a full boat from time to time. Just wondering if this bird can make it decently enough. Sound like it is doable (within the weight limitations) but at the sacrifice of performace and comfort...but that is how it is in my 340. I just need a plane that can carry more people.

Unfortunately, I am the boss, which is why the pockets aren't too deep.

 

[Lead Sled]

Actually, this IS the worst-case scenario. 4-5 would probably be the norm. I am just pretty sure that I will be doing a full boat from time to time. Just wondering if this bird can make it decently enough. Sound like it is doable (within the weight limitations) but at the sacrifice of performace and comfort...but that is how it is in my 340. I just need a plane that can carry more people.

Unfortunately, I am the boss, which is why the pockets aren't too deep.

You know the old saying..."An airplane is a flying compromise." If it makes you feel any better, you'd probably have to spend a lot more $$$ to get something that would be able to do all that you have stated and it will most likely burn kerosene. You might be able to find something non-pressurized that would do it, but who would want to go back to flying down low. It's too bumpy and hot down there.

Is this for 135 or 91? Not that it makes any real difference.

'Sled