Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Cessna 300/400 series

Are any owners (or none owners) of Cessna 300/400 aircraft experiencing problems with parts from Cessna for these aircraft, also thoughts on the Cessna ageing aircraft programme. I’m potentially giving thoughts on a 414A on the N register and would appreciate any advice.
Thanks
Rob

Last Edited by Rob at 25 Feb 11:15

These Twin Cessnas are fairly well supported and there is a good number of specialists in the US, like RAM .

Also, there is growing number of “donor” aircraft as many are no longer economically viable to stay airworthy. In fact, I have a 310 and a 340 for spares.

414s are a bit rare in Europe, that said there is quite a bit of commonality amongst all the 300 / 400 Series.

Which one are you considering ?

FAA A&P/IA
LFPN

A 414a 1979 on the N reg.
European forums seem to think piston twins especially the bigger ones are the last aircraft one should be buying!

Last Edited by Rob at 25 Feb 12:51

Rob wrote:

European forums seem to think piston twins especially the bigger ones are the last aircraft one should be buying!

I look after half a dozen Twin Cessnas and here’s my POV : They are INCREDIBLE value for the money !

These are Cabin Class Personal Airliners for a fraction of the cost of a recent SEP tourer, such as the SR22.

Sure you need a 5 digit annual maintenance budget but then again a SR22 Turbo is right up there too when you factor in the chute & other mandatory items.

With very low purchase price and thus reduced insurance premium (low hull value) there is quite a bit left over for fuel !

FAA A&P/IA
LFPN

I used to know a 421C owner who would agree 100% with the above.

I flew in it a couple of times and my entire ME time (1.5hrs) was logged in it A very smooth machine, which would almost be flown without headsets. He bought it for something like 100k and spent another 100k on tarting it up (a full respray and a cockpit re-build) although the engines, and most of the original avionics were left alone apart from an overhaul.

He bought a King Air 90 eventually. No idea what he’s doing now. He is/was involved with another “GA organisation” and said he would never post on EuroGA But I doubt the KA90 had a significantly wider mission profile than the 421C. His despatch rate was 98-99% and that was doing formal customer visits (he was a financier of some sort, visiting 9-digit net worth clients) so this wasn’t the sort of “business trip” which piston GA gets used for, where the trip can usually be cancelled without too much trouble.

His avgas bills were eye-watering but for the low initial outlay, one could not complain.

However he was also based at EGHH which is ILS, wide opening hours, and back in those days you could fly to the Channel Islands etc from there without the 12hr PNR GAR. Without a base like that, you are wasting a lot of the potential.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

A 414/421 seems a more sensible proposition than an SET if you are only flying 75-200 hours a year?

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

RobertL18C wrote:

A 414/421 seems a more sensible proposition than an SET if you are only flying 75-200 hours a year?

None of the SET have any where near the cabin/load carrying caps of the Cessna 400 series, excepting the PC12 which comes with a multi-million price tag.

FAA A&P/IA
LFPN

None of the SET have any where near the cabin/load carrying caps of the Cessna 400 series

A quick google suggests the 421C carries more than a TBM but you are comparing a 200-220kt / FL200-220 plane (actual figures from the owner I knew) with a 300kt+ FL300+ plane which gets you above the weather most of the time, so it’s not a real comparison.

C421

Empty weight: 4,501 lb (2,041 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 7,450 lb (3,379 kg)
Fuel capacity 1572 lbs (714kg)
Payload with full fuel: 624kg

TBM910

Maximum takeoff weight 7,394 lb 3,354 kg
Maximum zero fuel weight 6,032 lb 2,736 kg
Fuel capacity 291 USG
Payload with full fuel 404 kg

What is the range of the 421C, to zero fuel? The TBM900 is about 2000nm. That might make a difference since above figs are will full tanks.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

C421’s are wonderful planes, but has anyone checked the overhaul costs on the GTSIO-520 engines lately? Or that they’ll need a top overhaul halfway to TBO like clockwork? You will not save a penny in running costs compared to a same era turbine twin. And when you factor in the hassle of Avgas in Europe… It’s not like the C421’s are that cheap to get into anyway – for the same money you can get into:

690B

Non-geared planes, like the 414, 300-series however, will cost less to run than a turbine. Whatever you get – hope it’s a twin!

9 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top