414/421 - you make the call

flyersfan31

flyersfan31

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
14,269
Display Name
Display name:
Freiburgfan31
OK, I know everyone loves kibitzing about planes.

What say ye about the 414 vs 421. OMG --- geared engines on the 421. Lots of naysaying. What's the big deal? Gentle power reductions and increases should do the trick. What are the operating issues with the GTSIOs? Of course the OH comes with a really big bite into the ol'net worth.

Seriously, though, anyone with experience with the airframes wish to weigh in. If you wanted to take, say, 2 adult bikes and 2 kids bikes with you on a trip, would they give you enough room? Relative to, say, a Chieftain?

No turboprops (I'm looking at you, King Air) need apply.
 
I have time in them both. The 414 has AIDS above 17,000. JUST not enough power.

The 421 local operators have gotten good service out of them but only with single operators whose bank accounts benefit from non-hamfisted operation.
 
Well, were it me, I'd probably pick the 414. Even if you're nice to the engines, gears = more parts = more potential maintenance $$$.

Of course, I'd probably want to fly one of each. Maybe the lower noise is worth it, who knows.

When I worked at MWC, the charter fleet consisted of a 310, four 414's, and a King Air 200. So maybe I'm biased. First time I ever was aboard an airplane with one of the props not turning was one of those 414's.
 
421, no questions. Quieter and more capable. You can make the geared engined hit and exceed TBO, I've seen it done. That's really the only difference between the planes is the engines and the 414 is just to weight and performance limited for having the big airframe. There used to be 414s equipped with the TSIOL engines (liquid cooled) but I haven't seen one in years. I talked to a guy at Tom's about it and he said it was a poor engine with a poor installation and a very limited useful load.
 
421...Id do a Chieftain though, less to maintain...can haul a house
 
Another vote for the 421.

Bob Gardner
 
There's only 2 pressurized Navajos and both of them are far worse on maint and operating costs than a 421.
 
Henning said:
There's only 2 pressurized Navajos and both of them are far worse on maint and operating costs than a 421.
Click to expand...

I said CR, not P.

Given the performance limitations of the 414, I doubt that block times are going to be much different between a Navajo at 11k and a 414 at FL180 for anything shorter than 300nm.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
I said CR, not P.

Given the performance limitations of the 414, I doubt that block times are going to be much different between a Navajo at 11k and a 414 at FL180 for anything shorter than 500nm.
Click to expand...

I agree, I'm not a 414 fan, I see no sense when a 421 is the same price. 421 flies in the low to mid 20s pretty well, and since he was looking at 414 & 421, I was figuring he wanted pressure.
 
If you can afford the extra overhaul costs of a geared engine get the 421, if not the 414
 
If you're going to all that trouble, why not add pressurization, is what I'm thinking.

What's the deal on the geared engines? What constitutes "being careful" with them. I imagine smooth, infrequent power changes would be a major factor. I imagine they don't like to do pattern work! How would you operate one to get good life out of the (expensive) overhaul?

I read that a replacement hot windshield for a 421 is something like $25k, plus about 100hrs+ labor. Certainly pays to buy the best maintained one you can find!
 
flyersfan31 said:
If you're going to all that trouble, why not add pressurization, is what I'm thinking.

What's the deal on the geared engines? What constitutes "being careful" with them. I imagine smooth, infrequent power changes would be a major factor. I imagine they don't like to do pattern work! How would you operate one to get good life out of the (expensive) overhaul?

I read that a replacement hot windshield for a 421 is something like $25k, plus about 100hrs+ labor. Certainly pays to buy the best maintained one you can find!
Click to expand...


The way I was taught was lead your power reductions from cruise with the props. What you want to avoid is backlashing the gear set. The guy who taught me to run them had a 421 for 15 years and got the engines past TBO through 2 rebuild cycles. Don't try to push for advertised speeds and keep the props loaded and run LOP (the WWII guys all were running LOP before it became "an issue"). The main PITA about a 421 is the exhaust, and that's the same on all the TC Continentals.
 
I'd go for the 421. You're effectively looking at the same airframe, but the 414 is neutered. Your single engine performance will suffer substantially, and even your twin-engine performance won't be great, even with your relatively light load. The quietness afforded by geared engines is not to be underestimated. It is heavenly. The wife and kids will be enthusiastic once they experience it.

You're looking at not only geared engines, but ones putting out more power. So the concerns regarding keeping your CHTs cool become even more important. The gearing is more of a backlash issue. Be religious about your power reductions (I haven't heard the power with props bit from anyone but Henning, but he probably knows more 421 operators than I do). 20" or more until you're over the numbers. Not a big deal, since the plane needs the power anyway to stay in the air. A JPI is very valuable, and I'd not run it at more than 65% power in cruise (but then again, that's what I do anyway).

I would look for a B-model. 1600 hour TBO engines plus I like the tip tanks, which were eliminated in the C-model. Lots of good examples around to be had. Also, the 421 B/C have 8 seats and the nose baggage, which the 421A or 414 don't. Both aircraft have lots of maintenance support.

The P-Baron and Duke are too small for your mission, the P-Navajo and Mojave don't have particularly great support. The 421 is the way to go. The 414 just doesn't make sense to me.

Given your mission, I would stay far away from turbines, and you know all the reasons why.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
With the 421C you get a simplified fuel system, hydraulic landing gear and a few other improvements.
Click to expand...

True. From a technical perspective, the Cs are better.

I just admit to preferring the aesthetics of the A-model best, and B-model second best. Should have made that disclaimer. :)
 
Rotor&Wing said:
With the 421C you get a simplified fuel system, hydraulic landing gear and a few other improvements.
Click to expand...

Not so sure I'd consider hydraulic landing gear an improvement, however the trailing link on the later (I think the change was in 83) C models is nice.
 
Henning said:
Not so sure I'd consider hydraulic landing gear an improvement, however the trailing link on the later (I think the change was in 83) C models is nice.
Click to expand...

The hydraulic gear on the 421C is essentially the same system used on the 404/425/441. Very robust system and simplified.

The trailing link gear (on all 421C's) is hydraulic.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
The hydraulic gear on the 421C is essentially the same system used on the 404/425/441. Very robust system and simplified.

The trailing link gear (on all 421C's) is hydraulic.
Click to expand...

I know that all the trailing link gear on the Cs is hydraulic, however if you are asserting that all Cs have trailing link gear, that is incorrect.
 
I've got a lot of time in the 404 (unpressurized 421, essentially). The only issue was cylinder cracking, and the GTSIO-520 cylinder has since been redesigned to minimize this. In any case we had about 30 guys and a couple of gals flying twelve different birds - and there was a lot of training. One guy with one airplane, operating carefully, will make TBO with no problem with or without the cylinder redesign. The 65% advice above is good. For the same purchase price I'd go with the 421.
 
rotorhead1026 said:
I've got a lot of time in the 404 (unpressurized 421, essentially). The only issue was cylinder cracking, and the GTSIO-520 cylinder has since been redesigned to minimize this. In any case we had about 30 guys and a couple of gals flying twelve different birds - and there was a lot of training. One guy with one airplane, operating carefully, will make TBO with no problem with or without the cylinder redesign. The 65% advice above is good. For the same purchase price I'd go with the 421.
Click to expand...

Actually the 404 is an unpressurized 441 with the 421 engines.

I flew the 404 for about 600 hours. Our experience with them( we had 8) was we would replace all 6 cylinders between overhauls.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Actually the 404 is an unpressurized 441 with the 421 engines.

I flew the 404 for about 600 hours. Our experience with them( we had 8) was we would replace all 6 cylinders between overhauls.
Click to expand...

Hah! Good point. The Titan struck me as a stretched 421, but I never flew the Conquest (?)

Hardee's ran a 421 and got really pretty good service out of the engines IIRC, but they were careful and generally had only one (conscientious) guy flying it.

Training cycles would generate cracks, but overall as our experience level with the airplane grew, things got a lot better. I'm told the cylinder redesign has helped as well, but I have no personal experience.
 
What would be the minimum field length you would consider for regular operations?

Mine is 3000 paved, with a 700 grass overrun at the end of 22. A wee short, I think. There are several acres of open field at either end, so no 50ft obstacle in sight, and a crosswind turf runway past the departure end for 4 (for a gearup emergency on departure only!)
 
flyersfan31 said:
What would be the minimum field length you would consider for regular operations?

Mine is 3000 paved, with a 700 grass overrun at the end of 22. A wee short, I think. There are several acres of open field at either end, so no 50ft obstacle in sight, and a crosswind turf runway past the departure end for 4 (for a gearup emergency on departure only!)
Click to expand...

ive never flown a 414 but that is too short for a 421. at least for me in a 421. i think the shortest i ever flew into was 3800 and i did not like it.
 
We used to fly the 421 in and out of Avalon all the time with no issues, it's 3000', YMMV.
 
tonycondon said:
its a good thing you didn't have any issues.
Click to expand...

Well, taking off 22, yeah, it's not a good deal particularly, but we were always pretty light, it was just 2 of us in the plane with light fuel so the accelerate-go distance was manageable and it would fly out well on one. Rwy 4, ehh no worries, just drive off the end and put the nose down to get your airspeed.:D

But yeah, we never had a problem.
 
and conversely, almost all of my flights were heavy, either with passengers and their crap or fuel. very rarely flew both light on cabin weight and fuel. i don't like taking over half the useable runway to get airborne when i know that single engine climb is going to be pretty marginal if i can react fast enough to get it feathered.

Henning said:
Well, taking off 22, yeah, it's not a good deal particularly, but we were always pretty light, it was just 2 of us in the plane with light fuel so the accelerate-go distance was manageable and it would fly out well on one. Rwy 4, ehh no worries, just drive off the end and put the nose down to get your airspeed.:D

But yeah, we never had a problem.
Click to expand...
 
Someone brought a 421 into Gastons but they were damn light and they weren't making a habit out of it. Not something you'd want to be doing on every single flight.
 
Henning said:
Well, taking off 22, yeah, it's not a good deal particularly, but we were always pretty light, it was just 2 of us in the plane with light fuel so the accelerate-go distance was manageable and it would fly out well on one. Rwy 4, ehh no worries, just drive off the end and put the nose down to get your airspeed.:D

But yeah, we never had a problem.
Click to expand...

I think Andrew didn't give us all the necessary variables.

How much weight? How bad does DA get in the summer? Those are the most important ones. 3000 feet is a pretty damn short runway for an airplane that big, but if it's light enough and/or cool enough, it's a possibility.

Are the family trips mostly going to be in the summer or the winter? Is there a nearby airport that's larger where you could pick the family up if conditions don't allow for a safe takeoff at the 3000-foot field?

Are you SURE you don't want a King Air? ;)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Are you SURE you don't want a King Air? ;)
Click to expand...

Back in the early eighties I was flying a Cessna 404 on a night freight run (remember Purolator Courier?). We upgraded to the Beech 99 (a King Air 100 unpressurized) and basically the operating cost were the same, but the 99 would carry a larger payload.

We had excellent dispatch reliability with the Cessna 404's. We also operated C-402B and C's and Cessna 310R's.
 
flyersfan31 said:
What would be the minimum field length you would consider for regular operations?

Mine is 3000 paved, with a 700 grass overrun
Click to expand...


This is too short for day in / day out operations, at least for a 421 (or King Air for that matter), even for someone who has increased his potential payload recently :). You either need a different plan or a different airport. It might work if you were lightly loaded, but why would you be getting an airplane like that if you're not going to utilize its potential?
 
Ah just get the PC12 ya know you want it AND Christina will like it:D
 
Last edited:
Talk to your insurance agent to get a quote to base a 421 one either your 3000ft strip vs. a commercial airport with a 6000+ft main runway. You'll get an idea what the risk professionals would think about that plan.
 
Family + Pilot = about 450lbs. On a trip, prob 70ish lbs baggage. Usual distance 300mi, several 1000, maybe one 2500mi in a year. Could pick up the family at KMMU, although that's a suboptimal solution. NO good sized runways nearby, unfortunately. This issue might be a deal-stopper, but Solberg has lots of clear field to set down in an emergency.

A twin imho, (properly trained, current, ceteris paribus, e pluribus unum) provides a nice safety factor, one I think about at night over dark, moonless Southern Connecticut or Vermont. Plus, the engines on the wing make for a bit more solid ride. Potty for the girls - they don't like kneeling over gelpaks. I really would like carrying room for 4 bikes (pop off the front wheels of course), which I recognize is asking a lot from any GA twin. The rear of the 400 Cessnas looks a bit tight for those purposes, certainly compared to the Chieftain. The pros of the 400 series are pressurization and speed. Mx (amount and cost) probably a con, compared to a Chieftain.

Dunno. There is only one perfect plane and she is called a PC12. Not in the budget for now......
 
flyersfan31 said:
Mx (amount and cost) probably a con, compared to a Chieftain.
Click to expand...

I doubt that, they're about the same, the Chieftain is not a maint lightweight. I know a guy with a 135 cert sold his 421 and got a Chieftain to get some extra seats. He lamented the decision every day because the Chieftain was always breaking down. He called it his Navawhore because it f-ed him out of all his money. That plane had horrid dispatch reliability. He finally bought a King Air.

There's always a Beech 18 if you don't need pressure and want to operate off your 3000' airport. They fly them off Catalina at gross...
 
Henning said:
I doubt that, they're about the same, the Chieftain is not a maint lightweight. I know a guy with a 135 cert sold his 421 and got a Chieftain to get some extra seats. He lamented the decision every day because the Chieftain was always breaking down. He called it his Navawhore because it f-ed him out of all his money. That plane had horrid dispatch reliability. He finally bought a King Air.

There's always a Beech 18 if you don't need pressure and want to operate off your 3000' airport. They fly them off Catalina at gross...
Click to expand...

Interesting. I assumed parts availability and cost, plus general reliability, would be in favor of the Navajo.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Interesting. I assumed parts availability and cost, plus general reliability, would be in favor of the Navajo.
Click to expand...

These are the TTs on about 1/2 of the Chieftains on Controller right now:

9723
12552
9056
9000
15600
17576
15734
12908
9500
22581
9565
13181
10112
15335

They must have been truly awful aircraft that spent most of their time in the maintenance hangar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top