Is it a too big jump?

F

Frostyline

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Messages
16
Display Name
Display name:
Frostyline
Hi, new here. Trying to get some help from the community here and hope getting some insights from those who had similar experiences in their past. I am a rookie pilot with 180 hours with private and instrument ratings and only 30 hours in high performance and complex in a Comanche 250. My mission is for short business trip and carrying family 5 (800 lbs) for trips and vacations. Just got a hanger at local airport close to me...exciting !! I am now looking at Cessna 210, Lance or a Cessna 340/A. Has anyone ever bought a twin 340 without even having a twin rating and had good experience with it? I know the fuel system is complicated however the useful Load can be 1800-2000 lbs after RAM conversions and pressurized cabin gives your the comfort. Is this a too big jump for me to even considering a twin? Or I should go by with a 210 or a P210? Appreciate any advice!
 
First: Research the cost of maintenance on the 340, and see if you can actually afford it. Folks have learned to fly in jets; it really depends on the pilot, so you'll need to have someone objective (a flight instructor, for example) evaluate your skills and ability to learn.
 
Is it too big of a jump to consider a twin? No.
Is it too big of a jump to consider a pressurized, cabin class, turbocharged twin? Probably.

I don't even know if you could get insurance on a 340. I think you also may want to look at what your "mission" is for the airplane, because a 210 and a 340 operate in quite different flight regimes. The fact that you're considering both really indicates that you need to narrow down what you want to do with a plane.

If that really is the route you want to go, I'd strongly suggest a Baron/310/Seneca/Aztec beforehand.

But as others will say, it can be done with money and time.
 
Last edited:
I have a friend who bought a 182 and successfully made the jump to a 340A mostly because he had a young family with a golden retriever and wanted a cabin class airplane with the comfort of pressurization. He flew the 340A for a couple of years and then stepped up to an MU-2.

All it takes is money and determination.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Is it too big of a jump to consider a twin? No.
Is it too big of a jump to consider a pressurized, cabin class, turbocharged twin? Probably.

If that really is the route you want to go, I'd strongly suggest a Baron/310/Seneca/Aztec beforehand.

But as others will say, it can be done with money and time.
Click to expand...


What he said.
 
I am planning to take 25 hours training for it if I ended up getting a 340, so I can become an insurance qualified pilot. Budgeting $20k/year for maintenance for 340, not sure it is high or low? For single engine, I am not sure there is any other choices but a 210 given the 1500-1600 useful load I probably need.
 
For a while the insurance marketplace was such that you might have been able to do that. Now, they’re getting a lot more restrictive (and expensive). You’re likely going to be uninsurable in a 340 right now.

That said, with your experience I would also say a 340 is inappropriate right now and I felt the insurance had gotten way too soft. You’d be better off jumping into a 310R, which will give you just as much practical useful load and baggage space, you will be insurable, much lower MX costs, and it’s a more appropriate first Twin. Also consider a Baron 58 or a Seneca, but the 310 in my opinion is the definite best choice.
 
I don't think that 25 hours in type with 200TT will satisfy the insurance company. A former colleague of mine got one with 600TT, multi/IFR and they wanted 25 dual and 25 solo. I think you may also find yourself frustrated with learning to fly the 340 and its complexities compared to a Commanche. Not to mention doing a bunch of engine cuts for your multi in a 340 is going to drive up the maintenance cost potentially. If you eventually want a cabin class twin either get the 210 or like Ted said get a 310. Then you'd be more prepared for a jump to say a 414/421 which is going to net you more capability than a 340.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Is it too big of a jump to consider a twin? No.
Is it too big of a jump to consider a pressurized, cabin class, turbocharged twin? Probably.

I don't even know if you could get insurance on a 340. I think you also may want to look at what your "mission" is for the airplane, because a 210 and a 340 operate in quite different flight regimes. The fact that you're considering both really indicates that you need to narrow down what you want to do with a plane.

If that really is the route you want to go, I'd strongly suggest a Baron/310/Seneca/Aztec beforehand.

But as others will say, it can be done with money and time.
Click to expand...

I thought for sure you say “send it,” especially since the title had the word jump in it. :D
 
A friend of mine with only SEL, and IFR jumped from his Diamond DA40 to a Cessna 310. He is currently getting his transition training in his plane and sold the Diamond for an amount that paid off the 310 and left enough in the bank for almost 30,000 gallons of avgas (or a bunch of mx).
 
Frostyline said:
I am planning to take 25 hours training for it if I ended up getting a 340, so I can become an insurance qualified pilot. Budgeting $20k/year for maintenance for 340, not sure it is high or low? For single engine, I am not sure there is any other choices but a 210 given the 1500-1600 useful load I probably need.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry, but you’re way out over your skis. Please consider an intermediate twin step. Please.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
It is not uncommon for a PPL to move up to a twin, but the 340 is a really big jump. It's not a matter of can it be done, It is a matter of Should it be done?

If you do, do it, be prepared for a long training tract.
 
Stan Cooper said:
I have a friend who bought a 182 and successfully made the jump to a 340A mostly because he had a young family with a golden retriever and wanted a cabin class airplane with the comfort of pressurization. He flew the 340A for a couple of years and then stepped up to an MU-2.

All it takes is money and determination.
Click to expand...
I have that same friend too.
 
Frostyline said:
I am planning to take 25 hours training for it if I ended up getting a 340, so I can become an insurance qualified pilot...
Click to expand...

Seems appropriate you are wanting to become "an insurance qualified pilot".
There's a depressing almost-certainty about the outcome of your proposed 25 hour course of action.
 
Last edited:
Either the 210 or the Lance is a great birdie, and won't cost the same as the 340.

There are three 340s around where my Lance is parked. They've all been in continual maintenance for nearly a year now. I can't imagine the dollars.

I know there are many 340s out there flying, and pilots flying them. I just don't see many where I am.
 
Over the past few years I've given a fair amount of multiengine training, primarily to aspiring professional pilots. Most of those guys have 300ish hours when they get around to doing the multi. My observation has been that many of the students are unprepared for the increase in speed and airplane complexity, plus they really haven't flown enough yet to develop good procedural practices. While multiengine airplanes still fly like airplanes and it doesn't take a lot of practice to get a low time pilot good enough to pass a multi checkride, there are very few of those guys that are good right out of the gate.

In my opinion, a 340 is not a place to start, it is a place to end. I'd suggest spending some time in an entry level twin first, such as a 310, Aztec, or Baron. After you get several hundred hours in one of those and get your total time up you will likely be insurable and competent stepping up to something more complex like the 340.

Can a person jump straight to the 340? Sure, if money and patience isn't a concern. I would tread lightly though.
 
Rgbeard said:
Either the 210 or the Lance is a great birdie, and won't cost the same as the 340.

There are three 340s around where my Lance is parked. They've all been in continual maintenance for nearly a year now. I can't imagine the dollars.

I know there are many 340s out there flying, and pilots flying them. I just don't see many where I am.
Click to expand...

Malibus are the more popular pressurized piston airplane around these parts. And the Meridians at my home airport outnumber them too.

There are folks buying the pressurized Cessna twins and spending a lot of money totally reworking/refurbishing them. There just isn't anything comparable available today. But a total rebuild is about the only way I can see achieving a reasonable dispatch reliability, otherwise it's always in the shop for one aging system repair after another.

@Ted DuPuis can verify, but I suspect the 414 may have spent more time in the shop getting stuff fixed per flight hour of all the Cloud Nine twins?
 
Rgbeard said:
There are three 340s around where my Lance is parked. They've all been in continual maintenance for nearly a year now. I can't imagine the dollars.
Click to expand...

They're old pressurized piston twins. Even nice examples will take a lot of work to keep them nice.

This is something that I think many prospective owners overlook. I am so glad my friend decided to pass on buying a 340 because I don't have the time or patience to keep it at the level of nice he expects. I have enough year plus long projects going for him fixing all the little things wrong with a few airplanes.
 
GRG55 said:
Malibus are the more popular pressurized piston airplane around these parts. And the Meridians at my home airport outnumber them too.

There are folks buying the pressurized Cessna twins and spending a lot of money totally reworking/refurbishing them. There just isn't anything comparable available today. But a total rebuild is about the only way I can see achieving a reasonable dispatch reliability, otherwise it's always in the shop for one aging system repair after another.
Click to expand...

If you can get past the one engine thing I think the Malibu is probably close to the equivalent of a 340 in what you can actually legally haul in them, as well as speed. Cabin space may not be equal though. The good news is that all but the oldest Malibus should be newer than the twin cessnas and it is still a current production airplane so I'd expect support to be better and the fleet to be in better shape overall.
 
mondtster said:
If you can get past the one engine thing I think the Malibu is probably close to the equivalent of a 340 in what you can actually legally haul in them, as well as speed. Cabin space may not be equal though. The good news is that all but the oldest Malibus should be newer than the twin cessnas and it is still a current production airplane so I'd expect support to be better and the fleet to be in better shape overall.
Click to expand...
Piston Malibus I'd argue are just as dangerous as a 340, just for different reasons.

If the OP wants to haul a load at speed a 210, A36 Bo, T206 or whole host of light twins fit the bill far better than a 340.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Piston Malibus I'd argue are just as dangerous as a 340, just for different reasons.
Click to expand...

The only TCd airplanes that I'd consider "dangerous" are the ones that are inappropriately maintained or flown. All airplanes need to be flown within limits and when they are, I wouldn't consider them dangerous. :)

Now if you're thinking I was proposing that the OP should get a Malibu, I wasn't. I don't think that would be any more appropriate for him than a 340 is. I also happen to know what insurance would cost on one for an 800ish hour private pilot and I seriously doubt the OP would like that number. I expect 340 insurance would be very similar, if anyone would touch it at all.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Piston Malibus I'd argue are just as dangerous as a 340, just for different reasons.

If the OP wants to haul a load at speed a 210, A36 Bo, T206 or whole host of light twins fit the bill far better than a 340.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that a piston Malibu is at least as safe as a 210/P210. And likely more so, on a fleet average, given the age difference of the typical airframe and systems.

Having said that, I wouldn't trade my twin for either.
 
Frostyline said:
Hi, new here. Trying to get some help from the community here and hope getting some insights from those who had similar experiences in their past. I am a rookie pilot with 180 hours with private and instrument ratings and only 30 hours in high performance and complex in a Comanche 250. My mission is for short business trip and carrying family 5 (800 lbs) for trips and vacations. Just got a hanger at local airport close to me...exciting !! I am now looking at Cessna 210, Lance or a Cessna 340/A. Has anyone ever bought a twin 340 without even having a twin rating and had good experience with it? I know the fuel system is complicated however the useful Load can be 1800-2000 lbs after RAM conversions and pressurized cabin gives your the comfort. Is this a too big jump for me to even considering a twin? Or I should go by with a 210 or a P210? Appreciate any advice!
Click to expand...

You better have a fat checkbook to maintain a 340. Look at an Aztec.
 
Thank you all! It seems a 310R or a 210 becomes a wiser choice. Is there any big difference maintenance wise between 310 and 340? Any suggestions between a P210 and 210 or TC210...obviously a pressurized 210 requires higher maintenance cost, but is it worth the money for the extra comfort?
 
Frostyline said:
Thank you all! It seems a 310R or a 210 becomes a wiser choice. Is there any big difference maintenance wise between 310 and 340? Any suggestions between a P210 and 210 or TC210...obviously a pressurized 210 requires higher maintenance cost, but is it worth the money for the extra comfort?
Click to expand...

I’d plan $350/hr to run a FIKI 310 and $550 for a 340.
 
Frostyline said:
obviously a pressurized 210 requires higher maintenance cost, but is it worth the money for the extra comfort?
Click to expand...
Well, only you can make the choice if the money justifies the comfort. P210s are quite a bit heavier than a normal 210 since the structure has to be beefed up to handle the pressure and gaps sealed etc. This weight is super bad for STOL if you were planning on doing any of that, which it sounds like you arent.
 
!
Frostyline said:
Thank you all! It seems a 310R or a 210 becomes a wiser choice. Is there any big difference maintenance wise between 310 and 340? Any suggestions between a P210 and 210 or TC210...obviously a pressurized 210 requires higher maintenance cost, but is it worth the money for the extra comfort?
Click to expand...

An Aztec or Saratoga would be a better choice
 
Frostyline said:
Thank you all! It seems a 310R or a 210 becomes a wiser choice. Is there any big difference maintenance wise between 310 and 340? Any suggestions between a P210 and 210 or TC210...obviously a pressurized 210 requires higher maintenance cost, but is it worth the money for the extra comfort?
Click to expand...

Any pressurized piston airplane is going to be materially more expensive to operate and maintain than a non-pressurized piston airplane, especially if the latter has naturally aspirated engines (all pressurized piston airplanes are turbocharged).
 
I think you have more experience than many that make that jump.
Proper training and a humble attitude....
You’ll be fine imo.
 
Frostyline said:
Thank you all! It seems a 310R or a 210 becomes a wiser choice. Is there any big difference maintenance wise between 310 and 340? Any suggestions between a P210 and 210 or TC210...obviously a pressurized 210 requires higher maintenance cost, but is it worth the money for the extra comfort?
Click to expand...
Where do you fly? Unless you fly in mountainous areas or want to fly over weather a naturally aspirated 210 will be the least expensive in the long run. A turbo Centurion engine typically has to have engine work around 1,100 to 1,200 hours while a naturally aspirated can make 1,600 to 1,800 hours if flown correctly and well maintained. The exhaust system in turbo 210’s take up a lot of room in the cowling and add up to more expensive annuals occasionally. Even though newer 210’s have 6 seats the back 2 seats are pretty cramped and not for 170+ pound adults imo. You also might look at a 206, should be easier to transition to & insure. Also will be less to maintain.
 
Frostyline said:
Thank you all! It seems a 310R or a 210 becomes a wiser choice. Is there any big difference maintenance wise between 310 and 340? Any suggestions between a P210 and 210 or TC210...obviously a pressurized 210 requires higher maintenance cost, but is it worth the money for the extra comfort?
Click to expand...

IMO, if you want to end up in a 340, you want to get into a 310 now. Many systems are similar if not identical between them, and lots of 310 time will only help you be insurable in the 340 later.

I would suggest sticking with normally aspirated for now, especially if you're going to do your multi training in the 310. Engine cuts on turbocharged engines = $$$$$$$$$.

We recently had a thread about 310s that you should check out as a starting point for your Twin Cessna adventure: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/all-about-cessna-310s.117510/
 
If load hauling family is the goal Saratoga, Lance, 6/300 or 6/260 should be your first thought. Stick to one engine and save yourself on costs down the line while you build time. If money is no object, well... your options are very open.
 
wheaties said:
If load hauling family is the goal Saratoga, Lance, 6/300 or 6/260 should be your first thought. Stick to one engine and save yourself on costs down the line while you build time. If money is no object, well... your options are very open.
Click to expand...

I would agree, if the 340 wasn't the end goal. If the OP is really set on having a 340 someday (and I can't say I'd blame him for aspiring to that), the multi time and similarity of the 310 and 340 will serve him better than the PA32R... And he'll probably save enough on purchase price to make the cost of feeding and maintaining the second engine a wash, if not even favoring the 310.
 
Besides two engines, the pressurization system, etc., I think that one of the biggest things in "moving up" is the speed increase. Not in cruise, that's essentially invisible, but in the pattern and approach. Just the difference between a Skyhawk and a Bonanza was quite eye-opening to me; the pattern was noticably larger, and I wanted to slow 'er down perhaps more than was prudent on final (which the owner expected, he was watching me closely!) And the delta for a 340 is about triple that.
Some people can do it with no problems, some can't do it at all. If I move up, it will likely be something like a 310, which, at may age, would be the end game.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Besides two engines, the pressurization system, etc., I think that one of the biggest things in "moving up" is the speed increase. Not in cruise, that's essentially invisible, but in the pattern and approach. Just the difference between a Skyhawk and a Bonanza was quite eye-opening to me; the pattern was noticably larger, and I wanted to slow 'er down perhaps more than was prudent on final (which the owner expected, he was watching me closely!) And the delta for a 340 is about triple that.
Some people can do it with no problems, some can't do it at all. If I move up, it will likely be something like a 310, which, at may age, would be the end game.
Click to expand...

It matters in cruise to the extent that you need to plan your descent and arrival a lot better (and earlier). In a 172 you can stay at cruise altitude until you see the destination, pull the throttle a few hundred RPM and be fine. In the faster birds, you'd better be a lot more on top of your game. I've had to start a descent 80+ miles out in the Mooney... Granted, that's pretty rare, but I definitely have to think about it and plan ahead.
 
I am based in Midwest so flying over high mountains or vast open water might be a rare mission, although flying my family to Bahamas for a vacation has been on my bucket list. Now I am leaning towards a 310 or 210 just trying to make sure I will have enough payload to carry 5 and luggage with full tank. Lance may do it depending on its useful load figure. I have not found any Saratoga that has 1500+ useful load yet ( if we all knock down 20 lbs off ourselves we may make it work as well, lol!) Again Thank you all! will keep you guys posted on what I end up with. I only got 3 months to make this happened before I lose the hanger I have been waiting for 5 years to others on the waiting list. is that crazy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top