Why should I not buy a Cessna 421.??

If your boss wants a 421 size airplane, and wants to fly 20+ hours per month just add a 4 and make it a 425, same cabin and similar systems with Pratt reliability! I have owned 2 414A's and a 421B along with a few others. My current 425 fuel costs are very similar to the 421B, it burns more, but at a 250-260 knots versus 200-210 knots and the fuel is cheaper. It still costs more, but about $30 per trip back and forth to the beach, 240 miles. The right 421 is a good airplane, but the wrong one can be a nightmare, parts are a little tougher to find and the engines are expensive to overhaul, but I guess they all are. I had my 421B for about 3 years and never spend a time on the engines other than oil changes, I did reseal the props, but nothing to speak of on the engines. I flew it about 80-100 hours per year and it was a very reliable airplane for me and the subsequent owners, I searched and found a really good one, but they aren't all good ones and a cheap one will eat your lunch and maybe dinner too! For something that needs to fly a lot I would go with a turbine, C90's are slower than 425's but a taller cabin, maintenance on King Airs can get pricey too. Ted suggested and MU-2 and I think they are solid, I don't have any direct experience with them.
 
N747JB said:
I had my 421B for about 3 years and never spend a time on the engines other than oil changes, I did reseal the props, but nothing to speak of on the engines. I flew it about 80-100 hours per year and it was a very reliable airplane for me and the subsequent owners
Click to expand...

You had really good luck with your 421 from what I've seen. Now, you're not the only one I've known who had good luck with it, but you are in the minority. :)

Your point about the 425 is a good one as well, those are great planes.
 
N747JB said:
If your boss wants a 421 size airplane, and wants to fly 20+ hours per month just add a 4 and make it a 425, same cabin and similar systems with Pratt reliability! I have owned 2 414A's and a 421B along with a few others. My current 425 fuel costs are very similar to the 421B, it burns more, but at a 250-260 knots versus 200-210 knots and the fuel is cheaper. It still costs more, but about $30 per trip back and forth to the beach, 240 miles. The right 421 is a good airplane, but the wrong one can be a nightmare, parts are a little tougher to find and the engines are expensive to overhaul, but I guess they all are. I had my 421B for about 3 years and never spend a time on the engines other than oil changes, I did reseal the props, but nothing to speak of on the engines. I flew it about 80-100 hours per year and it was a very reliable airplane for me and the subsequent owners, I searched and found a really good one, but they aren't all good ones and a cheap one will eat your lunch and maybe dinner too! For something that needs to fly a lot I would go with a turbine, C90's are slower than 425's but a taller cabin, maintenance on King Airs can get pricey too. Ted suggested and MU-2 and I think they are solid, I don't have any direct experience with them.
Click to expand...

Believe me, I have expressed that the 425 would be a much better plane. But they are stuck on that 149K 421. I have tried and tried to show that a cheap plane will be expensive for what we want to do, and an airplane not flying is not making money. I tried showing how a 425 would be the better plane to get started, and how it would be dependable and keep the customers happy. But the people spending the money want a cheap plane. I may need to borrow one of your best salesman to convince the investors.

I have been studying up on the MU-2s, and I feel that could work for us as well. Again, sticker shock. King Airs are just out. Another good plane is the PC-12, but again, initial cost is the problem.

Thanks for your help. I will try again this weekend.
 
What was it forest gumps mamma said about stupid??

Educate them and let them decide. Fly it whenever it’s not in the shop and don’t let the mx standards slide as long as you’re driving. It’s their money.
 
Zeldman said:
Believe me, I have expressed that the 425 would be a much better plane. But they are stuck on that 149K 421. I have tried and tried to show that a cheap plane will be expensive for what we want to do, and an airplane not flying is not making money. I tried showing how a 425 would be the better plane to get started, and how it would be dependable and keep the customers happy. But the people spending the money want a cheap plane. I may need to borrow one of your best salesman to convince the investors.

I have been studying up on the MU-2s, and I feel that could work for us as well. Again, sticker shock. King Airs are just out. Another good plane is the PC-12, but again, initial cost is the problem.

Thanks for your help. I will try again this weekend.
Click to expand...

Not sure what your role is in the company, but sounds like you’re going to be better off walking away from this one.
 
@Zeldman you could get an F model MU-2, which would do the job, for in the $200s... that might be a starting point. I love the F...
 
What it is about the 421 that makes it such a mx pig compared to tye category peers? The engines or the airframe?
 
Might be worth looking at a Shrike. Decent sized cabin and range for the payload.
 
Zeldman said:
Believe me, I have expressed that the 425 would be a much better plane. But they are stuck on that 149K 421. I have tried and tried to show that a cheap plane will be expensive for what we want to do, and an airplane not flying is not making money. I tried showing how a 425 would be the better plane to get started, and how it would be dependable and keep the customers happy. But the people spending the money want a cheap plane. I may need to borrow one of your best salesman to convince the investors.

I have been studying up on the MU-2s, and I feel that could work for us as well. Again, sticker shock. King Airs are just out. Another good plane is the PC-12, but again, initial cost is the problem.

Thanks for your help. I will try again this weekend.
Click to expand...

I assume that this is a new venture, and that there's a very real chance that the venture will fail, at which time they'll need to sell the airplane. There's a reason that the $149K 421 is only $149K. Nobody wants it. If they buy that airplane there's a very real chance it's theirs for good, and the only way to get rid of it is to sell it for parts. I'm pretty sure that's not what they want to do. If they buy the 425, they'd be able to sell it for much of what they paid for it should the venture fail. Maybe that will convince them.
 
FormerHangie said:
I assume that this is a new venture, and that there's a very real chance that the venture will fail, at which time they'll need to sell the airplane. There's a reason that the $149K 421 is only $149K. Nobody wants it. If they buy that airplane there's a very real chance it's theirs for good, and the only way to get rid of it is to sell it for parts. I'm pretty sure that's not what they want to do. If they buy the 425, they'd be able to sell it for much of what they paid for it should the venture fail. Maybe that will convince them.
Click to expand...

The probability of failure is much higher with a plane that has poor dispatch reliability.
 
Zeldman said:
Believe me, I have expressed that the 425 would be a much better plane. But they are stuck on that 149K 421. I have tried and tried to show that a cheap plane will be expensive for what we want to do, and an airplane not flying is not making money. I tried showing how a 425 would be the better plane to get started, and how it would be dependable and keep the customers happy. But the people spending the money want a cheap plane. I may need to borrow one of your best salesman to convince the investors.

I have been studying up on the MU-2s, and I feel that could work for us as well. Again, sticker shock. King Airs are just out. Another good plane is the PC-12, but again, initial cost is the problem.

Thanks for your help. I will try again this weekend.
Click to expand...

I'm enjoying the hell out of my Conquest. I'm 2.5 years and 450 hours into it and, so far, it just goes from phase to phase without any significant squawks. Going to jinx myself, but I've yet to scrub a flight for a mx issue. I know this might sound nuts, but I spent WAY more time managing the 310 than I have the 425. Not saying the 425 is in the shop any less, but it is all planned.

Eggman
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The probability of failure is much higher with a plane that has poor dispatch reliability.
Click to expand...

This x 1000. If potential customers get the perception that your operation is anything less than stellar, they'll stay far away.
 
FormerHangie said:
There's a reason that the $149K 421 is only $149K. Nobody wants it. If they buy that airplane there's a very real chance it's theirs for good,
Click to expand...

I think I was able to get that point through to the investors yesterday. They actually want me to look for something that better fits the mission with room for expansion.

These are money people. They are used to buying low and selling high, used to making good ROI. They saw the amount of money the contract is and then saw a low priced airplane and saw low cost, high profits. They are not airplane people.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
Alright.

Reasons not to buy a 421:

1) They break. A lot. Everything below is basically a subset of 1. There are plenty of 421 owners who will argue with you about that, but talk to them long enough (and talk to their mechanics long enough) and you'll ultimately realize that getting 25 hours per week out of one is going to be difficult, even if you buy a top-notch one.
2) The airframes aren't supported all that great, which is a problem when 1) comes up. Cessna wants them all gone. When they break, getting parts can challenging and expensive. Fortunately there are enough wrecked/scrapped ones that you can find a lot of parts in junkyards, but that doesn't work for a lot of them. Got an engine beam that goes bad? That's an enormous job to change (did that on the 414, same thing). And you need to buy either a new one from Cessna (which I recall is $10k) or a PMA part from TAS Aviation or RAM Aircraft (who distributes them) for $5k.
3) The geared engines are fine if treated properly, and I have no doubts that @Zeldman can operate them just fine. The problem is that they still break with regularity and will have little nagging issues, moreso than the direct drive. Oh, but they also have some issues that pop up unexpectedly, moreso than the direct drive equivalents. Issues like losing prime to the oil pump (so start it up and have 0 oil pressure) and engine failures on takeoff (happens much more regularly than direct drive engines). These are the reasons why I went after a 414 instead of the 421, and why 414s fetch more money than their 421 counterparts these days.

At the end of the day, you need a reliable aircraft that you can depend on for a mission like this. A $150k 421C is not going to be it. Going into the 414, I basically didn't have any choice but to go that route if I was going to manage an upgrade for Cloud Nine. We have a lot of advantages - some great sponsors who really helped pull us up, and my ability to turn wrenches. In spite of that, the plane had approximately 50% downtime on that airplane over the 2 years we owned it. We could've improved that some, but in reality I don't see it having been much better than 25% downtime over that period.

Wayne Bower used to say that you could operate a similar turboprop for about the same as a 414/421, and he's right. So, why to buy an MU-2:

1) It's not an airplane for everyone, but it is a good fit for a professional who will fly it the way it needs to be flown. Zeldman is a professional, he will do fine with it
2) Vs. the 414 and even factoring in the cost of the hot section we had to do first thing, the MU-2's operating costs are much cheaper. The plane is a tank - 1500 lbs heavier empty weight than a 425, 700 lbs heavier empty weight than a Cheyenne II. All that weight is in the structure. Yeah, my fuel bill is higher, but not by that much (CAA is a wonderful thing) and that's all I put in it - fuel
3) Because of this, it doesn't break a lot. Support from MHIA is excellent, and there are a lot of wrecked or scrapped aircraft that are available for parts purposes. The inspections are well defined. 100 hour, 200 hour (these two occur at a maximum of 1 year) and then beyond that there's 3-year/600 hour, and various other total airframe time inspections. My 100/200/annual, even going to one of the Mitsubishi service centers with optional items to be done, was cheaper than I managed on the 414 using small, independent A&Ps. It's just a great airplane

A $150k 421C will cost over $150k in the first 1-2 years.
Click to expand...
How would you compare this to a 340?


James_Dean said:
I'm enjoying the hell out of my Conquest. I'm 2.5 years and 450 hours into it and, so far, it just goes from phase to phase without any significant squawks. Going to jinx myself, but I've yet to scrub a flight for a mx issue. I know this might sound nuts, but I spent WAY more time managing the 310 than I have the 425. Not saying the 425 is in the shop any less, but it is all planned.

Eggman
Click to expand...

Slightly off topic but.. how did you find the transition from 310 to 425? What did your insurance company require? Looking to jump into the Conquest world in 3-5 years. It's easier to find operating/maintenance costs than it is to find training/insurance costs.
 
Z06_Mir said:
How would you compare this to a 340?
Click to expand...

The direct drive engines are a bit more reliable than the geared so some savings there. The airframe systems are essentially the same.

The 340 is a bit more fuel efficient and LOP is easier with direct drive so there’s some economy benefit there.
 
Z06_Mir said:
How would you compare this to a 340?




Slightly off topic but.. how did you find the transition from 310 to 425? What did your insurance company require? Looking to jump into the Conquest world in 3-5 years. It's easier to find operating/maintenance costs than it is to find training/insurance costs.
Click to expand...

I was paying around $4k/yr for $2mm smooth on $200k in hull on the 310. Moving to the Conquest, insurance required approved sim training and 25 hrs with approved mentor until turning me loose and was $14k/yr for $2mm smooth on $1.1mm hull. The second year the premium dropped a bit with limit increased to $5mm smooth. I did just get a notice of non-renewal as the company is dropping out of the owner flown TP market. It feels like the market is tightening and premium will be higher next year. I’ll be around 1600TT with 1000 multi and 500 TP by then.

Dirty secret? It’s easier to fly the 425 than the 310 once you get past the “holy crap things are happening quickly” phase.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The direct drive engines are a bit more reliable than the geared so some savings there. The airframe systems are essentially the same.

The 340 is a bit more fuel efficient and LOP is easier with direct drive so there’s some economy benefit there.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I only ask because a former client of mine just sold their 210 for a 340. Average trip is 150 miles which seems pretty dumb. They told me they have no idea what their operating costs would be, but their pilot said they needed a twin to increase dispatch rate. They got screwed.

James_Dean said:
I was paying around $4k/yr for $2mm smooth on $200k in hull on the 310. Moving to the Conquest, insurance required approved sim training and 25 hrs with approved mentor until turning me loose and was $14k/yr for $2mm smooth on $1.1mm hull. The second year the premium dropped a bit with limit increased to $5mm smooth. I did just get a notice of non-renewal as the company is dropping out of the owner flown TP market. It feels like the market is tightening and premium will be higher next year. I’ll be around 1600TT with 1000 multi and 500 TP by then.

Dirty secret? It’s easier to fly the 425 than the 310 once you get past the “holy crap things are happening quickly” phase.
Click to expand...

Good to know. Thanks for sharing. We have ours on a 1mm smooth but it's in the flight school insurance so the premium is elevated, around 6k IIRC. Good to know a baseline for insurance though.. gonna have to save for that as much as we are the airplane! I've always heard turboprops are much easier to fly. Plus I imagine being able to get above a lot of weather eliminates one layer of potential stress. Someday :)
 
Z06_Mir said:
Thanks. I only ask because a former client of mine just sold their 210 for a 340. Average trip is 150 miles which seems pretty dumb. They told me they have no idea what their operating costs would be, but their pilot said they needed a twin to increase dispatch rate. They got screwed.
Click to expand...
Sadly, those people are out there. Manager-pilots who talk owners into doing stupid things because they personally want to fly type X airplane.

I’m dealing with one of those types right now as a contractor. Very frustrating when you see owners being taken advantage of.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The direct drive engines are a bit more reliable than the geared so some savings there. The airframe systems are essentially the same.

The 340 is a bit more fuel efficient and LOP is easier with direct drive so there’s some economy benefit there.
Click to expand...

The way I read that, sounds like the 340 is just a mx black hole too. By that metric, is there any twin cessna that isn't an outright mx pig? serious Q.
 
hindsight2020 said:
The way I read that, sounds like the 340 is just a mx black hole too. By that metric, is there any twin cessna that isn't an outright mx pig? serious Q.
Click to expand...

There are certainly many that have been beat to hell by now....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Fearless Tower said:
Sadly, those people are out there. Manager-pilots who talk owners into doing stupid things because they personally want to fly type X airplane.

I’m dealing with one of those types right now as a contractor. Very frustrating when you see owners being taken advantage of.
Click to expand...

I lost track of a buddy who had a pretty nice setup. Flew the owner and employees around in a couple of single engine planes, managed the planes for the owner.
The pilot wanted to get some twin time to eventually get in the airlines, told the owner point blank about why he wanted to upgrade to the 421 from the Bonanza. Owner hired someone else to crunch the numbers, and gave the ok.
Kinda cool to see honesty pay off.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
 
hindsight2020 said:
The way I read that, sounds like the 340 is just a mx black hole too. By that metric, is there any twin cessna that isn't an outright mx pig? serious Q.
Click to expand...

These are complicated airframes that are all now more than 35 years old that were built as light as possible to operate in the harshest of environments with ancient engine technology stressed as far as the wild marketplace of the ‘70s would let them get away with.

And they are great at what they do. So you gotta mx ‘em.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Sadly, those people are out there. Manager-pilots who talk owners into doing stupid things because they personally want to fly type X airplane.

I’m dealing with one of those types right now as a contractor. Very frustrating when you see owners being taken advantage of.
Click to expand...
It's really frustrating and frankly it's sad. The kid who flies for them (and I do mean kid) wanted twin time and that's how he sold it. The kid didn't even have a multi rating when they bought it! They had to send him to get it. I offered to pilot service it but they didn't like the price I charge, and they wanted me to pay half the fuel for their insurance training because it's "good twin Cessna time". Hah. Okay then. I tried to help them, but one cannot help those who cannot help themselves. And their pilot has made sure to exclude my expertise from himself.

James_Dean said:
These are complicated airframes that are all now more than 35 years old that were built as light as possible to operate in the harshest of environments with ancient engine technology stressed as far as the wild marketplace of the ‘70s would let them get away with.

And they are great at what they do. So you gotta mx ‘em.
Click to expand...
Yep. But if you treat them right they're great airplanes. Just gotta be willing to spend the $ and time on them.
 
James_Dean said:
These are complicated airframes that are all now more than 35 years old that were built as light as possible to operate in the harshest of environments with ancient engine technology stressed as far as the wild marketplace of the ‘70s would let them get away with.

And they are great at what they do. So you gotta mx ‘em.
Click to expand...

That's a straw man. I 'mx' my Arrow too, and that isn't discretionary.

So, it appears the answer to my original question is no.
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
That's a straw man. I 'mx' my Arrow too, and that isn't discretionary.

So, it appears the answer to my original question is no. See, one could just say that without resorting to a straw man.

At any rate, the question really pertained to the degree to which the 421 deviates from other cessna twins, based on the reputation they have. No dog in the fight, but it doesn't appear judging by the responses, that the 421 deserves to carry the moniker alone.
Click to expand...

It isn’t a straw man argument. I don’t think the big twin Cessnas require any more mx than would be required for any plane in the class. You see “black hole”. I see a plane that is required for a certain mission and that mission requires a class of plane that takes money to run. Duke, Navajo, Cheyenne, King Air, Conquest, MU-2, Commander, Twin Cessnas, etc. All have strengths and weaknesses, and all will take more per year to run than your arrow by varying degrees of shocking.

I ran a Saratoga for a long time. It ended up costing an obscene cost per hour the last year I owned it because it sat not being able to do my mission. I would also note that, imo, maintenance on an arrow and on a big twin are very different propositions from several angles, bwthdik.
 
James_Dean said:
It isn’t a straw man argument. I don’t think the big twin Cessnas require any more mx than would be required for any plane in the class. You see “black hole”. I see a plane that is required for a certain mission and that mission requires a class of plane that takes money to run. Duke, Navajo, Cheyenne, King Air, Conquest, MU-2, Commander, Twin Cessnas, etc. All have strengths and weaknesses, and all will take more per year to run than your arrow by varying degrees of shocking.

I ran a Saratoga for a long time. It ended up costing an obscene cost per hour the last year I owned it because it sat not being able to do my mission. I would also note that, imo, maintenance on an arrow and on a big twin are very different propositions from several angles, bwthdik.
Click to expand...

I think we re talking past each other anyways. I'm fully aware mx on a na piston single is a different proposition than a cabin class twin. That wasn't my point.

The only point I was making regarding the 421 and the black hole comment was that if there is no significant delta between it and other cessna twins (the 340 in this instance), then the reputation it carries according to this thread is unwarranted.

Is the 421 a mx outlier in its class or not? That was my only question.
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
Nothing better than hot starting a heat soaked, vapor locked continental with passengers. "Once I get them running it will be fine. Its just vapor lock. Trust me i'm a pilot"
Click to expand...

I've never had an issue if the proper technique is used.
 
hindsight2020 said:
The way I read that, sounds like the 340 is just a mx black hole too. By that metric, is there any twin cessna that isn't an outright mx pig? serious Q.
Click to expand...

In my experience, the 310 was noticeably lower maintenance than the 414, and most 310 owners seem to report similar. I had excellent dispatch reliability with it and rare issues.

The big issue with the 340/414/421 is unplanned MX. As @James_Dean pointed out with his upgrade, the 425 costs more than the 310 but basically goes between inspections without needing anything. You're highly unlikely to have that happen on a 340/414/421... unless you're just ignoring major discrepancies. So far the MU-2 actually is cheaper per mile than the 414 was, but that's only 7 months in.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I've never had an issue if the proper technique is used.
Click to expand...

They are finicky. You can run cool tank fuel to the fuel control unit with the electric pump but the injector lines and divider will remain heat soaked. They will start up on the first try with good technique.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
In my experience, the 310 was noticeably lower maintenance than the 414, and most 310 owners seem to report similar. I had excellent dispatch reliability with it and rare issues.

The big issue with the 340/414/421 is unplanned MX. As @James_Dean pointed out with his upgrade, the 425 costs more than the 310 but basically goes between inspections without needing anything. You're highly unlikely to have that happen on a 340/414/421... unless you're just ignoring major discrepancies. So far the MU-2 actually is cheaper per mile than the 414 was, but that's only 7 months in.
Click to expand...

If that's true of the 425, then the issue with the 340/414/421 seems to revolve around the engines, no?
 
I was torn between a 421 and a 340 and ended up buying the best fit for me at the time which was a 340. I am not wealthy enough to buy a TBM and I think the 421 is a less expensive plane mile for mile than the king air 90. I would discount "cool factor," because I've never been cool and buying a plane is not going to help. I love the twin cessnas. Many have had a lot of maintenance deferred but once I bought my 340 and got her caught up shes been very reliable. The 421 has geared engines that are quieter and seem to be reliable. They do have a lower tbo than other big bore continentals. They seem to be underpriced right now on the market compared to 414s which are over priced and 340s which are stable. The geared engines have a starter adaptor AD that is very expensive. Their cabins and baggage are roomy. As far as fuel stops, if you are routinely piling 7 people and baggage into one then the previous post is correct you will have a lot of stops and a King Air or TBM might be a good choice.
 
I have about 200 hours in a 340. I don't recall having any problems with it other than one time I took off for a 30 minute trip. At altitude I was wondering how much fuel was in the aux tanks. So I switched. A few seconds later I found out exactly how much fuel was in the aux tanks....:yikes: :lol::lol:
 
Yes, fuel management is a little dodgy. You can toggle the fuel gauge indicator on mine and see how much is in the auxes. That may be a little late advice! I also have the nacelle tanks on mine but only one has a gauge!
 
hindsight2020 said:
If that's true of the 425, then the issue with the 340/414/421 seems to revolve around the engines, no?
Click to expand...

The engines are a big part of it. No spark plugs, no equivalent oil change, no mixture fumbling, starter clutch, no magneto, etc. I’m not an expert, but from what I’ve seen the 425 systems/structures are generally beefier also. I think max gross on a 421 is 6800-7000 depending upon year and STC’s. My 425 has a max ramp weight of 8675. Empty my 425 is 5345 vs the 421 at 4200 - 4300. A PT6-135 only weighs 320 lbs also. 421 will hold around 1400 lbs of fuel where I can take 2450lbs. The vibration factor of the turbine vs a piston beating accessories to death is also significant.

Bleed air for pressurization, instruments, cabin heat, and boots is also a significant difference.
 
Isn't there a medevac outfit in your neck of the woods that flies them in revenue service ? They could probably add some numbers to the conjecture and hearsay.
 
The most expensive airplane you can buy is a cheap 421! A good one won’t be cheap and a cheap one won’t be good! I bought my 421B with a great maintenance history and low time engines and props, paint was good, ugly, but in good shape, the downside was the avionics were installed by Orville Wright! :rolleyes: I upgraded the panel and flew it for 3 years, painted it and sold it. I’ve seen some 421 nightmares though, a friend of mine was looking for a 421 and I offered him mine, he bought a C model with a ton of time on it and it ate his lunch!!:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top