If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Advice and experts with 400 series Cessnas (414 and 421), purchase and training
I recently got back into flying after a 12 year layoff. I am current,
and flying high-performance singles (182). I have around 80 hours in high-performance planes, including retracts. I am currently building time to improve my skills and getting ready to take the next step. I am finally in a financial position to not only be able to afford to fly, but to own an aircraft. I've been doing research on the various costs, fixed and hourly, and I will not buy an airplane unless I am sure I can: 1. afford to fly it regularly 2. have sufficent income to handle unexpected expenses 3. have funds for initial and recurrent training 4. can put 50-100 hours of dual in type I am trying to map out how I want to proceed going to the next step. I want to get my instrument rating, and possibly multi (which, of course I'd do, if I went for a twin). So, here is my dilema. I've pretty much settled on a T210 or a 400-series Cessna. I'd prefer the twin, because I'd like to replace most or all of my airline travel. I want to be able to take 4-6 people on medium to long trips. I'm based on the west coast, in California. We seldom have seriously bad weather here, and if I travel east, I would allow plenty of time to divert or wait out bad weather. One reason I'd prefer a twin is that certain areas of California can have persistant fog, with below-IFR ceilings, that I occasionally need to overfly. If you lose a single engine, an emergency landing in those conditions have a low chance of success. To get use out of my plane, I would like to be able to fly over areas with those conditions. A twin would almost certainly get you to a clear weather airport. My total time is about 300 hours. Yes, I know, low time. If I went for either plane, I would do all my training in that plane. That would mean 50-100 hours of dual. When I started my refresher (extended BFR), I told the instructor I was in no hurry, and we'd keep going until we were both satisfied. If I buy either plane, I would do the same. No hurry with time, no money constraints on training. I'd tell the instructor I want to go through training slowly and do everything over and over until there is no doubt I'm ready for the next thing. I would also plan several dual-instruction, cross-country, point to point flights (hopefully in actual IFR) to gain practical experience in the system and with my plane. As for insurance, I'd look for a pilot with lots of hours in type to add as first insured. The best case would be to find a CFII, MEI that would want time in type, could train me in my plane until I'm ready and have enough time in type, and could use my plane part of the time. So, the questions a 1. are there any schools that specialize in 414/421 initial and recurrant training? 2. any advice on how to find local instructors that have experience in type? 3. if anyone has any advice on buying and training in T210s and 400 series, your advice would be welcome Again, I want to emphasize that I would do EXTENSIVE training, including extended training and dual instruction flights, before I'd consider myself worthy of acting as PIC. I realize that a 400 series Cessna is a very complex aircraft, and I would do everything necessary to become proficient in my aircraft. I take flying and training very seriously. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
If you can afford it, and are willing to put in the time and effort
to do all of the things you elaborated on then why the hell not? My only problem with your post is that it seems your reasoning for wanting a twin is to help you avoid any possibility of getting into any sort of weather. That seems sort of counter productive in that either the 210 or the twins are very adept at dealing with weather given a competent pilot and a some wise flight planning. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:52:21 GMT, kontiki
wrote: If you can afford it, and are willing to put in the time and effort to do all of the things you elaborated on then why the hell not? My only problem with your post is that it seems your reasoning for wanting a twin is to help you avoid any possibility of getting into any sort of weather. That seems sort of counter productive in that either the 210 or the twins are very adept at dealing with weather given a competent pilot and a some wise flight planning. Maybe I didn't word that correctly. One rationale for wanting a twin over a single is that I'd like to be able to fly *over* areas that are below IFR minimums and over mountains without the worry that if I lose my one engine, that I'd have to make an emergency landing with poor odds of survival. There are other reasons for wanting a twin, but assuming I keep up with emergency engine out procedure reviews, I'd like the piece of mind knowing I can continue into more favorable conditions with the remaining engine. Some examples: 1. California's Central Valley can get persistant fog that lasts for days, has ceilings of 100ft AGL or less, and quarter to half mile visibility. I occasionally overfly those conditions from the bay area to the Sierra mountains or southern Cal, and I'm concerned that losing an engine over that kind of muck is pretty much a death sentence. 2. I like to fly to Tahoe, Truckee and Reno. I'd like the piece of mind that an engine loss won't leave me over terrain that is impossible to land on safely. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
engine loss on most twins.. in the Reno/Tahoe area will NOT keep you out of
trouble.. The single engine service altitude on some twins is well below that mountain pass. BT wrote in message news:1104457427.9d9ebb6bf233270beb75b79a476ce16b@t eranews... On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:52:21 GMT, kontiki wrote: snip 2. I like to fly to Tahoe, Truckee and Reno. I'd like the piece of mind that an engine loss won't leave me over terrain that is impossible to land on safely. snip |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
BTIZ wrote:
engine loss on most twins.. in the Reno/Tahoe area will NOT keep you out of trouble.. The single engine service altitude on some twins is well below that mountain pass. True, but a twin that loses an engine above the single engine service doesn't plummet instantly to that altitude. Depending on how long the pass is, a twin that is flying well above the SESC could transit the pass long before the slow descent has dropped it to the SESC. Matt |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:31:09 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote: BTIZ wrote: engine loss on most twins.. in the Reno/Tahoe area will NOT keep you out of trouble.. The single engine service altitude on some twins is well below that mountain pass. True, but a twin that loses an engine above the single engine service doesn't plummet instantly to that altitude. Depending on how long the pass is, a twin that is flying well above the SESC could transit the pass long before the slow descent has dropped it to the SESC. You don't need to be able to cruise all the way out of the mountains. You just need to stay aloft long enough not to crash into a mountain or canyon. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:09:04 -0800, "BTIZ"
wrote: engine loss on most twins.. in the Reno/Tahoe area will NOT keep you out of trouble.. On departure, maybe not. I'm thinking more at cruise or if you've already got some altitude. Engine failures on departure are dangerous no matter what you are flying. There is no way to eliminate all risk, I just hope to minimize risk as much as possible. The single engine service altitude on some twins is well below that mountain pass. This is something I will have to investigate with any aircraft I will consider buying. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 00:38:58 GMT, Paul Smedshammer
wrote: ne in that case that would allow me to find a clear spot on either side of the Central Valley fog could have been a life saver. I was very lucky and will think twice before going VFR over the top again on a single engine. Paul Smedshammer Mooney M20F I've pretty much been talked out of buying a twin. The way they talk about it, it sounds like you'd have to be nuts to buy a twin, especially an older one. I guess I have 3 choices: 1. Buy a twin, go broke 2. Fly a singe, eventually get killed 3. Don't fly John Szpara Affordable Satellite Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The T210 is probably the best overall compromise between capability and cost
but it isn't really up to flying IMC over the Sierra, but the 340 and 421 would be marginal for that too. Mike MU-2 "john szpara" wrote in message news:1105148624.5add2b1a2ce8325fe6c0b0c877086475@t eranews... On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 00:38:58 GMT, Paul Smedshammer wrote: ne in that case that would allow me to find a clear spot on either side of the Central Valley fog could have been a life saver. I was very lucky and will think twice before going VFR over the top again on a single engine. Paul Smedshammer Mooney M20F I've pretty much been talked out of buying a twin. The way they talk about it, it sounds like you'd have to be nuts to buy a twin, especially an older one. I guess I have 3 choices: 1. Buy a twin, go broke 2. Fly a singe, eventually get killed 3. Don't fly John Szpara Affordable Satellite Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|