Advice and experts with 400 series Cessnas (414 and 421), purchase and training

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:58:07 -0800, wrote:

Update

I've eliminated the 421 as the first plane. I've been having a long
discussion on the cessna pilot's association forum, and the 421 isn't
the right airplane for now.

I've made a list of planes I'd be interested in:

T210
P210
T310
320
340

The 340 would be nice, but the costs and complexity are too close to
the 421, so it is basically out. I could use some opinions on the
others. I've pretty much decided to get my instrument rating in a
single first, then go from there.

I could also use some recommendations on instrument rating programs
here in the Bay Area. All clubs offer them, but it is difficult to
know which one is best.
John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

wrote in
news:1104457427.9d9ebb6bf233270beb75b79a476ce16b@t eranews:

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.

As somebody who does exactly this with a Mooney often (crossing over the
California Central Valley) I can attest to the desire to have another
engine. Just last month I was flying over a fog layer that was 100 agl
to tops at 1000 solid in the Central California Valley heading back to
the Northern Bay Area. I was at 4,500 feet when the engine began running
very rough. It cleared about 8 minutes later (turned out to be water in
the fuel or a plugged injector) but the feeling that I was a gonner is
still with me. Thinking about crossing over an overcast layer with no
place to safely glide makes a pit in my stomach. Having another engine
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

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

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

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:35:06 -0800, john szpara
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:58:07 -0800, wrote:

Update

I've eliminated the 421 as the first plane. I've been having a long
discussion on the cessna pilot's association forum, and the 421 isn't
the right airplane for now.

Good decision,

I've made a list of planes I'd be interested in:

T210
P210
T310
320
340

Just kind of curious as to why you have eliminated everything but
Cessna products. Piper and Beech also have good small single and twin
aircraft with comparable price. For the single engine, look at the
Bonanza, it has better performance in almost all categories. And for
the twin, I would also look at the Beech Baron or the Piper Seneca's.
If it is just because your familiar with Cessna products, don't short
yourself. I don't know what kind of aircraft that you have been
taught it (suspecting a 172) but if you are looking for
familiarization and easy transition into a larger plane, the 210 is
the only plane on your list that would look similar to the 172. After
that, the panels and their flight characteristics, IMHO, are no where
close. But I can't speak for the 340 as I have never flown or even
been in one but I am suspecting it is similar to the 320.

The 340 would be nice, but the costs and complexity are too close to
the 421, so it is basically out. I could use some opinions on the
others. I've pretty much decided to get my instrument rating in a
single first, then go from there.

Good decision on getting the Instrument in a single engine. I would
suggest getting it in like a 172 because things happen a lot slower
and it gives your mind a chance to react and make decisions before you
go blowing thru a localizer or you cross a fix before deciding what
type of hold entry you are suppose to be making.

Good luck.

Scott D.
Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 11:04:55 -0700, Scott D. wrote:


Just kind of curious as to why you have eliminated everything but
Cessna products. Piper and Beech also have good small single and twin
aircraft with comparable price. For the single engine, look at the
Bonanza, it has better performance in almost all categories. And for
the twin, I would also look at the Beech Baron or the Piper Seneca's.
If it is just because your familiar with Cessna products, don't short
yourself. I don't know what kind of aircraft that you have been
taught it (suspecting a 172) but if you are looking for
familiarization and easy transition into a larger plane, the 210 is
the only plane on your list that would look similar to the 172. After

I've done a lot of reading and research, checking performance numbers,
operating costs and flying characteristcs. There is nothing special
about the Pipers. I've flown the Warrior, Archer and Arrow. Bonanzas
evidently are very sensitive to CG. I have time in a Mooney 231, great
airplane, but barely 4 pax, forget fuel and baggage. Also a bit crampt
compared to most Cessnas.

For the money, a T210 is a better overall buy. I've flown them before,
and love 'em. Fast, powerful, heavy feeling (feels smoother in
flight), good loading numbers.

I don't know much about the Piper twins, but the Cessnas seem to fit
the bill for me nicely. Perhaps I should consider, say, a Seneca
turbo, but if I want cabin class, the 340, 414 and 421 would be a
better goal (although a Navajo would fit the bill as well).

that, the panels and their flight characteristics, IMHO, are no where
close. But I can't speak for the 340 as I have never flown or even
been in one but I am suspecting it is similar to the 320.

The 340 is quite different. The 320 is *slightly* larger than a 310,
but you wouldn't be able to tell that much just looking at it. The 340
is cabin-class, a bit shorter and narrower than a 400-series. You
might have trouble telling a 340 from a 414 just looking at the
pictures.

Good decision on getting the Instrument in a single engine. I would
suggest getting it in like a 172 because things happen a lot slower
and it gives your mind a chance to react and make decisions before you
go blowing thru a localizer or you cross a fix before deciding what
type of hold entry you are suppose to be making.

Yeah, I need to take a slower track on this. No problem, I have lots
of time to figure things out after I get my instrument rating.

John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

Look at the safety numbers for a Cheyenne I.
Safest twin flying.