Anyone here familiar with the real cruise speeds of the 340A? I have done about 5 hours in one and I am not convinced it can't come close to the C55 speeds in cruise, even when the 340 is at 15K.

Obviously, it has many other attributes and the cabin, feel and ramp presence are awesome, as is the AC. Could be easy to get used to.


But, I have experienced mostly 175knts and maybe 180kts so far. The C Baron will hit 190ktz plus without any special effort.


Would love to hear from current/past 340A operators.

Jon C ran one for several years, and is a numbers-geek of sorts, so hopefully he'll chime in.

175-180 KTAS seems shockingly low to me. I think of the 340 as just a tick slower than the 58P on similar fuel, so I'd expect it to be ~200 KTAS on 32 gph at altitude.

Honestly--seems way low to me as well. I guess it might depend on what "at altitude" means.


I thought getting it up to 15k should count for something. And, bear in mind--I like it--I really like it. Would love to have it--I thought--but I am thinking the old C55 will smoke it like a cheap cigar.


And--- this is not super economy--LOP stuff either. This is 35 or so MP and 2350 on the props--- which is not exactly feather pedaling it, right?

Yeah, I owned and operated a RAM VI C340A for 7 years. I saw about the following:

- 40 gph/side takeoff power, 41"/2700 rpm (usually only to about 400')
- 30-31 gph/side climb power, 35"/2500 rpm, 130 KIAS, 1000 fpm until about 12-14000, then about 750 fpm
- 16 gph/side cruise, around 34"/2400 rpm, LOP, highest CHT 380°, and I would comfortably see 200 KTAS (plus or minus 5 KTAS for temp variations) from about 12000' up.
- 20 gph/side cruise, ROP, CHTs would run hotter than I really liked, but around 31"/23-2400 rpm, and I would see an additional 5-10 KTAS in cruise. I rarely ran this way.

I found the 340 to give me an honest 200 KTAS unless really loaded heavy and high altitude, then I'd lose 5 KTAS or so.

edit: I originally said 35 gph/side climb power, but that was a little off. More like 30-31 gph/side climb power. But higher than RAM's spec by about 2 gph made for a much cooler engine in the climb.

John,

I have only read about the 340A. But based on that, the specific upgrades on the plane can make huge difference. One guy stated the Ram upgrades basically fundamentally change the plane.

Tim

I owned a Ram VII 340A and flew it for five years and 500 hours. Below 10,000 slightly slower than my Baron. Above 12,000 200+ knots and above 15,000 210KTS and 25,000 about 220 KTS. Speed would vary with DA and WT. The plane you flew must have something seriously wrong with it. Jerry

I normally fly between 18 – 25,000’ to get the best performance but at 15,000’ on a recent flight I noted 194 KTAS with ~160 gallons / 1000 lbs. and 400 lb. payload ( 600 lbs. less than max.). That was at 36 GPH total. In the low twenties I average ~200 – 205 KTAS at 32 – 34 GPH and max out at ~225 – 230 KTAS at high power ( never run that hard ). Another flight at 12,000' was 180 KTAS at 30 GPH for reference. My airspeed numbers are off of the G500 air data computer.

Takeoff FF is 37 GPH/side, climb is 29 GPH/side; climb is normally ~1000 FPM through 21K ( RAM VII with the larger turbocharger).

Geoff

A Baron is a much stronger and simpler aircraft.
I dont like it when my spars melts from the exaust heat.
As for the gears... And then the fuel system.

Geoff's numbers are exactly what we see in the 340A Ram VII we currently operate for a local company..

===========

I remember cruising around 170-175 but I also flew it LOP so I guess I could have gotten 180+ out of it if I sprayed more fuel into the cylinders. Speed notwithstanding I liked it a lot. A real sweet machine.

I usually flew it in the upper teens16K-17K and liked it up there. There is no traffic at these altitudes, usually got direct everywhere.

I'm seeing about the same numbers as Jerry. RAM upgrades do change the airplane so it depends what you are flying. The numbers you quote do seem low. I normally fly at between FL190 and 230 and I typically see 215-218 TAS at 65% power (31.5" MP / 2300 RPM / 38 GPH). If I'm close to max gross, this will go down by about 5-8 knots.

200-200-200
200 kts @ FL200 burning 200 lbs per hr ))
That said, what,if any improvements do you have installed?
Robert Tanner

The C55 will outrun the 340 up to about 10,000 feet and then the turbo'd 340 takes over.

Takeoff and climb: big advantage C55.

Short-field ability: C55 by a mile and a half! Huge fowler flaps vs. split flaps on 340.

Useful load: C55 by a lot. The 340 I flew could carry only 2 people and bags with full fuel and that barely got us 750 miles. C55 can do 6 pax, full fuel (4.5 hrs), and bags.

Pressurization, comfort, cabin size: Advantage 340, obviously. It is nice.

Handling: C55

Lots of sacrifice to get the pressurization and cabin in my opinion. If all your trips are long enough to justify the (slower) climb to the mid teens, then it might be worth it. Otherwise, your more powerful, load-hauling, more economical, simpler C55 is the way to go.

It seems you are comparing a stock or early RAM 340 to the C55. These numbers are out of whack for a RAM VI or VII 340. There's a big difference in performance and load carrying capacity (5990 vs 6390 MTOW) between the two. 18 minutes to 21k is hardly slow climb. I also fly a Baron 55 and it will run out of breath at 10k. If I'm flying a short trip in the flat lands the Baron is nice, quick and economical. If it's a long trip or over rocks - I don't even think about it - the 340 by a long stretch.

Oh and the Baron is a lot noisier. My wife and PAX hardly consider traveling in the 340 a sacrifice - in fact it's quite the opposite.

It seems that Cessna is interested in Beechcraft, an article I read late last night late.