That's because I helped design, test, and certify it.

Bill -probably a question that deserves its own thread, but…

Has the Cessna fleet aged as you expected it to? Did y'all give any thought to how the planes would be doing - or if they’d even be flying! - 45+ years later?

Robert

You guys did good. One of the few things I would have loved to see is the increased cabin differential. It's my understanding the last few aircraft off of the line were modified in preparation for the increase, but production was halted prior to production.

You guys did good. One of the few things I would have loved to see is the increased cabin differential. It's my understanding the last few aircraft off of the line were modified in preparation for the increase, but production was halted prior to production.

Very difficult on a non round cabin section. The bending stress in the corners is really extreme. I suspect a round cross section would be a lot lighter and give the same room once all the variables are considered carefully.

The RVSM on the 441 is really not all that useful, IMO. If you are going on a medium range flight, you have enough fuel to fly at FL280 and keep the cabin altitude down. If you are flying long range, then subjecting your passengers to a high cabin altitude for that many hours is very tiring.

Also, if you have a tailwind, he extra range of FL350 isn't usually needed. If you have a headwind, FL350 will usually be worse groundspeed than FL280, so you don't want to go that high.

Thus the RVSM capability has rather narrow utility for the cost of keeping it.

If someone gave me the choice between an MU2 and 441, straight up, I'm taking the 441. I ended up in an MU2 because it was a lot cheaper to get.

Mike C.

The sweet spot for the -10 441 is FL320-330. Above that, you start to lose speed. The fuel burn difference from 280-330 is close to 100PPH. It doesn’t take much flying to pay for RVSM cost. The more important advantage is crossing weather. 280-350, Even though it’s only a few feet is a game changer if you want reliable transportation.

I’ll have to look the book that described the increased cabin differential. It just stuck in my mind that the last few production aircraft were already modified structurally.

If you flew in still air, yes, it makes some sense, but that's not realistic.

In a headwind, you aren't going that high just to face more wind. You spend most of your time in a headwind.

In a tailwind, you already have the range and can simply throttle back to achieve lower fuel flow at a lower altitude.

The fatigue of the higher cabin altitude is a meaningful problem.


Generally, convective weather rises well above those altitudes. Even in my jet, you aren't often topping thunderstorms.

If the weather is lower than that, which means not convective, it is usually widespread and less severe.

RVSM for the 441 looks good on paper, but in the real world, the benefits are not as good as one expects for practical reasons. This became clear to me when I ran a nominated 1600 nm trip over a number of wind/weather patterns and found few days where the extra altitude materially changed the outcome. You either faced headwinds that required a fuel stop regardless, or you had tailwinds and the extra range wasn't required. Subjecting passengers to 11,000 ft cabin for 5 hours was also not ideal.


In my experience, it is not often that FL280 to FL350 meaningfully changes your ability to cross weather. Almost always, weather in that band also rises to FL400 or higher. You end up needing lateral separation rather than vertical to make it safe.


I would be very surprised if such a complex change was made.

A simple way to know is to examine the IPC and see if the fuselage structural parts are different in the last serial numbers. I doubt they will be.

Mike C.

What’s the cost of RVSM? I thought ADS-B elimated at least substantially reduced annual expenses for RVSM.

If you flew in still air, yes, it makes some sense, but that's not realistic.

In a headwind, you aren't going that high just to face more wind. You spend most of your time in a headwind.

In a tailwind, you already have the range and can simply throttle back to achieve lower fuel flow at a lower altitude.

The fatigue of the higher cabin altitude is a meaningful problem.


Generally, convective weather rises well above those altitudes. Even in my jet, you aren't often topping thunderstorms.

If the weather is lower than that, which means not convective, it is usually widespread and less severe.

RVSM for the 441 looks good on paper, but in the real world, the benefits are not as good as one expects for practical reasons. This became clear to me when I ran a nominated 1600 nm trip over a number of wind/weather patterns and found few days where the extra altitude materially changed the outcome. You either faced headwinds that required a fuel stop regardless, or you had tailwinds and the extra range wasn't required. Subjecting passengers to 11,000 ft cabin for 5 hours was also not ideal.


In my experience, it is not often that FL280 to FL350 meaningfully changes your ability to cross weather. Almost always, weather in that band also rises to FL400 or higher. You end up needing lateral separation rather than vertical to make it safe.


I would be very surprised if such a complex change was made.

A simple way to know is to examine the IPC and see if the fuselage structural parts are different in the last serial numbers. I doubt they will be.

Mike C.

441 owners...how would you rate the cabin noise level in cruise? Subjective, of course...but would you say it's comfortable without headsets?

We have a 441 owner with Dash 10's and 4 blade props, pax are saying communication is difficult due to cabin noise levels.

In the one we had, it was comparable to my 414. It was definitely noisier than the 421C we replaced, however, it was rare that passengers in the back ever wore a headset.

Passengers choose to not wear headsets. We added headset jacks to the back seats, but they're not being used like I thought they would.

On Saturday my wife was trying to nap in the back and was frustrated we were talking too loud in the front (with headsets) and waking her up. It's easy to talk from front to back without headsets. We do have the soundproofing insulation.

The 441 is louder than a 4 bladed King Air, about on par with a piston Cessna twin. Definitely louder up front for the pilots than in the back, but no one in the back has ever worn a headset on any flight I’ve been on and they all seem to be able to talk back there.

Obviously much louder than a Citation…

From a pilot’s perspective, I’m more comfortable wearing my Halo in ear headsets in a King Air than in a 441 and prefer full ear headsets in the 441. But… there’s less headroom in the 441.

You didn’t ask, but tall people (both passengers and pilots) will like the King Air better.

Robert

I rode in the back of 421 on Sunday. Also in the back of a 441 on Saturday. I think the 441 was quieter.

Ok thanks. We'll take a look at the insulation and condition of the window seals.