BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Apr 2022, 01:19

Username Protected wrote:

IMO that F model is a bargain. It has been on the market for ages. You could probably trade those extra engines for hot sections, which would give you 20 years of flying. Also, an F model is good for 270+kts, which isn't a slug.

Btw, Tony you must have a very slick 414. I've never seen a 414 do 200kts on only 30gph. What altitude are you seeing that?

My rule of thumb is FL200 = 200 KTAS.

I’m running the engines Lean Of Peak (LOP) EGT. The plane would certainly go 205-210 KTAS at 35-37 GPH ROP.

For the Cessna 414 with RAM VI - 335hp:
(data provided by RAM Aircraft)

Cruise @ 75% - ISA - 20,000 ft. - 218 KTAS
Cruise @ 65% - ISA - 20,000 ft. - 203 KTAS

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Apr 2022, 09:30

Username Protected wrote:

IMO that F model is a bargain. It has been on the market for ages. You could probably trade those extra engines for hot sections, which would give you 20 years of flying. Also, an F model is good for 270+kts, which isn't a slug.

Btw, Tony you must have a very slick 414. I've never seen a 414 do 200kts on only 30gph. What altitude are you seeing that?

I've tracked 340/414/421 performance statements for 15 years ( including some of yours Sandy) and that 414 is certainly an outlier. Tip-tank 414 speed claims at 20,000' average 190 KTAS at 35 GPH for about 5.3 nmpg. Straight wing 414s do a lot better - 205 - 215 KTAS. Average useful load of a 203 gallon 414 is about 2000# for a RAM conversion; you'll see 1800 to 2700# claims for similarly equipped aircraft.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Apr 2022, 10:22

Many years ago when looking for my first twin piston aircraft to buy (transitioning up from my T-210) I was strongly considering a C340. I flew with a local commercial operator that had two of them and a C421 quite often. He told me to flight plan for 180kts in the 340. He was a pretty conservative guy so I’m sure the plane would occasionally do a bit better than that, but he had about 30,000 hours flight time in light aircraft all over the mountain west so I trusted his assessments. I moved on and ended up buying an Aerostar 601-P. I’m sure the RAM conversions are faster than the standard ones, but we had a C414 come along on an 8 aircraft 10 day trip through Alaska and Canada back in 2011. I recall the 6 Aerostar pilots being shocked by two things about the 414…the volume of cargo/camping gear that family was able to fit in the plane compared to my family of 5 in the Aerostar 700, and the fact that it was so slow, even the 550 equipped Bonanza guiding us would often have to pull back the power to insure it was able to keep up with the group. I don’t think speed is their strong suit.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Apr 2022, 10:58

Username Protected wrote:

The F models are somewhat odd birds - they have all the quirks of the line but are no faster than a Meridian. I think most of the people who have the activation energy to buy an MU2 want a fast one. It's like buying a normally aspirated Aerostar.

(There are many things to recommend the F model. I think they're an amazing value, but they don't really fit in the same box as the rest of the line)

The value and MX support of the F model is what makes them so sensible. They're not orphaned, yet cost less to fly compared to a Meridian on annual basis

If (when?) Garmin releases the GFC600, I think the plane would win over another tranche of prospects.

It's not for everyone, but a cool machine

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Apr 2022, 02:21

Username Protected wrote:

tip-tank 414 speed claims at 20,000' average 190 KTAS at 35 GPH for about 5.3 nmpg. Straight wing 414s do a lot better - 205 - 215 KTAS. Average useful load of a 203 gallon 414 is about 2000# for a RAM conversion; you'll see 1800 to 2700# claims for similarly equipped aircraft.

I flew today, San Diego to Colorado, with a stop in Las Vegas. FL190 the whole way. I had a bit of a tailwind, and I ran the engines leaner than normal, so on 28 GPH, I was knocking out 7.5 NM per gallon.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Apr 2022, 06:43

Attachment:

805DFE4B-8E50-4AD2-A157-26136ABAA3A2.jpeg

Username Protected wrote:

He told me to flight plan for 180kts in the 340.

I did a flight a couple of weeks ago in a C340A and here is what it was doing at FL200 LOP, 58 LPH, TAS209

Andrew

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Apr 2022, 09:20

209kts TAS sounds excellent! Nice performance out of the 340A. For that 414 trip, what was the TAS? Of course a nice tailwind will make the efficiency look pretty good.
My attached panel shot was last week on a trip to Tucson. I got a tailwind both ways…that never happens to me.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Apr 2022, 11:17

Hey Clint, I was impressed by the numbers on the Mustang, but I was having a hard time wrapping my head around the Subscriptions @ $5000. I’m sure data and XM, but curious what pushed it so high?

I know it’s a Mickey Mouse question, but just curious.

Would love to have a Mustang!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Apr 2022, 11:58

Username Protected wrote:

I did a flight a couple of weeks ago in a C340A and here is what it was doing at FL200 LOP, 58 LPH [15.3 GPH], TAS209

The 340 should have the same wing as the 414, and assuming the same powerplants, the smaller fuselage should always go slightly faster.

I wouldn’t trade the space of the 414 for a few knots of TAS, nor would I pay the +$100k price difference for the better wing of the 414A (although, I think I’d like more storage in the nose for skis).

These airplanes are all more similar than different.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Apr 2022, 12:00

Username Protected wrote:

209kts TAS sounds excellent! Nice performance out of the 340A. For that 414 trip, what was the TAS? Of course a nice tailwind will make the efficiency look pretty good.

180 KTAS at 28 GPH
190 KTAS at 30 GPH
200 KTAS at 35 GPH

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Apr 2022, 12:19

Username Protected wrote:

The 340 should have the same wing as the 414, and assuming the same powerplants, the smaller fuselage should always go slightly faster.

Although they look very similar, the 340 has a smaller wing than the 414.

The extra span on the 414 is between the nacelles and the fuselage. It's 11" per side IIRC.

A lot of conventional wisdom says "the 340 isn't work the extra 7 knots, get a 414." Although I agree, a 414 wouldn't fit in my hangar - so I got a 340.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Apr 2022, 12:32

The width of the fuselage and a little extra length in the stub spar does not change the basic shape of a 340 or early 414 wing. They are basically the same.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Apr 2022, 12:38

Username Protected wrote:

The width of the fuselage and a little extra length in the stub spar does not change the basic shape of a 340 or early 414 wing. They are basically the same.

The cabin of a 414 is 7" wider than a 340.

The wingspan is 22" longer.

It's not all in the cabin.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Apr 2022, 12:55

I said it’s in the cabin width and the “stub spar”. The stub spar is the extra length between the nacelle and the fuselage. It’s about 7.5 inches on each side. This extra width does not change the overall shape of the wing.

THE RIBS, TIP TANKS, LANDING GEAR , FLAPS AND OVERALL DESIGN ARE THE SAME.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Apr 2022, 13:37

Username Protected wrote:

The 340 should have the same wing as the 414, and assuming the same powerplants, the smaller fuselage should always go slightly faster.

Although they look very similar, the 340 has a smaller wing than the 414.

The extra span on the 414 is between the nacelles and the fuselage. It's 11" per side IIRC.

A lot of conventional wisdom says "the 340 isn't work the extra 7 knots, get a 414." Although I agree, a 414 wouldn't fit in my hangar - so I got a 340.

Best plane for 6 people, 600 nm