Cessna 404

[coolmod72]

Hi,
I'm looking for some performance info for a Cessna 404. I'm comparing it to a 402 and already have that manual. If anyone has performance charts they can share with me, I would appreciate it!

Thanks!

[jarops]

Wow.... Where in the world they still fly with this `Reciprocating`engine workhorse?

For your question... are you talking about 402B or C model? There is some performance differencies in these 402 models.

I used to fly 404 in early 90´s, also I flew 402B and C models a little. I can only tell that 404 was very much in HER own class regarding other light twins. Those engines (Lycoming 540???) with redaction gear and large props were awsome compination that time. Also, that airplane flew nicely in winterops back home in Finland. But, when exesive ice builds up, these is not much room for performance.

If you are going to operate this airplane, remember be gently, those engines are sensitive and needs a nice touch! Redaction gear system needs also a sensitive hand to operate. Treat her well, and she will keep you happy!

I am still flying TWINS, just with turbofan engines GE90.

Enjoy

[411A]

Those engines (Lycoming 540???)

Actually Teledyne Continental GTSIO-520's...good reliable engines those, provided of course that they are handled properly.
Cobb the throttles a few times too many...bad results can be expected.
Read, expensive.
Very good airplane, the 404.
Fill it up with fuel...nine hours endurance.
I kid you not.

[Brian Abraham]

PM me with your email and which charts you would like.

[Ball in the Middle]

Actually, my log book shows one flight of 11hrs 15 mins chock to chock. Still landing with IFR reserves. That was doing survey work mind!! If only it had had a toilet, or an autopilot that worked........ Happy days.

[flyhardmo]

I flew the 404 in africa and also found it a great work horse and a pleasure to fly. A gentle touch and some thought into every throttle movement is essential to keep that engine plowing on. As for performance charts, well the thing got off the ground nicely at max all up weights from dirt strips at 5500' elevation. Used less runway than a cessna caravan at that altitude for take off. Landing was another issue. Not the best brakes especially on downhill runways with a heavy aircraft.
if you are looking for single eng performance I know of 2 aircraft that have lost an engine after take off at max weight (probably more) and managed to make it back. It was at sea level, didn't climb but didn't descend either. :ok:

[hawker750]

GTSIO-520's
Fab engine if looked after, reckon TBO should be in throttle/RPM changes. assuming a 1 hour flight the engines were good for 8,000 changes. 1/ Take off. 2/cruise and descent 3/ approach 4/ landing. We had three 404's doing 800 hour/year each for 5 years, never even had to pull a cyinder that in 24,000 engine hours!

[coolmod72]

We're comparing it to the 402C. Thanks for all the info!

[chuks]

I used to fly both the 402C and the 404. From what I remember the power-to-weight ratio at MTOM was better on the 402C.

We had the last 404 ever made and that thing was a real dog on one engine, as if it hadn't been riveted together 100% correctly or something. You could not get book figures on the single-engine climb with everything done right.

One day I departed a short strip with a full load on a hot afternoon when the hose from the turbocharger (incorrectly installed) popped off the intake. Luckily this happened at about 8 thousand feet. With all that alitude in hand I tried a bit of trouble-shooting but the airspeed was unwinding, followed by the altitude so that I just feathered the engine. Then I got to thinking what this might have been and got it re-started, when it was not responding in the same way to the throttle as the good engine but still producing useful power when it was leaned way back.

Obviously, when that hose came off I lost the turbo-charging with the mixture still so rich so that the engine cut. If I had thought to pull back the mixture then I would't have lost the engine in the first place but that one is not in the book.

If I had lost that hose right after lift-off then I think I would have had a bad crash. Look at the graphs for a windmilling engine with the gear down and I think you will see something like -300 fpm! You would have very little time to get yourself sorted out before running out of altitude, no matter how good you think you are.

When I got back to base the muppet who had put the hose on incorrectly just shrugged and told me that all I would have had to do was lean it out, so what was my problem? I literally "saw red" for a moment!

Between the two I would go for a 402C. It flies a little nicer than the 404 and the engines are not as sensitive, Continental TSIO-520, 325 horsepower versus GTSIO-520E, 375 horsepower on the 404. I think the nominal TBO is 1,600 hours on the 404 and about 2,000 on the 402C.

What about the turbine-powered version of the 404, the Rheims 406? I would much rather trust my life to PT6 engines plus it burns Jet A.

Up-market a bit is the Cessna 441. One of those with -10 engines will hit about 290 knots burning ridiculously little fuel, something like 400 lb/hr. It has the same basic wing as the 404 and it flies very nicely too.

What do you plan to use the aircraft for, anyway?