Cessna 340 - questions for the Greek chorus :)

[lostpianoplayer]

OK, so I done gone and done it again. Bought another toy. (Reckon I'll get my internet disconnected after this :) A very nice Cessna 340 is being added to the fleet, initially in the US, and then back to NZ. Yes,it checks out very well mechanically, and yes, it's very well priced, given the twin market. I know there's a lot of wisdom here, so thought I'd ask if anyone knows much about these questions:

1. Short field ops. I know, I know - it's not possible, per se, and it's sure not a short field machine. Still. Anyone know what the shortest possible/reasonable/safe takeoff would be for a 340 operating at very low weights? Say, 2 people and 40 gallons/250 pounds fuel. Published take off is 1600 feet or so, but that's at full gross, without VGs, and (I think) involves waiting till the machine is at 90 knots or so before rotating. Anyone with real world experience able to answer this one? A related query is:

2. If you take off at the slowest possible speed, in a fairly powerful twin, is it true that a catastrophic engine failure means you could get into a VMC roll even if you had perfect reactions, in terms of pulling both throttles and applying full opposite rudder? A very experienced instructor and friend of mine says this is the case. He has a lot more experience than me, but still, I'm surprised. I'm willing to "pull the other one" and accept whatever I get if I have a low speed engine failure on take off, but was surprised to hear that no matter what, I'll be heading into the trees upside down. What do you guys think? Is my instructor friend correct?

3. Training. Amongst other machines, my current twin is an old Aztec. The 340 is, of course, a big step up. I can and probably will train in the US. Is Flight Safety (Kansas/Long Beach) overkill? What's a sensible expectation re syllabus and training time for the transition? I'm not looking for shortcuts here...but I'm only VFR, and I wonder if FS's training is skewed too much to IFR?

4. Getting her down to NZ. Am thinking, to be conservative, that the wisest thing to do is take the wings off and pack her into a 40 foot container. Anyone know a. how much of a big deal it is to de-wing & pack such a big aircraft (is it even possible??) and b. contacts for 40 foot containers & shipping from US to NZ?? Of course, a good contact for shipping US to Oz would be fine, cos I'm sure they can get a big box to our little country too...

Any help and all thoughts would be welcome. If anything I've said sounds dumb, well, I guess I'll find out soon enough - but would appreciate the thoughts of them what know...

[bushy]

I suggest you go to flight safety or a similar organisation and go thoroughly into what you and your aeroplane can do. Trying to beat the factory figures is fraught with danger. Go to a reputable organisation and find out for yourself.
A C340 is a twin like the others, except it is pressurised and heavier. And you should study the fuel system.
Also check out the SID's, and the implications of any relevent stc's.

[Lasiorhinus]

Προτείνω να πάτε για την ασφάλεια των πτήσεων ή παρόμοιος οργανισμός προχωρήσει σε βάθος και σε ό, τι σας και σας αεροπλάνο μπορεί να κάνει. Προσπαθώντας να κερδίσει το εργοστάσιο αριθμοί είναι γεμάτο κινδύνους. Πηγαίνετε σε έναν έγκριτο οργάνωση και μάθετε για τον εαυτό σας.
Ένα C340 είναι μια διπλή όπως και οι άλλοι, εκτός από ότι είναι υπό πίεση και βαρύτερα. Και εσείς θα πρέπει να μελετήσει το σύστημα καυσίμου.
Μπορείτε επίσης να δοκιμάσετε το Sid του, καθώς και τις συνέπειες της οποιασδήποτε σχετικής ΤΣΟ.

[Chimbu chuckles]

If you have bought well you have a great aeroplane...you'll love how the 300/400 Cessnas fly.

Does it have vortex generators fitted? If not, do so. 300lbs more useful load and the Vmc drops below (a lower) Vs...so your mates (in my view overstated) Vmc roll over issues go away. Effectively eliminated Vmc and lowered Vs combined with better handling will also get you off, and back on, the ground at lower speeds:ok:

http://www.microaero.com/CS_PDF/Cessna/340-CS.html

edit...why the **** would you be taking off with two people and not much more than 1 hour (total) fuel?

I think you will find this category of aircraft is best ferried rather than crated. Too many issues with supporting the fuselage (think damaged pressure vessel) with the wings off. You'd also have to remove the engines before removing the wings...forget crating her.

Is she standard or does she have the RAM engine mods?

Does she have the Precise Flight speed brakes?

GAMIs/engine monitors? (MUST HAVES!!!!)

Training wise I think you'd be VERY comfortable in her after a FSI style course.

The alternative would be a day spent in the books/discussing systems and failure modes and about a 3 hour endorsement from a well qualified instructor and probably 10 hours ICUS...say three good long cross country flights to firmly bed down the fuel system and engine handling in your mind.

The pressurisation system is simple, merely requiring you not to forget it completely. Just set it 500' above field elevation for takeoff and landing and set cruising level/cabin alt required on climb.

You will need to get an instrument rating or else you're wasting 90% of the aircrafts capabilities. You will find her a very stable, capable and comfortable aeroplane to fly IFR in.

Give me a yell if you need a ferry pilot;)

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Give me a yell if you need a ferry pilot;)

I just knew that was coming! :ok:

Dr :8

[tail wheel]

Προτείνω να πάτε για την ασφάλεια των πτήσεων ή παρόμοιος οργανισμός προχωρήσει σε βάθος και σε ό, τι σας και σας αεροπλάνο μπορεί να κάνει. Προσπαθώντας να κερδίσει το εργοστάσιο αριθμοί είναι γεμάτο κινδύνους. Πηγαίνετε σε έναν έγκριτο οργάνωση και μάθετε για τον εαυτό σας.
Ένα C340 είναι μια διπλή όπως και οι άλλοι, εκτός από ότι είναι υπό πίεση και βαρύτερα. Και εσείς θα πρέπει να μελετήσει το σύστημα καυσίμου.
Μπορείτε επίσης να δοκιμάσετε το Sid του, καθώς και τις συνέπειες της οποιασδήποτε σχετικής ΤΣΟ.

I propose you go for the Flight Safety or similar organisation as it provides in-depth knowledge of your plane performance. Trying (your suggestion instead of?) the factory numbers is full of danger. Go to a ??? organisation and learn. A C340 is a twin as any other, apart from being pressurised and heavier. And you it will need to study the fuel system. Can also try his Sid, as well as the consequences of any relative TSO.

[lostpianoplayer]

Thanks for this, guys. My Greek (?) Serbian (?) Isn't so hot, so I missed one or two of the replies. Or maybe my computer misrendered it. Anyway...

I'm sure trying to beat factory figures is not ideal, Bushy. I'm just trying to figure out HOW not ideal, cos I kinda of have a reason to ask. And CC, thanks for your (as usual) thoughtful comprehensive post. Yes, it certainly does have the VGs. I didn't wanna bore you guys with the reason for my question, but since you ask, it's this: I intend to fly the thing around NZ, only going in and out of decent sides airports, EXCEPT that I have a share in a private strip, where we're building a hangar, a 5 minute flight from a much larger airport which is, like all of them, trying to be closed down by the neighbours/owners, plus has no hangarage. So I'd be taking off with 2 people and ultra light fuel cos if I can do it, I'll have it parked at my hangar, but will only be able to get in and out very light. Then 5 minutes to the main airport for fuel & pax.

And the reason I'm trying to figure it out **now** is cos I'm wondering about bringing it back at all. I realise I'll learn more once I've learnt to fly it.

CC, of course your GAMI comment was coming, and yes, I'm gonna get em fitted, along with the latest & greatest engine analyzers. She's NOT RAM, just the Riley heavy case 310 hp Connies...and does not have speed brakes that I know of.

I am going to go hard on the instrument rating this year - I'm buying this puppy specifically for high altitude IFR cross countries with happy girlfriend not being squashed by dog. I realise it's a major issue. Until then, I agree, the 340 is kind of a waste, or at least overkill. But the situation won't last - IFR rating coming up.

And yes, I hadn't thought about the pressure vessel issue. Damn. So yes, I guess I'll need to ferry it, presuming I do bring it back. PM me - or email me - and we can discuss ferrying, yeah?

In the meantime, my question about containers stands. I've lost the ph number of the people I used to use, but I have a now slightly defunct Soko Galeb sitting in NM, USA. Time to ship it home for some love. Unless, CC, you're interested in ferrying a jet trainer manufactured in a now non-existent country, with an endurance of two hours (and a potential hot start issue) from the US back to NZ???? I'll come - maybe we can pick up some good tailwinds??? Or have hell's own adventure going the other way round?? It does have machine guns, so we could fight out way out of trouble, right?? :)

So, can anyone recommend a good/cheap container & shipping service??

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Unless, CC, you're interested in ferrying a jet trainer from a now non-existent country, an endurance of two hours, and a potential hot start issue back to NZ???? I'll come - maybe we can pick up some good tailwinds??? Or have hell's own adventure going the other way round?? It does have machine guns, so we could fight out way out of trouble, right??


LPP - Are you completely mad? Do NOT tempt him! He is likely to take up the challenge - just to prove a point!

Dr :8

[NoseGear]

So what are you going to do with the Aztec then? And which one is she?:ok::E I'll go halves with you on the Soko, seriously!

I'd have thought the dog and gf would have plenty of room in the back of the truck!:}

Great fun the ferry flight, make sure you go along, you'll gain some very good experience from CC on your airplane......but of course there won't be room for the gf (or dog)......weight issues and all that...especially in Hawaii!:E:ok:

[Chimbu chuckles]

I think the Galeb might need a container...unless it is from one of those US states the allow real functioning machine guns on vintage warbirds (no I am not joking, there was a T6 sold recently in the US with fully functioning 30 cal machine guns fitted) then we could fight our way around the long way:E

Wouldn't that be a fun way to kill a months leave...or turn it into a long stay in a 3rd world jail:uhoh:

The speed brakes are not essential just nice to have. All the Cessna 300/400 series piston twins have the same undercarriage and they uniformly have the same low gear speeds, 140kts, and it can be a trick getting down from altitude and slowed down to gear speed...particularly if terrain is an issue on descent.

I know I sound like a broken record when it comes to GAMis and engine monitors but it this class of aeroplane they really are essential equipment.

FTDK might like to chime in about his recent experience with a C210/EDM800 and, among other things, our departure from Bundy?

The other essential in these engines is good intercoolers. The C340 was the first of this category of aircraft to have them new from the factory. That was great but if the originals are fitted they are now very old technology and (MUCH) better options no doubt exist in the aftermarket. Worth some research. (what type are fitted?)

The rewards modern, efficient intercoolers confer in available power at altitude and cylinder life are well worth the expense.

The C340 is one of the few piston twins (later models anyway) equiped for 'known ice'. Don't think that is a license to fly unrestricted in icing conditions. It merely allows flight planning/departing into conditions (temps less than +10C and visible moisture) that may be conducive to ice formation but with systems in place that give you the ability to escape ice if it is actually encountered...like a gentle (but at full power) climb followed by a 180 turn for anything more than light icing. Get a load of ice on any aeroplane, even a sweat handling aeroplane like the C340, and watch it turn into a very different beast.

You and I have enjoyed many VERY long email strings on the subject of what your next aircraft might be and I think you have made a good choice. The C340 won't challenge you from a general handling point of view in normal and most non normal ops. Cessna produced a series of very easy twins to fly generally and the vortex generators improve that and make engine failures less of a sweat assuming good initial and recurrent training and a brain between your ears.

Your biggest challenges by far will be IFR en-route management around the south island in weather conducive to icing and turbulence....I hope she has a good autopilot and is a late enough model to have the known ice package...keep those two systems working perfectly.

The other big potential issue with any of these earlier 300/400 series Cessna twins with the tip tanks (the tips are the mains-50usg/side) is the turbo and exhaust system and its close proximity to a/. the firewall and b/. the firewalls proximity to the fuel lines from those big main tanks out on the wings. That proximity equates to a few cm in both cases. I cannot stress enough the importance of proper maintenance of the turbo/exhaust system. If you get a leak it will eat through the firewall and then the fuel lines in minutes and you will then die. You won't have time to get it on the ground by the time you nut out what is going on.

Maintain the exhaust system in near perfect condition and it will never be a problem.

I have been scratching out some numbers for a ferry flight across the Pacific. The longest sector is the first to Hawaii...did it once several decades ago and from memory it was just shy of 2100nm. That will require about 430 gallons of fuel for a comfortable trip averaging around 190kts GS at around FL170. That is more than double the internal fuel of a C340 (I think most have around 180usg - yours?). It isn't a huge issue as it has been done 100s of times. I remember Keith Rose flew a new C340 across the Pacific in the 80s with Charles Kingsford Smith Junior in the rhs. There are companies in California who have been tanking aircraft for the crossing for decades. The only part which would require careful thought is managing the fuel useage/transfer because all these Cessna return (significant) excess fuel to the mains (tips) and if you haven't burned enough to allow for that it vents it overboard. This is not difficult to manage normally but with about 250 usg in the cabin will require even more careful management.

At a rough guess the takeoff from LA will be at a TOW around 600kg over the certified limit. Not a huge issue with two running, it just requires careful, smooth handling...and both engines to keep running.

You will be well served to do a fair bit of flying in the US over a reasonable short period well before doing the ferry...all these aircraft are getting on and most have not been flown a lot before being sold. Even those with impeccable maintenance records will have stuff falling over in the first little while after you take ownership, just from lack of recent heavy useage.

FTDK might like to talk about the recently imported (in a crate) C210 he (and I) have been flying lately and all the things falling over in the first 20+hrs as he's been running the new engine in for the owner...better that doesn't happen half way across the Pacific.:ok:

I'll ponder more and post as I remember ****, long not used.:}

Edit: I am up for the ferry trip...just give me enough notice to plan it all out and apply for the leave...we'll have a ball.:ok:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

FTDK might like to chime in about his recent experience with a C210/EDM800 and, among other things, our departure from Bundy?


EDM700/800 is a must have. Flying the IO550 powered around for 35 hrs, I have discovered two things:

1) #5 cylinder runs significantly hotter than the others. It has the oil cooler in front of it, so that probably makes sense. Having an all cylinder monitor has allowed me to manage the temps in this cyclinder. Without the EDM800 I would have known nothing about this. The factory guage never looked like indicated that the engine was running hot - oil temp normal

2) #1 cylinder has what is most likely dicky plugs. Show up on climbout with EGT for that cylinder going all over the place. The engine did not run rough on both mags, but on one or the other it started to backfire.

Gotta have me one of them in the Bo.

Dr :8

[Bang Bus]

As Chimbu was saying, a V.G. kit from RAMS will help reduce Vref, Vtoss and the like,but to get the extra take off weight it has to have the full RAMS kit, i.e. engines and intercoolers, scoops etc.etc as part of the STC. The one I used to fly is currently undergoing SID's, I was told mod is alot less involved (and expensive) if the aircraft is being used for private op's only. I never used to operate into strips of less than 1000m. But I was fairly gentle on very expensive engines and props.

B.B.

[Chimbu chuckles]

BB my understanding is that the either VGs or RAMs alone will give you 300lbs. Together they still only give you 300lbs.

[lostpianoplayer]

Thx for the comprehensive and as ever thoughtful post, CC, and everyone else. I appreciate the thoughts on everything. Looks like the ferry trip is the obvious choice, albeit one that will require very careful prep. I notice CC edited his/your post to add that bit. Yay. Sounds like a wicked plan - and all sorts of cool flying awaits us in NZ, provided we don't pump the fuel overboard, f'rinstance, or have the sat system go down, cos I sure have no idea what to do with a sextant!

So yes, I do have VGs. I'm told there's a 300 lb increase in gross weight, irrespective of other mods, so I'm surprised at, er, Bang Bus's comments. You sure about that?? Also on my wishlist are AA intercoolers, - it has standard ones - and AA's cost US$10K, which seems like a pretty good price for the performance & reliability increase. Provided the aeroplane escalation ladder stops here for a bit. If I'm on Pprune in a year asking y'all questions about a Citation SHOOT ME will ya???

Of course I will get GAMIs & a good engine monitor. I'll bore you another time with questions on how LOP applies in the turbo context, but will search Prrune first.

It does have an A/P, but it's a Cessna 400 not an S-Tec, so probably not as good. We'll see. I gather A/Ps are spectacularly expensive, so I hope this one will be OK.

It's ice protected, yes, ("de-iced") but I don't think it has formal known ice certification. (I think the difference is in the hot plate on the windshield - it certainly has all the other stuff.) In any case, if the ice forecast is in any way scary, I'll be staying on the ground, or taking something else and flying under the clouds, for a long time yet. Ice scares me plenty, partly cos I know nothing about it, so, no, I wasn't planning on just turning on the hot stuff and launching into any old weather.

Training is still an open question. Have been told there's a good CFII where this thing is based, so I was thinking maybe hit the books hard, fly with the (ex) owner for intial famil, then fly with the instructor for as long as necessary. Return in a couple of months to get the IFR rating - then, in a year, off to Flight Safety for its (I'm told) IFR-centric training. And then, Mr CC, sounds like you and I are gonna be off on an entertaining mission!!! (Or, no doubt, dead boring at the time (+ occasional terror?), but cool in retrospect.) I've long wanted to see the NZ horizon come up after crossing the Pacific, so I guess this'll be my chance. I'll spend a year flying the thing round on my trips to the US first, though, to make very sure it's in perfect condition, oil consumption is known, anything that's going to go U/S does it there rather than midway between CA and HI, and anything weird that needs to be prepared for & fitted is done (HF radio(s), extra tanks, survival suits, whatever) and that I have whatever training I need. So, CC, sounds cool - and you'll have plenty of notice.

And the Galeb will come home in a box. Incidentally, Nosegear, I'm thinking about syndicating the Galeb when I get it back to NZ. It's a great jet - slightly gruntier than a L-39, very aerobatic (allegedly capable of the Lomcevak, although not with me!!) but far, far simpler & easier to maintain. It'll be a while till she's airworthy and on the NZ register, but yeah, PM me if you're serious. I'll keep you up to date if I do go the syndicate route. That's provided CC and I don't try to bring her home the long way. We could be mercenaries in....oh no, actually, the machine guns are missing their breeches and so on. Shame. We could have been soooo glamorous :)

And the Aztec, I think, will go up for sale some time soon. It's in good nick, particularly after its last annual, which was extensive, but I think it'll be kinda boring now. Even with the depreciation in twin prices, I shouldn't get killed too badly when I sell it. It's got a huge useful load, but it is S L O W. I mean, really. 150 knots. Downhill. Why do they lie so much in the POHs?? I guess that's a whole different question.

Back to the 340, I'm aware of the exhaust issue - but had a long chat with the IA who did its last annual - he said he spent several hours on that issue alone, and it's all good. In any case, I'm not planning on maintenance shortcuts with this thing. I don't have the inclination - or experience - to deal with unnecessary emergencies, and I've had enough real ones to know for sure I don't want any more anyway.

Oh, and it's only got 140 gallons - 2 x 50 mains, plus 2 x 20 aux. Better get a BIG tank for the ferry, but I'm not worried about the endurance when I'm not crossing oceans. Apparently if I fit the GAMI injector, run it 800 degrees lean of peak, pat my tummy and think of Kansas, it only burns 8.4 gallons an hour. Isn't that right, CC? :ok:

Rightyo. Thanks for all the thoughts, y'all. I'm off to the US soon, to pick her up...

Oh, tiny point - sorry - what does ICUS mean??

[Bang Bus]

CC, you get about 30lbs with the vg kit on its own, need to go to 325hp RAM's 4 to get the 300lb. We only went to 310hp an unfortunately could not get the full increase, (About 12 months ago now) we did however have to have the IAS indicator remarked with the new speed arcs. They tend to imply that you get an increase from the vg kit alone on the RAM's website, this is because the VG kit is part of the RAMS 4 engine.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Here is the shortest route...nothing complicated. Bit of email work to ensure avgas at Christmas Is and some overflight/landing clearances but nothing one of the professional flight planning companies couldn't organise in a flash. I pitched up at Nadi in a C441 once with no prior notice...big hassle.:hmm:

You probably should buy, rather than rent, the required emergency equipment like a good liferaft, personal floatation devices, EPIRB etc...you'll need em again sooner or later and they qualify as dangerous goods so sending em back to where ever is a monumental pain.

http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=SBA-HNL-CXI-PPG-AKL%0D%0A&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=red&PATH-UNITS=nm&PATH-MINIMUM=&MARKER=1&SPEED-GROUND=195&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=

A slightly different route to allow drinking with mates in Nadi.

http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=SBA-HNL-CXI-PPG-NAN-AKL%0D%0A&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=red&PATH-UNITS=nm&PATH-MINIMUM=&MARKER=1&SPEED-GROUND=195&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=

I mean less over weight departures:}

Another alternative recommended by a mate who has been following but not contributing to the thread. Logistics might dictate this but it's a lot longer.

http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=SBA-HNL-MAJ-HIR-NOU-AKL%0D%0A&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=red&PATH-UNITS=nm&PATH-MINIMUM=&MARKER=1&SPEED-GROUND=195&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=

Don't invest the ferry flight with more difficulty than it deserves. With the right backup gear, the aeroplane running well, a selection of suitable spare bits and pieces and the paperwork in place it's just 4 or 5 long sectors.

ICUS = In Command (you) Under Supervision.

I suspect after you have flown with the previous owner a few times, learned the books and been given a good workout by the CFII recommended, then done you IR in it and we ferry it across the Pacific the FSI course will seem redundant...its just not that complicated.

You'd be better served leaving the FSI course for recurrent training a year or so down the track when you have a few 100 hrs on type and, as a result, get more value out of the simulator training they provide. You risk being overwhelmed if you go at that style of training to early in your IFR experience.

For General interest of those readers unfamiliar with the C300/early 400 fuel system and who may have heard the BS version.

Cessna 300/early 400 fuel system 101

The engines draw fuel from the mains or aux tanks only, return fuel goes to the respective main tank.

Takeoff on mains then once settled in cruise switch to auxs and burn em out, then back to mains. Done that way the mains end up nearly full again with the return fuel. If you select aux tanks right after you takeoff most of that fuel will go overboard.

If the sector length is too short to burn out the aux tanks select back to mains at TOPD. Always be on mains in the circuit area/takeoff/Landing.

It only gets complicated when locker tanks are fitted, particularly if only one locker tank is fitted. That fuel must be transfered to the mains so there must be room in the main tanks or you pump it overboard. If you have only one locker and don't use crossfeed you'll give yourself quite a fuel imbalance if you pump it all to the nearest main.

Never tell a re-fueler to "Top off the mains" and assume he knows the tips are actually the mains unless suffering a double engine failure just airborne with full aux tanks is your thing. Believe it or not people have actually done that, then done a quick fuel drain on the mains which had just enough to get them a good drain sample and a few nm from the runway, but haven't actually visually checked the fuel level in the main tanks...pretty sad way to kill an aeroplane.

Never taxi a Cessna 300/early 400 series aircraft past a fuel bowser.;)

Actually I am only half joking...I don't think I have EVER taxied past a bowser and not topped off the mains when I was flying these aircraft a lot...admittedly that was before good digital fuel computers...two friends of mine did. They thought they had enough and then run out of fuel. Once you have less than 40usg in a main it is difficult to visually know exactly how much is in the tank. Don't allow enough for taxi/departure and have a less than cozy relationship with the red knobs and silence awaits.

Honestly that is it...the most complicated system the aircraft has and it really is not that complicated if I can remember it after 15 odd years, although I used to train in them too which helps, I confess to never understanding the hype/legend of the C300/early 400 series fuel system.

HOWEVER you can see now why managing a 300usg ferry tank will take some thoughtful juggling. I have a C340 POH coming my way shortly and will ferret out the exact hourly rate of return fuel (that is stretching the memory banks WAAAYYY too far) so we can put together a good fuel plan.

The LOP/Gami bit is a doddle...you'll have it completely sussed by Hawaii. If you can get George's people at Ada to fit the Gamis then they can test fly them and make any small flow adjustments/chase any induction leaks or spark plug issues needed to ensure perfect operation. The TSIO+Gamis/LOP is a non issue...they really start to shine when combined with a TSIO continental.

The 400b was a good autopilot in its day...whether they can still be tuned up and made to work well/parts availability is beyond my ken...but if its working well probably leave it alone. The cost of buying/fitting a new A/P is horrendous, just not as horrendous as when the US$ was actually worth something.

I think it behooves you to post a piccy of your new baby...the C340 was always the prettiest of the Cessna piston twins in my opinion.:ok:

[tinpis]

Dont ferget to factor Chucks bar tab into the ferry equation :E

[chimbu warrior]

Could be the most expensive part of the whole trip!

[Jamair]

LOSTPIANOPLAYER - 150kt from an Aztec?? Mate, that is one CROOK aeroplane!!! :eek:

Mine would TAS 175 all day at 7000', FT and 2300RPM - no lie, CC has flown it too. I've flown only 3 others apart from mine, but none were THAT slow:yuk:.

Words of wisdom from CC, DO get GAMIs and a JPI, should be mandatory.

Tell you what, me an Chuck will do the ferry for ya.....:E:E:E

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Chuck, I'm a bit worried about ya!

How many GPSs does this 340 have? I'll loan you one if its a bit light on in that department!

Dr :8

PS: I'll bet it doesn't have a talking cigarette lighter!

[lostpianoplayer]

I take your point, CC, about not over-complicating the ferry. I'll think about bringing it back earlier - but I definitely wanna put some serious time on the 340, over land, to see if anything's gonna blow up. But yeah, OK, we'll see how she goes.

Looks like this is a spectacularly public negotiation forum, but for the record, I commit to covering CC's bar tab everywhere we end up on the journey. As one of the only 7 New Zealanders who don't drink, I have a lot of undrunk beer in my lifetime beer budget, so it'd take a lot for CC to make a serious dent in it :)

The Aztec may indeed be a tad crook, although I'm not quite sure how. I had all the cylinders replaced on one side, recently, and all comp's are good. One thing I neglected to mention is that I have to fly it w the cowl flaps open, usually, cos the oil temps get too hot. I'm getting that sorted at this annual, which will be June. With cowl flaps open it goes a little faster, but not much. And, OK, I exaggerated, ever so slightly, about its slowness- she gives me a TAS of 155, maybe even 158. But really, that's God's Honest. Serious question here - any useful suggestions as to what would stop an Aztec from goin fast? If she TAS'd 175 I'd probably have kept her, and to be frank, I was very disappointed at her speed, which is part of the reason for the upgrade. 175 is actually OK, for NZ, but at 155, I don't reckon I'll go through all the dramas of importing it.

As for the 340, try this. www.trade-a-plane.com/clsfdspecs/791547 (http://www.trade-a-plane.com/clsfdspecs/791547). I presume the vendor won't mnd me publicising the page, but the machine has been sold, so I'll ask, for the sake of form, that you don't contact the vendor. I don't wanna be rude to him, and fielding questions from a whole bunch of antipodeans on the phone might be too much :) But this'll give anyone interested a pretty good rundown on the thing. Most important criterion has been satisfied - my girlfriend likes the colour - and even secondary stuff, like engine condition and so on, seems OK. Actually, I've checked it out pretty thoroughly, and I think it's in pretty good shape, although nothing would surprise me. The engines are first life - ie new 1070 hours ago - but I do anticipate having to put in new engines at some stage. Will be interested to see if it gets anywhere near TBO. Interestingly, I'm told mid or even high time engines are more reliable than brand new ones, but that's a whole different discussion.

Between now and and engine rebuild time, I'll install GAMIs, an engine analyser and good intercoolers, and I'll cross my fingers that she'll be all good for a while.

Re training/FSI, yep, I meant doing it after a year. But since you mention it, yes, maybe a little later. Say two years - currency in emergency stuff in twins, for PPLs, definitely seems to slip away easily, so I'll try to ensure that doesn't happen to me.

Anyway, for ferrying across the Pacific, sounds like I'll have a grown up to keep me safe, albeit one nursing a series of Aussie-style hangovers as we zigzag across the ocean looking up old PNG types to get drunk with:)

Gotta run, CC, but will review the ferry plan stuff shortly...

[Chimbu chuckles]

Pretty aeroplane:D

Forky if you lend me one of yours will the other 3 be enough for your day to day ops? I'd feel guilty leaving ya short mate...honest:ok:

LPP I forgot to mention in my email the SINGLE most important piece of survival equipment...something to pee in...one each...don't know how I could have been so remiss...It won't happen again.:}

The aztruck aint a bad old bus...but by the time you get the gear in the wells on your first takeoff in the C340 you'll be like, "Aztec, wotsa aztec?":E

As to engine TBO etc...I would honestly feel better departing SBA on engines that are over TBO and running well than with two factory new or freshly overhauled engines. The first 300 hours on an engine a significantly riskier than the last 300 hours...engineers even have a name for it...engine infant mortality. If compressions are good, oil useage normal, filters and oil analysis history is clean and no cracks in anything then pulling an engine off because the hour meter clicked over is just a crying shame. I know of a C310 (essentially the same engine) with 4000 hrs on its engines and the only things not original are a couple of cylinders and an exhaust valve.

We can't know how the previous owner has operated them but with modern technology (intercoolers/gamis/engine monitors), flown often and operated knowledgeably these engines are good for TBO and then some.

[tinpis]

Strewth...not much change out of forty years old :uhoh:.....are there any 340 still alive in OZ?
I remember one at Woolongong in '73?

[PLovett]

Yeah tinnie, a few.

There is a really nice one used for private ops in Alice Springs and a mob in Port Macquarie had 3 of them doing Med 2 transfers earlier this century.:}

[Pinky the pilot]

but for the record, I commit to covering CC's bar tab everywhere we end up on the journey.

You what????:eek::uhoh:

[Brian Abraham]

A 421 fuel system which is not dis-similar to 340 that CC is referring LPP.
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/babraham227/421fuelsystem.jpg

[Jamair]

Slow Aztruck - assuming the donks are ok and running well, about all that will slow you down is trim. The minor roll trim is via ground set tabs which are a bugger to adjust, as you gotta take off, decide the change needed, land, change em, go again, etc etc etc until you get the wings level in hands off flight.:yuk:

The major roll trim is via flap rigging, and if it's out then you got a WHOLE lotta drag going on! Also, you know there's TWO cowl flap settings, yeah? Open, 1/2, closed? Only be careful not to confuse the cowl flaps and the fuel cocks that are right next to them, could make approaches and departures a whole new kinda interesting!!:ooh:

What model is it? The pre-E model with the round nose were significantly slower (and looked like they had been hit with an ugly stick at birth). Of course, no Aztec ever won a beaty pageant but they ere a great, honest, load hauling workhorse that flew well and were solid and stable in the murk and IMC.

That said, once you jump in the C340, you won't be thinking of keeping the Aztruck!:)

[gaunty]

lostpianoplayer

I sincerely hope you have had or are going to have a very very thorough prebuy performed by a Cessna Service centre or someone who has a great deal of experience with this type before you hand over any dosh.

CPCP progamme and current inspections signed off,
All fuel pumps especially the aux pumps checked out,
pressurisation door seals,
deice hoses and seals, its 36 years old, even condoms dont last that long.
and so on, there is a very long list of things that need looking at lest you spend around the equivalent of what you paid for it getting it on the Oz register.
If any of the above dont check out prepare to walk away and dont look back, unless you want to buy into someone elses problems.

Get a reputable Aussie LAME to check it out.

The road to perdition is paved by sophisticated old airframes.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

there is a very long list of things that need looking at lest you spend around the equivalent of what you paid for it getting it on the Oz register

Indeed!

Get a reputable Aussie LAME to check it out

Excellent advice Gaunty!

And then Jaba and I will fly it back to NZ for ya LPP! :ok:

Dr :8

PS: We'll even pay our own bar bills!

[Capt Fathom]

Do you guys have any concept of what is involved in flying the pacific?

It's scary enough in economy! :{

Not exactly sure why people make a fuss about Cessna 300/400 Fuel Systems? Got to be one of the simplest systems around. And I have flown half-a-dozen different makes! In fact, I found the Aztec/Navajo the most difficult to deal with!

[Jabawocky]

Fathom

You are damned right!

I think one of the posters above has done it before.

Thread drift for just a moment..........Talk about scary though.....:uhoh:
http://www.overdownunder.com.au/content/blogcategory/13/26/

J:ok:

[Chimbu chuckles]

Light hearted comments above notwithstanding.

Fathom I have done it once (almost did a second but didn't happen) a VERY long time ago and the actual flying bit is the easy bit...hell, ferry overloads were Talair SOP:E.

Wheels up at Santa Barbara is step 10, we're at step 1. Steps 3 through 9 are the time and $ consuming bits. If I am not happy with 3->9, 10 won't happen with me strapped in the aircraft and I know LLP feels the same way. As you correctly allude to...5 or 6 hours from nearest land is no place to be discovering maintenance issues or a ferry tank that won't feed.

What rings my bell is the professional challenges that the planning and aircraft prep will entail and the satisfaction of helping a fellow aeroplane nut (understatement in LLP's case) achieve something relatively safely.

If I thought LLP was some wannabe that had just spent his last $ on a 36 year old basket case C340 I would be standing, with Gaunty, in the hecklers gallery. LLP has the resources to do this properly or, if it can't be, the maturity to walk away...and find a biggerer and betterer adventure;)...so I am happy to be a mentor/sounding board/BS filter/technical advisor and, IF we reach step 10, a willing participant.

This sort of stuff is what life should be about....something to get the juices flowing:ok:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

BS filter !!!

Does that hold the BS back - or let it through? :confused:

Dr :8

Yeah, yeah, I know - hat, coat, door ! :E

[gaunty]

Nah it just strains out the bigger lumps.:p

[Chimbu chuckles]

Lucky you two are mates:uhoh::ok:

[the wizard of auz]

Gaunty doesn't have any mates. :E:}

[tinpis]

What gaunty says...
I sincerely hope you have had or are going to have a very very thorough prebuy performed by a Cessna Service centre or someone who has a great deal of experience with this type before you hand over any dosh.


And...if its lived in Kiwi in a previous life yer may want to check that certain vital parts are not been made by International Harvester or Massey Ferguson :hmm:

[lostpianoplayer]

Sorry for absence - my computer seemed to get stuck, and missed all the recent comments. Just realised the machine still seemed to think it was May 1, cleared my cache, and caught up with all the latest.

Jamair, thanks for the thought re trim - I'll be sure to check it out. No, I did NOT know there were two cowl flap settings - it has a detent thingy, and no, I've never noticed a middle setting. And yes, I've read the flight manual quite a few times, but either I missed that bit, or flight manuals in the 60s were on the brief side, which of course they were. Thanks for the tip - I'll try it.

Gaunty et all, I hear ya loud and clear. Mr CC has kindly agreed to help me out with this enterprise, and, well, I don't wanna bore y'all with the details, but I'm certainly planning on doing this conservatively & very, very carefully. I had a very serious training accident a few years ago, which knocked any most of the youthful over-confidence outa me, so I'm now no longer youthful nor overconfident! While I appreciate the concern, I doubt you'll be reading about a Chuckling Chimbu-ite and a Lost Piano Player adrift in the ocean in a little rubber raft, drinking their own pee and trying to catch fish with a safety pin and a piece of string. I promise :) If nothing else, I'll take a damn fish hook - or, if nothing else, at least a piano.

The key word in CC's post, and one with which I totally concur, is IF - and crossing the Pacific in this thing is definitely an IF. If there are any doubts about the machine, I'm happy enough to pass on the trans-Pacific, for SURE, and keep it as my rather flash US hack if necessary, or even just sell it again. I won't go into all the details, but I think we'll find things will work out, one way or the other. It's all good - I'm aware it's a risk, buying an older, sophisticated machine (well put, BTW, re the road to perdition...) but I ain't gonna break my neck in this thing. Nor CC's. So it's all good.

And re wannabe, well, I dunno. I DO wannabe able to fly cool aircraft, and be competent in all aspects of their operation. So I guess I am a wannabe, in that way. But I made a deal with the universe a loooong time ago that any dosh that came my way would go in the direction of aeroplanes, at the expense of, well, everything else, and the universe reciprocated to the point that no, I'm not buying this thing with my last dollar, and yes, I am aware it could take a lot more money to sort out properly. It's all good. No shortcuts intended or required.

So, I guess it's about time to unofficially wind down this thread, from me anyway. Between the questions I've posted here, and posting the same Q's on a different department of Pprune, I've got the answers I was looking for. Plus got a great adventure lined up, with warnings and caveats all taken on board loud and clear. CC and I have been in touch about all the issues, and I think we have a handle on what needs to be done, to ensure this is done safely and properly. So thanks, you guys, really. I know there's a lot of experience out there, and I appreciate y'all giving me the benefit of said experience. If, and again, it's an "if", the transPac goes ahead, I'm quite sure CC and I will share the interesting bits of the journey with y'all. And you can rest assured that we won't be taking shortcuts. Actually, given the collection of mates CC seems to want to visit en route, (is PNG en route??? Hong Kong??) not to mention my foolish public commitment to covering his bar tab everywhere we go, I suspect there may be more LONGCUTS than shortcuts. I can't wait :)

As for the pee-bottle, I don't X-C ANYWHERE in the US without my trusty 5 litre fuel can, which is, er, not used for fuel :) Cross countries in NZ, fortunately, are generally a lot more civilised. ie shorter, and require less in the way of amenities, although I'm not beyond stopping in some field on the way for necessary manuevres. Won't be able to do that 1000 miles out from Hawaii, I guess!

Thanks again. More questions may follow, and full report will be issued when the deed is done, although this may not be for some time. We'll see.

PS Jamair, it's a 'C' model. Older. I bought it cos I liked the idea of an inexpensive twin with a high useful load and lots of power to use for my M/E rating and first M/E machine, and (duh) didn't realise the factory cruise numbers were THAT much of an exaggeration. Rather liked the idea of being able to stay airborne and maybe even climb a bit on one, at light weights, you see. But I'm used to flying round at 200 knots in my Harmon Rocket, and doing 3/4s of the speed for three times the fuel is just seems, I dunno, a bit silly. I'm still going to use it to get my initial IF rating in the US - one of many things that needs to happen before the big mission - but then I'll sell it on. I don't have a lot of money in it, so even in the awful market for twins, I'm sure someone will take it, and be pleased to do so. It has a really cool 60s interior, mid time engines, is extremely well equipped for hard IFR and everything works. But yeah, I'm sure first take off in the 340 and I'll be done with it. I had the same problem with my other aircraft, once I did my first flight in the Rocket. It kinda ups the ante quite dramatically in the 2-seat experimental world, and I'm embarrassed to say I haven't flown my Spezio even once in the four years I've had the Rocket. After your first near vertical takeoff you're kinda spoiled for normal aeroplanes.

I have to tell you - I took my girlfriend in a rented Cherokee, the other day. She has many hours in the Rocket with me, on X-Cs, and quite a bit in the Aztec, which we usually fly more or less empty. The Cherokee was at a light weight, and we were rolling down the runway at full power, with reasonable noise happen but bugger all thrust, and she looked at me and asked me "what's wrong with the engine?" :) It was her first experience of a more conventional light aircraft, after 50-100 hours with me in machines that have 290 and 500 hp, respectively. It's why I recommend never flying first/business class, international, unless you never have to fly down the back again. It kinda spoils the experience! I'm sure the 340 will do the same on the "proper aeroplane IFR twin" front, so yeah, time to find the Aztec a new home, I think. Just have a little flying-through-clouds to do in her first. I just wish I could make her go faster in the meantime - it's bizarre. I mean, I routinely see a GS of 130 knots, with a mild headwind. Ridiculous, if you're burning 30 gallons an hour!!! Here's to the upgrade...

[T28D]

Lost pianoplayer,

I have owned a C340 for 9 years as private aircraft, a great honest machine in the Cessna easy to fly mould.

Mine has Vortex generators and 310 hp engines, it is a really easy aircraft to handle, almost viceless if you operate on the published numbers, the vortex generators do increase the gross weight but they are much more benefit in improving rudder effectivenes at low speed and they are a great assist lowering VMCA.

The aircraft is happiest between 17,000 and 19,000 depending on your starting temp, and will true out at 205 at mid fuel contents running top of green for props and manifold at top of boost for temp and altitude ( limited above 16,000)

Fuel flow 65 litres an hour a side and no engine troubles, cool tops.

Down hil drive the aircraft 220 knots still air and don't start to reduce power until in nice warm air low level, aircraft will slow up quick once you start 1st stage of flap.

Great IFR platform, stable handling and sits on the numbers once trimmed.

Fuel system is really not hard, just burn 1 hour out of the tips before going to the aux which only hold 121 litres each side.

Buy it and enjoy, they are really quiet inside because of the thick windows which also give bird protection fast down low,the pressurisation system is really simple and I have never had trouble with mine.

PM me if you want more.

[Kangaroo Court]

I flew over a 1,000 hours in type. Based stateside. Let me know if you need somebody to bring it home. I've done ferry flying before. You need to have it tanked at Tom's in Longbeach, CA. Don't crate it under any circumstances. It'll get more damage and cost more to do that I guarantee. Motor Holdings at Ardmore Airport in the late '80s were very reputable for NZ compliance. I don't know if they're still around.

[c100driver]

Hi LPP,

Looks like you are on the way to a great adventure.

Flying the Pacific is a real buzz once you have completed it, it is a real logistic challange. However making landfall in the dawn in the tropics is a memory of a lifetime that is worth the price of admission.

I do have a concern with the question you asked at the very start of this thread that no one has answered yet! Have you really thought about being a test pilot? If you want to fly the 340 like that then you will be a test pilot!




1. Short field ops. I know, I know - it's not possible, per se, and it's sure not a short field machine. Still. Anyone know what the shortest possible/reasonable/safe takeoff would be for a 340 operating at very low weights? Say, 2 people and 40 gallons/250 pounds fuel. Published take off is 1600 feet or so, but that's at full gross, without VGs, and (I think) involves waiting till the machine is at 90 knots or so before rotating. Anyone with real world experience able to answer this one? A related query is:

2. If you take off at the slowest possible speed, in a fairly powerful twin, is it true that a catastrophic engine failure means you could get into a VMC roll even if you had perfect reactions, in terms of pulling both throttles and applying full opposite rudder? A very experienced instructor and friend of mine says this is the case. He has a lot more experience than me, but still, I'm surprised. I'm willing to "pull the other one" and accept whatever I get if I have a low speed engine failure on take off, but was surprised to hear that no matter what, I'll be heading into the trees upside down. What do you guys think? Is my instructor friend correct?


All the best with you new machine.

[lostpianoplayer]

Thanks for the updates, since my past post. T28D? Pleased to hear your positive review of the aircraft. Sounds great to me - I can't wait!

Thanks for the numberous offers of ferrying it, pointing me to ferry experts, and so on. I'm definitely keen to do it myself - I agree about the tropical dawn landfalls - I can't wait! And I have enjoyed a long email correspondence with one of the posters on this thread, who put his hand up, so it looks like the ferrying (and preparation) side of it is sorted. I appreciate all the help.

Yes, the other questions in my first post got kinda ignored here, but not elsewhere and I now know the info I was looking for. Re test piloting, well, I have done a little amateur & unfocused test piloting, as many of my hours are in homebuilts...but no, I'm not a grown up test pilot :) I've heard from a guy who flies a 340 real world, mid/low weights, off fields of the sort of lengths I mentioned. The problem with the "just follow the manual" school, in my opinion, is that like all documents, the manuals have some input for policitical reasons (eg satsifying the FAA for intial certification, exaggerating performance to sell aircraft, etc) that the aircraft knowns nothing about. So I guess I use the manual as a primary, authoritave but NOT definitive source, and look for real world input from people who know what they're talking about, backed up by my own observations, to work out what to do. But yeah, thanks for the thought...I'll be careful. I always (OK, usually :) am.

[T28D]

At ISA temps the short field performace of the aircraft with vortex generators and 36 inches boost is actually impressive at light weight which is where most private aircraft will operate and in NZ high ambient temps are not a real issue.

So 4 up and 75% fuel load on a 20 degree day with a 10 knot into wind takeoff on hard surface the aircraft will beat the published figures.

ISA +20 soft surface and nil wind changes the picture quite markedly, the main wheels are not suited to soft surfaces and initial acceleration suffers badly.

Like all aircraft performance is a series of compromises, the C340 was designed for the US to operate from FBO on made runways and as a private IFR platform, it has the most useless de-ice system in the world and is not certified for flight into known icing, I took all the de-ice off mine, gained significant performance, and a considerable weight off the airframe. As well as simplifying the electrical system getting rid of the hot props.

[bushy]

Many maintenance organisations in Australia are not certified to maintain pressurised aircraft, and not willing to make the effort to get that approval for one aircraft.
New Zealand may be better, and at least a short ferry distance to a major city.
I operated a C340 in central Australia, and maintenance was a huge disaster, which eventually killed the operation. The only decent C340 maintenance was 1500 k's away. Even though there was a CASA approved one much closer it turned out to be inadequate.
NZ probably will be better.
Re short atkeoffs. I learned very early that most accidents are caused by humans, not machines, and bad weather or bad airstrips were very often involved. Australian aircraft used to have an australian flight manual, with two different takeoff charts. One for Australia and another, different one for PNG. The PNG one allowed shorter takeoff distances. Funny that. Apparently the aircraft performed much better when they left Australia.
If you spend lots of flight time doing short takeoffs in that aeroplane with a tutor who has lots of bush time in PNG, that would be time well spent.
You can simulate efato situations at altitude to check out the slow speed flight characteristics of the aeroplane. (with an experienced tutor)
Beware of the technical talk of sales people.
Good luck. They are good aeroplanes. If you have good maintenance.

[bushy]

Gaunty
Do we really need condoms that last 36 years??

[Kangaroo Court]

Man, you'd be one unlucky ugly bloke if you had to keep one that long!

[lostpianoplayer]

OK, well, I can see there's a little interest in the other part of my first question, so I'll comment a little on that.

First of all, yes, I think the maintenance side of pressurised aircraft, not to mention complex aircaft, can be a real issue, and I doubt if NZ is much better than Oz, per se. That said, one of my two engineering outfits has a branch only 10 minutes flight time from here, and they have an experienced 340 guy on staff (I already checked) so things should be OK. The good news is my machine has a freshly overhauled pressurization system, so I hope to avoid dramas in that department. And I do like the sound of quiet, T28 - that sounds marvellous.

On the question of short field ops in a 340, well, the range of answers I've received on this, from the range of sources I've asked, runs the full gamut from "she'll be right mate" to, and I quote, "anyone that attempts to fly STOL in a 340 needs their head read". So, again, I'll point out the basics around this question, which is that

1. I'm talking about occasional use at very light weights from a private strip in which I have shares. So 2 up, not 4, and low fuel loads. The field is about 1800 - 2000 feet long, sea level, and won't usually be too much warmer than ISA. (Not sure exactly of length, but will check of course.) My gut feeling is that operating the 340 out of there is unwise, but we'll see.

2. I am NOT attached to doing it. It'd be nice, could the 340 could then be hangared at my shared private strip, but I'm quite prepared to park it at the main airport if necessary.

3. STOL is to some degree, a matter of experience, opinion, and of course aircraft type. Obviously what's STOL to a 340 is quite different to what's STOL to a C180.

That all said, seems to me there are two different questions, both important. These are

a. Landing & takeoff distances. The book says T/O roll is 1650, at full gross, and with all the usual FAA certification criteria. (New aircraft, professional pilot, ISA standard, etc) Theoretically, if you look at the old equation that every 10% increase in weight means a 20% increase in T/O distance, then reverse it, then operating at very light weights should take just under 1000 feet to get airborne. Which is OK, although landing distance, braking effectiveness etc are still important. The other big issue is

b. Engine failure at takeoff or shortly thereafter, in which case, if you're operating STOL, you may have VMC issues below blue line, or certainly redline.

Safe T/O distances can, of course, simply be read out of the manual. Problem is, as indicated by the "different manuals for PNG & Oz" phenomenon,that political considerations go into making manuals. So, really, it comes down to physics. I was much impressed by an accident report I read once, in which the pilot of a Harmon Rocket, forced to land in a "short field" of 2000 feet, accepted that the field was too short, and, using his normal landing technique, deliberately overran the field. I know from personal experience that you can safely operate a Harmon Rocket out of a 900 foot strip, so long as you fly precisely, bring it in at exactly 1.3 VSO, put it down at EXACTLY the right spot, brake hard and go round immediately if braking action is poor, and so on. In other words, 2000 feet was "short" to that guy, and fair enough, to him it obviously was - but it does to some degree depend on technique. (and the flight manuals I've seen for the Rocket, incidentally, refer to 2000 feet as the minimum, and more as ideal. I realise these are "experimental", so they're not official flight manuals, but still, the runway requirement seems surprisingly long to me. But then, even a second or so at 70 knots chews up a bit of ground, so you've got to get it right.) I've been trying to find out the real world performance of the 340 for just that reason - flight manuals are sometimes right, but are of course a bit "one size fits all." So. No decisions have been made yet, but I am looking to see what y'all know about real life short field ops in the 340, as part of the preparation for working out where to base it. There's no hurry - it won't be in NZ for many months, if not a year or so.

Risk exposure if everything is not in your favour, however, is a different thing. I agree w Bushy about accidents usually being concerned by poor decisions (including the decision to fly at all, given the conditions) as opposed to mechanical failure. BUT - if the engine on a single engine quits just after you're airborne, you're going down, but at least you're in a much lighter aircraft, going a little slower (V=MC squared) and the odds are on your side. Dealing with a VMC roll in a twin though, if ONE engine quits, means all bets are off. I'm told that in the 340s case, the VGs bring red line very close to the stall, so this might not be too much of an issue. At this stage, I'm open minded on the issue, and I would, indeed, be getting lots of experience with a PNG type before venturing into anything remotely short. I have a PNG type who is, so far, keen on bringing it back with me, if I don't manage to scare him off :} so you can rest assured I'll be picking his brain as much as I can, and hopefully getting in some short field training anyway, as well as anything else I can get him to teach me.

T28D, I'm really sorry to hear your comments about the de-cing. Icing is a serious issue in NZ, so my IFR ops might be curtailed more than I had hoped. I had actually heard its de-icing was quite good, but I hear you loud and clear. Ah well. You can't have everything, right? :)

[T28D]

Engine failure after takeoff no big deal, vortex generators and good technique, aircraft will look after you if you are smart enuf to look after it, fly the numbers keep it straight and then finesse the ball and bank.

It is a real honest airplane , bloody easy to maintain, where complex comes from I don't understand . It is a simple aircraft. Any competent maintenance operation will handle it easy, in fact the pressurised hull makes it easier, they are somewhat better built than non pressurised hulls.

And the de ice system is bloody awful.

[Peter Fanelli]

And the de ice system is bloody awful.


How so?

What are the problems you had with it?

[T28D]

Constant electrical problems with slip rings and contacter boxes, wet vac pumps, a plumbing disaster.

All in all dead useless weight, since the aircraft is not certified for flight into known icing in any event.

[ResumeOwnNav]

Hey Guys just interested in how the adventure is panning out. Any new news?

[SNS3Guppy]

I'll leave the issues on maintaining pressurization and ferrying it over, as those have been covered quite well.

What did interest me in the original post is the requirement to supercede the book numbers for short field work. The takeoff and landing distances for the CE340 aren't that big to begin with...the airplane will do fairly short fields without any special technique.

The airplane does use a short field technique involving flaps and a rotation speed below Vmc. It uses a best angle climb speed to clear obstacles at Vx, of course, which approximates Vmc in the airplane. Lose an engine and you'll immediately go below the published Vmc. You really don't want to be trying to get out of a field any shorter than what the book allows with the short field technique and numbers.

You can certainly play the odds game and hope that a power loss doesn't occur...but I wouldn't. Stick with the published short field numbers.

When considering your takeoff distance, don't look at the ground roll. Look at the distance to clear a 50' obstacle, and the distance to get the airplane stopped (where published). The ground roll itself is really irrelevant when considering the numbers you need unless you happen to be at the top of a hill with a good escape and falling terrain around you. A good policy is to always plan for obstacles, whether they exist or not, as a conservative and comfortable number...and that applies to both takeoff and landing.

I'm doing a fair amount of instruction presently in 200, 300, and 400 series Cessnas, and find that most folks don't make the minimum landing distances, or takeoff distances. Between pilot imperfection in technique, the fact that the published numbers are demonstrated and interpolated values obtained during the certification process by a test pilot in a new company airplane, and the fact that your airplane isn't new...and the fact that there are no "guarantees" regarding published data in non-transport category airplanes...I wouldn't ever try to come up with numbers less than book. Always approach it with some cautiousness and a conservative attitude. Plan on more runway than published, but never less.

When considering sliding into short fields, don't neglect brake energy and the cost of replacement. Short field techniques involving maximum braking are fine on hard surfaces, every once in a while. It's hard on the airpalne, and won't hold up to real life scrutiny, on soft fields, dirt, gravel, grass (especially wet grass), snow, ice, etc. You can't apply the maximum braking, and will end up skidding a tire and having both directional control issues and potential for tire damage. Even if it's paved and dry, there's brake heat to consider, as well as the condition of the brake and wheel assembly. Planning on every stop being a max performance landing with full braking will have to rely on frequent replacement and maintenance, as well as preventative maintenance to ensure you've always got that brake available...more frequent and earlier replacement than with typical brake use on longer runways.

While vortex generators do allow you to fly slower with more aileron control and some injection of higher energy air into the boundary layer area of the wing (delays normal airflow separation at higher angles of attack), they don't make the airplane safer necessarily with respect to Vmc. Even with vortex generators on the vertical stab, you've still got directional control issues with which to contend. If you're talking short field operations, you're talking maximum power operations most of the time...which means your greatest differential thrust in an engine-out situation. This may mean the necessity of a power reduction, meaning you've no longer got maximum performance, and the numbers all fly out the window. If you're using vortex generators to fly well below published Vmc numbers, and you lose a motor, then you've not gained anything by getting the wheels off the dirt earlier, aside from putting you beyond the protection of the runway and stopway...and now you've got to damage your performance even further by reducing power on the good engine. False economy.

Don't shoot for numbers lower than published. I realize there's the strong economic temptation to shoe-horn the airplane where you want it because you have ownership in the airstrip. It's a little like get-there-itis, though. If you wouldn't take the airplane in there without owning a share of the strip, then you shouldn't take the airplane there simply because you do. In other words, never let external pressures entice you to do something you wouldn't do if the pressures weren't there. Justification, it's said, is the narcotic of the soul. The great hazard of giving in to temptation and justification is that it's easy to become an addict.

Stick with the book numbers or greater, plan conservatively, and you'll do well.

As for icing...it's a light twin, period. Even in aircraft equippped for known ice, especially in the class of airplane as the CE340, the anti-ice and de-ice equipment on board should never be considered valid for anything more than escaping an inadvertant encounter...never for intentional flight into icing conditions. Don't put yourself in that position. Even if icing conditions are frequent in your area. Always have a plan B...which may include leaving early as you drive to your destination, buy an airline ticket, or take the ferry.

Good luck.