C340(A) and C414(A) for bush operation

[Alexander Pichler]

Hi guys,

I have some questions regarding these two aircraft models for a commercial operation out of Central Africa.

1.) Does a stretcher fit in any of these two?
2.) Is there a special tyre kit for grass and gravel operations?
3.) Is there any other similar aircraft which is a 1980 model or later that is a MEP and pressurized apart from a B58P and C421?

Operations on grass or gravel shouldn't be a problem according to what I have seen and heard.

Can anybody assist? Would be great!

PS: Can maybe anybody assist with that as well? http://www.pprune.org/engineers-technicians/476865-where-make-familiar-c340a-c414a-congolese-maintenance.html#post7016445

[Doodlebug]

Hello Alexander,

Operated various Cessna twins in a previous life, including the 340. (Not the 414, though)

A stretcher would fit in the cabin of the 340, however I'm not sure you could load it through the rather narrow door with a patient in situ. (404's and some 402's had a cargo door adjacent to the stairs, ideal)

I'm not aware of a special tyre kit. The 340 has a mudguard-type deflector installed on the nosewheel which worked fine and the mains never seemed to kick up too much debris, i.e. we never used to pick up flap damage or dents in the leading edges of the tailplane. We operated into all sorts of unpaved strips, i.e. sand, gravel. No issues.

I think some of the Aero Commander piston-twins may have been inflatable, but stand by to be corrected on that one - Adam Frisch, any input?

The 340 is a lovely little thing. The big cowl flaps are particularly good, makes descents a lot less of a hassle for the engines. Not too much of a legal useful load though, if memory serves. A realistic three- to four-seater if you want to go anywhere.

Good luck. :)

[Doodlebug]

Hang on, just remembered that we had some black adhesive strips attached to the leading edges of the horizontal tailplane which was supposed to prevent damage. Never saw any cuts or marks on that, though.

[WhinerLiner]

Avgas availability in central Africa is a big issue.

Competent, affordable maintenance for a complex, turbo, pressurised piston twin in the region doesn't exist.

[Alexander Pichler]

@ Doodlebug: Thanks for your input, you mean a good 4 seater with 2+4 or 2+2?

@ WhinerLiner: Thanks as well, maintenance is available such as AVGAS up there in certain places, that is all pre-arranged. Seeems like C340A and C414A are the only option with a pressurized cabin in that size and being a MEP.

Regards

[Doodlebug]

You're welcome. I no longer have access to the numbers but if memory serves we could load no more than 4 total (driver + 3 pax) with full mains and aux tanks, on a hot day even that would be tight. That would be for a 2 hour out, two hour return plus reserves. It's not a 404. Even a 310 has more load. The thing is a fancy little Porsche, fun but not really practical.

It HAS to be pressurized, as well as piston-powered?

[chuks]

Why pressurized? A plain old 402C with a cargo door would be far easier to maintain. If you are that worried about the patient or if you have to go above ten thousand feet, put him or her on oxygen, when one assumes there should be a flight nurse to administer that in any case.

We used a 404 with a vacuum mattress for air ambulance work and that seemed to work just fine. Ditto the Twin Otter. If you want to get fancy then get a sort of raised platform to put the patient on that locks into the seat rails, otherwise just put the patient on the floor secured with a couple of straps, feet against the forward bulkhead, with an adjacent seat for the flight nurse. (You will be operating with a flight nurse, yes? If that's an African lady with a 'traditional figure' add 100 kilos right there!)

Without a big door then you shall quickly tire of trying to wrestle a patient into or out of your aircraft without causing undue distress.

You might want to take this little lead sled of a 340 out for a flip where you simulate losing an engine right after rotation with a heavy load on a hot day, UNDER ADULT SUPERVISION! Look up the book numbers for performance at something like five thousand feet and 30 degrees C. say, pretty normal for some parts of Africa. Set your engines for that sort of performance and then pull just one back to idle at a safe height after rotation to see what happens next. (Like a sack of **** off a stagecoach, I bet.) That might make you think again about your choices here.

Or, just have a look in the POH under 'Engine Failure After Take-off.' When you get through subtracting for 'Gear Down' and 'Engine Windmilling' you will probably be a bit too deep into the negative numbers to feel very happy about that happening, but it does happen. Too, remember that the book numbers are for a new airplane flown by a factory test pilot, where your airplane is not going to be anything like new. If you see '350 FPM' on the page, do not expect to achieve anything close to that number in reality, and that is when you are using absolutely perfect technique. Get it a bit wrong and you will be looking at depending on the curvature of the earth to gain altitude.

If you ask V1 Oops... very nicely, he might be willing to sell you a nice, new Twin Otter. That might be the way to go for what you want to do, I think.

[PLovett]

I knew of an operator in Australia who used a C340 for patient transfer flights but as far as I recall they were ambulatory patients only, not stretcher.

I also used to fly a C402-C on patient transfer flights and that was configured for carrying a stretcher (the same type as used in the ambulances with fold up legs). To load and unload we had to use the cargo door in addition to the normal cabin door and had a loading ramp made that fitted into the space that was low enough so that the stretcher could be wheeled straight onto the aircraft. It was then secured by locks on the right hand side of the cabin. Apart from the 2 seats up front there were also 3 other cabin seats. With the standard fuel load we used of 620 litres (I think) we had over 3.5 hours plus reserves it gave us the capacity of carrying a patient, flight nurse and about 120 kg extra on top of all the medical gear and medical oxygen (I think - it has been a few years since I did that job).

[Doodlebug]

Chuks is spot on regarding the poor single-engine performance of the C340.

We did air ambulance for years in unpressurized twins, worked fine. C404 has the best engine-out performance out of all the Cessna pistons by far - it can actually climb out on one engine, with a full load and reasonable fuel, at 30+ celcius on the plateau (ask me how I know). Geared, blown engines and no cowl flaps at all make for expensive maintenance unless your driver has his wits about him. Large cargo-door and plenty of room inside, acceptable speed of around 175 at FL080 - FL110. Getting tricky to source parts now, though. The C402C (not the B, that thing is awful) has much trickier single-engine handling but is still survivable, has an acceptable load and the same large cargo-door, is much cheaper to maintain and has less demanding engine-handling. Engines aren't geared, has cowl-flaps. We even did a lot with the C310, which has a cargo-door which can take impractically-sized pieces. Most of them aren't turbocharged, which makes them cheaper to run, obviously. All 3 types can be landed on really rough strips, unpaved roads, etc, no problem with the gear if regularly and properly maintained.

This is why I was asking whether it absolutely MUST be pressurized. There are much cheaper, more practical alternatives to be had, to my mind.

Anyhow, assuming somebody is offering you either a 340 or a 414 at an absolute bargain and these other types are therefore not an option, I think you want to find out about cargo-door options on the 414, and it's performance. Must be somebody on here who has some info on the 414??

[Alexander Pichler]

Will revert soon guys!

[Alexander Pichler]

Well, I decided to work on it right away, so you guys can work on it during the day as well :D

Maybe a bit of more info.

Ops out of FCBB, destination furthest away FTTJ with a stop-over in FCOM.

Yes, AVGAS is pre-arranged and available at all destinations.

Why did I step away from non-pressurized ones? Because of the weather, because I say it is still better to be in FL200-250 doing slalom flying, than in FL100 where you are more in the "conflict" than in 200 or 250.

To get to a legal payload with the C340 or C414 with 2+4+baggage+fuel, obviously impossible, not hard to figure out.

C402C, C404 or Chieftain will surely solve these problems at first stage, no doubt about that!

BUT are 2300-2600ft gravel, grass etc. enough for these 3 types above with 30°C etc.?

Caravan and Twin Otter are ideal, but there is a limited budget for the purchase.

C402C, C404 or Chieftain are a solution for the stretcher as well.

Maintenance: Regarding all 3 planes, it has not always been the easiest to get hold of spare parts, especially when you are down somewhere in the African bush, and to be honest, these 3 types are somehow exotic, aren't they?

I guess that should give you all now kind of a picture what the intention is.

BUT what I of course don't wanna forget to mention is:

Thank you all for the professional feedback so far, because it really helps to take your personal experience from all over the world into account, that's why PPRUNE is for me the best way to go when it is about professional help!

So, how and where to go?

Regards,

Alex

[Doodlebug]

It's a lazy sunday, no problem, enjoy talking little piston twins.

If Makoua - N'djamena is your longest leg and the fuel is not a problem, both the 404 and the 402C can do the 720 or so miles. For the 402C this is pretty much as far as you can go, bearing in mind weather and alternates. The 404 can actually do quite a bit further, obviously at some point you're eating into payload but if it's just a quack and a patient you'll be amazed at the range.

A serious squall-line will spoil your day at FL200 just as much as at FL100 as long as we're talking low-powered pistons. (just my opinion) The tremendous extra cost of maintaining an antique pressurization-system is a killer. I'd prefer to dodge the storms at low-level, or wait them out via a quick diversion. We did just this for years down there.

I'd agree that your intended routes have axed the 340. No idea about the 414 but I'd imagine a similar issue.

2300 to 2600 foot of level, smooth sand with no obstacles is enough for a 402C, if all the other parameters are not too wild. The 404 has better runway performance than the 402C.

I believe that maintenance is getting to be an issue for the 404, yes. Parts availability apparently is the thing (or was, when I last spoke with the spanners down there). 402C is easier, not yet as exotic. Your closest (very) reliable AMO would be in Windhoek. I can give you some names and numbers via PM, they can tell you much more about the situation with spares, the spar-inspections, etc. etc. (I have no commercial interests whatsoever)

You want a Twotter/C406, ideally. Not going to happen because of purchase cost. Given your mission profile and your being able to source AVGAS it looks like you want a 402C. Cheapest way of doing it safely. 404 better, IF your driver knows how not too screw the engines and if you can reliably source bits and pieces for the forseeable duration of the job. I wouldn't even think of a 402B.

[chuks]

You will be sorrreee! To get caught in cloud trying to dodge African CBs by peering at the crappy little radar in a light twin.... Are you mad? (No probably just young and optimistic, but to learn from experience you have to survive the experiences.) The weather is far more powerful than a light aircraft and diverting, or simply sitting out the bad weather, will prove the way to go.

I was with a guy who flew into a humble cumulus cloud in a C-310. Moments later, as we were getting a thorough kicking, he said, 'What to I do now?'

'Back up, and go around the cloud!' Durrr...

It is a funny thing, but if you look in the books you can see that the power-to-weight ratio of the C402C is superior to that of the C404 at max gross. Too, the C404's GTSIO-whatever engines demand consideration if you want to make TBO, when the aircraft has no cowl flaps. The very similar TSIO- engines of the C402C are simpler, and thus cheaper, I bet. The thing is, imagine a hot day and a heavy load and a short strip with trees out there past it... You have to ask yourself, 'Do you feel lucky, Punk? Well, do you?'

A glance at the numbers on a web site for a C340 shows that it needs about 3000 feet of asphalt for accelerate-stop. You want to operate off a shorter dirt strip? So, what is the plan B when you lose one engine at about 50 knots? You might want to back off and re-think this one. Safety costs money, but just about the time you find yourself in some terrible mess you would gladly spend the extra for turbine engines or at least better performance.

We had a real nice kid from Iceland who wanted to come to work with us in Nigeria. He was too low-time to get the job so he went back to doing air ambulance in an old Seneca back home. He got caught in a mountain wave or something, pulled down into terrain that old airplane couldn't out-climb and that was that. Hearing that sort of thing tends to stay with one, just like seeing, first-hand, the single-engine performance of a rather average C404 with a full load off a short strip on a hot afternoon in Nigeria. All that happened was that the big hose popped off the intake manifold, but it did that at about 8000 feet. If it had happened just at rotation, well.... Bob Hoover might have got away with that, but I am not Bob Hoover.

Even if you think you want an African adventure, the flight nurse and the patient did not sign up for that sort of a ride. Too, if things do go all pear-shaped, and if you survive that, expect to have to answer some very hard questions such as, 'The book says you needed more than 3000 feet of asphalt. You chose to operate off a 700-metre (popular number, about 2300 feet) unpaved strip. Why is that?'

[Alexander Pichler]

Thanks again for all the feedback so far.

Maybe to begin with the Chieftain, it seems like that this plane is no solution at all because it hasn't been taken in account so far at all?

C404: If I get that right (from a C404 that I know) EW: 2256kg, MTOW: 3802kg gives me 1546kg of payload. For a "standard" flight, I say now 2+8 at a weight of 100kg per person including luggage. Results in 1546-800= 746kg that can be loaded additionally. Max fuel would be 348GAL. The 746kg converted into GAL would be 1036l or 274 GAL which should result in (274GAL:40GAL/h)=6:45h endurance x 180KTAS 1225nm. I know, this is playing with numbers and theory, but should take me into that region, or?

C402C: In a short form, EW: 1926kg MTOW: 3113kg = Payload: 1187kg. Considering this one as a 6 seater (2+4) = 600kg => 587kg for fuel which is 215GAL (full tanks) : 38GAL/h = 5:35h x 180KTAS = 1021nm.

Am I somehow right with the number work above?

Does the Chieftain fit in somewhere? As much as I know the max tank is 182GAL for the standard and some upgrades with the NAYAK up to 236GAL.

Regarding the pilot, it won't be me flying. He is an experienced pilot who has been in this bush since 30 years and has some expierence so I am sure he is informed about the local weather.

Let me know what you guys think!

Thanks in advance,

Alex

[chuks]

The C404 has more flexibility. You won't usually be doing air ambulance maxed out on load. Lightly loaded it has better performance than the C402C.

Figure out what you need to haul and buy what you can afford, is the way it works in aviation. Otherwise you would be using a Twin Otter at a minimum; it is the bush plane. (I shall now disappear into the middle of a screaming knot of raving Van drivers who will want to prove me wrong, so wrong. C'mon guys, you know it's not a bush plane; give it up. The Pilatus Porter: that is a bush plane! Just because it has one PT-6 and it looks uuuugly, that is not enough. But I digress....)

How are you going to get a big guy with a badly broken leg, who is in pain, into a C340 or a C414 anyway? You need something with a door that is big enough for at least a vacuum mattress. Having crammed him in there somehow, now you have the problem of a short dirt strip and an airplane that was designed for American conditions, 5000-foot paved runways. Then one had room enough to accelerate, lose an engine and stop, or perhaps to limp into the air if one has an unjustified amount of optimism in one's make-up. Off a short dirt strip that good engine is only going to take you to the scene of the accident.

[Alexander Pichler]

That's why I am trying to focus now on these 3 types, C402C, C404 or the Chieftain.

I can get hold of 2 C402C in Africa.
2 C404 in Europe, one of them I am selling.
7 Chieftains in Europe and Africa.

Luckyly the Cessnas have the SID done.

Has anybody got information about the Chieftain for bush ops?

As it seems, a fuel capacity of 200GAL will be a must.

[chuks]

Be sure that the 402C, if that is what you go for, has the cargo door option. The double door, even though I never saw a 402C without that, is not standard fit. You also need the heavy-duty brakes, when I think that is also an option. I cannot remember now if that was the 402 or the 404 that had the brake option, or both.

You need to think about a maintenance organization for your airplane. Is there a Cessna dealer handy?

Avgas is a real pain nowadays. What if you have to divert, to a place where there's no fuel? Turbine power is the way to go, just for that reason.

Something else to think about is that the 402C and the 404 fly real nice, where those things with the 'tuna tanks' have way too much weight out there at the wingtips so that they really wobble around in turbulence, making for a lousy ride. Passenger comfort, what there is of it, is important in air ambulance work. Air conditioning is worth thinking about, but it was hard to keep that functioning on the 404s we operated.

[Alexander Pichler]

@ Chuck: Thanks, any info on the Chieftain?

Regards

[africanbushpilot]

I didn't go through everything yet, and as a pilot/mechanic with experience on these small planes have a small preference for an older Beech King Air C90, which is pressurized, and are cheap to buy! Starting from 150K USD. Avgas is the big set back on everything I have experienced until now, unless an STC comes for a more common type fuel I would choose Jet fuel, at least for now!
I currently have 9 usd/liter barrels of avgas shipped in to Saudi Arabia, eating away all the profit! But the fact that Avgas is pretty much vanished, soon I would assume (hope) Conti and Lycoming come out with an STC for Mogas.

[chuks]

I have just a few hours on a Piper Navajo 325CR, which was a nice machine. You have to ask others here who must know the Piper machines well. It really can come down to which dealer is nearby, when the Piper network was much smaller.

I used to work for the Cessna dealer in Lagos, so that most of my experience was on the C402C, the C404 and the C441.

How about a C406? They didn't make many of them but that's basically a C404 with 500-h.p. (?) PT6 engines.

Really, Avgas is not the way to go in Africa nowadays. To leave drums of stuff that is worth a whole lot of money and that will burn just fine in someone's tokunbo just sitting around... Plus one did hear occasionally of an aviator coming back his aircraft to find that someone else must have done a very thorough 'water check.' All the Avgas... gone! Thou shalt not put temptations before the weak.

I don't think you can run a C402C or a C404 on Mogas; the engines need 100LL, minimum, when African Mogas can be around 85 octane. Those Contintentals put out a lot of power for their size, 375 h.p out of 520 cubic inches on the C404, so that they are relatively highly stressed, hence the low TBO. You can get 5 thousand hours out of a PT-6, depending, but only 16 hundred hours out of a GTSIO-520E, from what I remember.

[The Ancient Geek]

Reims still build the 406 under licence from Cessna.

[Doodlebug]

I don't have the numbers to hand anymore, but I know that the range you calculate for the 402C is too high. The 404 may get up around there. Neither can reliably be blocked at 180, 175 is closer to the mark, unless you find a rare, unbent gem. Chuks is right regarding the 340's pavement requirements, it needs more than the 402C or the 404, which is one of the reasons why it's out for your planned mission. The maintenance-people in Namibia, the closest real AMO to your proposed operation, are geared more toward the Cessna-twins, with expertise and parts-backup developed accordingly. Sorry, no gen on the bigger Pipers, just had fun in Cubs and Aztecs. I think Orstraylya has quite a few bigger Pipers in the G.A.-scene, perhaps try their forum for this info, too? Re: the AVGAS-theft-worries, it's a given that an aircraft needs to be guarded or locked up in a very secure hangar in these locations, your old-timer will know. Even then, leave it unlocked and empty, as otherwise the locks will be smashed. Anything not riveted in place is gone, obviously. :}

[PLovett]

Has anybody got information about the Chieftain for bush ops?

Yes, in a word, "Don't".

The aircraft was designed around 1 hour sectors with fuel at either end. They will handle bush flying but not as well as the Cessna 402 or 404; they are more difficult to load stretcher patients (narrower fuselage); like lots of AVGAS; are getting depressingly old and difficult to maintain without any real support network in place. At least Cessna will still talk to you and are interested in the 400 series.

[chuks]

The 404 can hold a lot of fuel with its big wet wings, so that it has much more range than a 402C.

If it's affordable, I think a 406 would make a good, basic machine for this sort of work. The Twin Otter is still tops in my book, but what do I know?

The C404/406 cabin is significantly larger than the C402C's as well.

It was simple to load a patient on a vacuum mattress through the C404's double doors and the flight nurse had room to move next to the patient. A useful option is the little clamshell door for the pilot, so that he can close the back door from the outside and then get in without stepping on the patient by going up the left wing. That is kind of an uncool thing to do, I guess, stepping on the patient, so that I tried to avoid doing that.

I liked the airplane. It was a good instrument platform and it gave a pretty good ride in turbulence. The knee-action gear meant that you had to be a real plonker to make a rough landing.

Rough strips and landing close to max landing weight made the skin come apart around the wheel wells so that you had to keep an eye on that, and you want the upgraded brakes. The engines demand consideration from the pilot.

Nowadays I suppose you can have twin Garmin 430s and perhaps one of those trick satellite weather thingies that works like a really good weather radar. Dual ADFs and an HF used to be good to have for Africa. De-icing gear is just a pain; the boots rot in the sun and come apart.

The best part was listening to the counterweights in the crankshafts rattling like mad at idle as you taxied in, thinking about that first cold beer at the Watering Hole. Ah yes, Champion, the Wonder Beer!

[Rat Catcher]

Having done medievac for 5 years around East Africa (although sometime ago) using C-402C and C-404, if I had a choice between the two, I'd take the C-404. If you are the pilot flying it and look after your engines you will find you have a great machine with reasonable performance. 175kts is a safe block speed and with full fuel you have over 1000nm range with reasonable alternates, subject of course to fuel if you divert! :-0
The only weaknesses are:
AVGAS
Pilot induced engine fatigue
Maintenance induced engine fatigue
Weak nose wheel (can be an issue on soft strips)
If you go down this route, please get a decent checkout from someone with experience on the aircraft, not someone looking for a quick sale!!
Turbine options such as the 406 are hard to come by and expensive although the PT-6 is fairly bullet proof :0)
Good luck with it all! :ok:

[Alexander Pichler]

Hi guys,

running out of planes, seems like 402C and 404 are gonna be the only two possible... budget is not enough for a 406 or any other turbo prop due to the fact that he wants to buy two planes, same type to have one as a back up.

Regards

[flyboy2]

Why not look at a LET 410 E ?
These have strong trailing gear,tip-tanks, US Avionics & A/P & use JetA1 in their sturdy Walther turbines. No pressurisation though.

The UVP models are rather older, thus cheaper, but with less range & usually everything written in Russki, Kilometers & metres/minute!

All the previous types discussed, have the same weak link inherent in the gear, particularily turning in soft sand.
A collapsed nose gear is not only expensive, but very inconvenient!

[DaFly]

Looks like you have made up your mind against pressurization. Which is a good thing. It's not only the turbulence that you will fly into because the little radar didn't quite show you the right colors. But at FL200 and above you will encounter severe icing, which is going to bring you down anyway. Those levels are the worst to fly in, even in turboprops such as B190. You want to stay below or way above that icing zone.

Regarding the Piper twins: I have sent you a contact, he does operate a Navajo and knows about the strong and weak points of Navajo and Chieftain. Bush operations is possible, same as Cessna twins. Range is less than in a Cessna and so is cabin space. We did a few ambulance flights in a Cheyenne, very much a pressurized turbine Navajo. It is rather cramped and one has to wrestle the aircraft all the way. It's easier to push an angry Brahman Bull by it's horns backwards into a horse trailer. The Cessna 400 twins are much nicer aircraft to fly.

[Alexander Pichler]

Well an option as well, but it should still be a C404 since it has the best features.

In case any of you guys knows about a C404, 1980 or later that is on/off market exact the German, Spanish or the one in New Zealand, then please let me know.

Thanks

[Alexander Pichler]

Hi guys,

shouldn't the C404 be with 2+6 the much better plane than the C402C or am I mistaking?

According to avubyer Aircraft Performance Data from Conklin de Decker at AvBuyer.com (http://www.avbuyer.com/aircraft/compare_performance_data.aspx)

If you compare the two planes, it says that C402C has the much better performance.

Further, if you put in the C414 with RAMV, it says that the plane is almost as good as the other two.

Hard to believe, theory and real life, isn't it?

Regards

[chuks]

You are probably looking at the book figures for aircraft that are at MTOW. If you want to haul the same load with a C404 as with a C402C then the C404 will perform better because it won't be as close to its MTOW.

Grossed out, yes, as I mentioned, the C402C on paper, is the better performer. It only has 2x325 h.p. where the C404 has 2x375 h.p., but the C404 has a much higher MTOW. Just divide the C402C's MTOW by 650 and the C404's MTOW by 750 to see what I mean, when it's excess power that makes one go up, the usually desired direction after take-off.

I flew five or six different C404s, including the last one off the production line. That one was an absolute pig! Go figure.

Those STOL kits promise the Moon, but again, those are book figures for an airplane with new engines, tires and brakes, some hotshot at the controls under optimum conditions... that might not be what you get in the real world.

There, the way to go, if you can afford it, might the bigger C404 not loaded to the gunwales, when you have more of a margin for error.

Better yet, forget this piston-banger BS and get yourself something with turbine power. A Twin Otter with PT-6-34s, made all shiny-new for a mere $4 million? Or ask Viking how much a brand new one is. Make sure you are sat down when they tell you the number, though.

[The Ancient Geek]

A Caravan with the optional freight door would be a good candidate.
They are in plentiful supply and cope well with African conditions.

[KRONOS]

A kingair F 90 will outperform all, and you will not need a backup.

Most capable piston, C404
Most expensive to run C404
Dont fool yourself, I spent most my flying life where you are off to, no way in hell I will fly a piston twin there, not even a single turbine, a pressurised 400 series as mentioned will put you in the worst weather you can think of, I flew a air ambulance for many years, Chieftain and E90, the 90 was a bit faster and warmer, but also iced permanently, lightning strikes 4 times a year or more, hail..

If you go tar to tar, the C441 is your best machine bar none, it will outrun a Citation on a 1000 km leg.

[chuks]

The C441 has a pretty small door for air ambulance work. I don't think it would be easy to get a litter patient through that door, and I cannot remember if I ever did. I loved flying it, though.

The nose gear is kind of puny and the props don't much like loose surfaces, but what a performer it is! It would true out close to 300 knots with -10 engines, at ISA +15. That was with those trick 4-blade propellers; I think they are part of the kit.

If you can get a King Air for cheap, well...

There's no question that turbine engines beat piston engines all around. The thought of lining up on a short strip at a high density altitude, with a full load... you would really want to bet the farm on piston engines? No, not really, although most of us have done that quite happily, for a while at least.

I can think of at least three fatal accidents in piston twins that were EFATO, two Navajos and a C404.

[Alexander Pichler]

No doubt that MET beats MEP, but if budget doesn't allow it to go for turbo prop then you have to stick to the things you have available and that's why the C402C and C404 seem like the best choice!

[Alexander Pichler]

Can anybody state how great the difference is between the standard AP on the C402C and the S-Tec 55X AP?

If anyone knows, please advice!

Regards

[PLovett]

AP, the standard autopilot on the C402C was a Cessna 400 series which, for their age, work surprisingly well. That was what was fitted on the C402C that I flew aeromedical work with and all modes (heading, navigation & altitude hold) worked well. On the three C404 that I am currently flying two are fitted with the 400 series autopilot and one with a Bendix-King. One of the 400 series works ok in heading mode, doesn't work in navigation and altitude hold is only so-so. The other 400 series and Bendix-King are excellent.

I have also flown a Baron and a Vulcanair equipped with S-Tec 55 autopilots. The Baron was excellent, the Vulcanair was appalling when it came to altitude hold but I suspect that the problem was caused by the interface between the servo and the aircraft.

A summary, both are good but the S-Tec is probably going to be better for a longer period. The 400 series autopilots are getting long-in-the-tooth and will require regular servicing.