Hints on purchasing aircraft

[Kav]

I was wonderin if anyone would be able to help me out.

I am looking at purchasing a C340 or a PA31-310.

I have looked in depth in the trader, however it seems that I cannot find a good fairly low time C340 or Navajo.

I was wondering if anyone knows of a 340 or Navajo for sale - if so, please email me

Any hints on what to look for with regards to both aircraft - grey areas in particular to look for before purchasing ... and what year models are better than others, features to look for in each aircraft (a/c - crew door... ?).

Any help would be greatly appreciated in finding a good 340 or Navajo.

Thanks for your time


PS: Just interested in what everyone would prefer - 340 or Navajo ??
:confused: :confused: :confused:

[Sheep Guts]

Depends alot on what you want to use it for?

A crewdoor will come in handy if you intend on using for charter etc.

340 is pressurised means more maintenece checks and costs. If you want pressurisation, you may aswell go a turbine ie. B90,C425 depends on your budget ofcourse.I know where there are some B90s for sale.

Beware there maybe some cheap Chieftans on the market as there is an ad out on their engines. I know this doesnt pertain to a Navajo, but just some kind advice.

There are definitley more PA-31-310s on the register than C340s, this comes in handy when you need to get special parts quickly, someone else may help you. A grounded aircraft is an expensive vacumm. As it sits their awaiting watever, it depreciates in value rapidly.Not to mention, parking fees,insurance,registration and repayments......

Finding a good low time C340 or PA-31 will be tough as these machines arent getting any younger.

[High Altitude]

Here's your best hint :- DON'T

[nasa]

Nah....I won't say a thing ;) ;) .....I can't help myself

Ask gaunty.......:cool: :cool:

[Torres]

Kav:

1 Take two Aspros
2 With a nice cup of Tetley's tea, and
3 Keep away from nasa

:D :D :D

[gaunty]

Kav

Seeing as nasa asked sooooo politely :D here it is in about three lines.

1. Don't buy either type, if you are buying to set up a charter op.

2. C340 maintenance schedule is/was only about 3 hours more than std, BUT nobody in recorded history has ever made any money with one. A C421C is better bet and don't believe a word you hear about the engines. I have run many many pairs to TBO without a single problem.

3. PA31 when you buy one of these, you will be solving somebody elses problem. Apart from the fact that the engines are under a bit of a cloud at the moment, BUT few people if any, certainly in the last 15 or more years has made any money out of them. A C402C or C404 are cheaper to run and the only way to go, but the same applies.

4. Sorry there is a fourth, don't under ANY circumstances buy a C90 or B100, a PA31P, an AC500/680/690, a Cheyenne of any description, dont even stand under the wing of an MU2 and here's the kicker in fact ANYTHING less than say 10 years old.

That's right, there's is nothing much left now that you can buy under several $million dollars.

Then if you can't afford to enter the industry at that level then you can't afford it.

I gaurantee that if you do not heed my advice, that in less than several years, you will be substantially poorer than when you started.

There is a HUGE sea change in progress in the market and the regulatory process, that may give the incumbents a chance to run out whatever they are currently operating and refleet but there will be many casualties.

In the class of aircraft you mention everybody is a seller.

Sits back and waits to be stoned as a heretic. :D

Oh and Uncle Torres has a much simpler course of action, except he forgot to say,
"after the cup of tea, wait for the feeling to go away". :D :cool:

[Kav]

Thanks for your advice.

What would you recommend for majority of the flying to be conducted in PVT. We have been thinking of a BE58, however it is cramped and the baggage is to be carried inside or in the nose locker.

A 303 is built to light - engine and airframe

310 - to small for what our intended uses are for - we could be carry 5-6 people on about 3 hour sectors

Any other twin aircraft that we could look for that could suit our needs. I am sure the aircraft will not be sitting for any length of time, he needs it for work and has work building up and requires his own aircraft - he is sick of chartering aircraft and driving miles from the domestic terminals.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers

[Blue Sky Baron]

Maybe the Airvan might be suitable?
:rolleyes:

[gaunty]

Kav

Yu don't say what your budget is but I suspect it may be around $3-400,000?? and it really depends on the role.

In any event the perfect aircraft would be a nice clean and tidy C414 Chancellor which is a C402C fuse with pressurisation and 315HP Contys as standard.

There is, I believe an STC for an ugrade to the HP which is what was to happen to replace the C421C Golden Eagle. The original engine is the same TSIO520 that they used in the C402 C but only 315HP instead of 325HP in the interests of economy.

The bit of extra grunt would make all the difference.

Having said that the aircraft on its own is the perfect 5- 6 seat C340 which was a transition machine until they developed the Chancellor.

Quiet, a delight to fly, very roomy and very economical.

I operated one against a C421C in our fleet and it was hard to pick em unless you were looking for sheer grunt payload/range, but the engine HP ugrade should sort that.

Having said all of that you should really rattle the bosses tin and buy a C425 Conquest 1, which is the P & W version of the Chancellor/Golden Eagle.
250 KTAS at FL250 and it'll get you their in under 10 minutes, if I recall correctly. Its the quietest aircraft I have flown in ever.

For near Citation performance go for the legendary C441 Conquest 11, 5-6 pax over 1000nm @ FL330 and 290 KTAS. It will go a solid 1800nm with IFR reserves.

It'll costs about the same to buy and run as the C425 on a seat mile basis and over shorter distances will give the RPT jets a run for their money door to door. :D

Problem will be finding a nice one.

Overall winner the Chancellor for distances out to say 2-300nm the Conquests outside this distance.

re the C303, I wont bore you with the why and wherefore but the C303 would have been another legend but was stillborn when they abondoned piston manufacture in the mid eighties.
If you really understand the aircraft then you see that for a 6 place it is a pretty sharp ship.
The reason it is so light is because it was designed completely from scratch rather than the C310 which was being continually "stretched" from the original 4 seat/260HP or B58 which started life as a Bonanza.

[Kav]

Thanks Gautny

Very helpful with your reply.

I think that you would be hard pressed to find a 414 for around 350k, if you did - please let me know !

What aircraft would you recommed for around the $350k ??

There are so many aircraft out there ... just want to find a fairly good twin for around that price ...

Any help ....

I heard that it is a buyers market .... if this is true ... how come we cant find a good houred twin ... for the right price .... for PVT flying ??:confused:

[gaunty]

Kav

Buyers market?, sorry mate I meant here, not in the real world outside Oz.

Mind you the Oz exchange rate has reversed the direction a little lately.

In any event, with respect you've got it back to front with the purchasing bit. In effect you are trying to make the "punishment fit the crime". :D

You must first identify the type or class of aircraft that will do at least 85% of the job (which you have defined by rigouorus research) that you want to do.

Then you go off and find the best example that you can for whatever it costs.

Setting a price limit at the front is back to front.

If you have done the research job properly and it clearly shows that there is advantage to owning v RPT, then it shouldn't matter what the capital cost is.

What is absolutely certain is that if you don't get it right then it will be an expensive failure and the boss will never go near another corporate aircraft ever again.

email me if you want to talk about it, I wont try to sell you an aircraft or offer a consultancy coz I dont do that any more but I can give you some clues on where to start.

[Torres]

I support Gaunty. Forget the C90. The -20/-21 engines love expensive hot sections, parts are getting hard to get and a C90 can hardly be called a "fast" aircraft. If you must go a baby King Air look at an F90.

The Cessna 425 Citation I - magnificant aircraft with lovely de-rated Pratt's!

I'm not as keen on geared engines as Gaunty is, however good pilot training in engine techniques is an excellent investment.

The Beech 55 and Beech 58 are good honest work horses, but you may find it difficult to get a good, low time machine.

And because I'm extremely biased, don't overlook a Cessna 208/208B. They have the lowest seat/mile cost of any GA aircraft and will do the job for you. And used C208's are reasonably priced.

Regarding the PA31 etc etc, you would certainly be fixing someone else's problem if you bought one........!!!

[Sheep Guts]

I would stay away from anything with GTIO520s ie C404 OR C421 unless you can be sure of its history, or its got new donks. They have a TBO of around 1100HRS I think , but then again it depends on how many hours a month you intend on flying. When I mentioned C90 it was only COST as some are going cheap at the moment , but you would need maybe a spare-20/21 in cupboard. I have a question for Torres what PRATTS are in the C425? I couldnt find it anywhere.

Ofcourse as Gaunty has said the slickest is the QUEST goes like a stabbed cat:D , but you need a big back pockets for it. I thought the C310R was reasonably roomy, nose locker and wing lockers, will follow a Baron all day . ;)

[Rich-Fine-Green]

The T303 is an orphan (only 300 built) but a really, really nice machine.

There are only 9 in Oz and 1 for sale but it's been for sale for 18 months so it may just be a 'phantom' listing.

Talk to some engineers as well. e.g. BE58 is a great twin but Beech spares prices are a killer.

[Torres]

Sheep Guts. I think it's the PT6A-135 derated to around 450 SHP. Basically a -34 family engine but it's so far derated it'll never wear out and is very forgiving in high ambient temps.

The -114/-114A (600/675 SHP) in the C208/C208B is also in the same class of engine and it's operating costs are excellent.

There is a remarkable reduction in hourly operating costs in these later engines, compared to the much earlier -9, -15, and -20/-21.

The Twin Otter had -27's and Beech E90 had -28's. I seem to recall the -34 gas generator can be installed on a -27.

The Bandeirante had -34's.

But all that's from long distant memory so if incorrect I stand corrected.

[EngineOut]

I have to agree with Torres...

Go the Caravan.

It will cost a bit more than your typical older piston twin to start, however the difference will close quickly once maintenance comes into the picture.

Not the fastest machine around, but it will get into and out of anywhere without a problem, unlike most twins. You'll still get around 170kts out of one ( afew more without the pod). A much more comfortable cabin than any piston twin also. You can also pull the seats out quickly and run it as a very high volume freighter.

Great aircraft all round. Don't bother with piston twins anymore, their time is up.

[JULIET WHISKEY]

Caravans do 170 kts ???
geez thats alright ,I didnt know what they did?

[maximus]

A Caravan that does 170 kts , must be a different one than the one I fly. Obviously the Jato assisted model......;)

[EngineOut]

should get about 167 typically at 10000' with a pod, take the pod off adds about 7 knots.

[PLovett]

Gaunty

Quick question if I may. Why do you discount the Aero Commander series of aircraft? :confused:

I thought they all had good load capacity with fair to middling speed but great handling qualities. :) Perhaps a slightly higher maintenance requirement with the hydraulics but they are not on their own regarding that. :(

Cheers. :)

[Sheep Guts]

Thanks Torres,

I agree with about the enw family of PT6S the 114a and also the 112a in the REIMS is less temp limited

But when did the double Turbine wheels come in? I know -42s in the B200s have 2 Turbine wheels, do -34s havem as well?
Havent flown a Bandit, only Twotters and King Air 90S.

And heres another question, which model PT6 did they do away with the seperate fuel Topping Govenor?

Sorry to rack your brain, do you know any good webb site with this info?

Sorry Kav I know this isnt relevant.;)

[Torres]

Good post BIK, very interesting and all good stuff! And I stand corrected on the Cessna 425 engines. They probably are -112's, but isn't that also the Reims 406 engine?

For those interested in Pratt & Whitney turbine engines, try to worm your way into Pratt's Brisbane facility. They have some great training aids, including a cut away PT6A-34 and a cut away JT15. Pratts also used to produce a brochure on pilot turbine engine operating tecniques. For a power plant which rumour has it started out as an APU (in a B747?), it has certainly come a long way.

Sheep Guts, I thought the multi stage came in at the -50 engine (DHC-7) but I may be wrong. The -34 and below certainly have a single stage CT disk.

I remember seeing an old King Air A90 in the Philippines. It was powered by two PT6-nothing's - no reverse!

BIK's post highlights what I believe is a looming major crisis in Australian General Aviation. The majority of our GA fleet is older than the pilots that fly them, powered by 60 year old inefficient piston engine technology and in most cases well past their "Use By Dates".

Industry must modernise and move into lower operating cost, more reliable modern turbine aircraft, however in the present scenario the levels of annual utilisation and yields will not support the higher capital cost.

[Sheep Guts]

Thanks Bindook quite a good site, and your post most informative.

TORRES,
I think the PT6 was originally designed as a powerplant for North American gas and oil fields. Then was adapted for aviation use, I believe its first use was in a A90 King Air or -100 Twotter. I stand corrected. A90 King Airs did start off with no reverse or autofeather, infact autofeather was an option right up until the mid seventies.I actually fly Mid 60S MODEL A90s , but with one critical difference they are exUS ARMY , so the have been in a time capsual and have had every upgrade along the way( full king stack RADAR,GPS etc.). We fly them at FL210-250 alot higher youll notice than some C90s, reason is our Machines are unpressurised, less weight. I must admit though at these altitudes the -20 is at its peak and optimum alt. The last 2000' part of the climb is at around 200FPM :(

[LeadSled]

Kav,

One thing that has so far not been mentioned, and will assist your homework , have a look at the Cessna/FAA “aging aircraft” program for effectively re manufacturing various older Cessna models, such as the 402. This effectively zero times the airframe, and will give you some idea of what you might be up against with an lod airframe.

BIK mentions leaving an aircraft on the US register, good advice if it is convenient, but you have a much closer alternative, operate the aircraft on the NZ register. In many respects this is far easier, if you want to contact me via pprune, I can give you a run down on the pros and cons of both.

Tootle pip !!

[Torres]

The DHC6-100 came out around 1966 and was fitted with the PT6A-20. I seem to recall there were only 138 -100's, after which the nose was extended and the aircraft became a -200. (The short nose cone remained an option, being installed on -200 float planes.)

I suspect the first A90's were well before that - maybe the early 60's?

I thought the A90 was about the first with a PT6 engine. I also have a recollection the first turbine Pilatus PC6BH2 Porter may have had the -15. The Porter is interesting in that it was produced with a piston engine, PT6, Garrett and possibly an Astizou.

Sheep Guts. Curiosity is getting the better of me.......

What on earth are you doing at FL210-250 in an unpressurised A90?

Are you saying the A90's are re-engined with -20's? I'm surprised the -20 gets that high - the B90 runs out of puff much lower.

[gaunty]

Kax

BIK saved me the trouble and I must admit I had forgotten about the PA31-310.

We operated the first three brand new ones (alongside a new Cessna 411 then a 402) in the country all those years ago and it was a very very good aircraft, but did not happily survive the translation to the Chieftain as there was not enough stretch left in the design with the Navajo being already at the edge of a longitudinal stability problem.

I would buy one of those before I bought a C340A forget the 340 or any conversions from that, the merits?? of which BIK has described. The aircraft was only ever designed and aimed, like the C310 as an owner flown 4 seat aircraft, with the stats then showing the occupancy as being rarely more than 2 including the owner pilot. The extra seats were there as much to fill up the space as to provide the opportunity for extra pax over what we call "short" distances but in the US are the norm.

You must remember that these aircraft were designed and manufactured for the US market and demography. Sorta 300nm is a long way, 600nm you catch the local RPT unless you've got a turbine. Here 300nm is the first stop and there is no RPT to the 600nm destination.
So it is NOT a shortcoming of any aircraft design just trying the old square pegs in round holes routine.

I already signalled by email the danger zone of $350,000 as being neither here nor there. It's not nearly enough for a tidy big un or even enough a tidy little un without condemning oneself to a life of penury supporting your loacl workshop and spare parts organisation.

Yes the States is a source of better ones but that market hotly contests the goodies, but then there is the problem of which register.
The "siren" call of the US register should be researched very very carefully. Likewise but less so the NZ register.

Spars?? well that again is a problem brought about by the history of the industry.
In general manufacturers in their wildest dreams did not imagine that their aircraft would be used as mini airliners when they were designing them. Even today they still use 300 Hrs pa as the average for all these types including the turbines.

As a result, from a certification viewpoint, they reduced the engineering and test data to this point and 300hrs PA for a life of say 30 years and filed the rest away.
It is may or may not have been the case that the spars were good for more than say 9,000 but by the time this became an issue Cessna had gone out of piston production, the data was in the computers but nobody was prepared to pay for its retrieval and rework. In any event it it was likely to more expensive than renewing the spar.

It might be interesting to get 250,000 miles out of your 1975 EJ Holden but no one seriously buys one now.
And please, please don't anyone give me that bulls hit urban myth about aircraft being constantly renewed by maintenance etc and their being no parallel between an EJ Holden and a 1968 Cessna 402.

Creampuff is correct, we are in aviation terms a Third World country in terms of our GA fleet and attitude to their regulation and operation.
The US for example have mandated that by 2010 you will not be able to use other than FAR Part 25 aircraft for ANY RPT operation, i.e. what we call Low Cap. AND they have not for the last 4 years allowed any new entrants into this market without the use of FAR Part 25 aircraft. That is they are allowing those still using Titans, Chieftains 402s et al to run them out but they can't replace them with same.

But I digress.

Further why would a manufacturer support a process that extended their exposure to the liability and litigation industry whereby simply having manufactured and ceritifed an aircraft automatically exposed you to the risk of USD$20,000,000 findings against you for each one you ever built being flown out of maintenance, by a VFR pilot into a mountain in IMC.

PLovett
AC500 et al
It's not a criticism of this brilliant aircraft per se it is just that overall they failed the economics test, i.e. cost per seat km.
The AC500 was brilliant as a 6 seat, even at a push the 7 seat but it cost near enough the same to buy and run as an 8 seater.
That "real" seventh or eighth seat meant a lot.
E.G. The high wing design which works beautifully from an aerodynamic viewpoint and in smaller singles brings the "what do we do with the U/C" maintenance complication/weakness.

The AC680 tried to redress the balance and while aimed at a different market were best by corporate troubles.
I always had a lust for the AC680FL, until they put turbines on it.
The AC681 and on just never made as a big seller except to the AC devotees including the DCA.

Economics???
In real terms that is the only criterion that ultimately settles the argument about which type is better than the other and which manufacturer should survive or not.
It is the design philosophy and very close attention to the market that produces those succesful designs.

You only have to graph the types resale value against the original new price year on year "v" its competitor to see that correlation and which one actually works.
And relative sales for the various manufacturer in the various classes.

And the winner is??

C425
If I recall it correctly.
The -112 used was seriously flat rated with a torque limited TO power for TO that was limited by the airframe not the engine.
The limit being the Vmca possible with the tailplane.
Remember this aircraft came out of the C400 series, specifically based on the C421 fuselage and it would have outside the design brief to redesign the tailplane.
Once safely airbourne and accelerated if you did have one die on you then there was a very healthy margin available on the other.
They sail up tpo FL250 in about ten minutes dont go temp limited until you're nearly there and stonk along at 250KTAS when you get there pretty much regardless of the temp.

KG RFDS operating it in really hot conditions just loved it, there guys stepped straight out of Chieftains and C421C experience and pretty much went to work the next day and with their regular loads could carry shedloads of fuel.

Come to think of it Kav its what your boss needs.

The Myer family used theirs like the family car.

[Transition Layer]

Saw my first ever Conquest in the flesh yesterday...was extremely impressed - a very nice aeroplane to look at, although couldn't imagine it sitting up there at FL330 with the big birds!!!

And Gaunty your depth of knowledge never ceases to amaze...

Cheers,
TL

[gaunty]

TL

It does and goes straight there even unto to FL 350 from a max wt TO and when it does sits happily on 290 KTAS for way over 1800nm if you need to. It's all in the wing you know.

It's unlikely to run over the B200 or any similar types up there, but would, coz they can't get there with the same load, but has been known to cause the odd problem for the big uns, our ATC took a little time to get used to them mixing it with em, but solved that in their usual professional manner.

It, by the nature of its use is not often found on the heavily travelled airways, but has caused, me at least, the odd crossing problem exercise with the big uns "out there", who like you, often expressed surprise and some interest at your presence "up there".

I have a great photo of a KLM B744 crossing almost directly underneath me "out the back" .:D
We also had a really interesting chat, these guys had not come up through the GA system and weren't aware of such types, they were simply given the traffic as a callsign and type but did not realise that it was so small.

[Torres]

Gaunty. Did your mate Frank ever tell you how he extended the range in a Citation II on ferry flight to Australia? I don't recall exact details but FL600 or there abouts was mentioned......... :)

[megle2]

Kav

The best advice for your boss was "don't" by high altitude

Where did the Charter operators go wrong with your boss?

Lots of other constructive contributions

Still wondering what the typical flight sectors were or did I miss that

C425 - nice to fly but SE performance was not that impressive and ten minutes to F250 - I never saw that. Just the same a cost efficient aircraft for the right owner

Piston twins really are too long in the tooth these days but unfortunately its hard to get a turbine past a Company Board - so we get stuck with the pistons

And the thread has stayed on subject for so lond - wow

[gaunty]

Torres

My lips are sealed.;)

You are going to get a cabin alt of around 14-15,000 ft which with supplementary O2 is no big deal and FL550 is easy. AND there is nobody out or up there to hit except the odd U2 or Aurora, but you get that.:) and with the tropopause at those latitudes up there too, there would be some real advantages.

Children don't try this at home.:cool:

They had a real problem in the States for a while with Lear jocks pulling the breakers and cruising aorund in the high 50s, until they got in the way of some of the military stuff up there.

[Ozgrade3]

So why can't an enterprising type buy the type certificate for say the chieftain and put it back into production, assuming of course Piper would sell it to you. Put the drawings on computer..CAd or what ever, produce the parts on CNC machines. With the ecchange rate we should be able to flog a few back to the US and the rest of the world.

How much is a new C208, $4 million?? What would a new chieftain be, $2 million?? what would the relative operational costs be of the 2 aircraft asn new ones.

Aerostar aircraft Inc in the US purchased the type certificate of the Aerostar from piper and could build a new one almost immediately if it wanted. The can make almost any part for it in house in addition to offering a huge array of mods and performance upgrades.

While we're at it, would be great to get the Duchess back in production. Best ME/IFR trainer around, most of whats left has 6,000 hrs + on the airframes.

Surely we could use some Aussie knowhow to build these better than the ones of old.

[Sheep Guts]

Torres sorry for the delay in the reply. Well to put in a nut shell, I transport sterile insect pupa( eggs), for fly eradication programmes, in the Carribean and Central American Regions. Good job, but I am trying to move on and get some MultiCrew, still working on the later. Sucking oxygen at those altitudes isnt real pleasant either. Our aeroplanes have the -20s which I think may have been modified as they were originally designed for the US ARMY I think their specs are slightly higher than the Civi 90.They also have slightly longer wings extra 2.5feet either side, than a 90. So why fly that high, well the range of the flights dictates that, at those levels we get a burn of around 350lbs an hour.

[kickstart]

If you are buying a plane that is flown privately, just check out the age of the engines in year's, as when it comes time to sell the aircraft to upgrade or for other reason's you will be surprised to find out to use the aircraft in Charter they can not be over "X" year's old. Normally around 10 to 12 year's - and this is apply's to PISTON engines only I think.

Engines then require a bulk strip and a returned to service with the remaining hours.

You will not find a low time Navajo, you may find a low time C340 in OZ if you are lucky, I know of one over here in Perth that was operated under a similar arrangment for the owner. Check the av trader for brokers over here and ask if it is still up for grabs.

There must be plenty in the states around the 3500 hour mark.

We would all love a C441 but who can afford one ?

[High Altitude]

Piston engine... 12 years then its a pumpkin, no bulk strip and overhaul no matter whats left............

The C402C, PA31-350 both with VG kits are probably the best aircraft and only aircraft to own in the cabin class range. There systems are basic, they carry a sh*t load and well they are the Holden and Ford of the sky. A PA31-350 put on a diet or re instrument, re paint, etc can and will carry 900 - 1000 kg over 200 nm standard reserves. The 402C is basically 800kg due ZFW. These are pretty awesome weights. A max gross you can bank on a TAS of around the 170 - 185 kts depending on the machine.

If you want the 6 seat option again you CANNOT go past a B58 or C310R. The 310R with a VG kit will eat a B58 but pax hate em. Again the Holden and Ford of the sky.

Don't go a turbine unless you have the money in the BANK to go buy a new donk if it cooks!!!

But then again I went for a great ride in a Conquest yesterday, it was very new, beautiful white paint job and the aircon was to die for... Oh what a feeling. TOYOTA....... (and the meter was tickingover)...

[D.Lamination]

Like gaunty I like the Cessna 400 series esp. the wet wing models. Huge cabins, huge luggage, quite quick too. Turbo exhaust system must be kept in top nick though on the piston models.

If I had the dough it would be a Conquest II for me!!

Bindook referred to the -400 spar life issues - its all on CASA's website under airworthniness directives. Often the spar life depends on the serial number so be careful!

For example a C414A Chancellor below serial no. 200 has a spar life less than 7000 hours but above serial no. 200 it has 13,700 hours! Similar thing with 421C's. CASA limits the fuselage life to an arbitary 2x the wing life, i.e. 14000 or 27,400 (for exactly the same fuselage) in the above example. Cessna has come out with an "aging aircraft " maint. program and I believe some operators of 402C's are well past the 2nd winglife now - CASA approval required etc. Anyway, you can always flog it in the states where there are none of these "CASA" style limits.

Someone else mentioned the C404/421 GTSIO engines had a TBO of 1100 (youch!) actually I think they started at 1200 in the 70's and are now up to 1600TBO.

We may have a largely clapped out GA fleet but the good news is that OZ is probably the cheapest place in the world to buy planes - my theory is that they were all imported when $1A equalled $1US and the "price mindset" never changed. Hence many good, low time types have been sucked out of the country in the last few years by US buyers operating on a "Buy for $A sell for $US" principle. (same number just change currency label).

Go to Aircraft Shopper online and look at those US prices!

One last point - paint and interior are the two cheapest things you can do to a twin - go through the mechanicals/AD's/times to run etc with a fine toothcomb!

[Jamair]

Gaunty:

saw a 441 last week (VEM I think) was flying the Canberra bigwigs around my patch...... had a look in the office & noted no quick-donning O2 masks. How does the a/c qualify for flight above FL250 without? Or is this an individual a/c thing, or are they just not in plain sight.....?

Noted also it had round windows, I thought 441 were oblong; wasn't as big as I thought it would be either.

[gaunty]

Jamair

VEM is a C441 according to the register.

It might have the Eros type inflatable Quick donning that stow out of sight and take up much less room, if you cant see them, I don't recall them being an option, but that doesn't mean they weren't.
You can go to FL330 but needed a High alt kit to go to FL350.
In any event it was a requirement in my fleet to wear and "arm them" for SP ops above the transition layer as part of the TL checklist actions which included a pressurisation check.
I spend little time in these types now but as a passenger I am always very keen to see the condition and operation of the pilots quick donning before I'll go anywhere in one. I've seen too many seriously dodgy masks carried around for "show" to satisfy the rule.
You have to approach them the same way you have to approach your scuba diving regulator, as if your life depended on it.

Windows are not so much oblong as round squares..:rolleyes:

And nope it not a BIG aircraft like the B200, Cessna always reckoned why cart all that metal around, when there are rarely more than 3- 4 people on board inc. the pilot.
And who do you know who wants to walk around all day any way.
You need to be able to in some types because they take so long to get anywhere.:D

The factory std like the B200, was 6 seats including pilot with a 7th or potty seat next to the refreshment centre.

[avtraitor]

I would be interested to know how many, if any of the people on this post have owned and oeprated c-90 and or PA31 type aircraft. For he who is purchasing the said aircraft (whom I would advise not to if you can possibly help it) maybe you should look at the re-sale value of the piper's as apposed to the 402, 414 etc and see which hold their value in the market and also the price and availablility of parts for each aircraft.

Just a bit of friendly advise

Bring it on all yeoll cessna luva's