Problem is that it’s only a tad faster than my current 45l/h ride, although of course more comfort and better weather capabilities. At 200KTAS it would be interesting but for the fuel burn, it’s too slow.
I’d rather get an Aerostar although they are more expensive.
Interesting how ortac cites 939kg(!) useful load on the C340, and what_next, with real world numbers at hand, cites (the equivalent of) 643kg, innit?
boscomantico wrote:
Interesting how ortac cites 939kg(!) useful load on the C340, and what_next, with real world numbers at hand, cites (the equivalent of) 643kg, innit?
Demonstrating the danger of looking stuff up on the internet vs. asking a real person who actually knows what they are talking about…
I was using a ~3,900lbs basic empty weight figure, which appeared to be the “book” number. Although I think it’s perhaps 4,100 for the 340A. Looking at the aircraft currently for sale with JTA an actual figure of 4,500lbs is more common and matches closely with what_next numbers. Perhaps he can shed some light on this. Even if you removed options like de-ice, took all the rear seats out, etc. its hard to account for a 500lbs difference.
The RAM conversion also appears to add back another 3 or 400lbs, and another 10kts.
…is more common and matches closely with what_next numbers. Perhaps he can shed some light on this.
As far as I remember the twin Cessnas came out of the factory with minimum legally required equipment for flying (daylight VFR so to say). Everything on top of that was optional equipment, as can be seen from the AFMs where lots of basic stuff is in the “supplements” section. All the IFR avionics, WX radar, de-icing equipment, locker tank installation, air conditioners (pretty much installed in every such aircraft), cabin furnishings apart from the naked seats, even the autopilot (not sure about that) are not part of the empty weight given in the sales brochure. As far as I know, in the States (other than in Europe), not even engine oil and other liquids like non-useable fuel and de-icing fluid must be included in the empty weight. Therefore several hundred pounds difference can result between the sales figures and a fully equipped customer airplane.
I have read a story in an old aviation newspaper, that some of these twins were delivered with a minimum panel, that the ferry pilot then unmounted and brought back to the factory for the next delivery – leaving the customer with a plane without panel and the freedom to install any avionics that would please him. That way he could work closely with his avionics guy and didn’t need to travel that much to Wichita.
FWIW, in the 1980s Socata TB20s were delivered without any gyro instruments, and flown like that from Tarbes to their then centre at Le Bourget. That flight was obviously fairly weather sensitive! I know a guy who used to ferry them.
The LB centre was closed just after I got mine in 2002.
The vortex generators very often installed also add MTOW with about 300 lbs…
If it’s 300lbs that is pretty significant as it’s potentially two passengers. It looks like the VG’s improve one-engine-inop safety margins as well?
This thread was a bit inconclusive – positive comments from a former 340 pilot but others saying they are too old/slow and comparing with a JetProp/Meridian, which is clearly the next option “upward”, but I’m not personally convinced they are really comparable in terms of overall ownership costs – and that’s assuming you have 1M of capital to commit upfront in the first place.
I can’t see any other options in this niche though. It’s either back “down” to a PA46 piston (or Baron), or up further to a PA46 turbine.
ortac wrote:
I can’t see any other options in this niche though. It’s either back “down” to a PA46 piston (or Baron), or up further to a PA46 turbine.
Is a PA46 Piston really out of the question? You can get a very nice modern Mirage for $500-600k. The engine needs some care but it is a very capable airframe. FIKI, pressurised, radar, glass. Can’t imagine the maintenance cost will exceed that of an older twin even if you are a bit unlucky with the engine. I loved mine.
The PA46 piston was the original starting point. Including the Matrix which I looked at (unpressurised version for extra payload).
On a purely logical basis it’s probably the right choice, but it’s not very appealing on two accounts:
1) Single engine piston. For 6+ months of the year, trips across the North Sea or even the Channel is a serious undertaking. On my own, no problem, will take my chances and worst case hopefully make the liferaft. But with friends or family in the back, no chance, if the engine fails someone is going to drown. Plus all the other high risk scenarios, terrain, low cloud cover, etc. Combined with not-the-best record for the PA46 engine specifically. So the PA46 piston doesn’t give me anything here compared to all the usual four seat SEP’s. For this issue I think we can say that a twin piston or single turboprop both address it equally. One has redundancy, the other has another order of magnitude reliability plus higher altitudes.
2) The PA46 piston just doesn’t seem very exciting or challenging. Should be a very straightforward conversion. Twins on the other hand take a lot of discipline and professionalism to fly well and to master, and feel more like “proper” aircraft, and I would imagine a turboprop would be the same. Next step up needs to be a challenge and be rewarding – similar to going from a Meridian to a Mustang instead of going from a Meridian to a TBM I would imagine?
