Scudrunners

Seriously, if you fill the tanks on a 340 (which
you try to never do) and put two pilots (my size)
in it, you're probably over max gross.

You'd be amazed how many airplanes are like that.

A friend of mine (Bob) wanted to sell his 421 and
buy a sexy turbo-prop single, and I told him he was
crazy - after you load it full of kerosene, two people
is all you can carry.  And they'd better be skinny,
and have no baggage.  I told him that if he bought
the stupid turbo-prop, he would inevitably end up
flying it 1000 or 1500 lbs over max gross, and
that's just not good.

As a result people always take off with partial fuel
in these aircraft, carefully plan their flights and shit
bricks if there are any delays or headwinds or re-routings.

That's why I love the 421.  Fill the tanks, fill the
seats, and off we go.  Too bad people always insist
on trashing the engines.  Same sorts of pilots that
groundloop taildraggers and wreck them, too.  Same
guys are landing T-33's short of YHM.  You know.  Knobs.

I thought the issues with 421 geared engines was the cost of overhaul vs ham fisted pilots playing wack a mole with the throttle. Wouldn't the  414 be a better alternate to it without the extra cost?

Only twin Cessna I have flown has over 11,000 lbs of thrust and is stupid simple, so its perfect for me. C:-)

Colonel Sanders wrote:
Main problem with the 340 (the stock versions)
is that if you put gas and 2 pilots in them, you
are over max gross.  Very different from the 421.

:( that's why the offer was only for Crunch. I could end up having a snack and over grossing the machine.

I personally don't like the 414 (310hp per side) as
much as the 421 (375hp per side), but the 421 has
a "fire-breathing dragon" reputation for the engines.

Sure enough, if you swap pilots frequently, and don't
train them, you can expect a TBO of 100 (yes, one
hundred) hours for the USD$75,000 per side overhaul.

That's USD$150,000, plus the incidental and R+R
costs.  Call it USD$200,000 every 100 hours if you
have hamfisted pilots.  At USD$2,000 per hour for
just the engines, it's a bit pricy.  But that's what
you get with untrained pilots.  Just like a lack of
tailwheel training results in groundlooped aircraft.

I used to charge $500 to check out new pilots in
the 421 - an incredible bargain, given the above -
but I don't do much instruction any more.  Smarter
people than I should feel free to wreck 421 engines
and groundloop and destroy tailwheel airplanes.

Why is it that that the 421 is so miraculous?

375 hp per side x 2 = 750 horsepower, baby!

Note that the next step up in Cessna-land from
the 421 is to the 425, which never had the success
that the King Air had.  Long story. 

Cessna hit a home run with the 5xx Citations (that
scud flies).  They are ridiculously easy to fly.  Like
a Piper Cherokee with two throttles.

Wouldn't it just involve a top overhaul if you're hamfisted with it? Although I guess a top overhaul after every flight could get a little expensive.


There's a thread about it here:

[url=http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flyin ... 421-a.html]http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flyin ... 421-a.html[/url]


[size=2]"[color=rgb(0, 0, 99)][font=verdana]Plan your descent early so that you can stay within 500 ... 1000 ft/min. Reduce power by about 1 in every minute to keep the engines hot. A ham-fisted colleague of mine once cracked 4 cylinders during a single quick descent after a maintenance test flight. Never shut down an engine during trainig or checkrides. Our mechanic (who owns a 421 himself) once told me that the price an inflight shutdown/restart is about 1000 Euros."[/font][/color][/size]

just involve a top overhaul

I wish.  There are a couple more caveats with
the GTSIO-520 engines:

1) the gear reduction unit was designed to only
transfer torque from the engine to the prop - not
the other 'way 'round.  If you use the props for
drag in a 421 you will use up the gear reduction
unit.

2) the gear reduction unit is 3:2 which means
that the prop (tach) RPM is MUCH LESS than the
engine.  I witnessed two ex-Air Canada Captains
destroy two GTSIO-520 engines by immediately
spinning them up to 1500 RPM after start which
is what you do with a turbine but NEVER a piston
engine!!

Remember that with that 3:2 gear ratio, they
were spinning up those poor engines to 2200
RPM at start - with NO FUCKING OIL!

Those proud four-bars spun the main bearings
so bad, the clamshells were garbage at overhaul.

All of us at the airport winced when they started
up but you can't tell a retired four-bars anything.

What really fucking upset me is that they took
a wonderful 421 and in 100 hours converted it
to what they called a "junker".

That makes me really fucking angry.  You probably
don't understand my hostility towards assholes
with four bars, but it's well grounded, believe me.
The damage they do is incredible.

Not that any four-bar would ever listen to me,
but with a piston engine:

[size=18pt]MINIMUM RPM AFTER START[/size]

Reduce power by about 1 in every minute to keep the engines hot

Actually, that's complete rubbish, at least according
to what TCM and Lycoming recommend for their larger
turbocharged engines, which is reducing the power
5 inches of MP at a time.  Google their literature.

I go with what the engine manufacturer says, not
some silly old wives tales or urban legends like
"oversquare is bad".

TCM says, "lean the mixture in the descent", so
unlike a four-bars or TC Inspector that shoves
the mixture all the way in, I lean the mixture
in the descent and don't crack the cylinder heads.

In fact, I land with the props at cruise RPM and
the mixtures lean.  But I am a BAD PERSON
according to TC, so I probably don't know as
much as a TC Inspector.

But here's what RAM (ever heard of RAM?) has
to say on the subject:

Shock Cooling Turbocharged and Fuel Injected Aircraft Engines

Shock cooling is often thought of as a significant power reduction, aggravated by simultaneously dropping the nose, both causing the engine to cool rapidly and unevenly. The front of the engine is exposed to more cooling air than the rear of the engine. This is a frequent situation and certainly undesirable.

However, there are two other forms of shock cooling that need to be understood.

They are reduced power settings at full rich mixture


1. Reduced Power Settings

• At reduced power settings during descent, approach, and landing, the fuel flow per horsepower increases. A full rich mixture results in excess cold fuel entering the hot cylinders. The result is rapid and uneven cooling in the area of the fuel injection nozzle. This condition can cause a crack between the fuel injection nozzle and the spark plug hole.

• Corrective action is to maintain an acceptable lean mixture during descent and landing, usually 1200° F to 1400° F. This can best be accomplished using a range marked and calibrated E.G.T. There should normally be no need to fully enrichen the mixture until on the runway with the throttles at idle

RAM knows more about engines than the flight
training Inspectors at TC, trust me.  Do what
RAM says.

About a year ago, a trainer crashed into downtown
Ottawa after a long descent, the TC way.  He
didn't bother to keep the engine warm, the way
Lyc and TCM and RAM and I recommend.

The TCM IO-360 suffers from the same bad
reputation amongst ham-fisted, mouth-breathing
low-time commercial pilots fresh out of the
FTU.

They call it a "500 hr TBO" engine.

Complete bullshit.

I have been flying this particular Maule M4-210C
(with TCM IO-360A) since 1971, which is 45 years:

[img width=500 height=430][/img]

That's the ORIGINAL FUCKING ENGINE still in
there, with NOT ONE SINGLE CRACKED FUCKING
CYLINDER, after 45 years, 'way past TBO and
get this - it gets used as a tailwheel trainer.

My way.  Not the TC way.

Now, I probably don't know as much as a TC
Inspector about flying airplanes, but me and
that Maule have been doing just fine for the
last 45 years, flying it the way TCM says to -
NOT the way TC says to.

I know TC thinks I haven't a clue about aviation,
but my family has been flying for [b]99[/b]
years now - longer than TC/DOT, RCAF, RAF
and even the RFC.  Four generations and six
instances of my Y chromosome.  Maybe,
just maybe, we have a clue about aviation.

[i]Weird Airplanes I Have Known[/i]

wrt W+B, one of the stranger ones was
the Piaggio Royal Gull.  There probably
aren't more than a couple still flying.

It had the oddball GO-480 Lycs (same
as t-bone) in a pusher config which always
makes me nervous about stuff coming
loose and going through the prop.  Been
bitten by that before.

Anyways, with full tanks and one pilot,
the Piaggio Gull's C of G is out of allowable
range.  Really weird.

Colonel Sanders wrote:

Reduce power by about 1 in every minute to keep the engines hot

Actually, that's complete rubbish, at least according
to what TCM and Lycoming recommend for their larger
turbocharged engines, which is reducing the power
5 inches of MP at a time.  Google their literature.

Mike Busch recommends reducing power by 1 inch a minute, 2 inches at a time.