Need info on Cessna 340/414 or Beech 58P

[J D Mac]

The company I work for is looking to step up to a twin. It appears that a Cessna 340 / 414 or a Beech 58P would suit our needs. Does anyone have information on direct operating cost and honest performance figures for these aircraft? Also is there anything such as AD's we should watch out for. Any information would be helpful. Thankyou.

[djschaut]

I have owned a Beech Baron 58P. I looked at the Cessnas for comparison when I purchased the Baron, but went for the Beech quality and handling. As far as operating costs, you can plan on around $250/hour, at least, for the Baron. A lot of the cost depends on where and how high you fly. Those Continental 520 engines can put out quite a bit of power--310 or 325hp for the post-79 models, but that power comes with a price tag. There are few 58Ps, or any aircraft with those engines that fly at the flight levels, that make it to TBO. They just run too hot and the air is too thin where you want to fly (eg: critical altitude). If you are constantly pushing the plane's ceiling, Cessna or Beech 58P, you are going to buy an engine overhaul at about half TBO. Altitude is not good for recips--and the Continental 520L is no exception--regardless of the graphic engine monitors you've got on board. When your TIT is running at 1600 degrees and you're flying at FL250 where the air is thin and doesn't cool effectively, there is metal fatigue--at the elemental level. You can't get around it. Were you to just fly below FL 180 all the time and wanted the pressurization just for comfort, you can get a longer engine life out of your plane.
The Cessna will be cheaper to repair--cheaper for parts, etc. The engines are the same. But, in my opinion, the Beech is much more sturdy--handles like a baby King Air. I didn't use it as a business aircraft, but as a personal one, and the 58P, if you can afford it, makes a great personal twin--comfortable for yourself and family, and it handles like a Bonanza.
Now, if you want a plane with a larger engine that would be more likely to go to TBO, and has comparatively almost the same operating cost as the Baron or Cessna, there is the Duke--and many people swear by them. They are cabin class, a Beechcraft, sturdy, and use larger, 380hp, Lycoming 560 engines which have a very good record of making it to TBO. Naturally (no replacement for displacement), the Duke engines aren't working as hard to maintain altitude and pressurization as the smaller Continentals, but they have a higher ceiling, too.
The Continental 520 series is known to require early engine work or a top-end, though operators will be quick to deny it or blame others' poor engine management. Chances are more likely than not that you'll be forking over $35,000 for that engine overhaul--if you fly the plane where it's supposed to be flown--by 800 to 1000 hours. So, budget for that, too.
I suggest you call Ron Knudsen at Willowbrook Air Associates in Englewood, Colorado about the cost/benefit picture of a nice, late model Duke for your business. You can find them at www.aso.com/ as one of their featured dealers. Were I in the market for another pressurized twin, I'd look at the Duke. Then again, I've never liked twin Cessnas--310s, 340s, 414s, 421s or whatever.

------------------
DJSchaut

[BOHIXON]

I own a 340 and I love it. There is a new AD out on the exhaust, other ADs on the exhaust have been around forever. I set cruise power to 30" MP and about 2300 RPM, this gives me about 170-180 KTS true. I think that the twin cessnas have more cabin space than the barons, but you'll never really be able to put full fuel, people and bags in either. I took out the 5th seat in my 340 to make it easier to get in and out. I think I might be selling it pretty soon to move up to something with turbines on it, I need a little more payload. I would tend to prefer the cessna line, maybe a 421 is the plane for you, you'll have to have a thick wallet either way!

[LifeisGood]

I respect your opinion of the Beach line being well made and sturdy, no one can argue with that, but the twin Cessna’s are a fine group of aircraft also. The 340 is my pick, 200kts cruise, pressurized and 36 GPH fuel flow. The 340 is tight but comfortable while as the Baron is claustrophobic. Most Dukes I see are in the hangers having their engines worked on, I understand that is a generalization, but there does seem to be a trend for high maintenance on those power plants. In honesty I have to admit that the twin Cessna requires a fair amount of maintenance also, I have come to accept this as part of owning a 30 year old aircraft. But in comparison to a $350,000 twin engine reliable aircraft that flies at 200kts pressurized, what are the options?

My comment above about seeing the Dukes in the hangers is because I was bringing my 340 in for maintenance too.

[C310Q]

I flew a Duke for a company a few years ago, and they had to buy a second Duke because the reliability was so bad. They wished they would have bought a 58 Baron. This airplane will probaly do everthing you need. Piston/pressurized airplanes just are not very reliable. Now with that said, I like 310's. You may want to check out the 310R with the Colemill conversion (300 HP). If you do buy a 58P or a 300/400 series airplane, I would join an organization that specifically deals with the type. I belong to Twin Cessna Flyers, and they have saved me thousands with their expertise.

[Jeff S KDTW]

Originally Posted by LifeisGood

The 340 is tight but comfortable while as the Baron is claustrophobic.

First, this topic is probably not that germane to the original poster anymore, considering he posted the question 8 years ago.

But, as far as the comment above, I strongly have to disagree with the "claustrophobic" comment.

There are many 58P owners over at BeechTalk.com for an opposing viewpoint.

[fivebyfive]

The 340 is a great two place airplane but loading up all the seats means putting ballast in the nose and about two hours of fuel in the tanks.

Get a real airplane instead.

[LifeisGood]

After that claustrophobic comment I checked a few stats. The Baron has a 42 inch cabin width compared to 46.5 inches for the 340A, I am not sure why, but the 340A just seems much bigger inside to “me”. Probably because I can move front to back in the cabin. Anyway, rubbing shoulders with someone the whole trip is not for me. I also checked useful loads and most 58P’s seem to have 1625# to 1750# useful load. With 180 gal of fuel this leaves 545lb to 670lb remaining, or about 3.5 standard people. What probably happens is 3 people and baggage, or 4 people and over-gross lightened up by a load of optimism because you’ve got a great plane. A 340A usually has a 1900lb useful with the same 180 gal fuel load gives one more seat. With my family I can honestly fly full fuel and five seats, which is my mission profile. As for as the baggage in the nose thing, I am not sure about that comment, the 340A CG is wide and comfortable. At FL200 I true out at 205 kts at 36 GPH fuel flow and enjoy the ride. There are always tradeoffs, they are both fine planes.

Also, since we are talking about it, I rarely fly at full gross wt. and when I do I choose my airfields carefully so that engine out on takeoff issues at least partially dealt with. The single engines performances numbers on a Cessna 340A with the Ram VI are considerably better then the 200fpm on the 58P at gross with an engine out.

[Jeff S KDTW]

Originally Posted by LifeisGood

A 340A usually has a 1900lb useful with the same 180 gal fuel load gives one more seat. With my family I can honestly fly full fuel and five seats, which is my mission profile.

You might want to check the Zero Fuel Weight for the 340. Depending on the size of your family, you might be surprised that you can't carry them no matter how much fuel you offload.

A number of co-workers own a 340 with Ram conversion and we're shocked that they couldn't fill the seats, even with younger girls and women. You might be all right with using only 5 seats, but definitely check.

I fly a Baron 58 which does not have a ZFW, but I'm not sure about the 58P.

[LifeisGood]

A typical Cessna 340A with Ram VI’s and VG’s the Gross Takeoff Weight is 6390lbs, the Empty Weight is 4,490lbs, the Useful Load is 1900lbs and the Zero Fuel Weight in 5800lbs. Therefore loading 1000lbs of people and stuff would leave 900lbs for fuel or 150 gal. With this same 1000lbs passenger load the plane would be at 5,490lbs, still 300lbs under its maximum ZFW. I suppose one could put 1200lbs of people and stuff in a 340A, but it’s just to cramped for all of that. I only fly with five seats for comfort and easy egress. The 340A has a wide CG envelope and handles very well.

[Geoff340A]

I own a cessna 340a ram 7 and would like to contribute the following facts; typical cruise speed at FL250 is 235-240TAS burning 40gph, egt's 1450, cht 340-350. Time to climb to FL250 is 21 minutes. Max gross departure weight is 6430 pounds leaving 2010 pounds of available loading. CG with pilot only and full fuel is within limits and at zero fuel CG would be slightly forward of limit. The amount is so small that a 38 pound bag in the aft cargo area will solve the concern. The 340 will perform on par with many turbo props for a fraction of the operating expense. On a recent trip from recurrent training we departed with 100-OC through a 9000' layer of icing to clear skys on top. Time to FL230 was 19 minutes and ground speed was 310 knots! Not too bad for a piston. Maintenance costs are not an issue if you operate and maintain the aircraft properly. I have never had to cancel a trip due to mechanical problems so far, (knock on wood) and I have owned the plane for more than 5 years. If anyone has any specific questions I will try to answer them.

[Kevin101]

I currently have approx. 500 hrs in 182's and 206's. I am currently in training for my multi IFR. I would appreciate any advice on required training/experience to step up to a 340.


Thanks.

[toairishuman]

Geoff-You sound like a knowledgable guy who know's how to manage your engines. I am an A&P with about 1200 hours in T210's. I plan to purchase a 340A in the coming weeks. IS there anything to totally avoid or absolutely look for in your opinion? The market is very soft now...so a good time to buy. I need to stay under 250K which rules out the real nice ones. Any advice is appreciated!

[Geoff340A]

A few things to keep in mind when considering a 340; Known ice certification was available in the 340A (1977 and later) models and I believe a few 1976 aircraft. The A models have pressurization components that can be readily serviced, earlier 340's have pressurization parts that are becoming difficult to repair/replace. Pressurization expenses are a very minimal component of my maintenance expenses. Corrosion of the engine beams can be a problem, have this checked or you will be looking at a 20K invoice. The wing spar is not affected by an AD at this time. It is my understanding that the FAA is not contemplating a 340 spar strap AD unlike the 400 series twin Cessna line unless future problems develop within the 340 fleet. Have the spar looked at on every annual for your own piece of mind! The gear must be inspected and rigged at every annual - period. Most incidents that occur are related to the gear or fuel exhaustion (say pilot error when it comes to fuel). The gear is not a problem if it is maintained properly. A lot has been written about the complexities of the twin Cessna fuel system, bottom line is that it requires only minimal management, nothing more. If a pilot can't comfortable switch tanks when appropriate that pilot does not belong in the air to begin with. I would look for a clean 340 with higher time engines to meet your budget limit. Engines are a known expense, that is to say replacing a cylinder is $1,000 plus 8 hours labor if it happens to goes bad. Airframe corrosion around the engine beam, flaps and spar can be very very costly! Second: if the gear, pressurization and deice equipment are all sound your expenses will be manageable. As far as base Cessna equipment to look for I suggest engine fire detection and extinguishers (from FL250 it could take approx. 15 minutes to land and the fire extinguishers will improve your odds of walking away). Known ice certification and 203 gallons of usable fuel are all desirable. I could go on and on but this is a good start, hope it was helpful!
Geoff