 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
transam403(at)hotmail.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:16 pm Post subject: Cessna 414/421 v 685 |
 |
|
So we are still on the hunt as our 421 that we put an offer on got swept away by Hurricane Isaac (long story). After my previous question on the e-mail list about the 680FP (thank you everyone who responded), I don't think the 680 will be the plane for us. However, I have been looking at the 685 pretty closely and was wondering if anyone had any direct operating experience between the 421s and the 685s. I know the 685 will have the SB regarding the aft pressure vessel bulkhead in the near future, but was wondering about operational cost and performance figures for the two. Keep in mind that we will be operating out of a 3700ft strip (at 550MSL), so short field operations are a key component as well (although we won't ever be heavy). Thanks in advance!
Zac Armstrong
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Commander-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
moe-rosspistons(at)hotmai
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:00 am Post subject: Cessna 414/421 v 685 |
|
|
Zac,
Although I have no personal experience with the 685 after noting your runway length it might be a good idea to check the takeoff performance of the 685.
Regards,
Moe Mills
N680RR
680F(p)
From: transam403(at)hotmail.com
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Cessna 414/421 v 685
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 04:16:21 +0000
So we are still on the hunt as our 421 that we put an offer on got swept away by Hurricane Isaac (long story). After my previous question on the e-mail list about the 680FP (thank you everyone who responded), I don't think the 680 will be the plane for us. However, I have been looking at the 685 pretty closely and was wondering if anyone had any direct operating experience between the 421s and the 685s. I know the 685 will have the SB regarding the aft pressure vessel bulkhead in the near future, but was wondering about operational cost and performance figures for the two. Keep in mind that we will be operating out of a 3700ft strip (at 550MSL), so short field operations are a key component as well (although we won't ever be heavy). Thanks in advance!
Zac Armstrong
[quote]
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
http://forums.matronics.com
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
[b]
| | - The Matronics Commander-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n395v
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 450
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:25 am Post subject: Re: Cessna 414/421 v 685 |
|
|
I owned and operated a 685 for several years. My hangar mate had a 421
From a cost standpoint there was no significant difference.
I would however ech Moe's opinion about take off distance. The 685 is not a short field airplane. Not sure how takeoff distance compares with the 421 but the 685 is superior in every other respect.
A lot of 685 operators who complained of poor TO performance were always operating well over Gross at takeoff.
If I remember correctly it will hold ove 1800 pounds of fuel. Full tanks are seldom necessary for most flights.
Average fuel burn was 48 GPH and cruise was 205KTS TAS consistently.
The GTSO 520Ks will probably need top overhuals at 900 hrs. The bottom end of the engines should meet or exceed TBO if treated properly.
Lots of old wives tails about the 685s most of them untrue.
We have at least 2 685 check pilots on the list who can give you further guidance.
| | - The Matronics Commander-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List |
|
_________________
Milt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rpmcommander(at)GMAIL.COM
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:55 am Post subject: Cessna 414/421 v 685 |
|
|
Hi All. I'm UNFORTUNATLEY parting out a 685
If anyone need a spare anything?
Give me a call 954-547-3002 Paul
RPMCommander(at)gmail.com (RPMCommander(at)gmail.com)
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:25 AM, n395v <airboss(at)bearcataviation.com (airboss(at)bearcataviation.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> Commander-List message posted by: "n395v" <airboss(at)bearcataviation.com (airboss(at)bearcataviation.com)>
I owned and operated a 685 for several years. My hangar mate had a 421
>From a cost standpoint there was no significant difference.
I would however ech Moe's opinion about take off distance. The 685 is not a short field airplane. Not sure how takeoff distance compares with the 421 but the 685 is superior in every other respect.
A lot of 685 operators who complained of poor TO performance were always operating well over Gross at takeoff.
If I remember correctly it will hold ove 1800 pounds of fuel. Full tanks are seldom necessary for most flights.
Average fuel burn was 48 GPH and cruise was 205KTS TAS consistently.
The GTSO 520Ks will probably need top overhuals at 900 hrs. The bottom end of the engines should meet or exceed TBO if treated properly.
Lots of old wives tails about the 685s most of them untrue.
We have at least 2 685 check pilots on the list who can give you further guidance.
--------
Milt
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382879#382879
===========
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
===========
http://forums.matronics.com
===========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===========
|
--
Thank You
Paul Gendron for
www.RPMCommander.com LLC
954-547-3002
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Commander-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moe-rosspistons(at)hotmai
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:29 pm Post subject: Cessna 414/421 v 685 |
|
|
Hi Paul,
Is your 685 pressurized?
Moe
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 05:54:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Cessna 414/421 v 685
From: rpmcommander(at)GMAIL.COM
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Hi All. I'm UNFORTUNATLEY parting out a 685
If anyone need a spare anything?
Give me a call 954-547-3002 Paul
RPMCommander(at)gmail.com (RPMCommander(at)gmail.com)
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:25 AM, n395v <airboss(at)bearcataviation.com (airboss(at)bearcataviation.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> Commander-List message posted by: "n395v" <airboss(at)bearcataviation.com (airboss(at)bearcataviation.com)>
I owned and operated a 685 for several years. My hangar mate had a 421
>From a cost standpoint there was no significant difference.
I would however ech Moe's opinion about take off distance. The 685 is not a short field airplane. Not sure how takeoff distance compares with the 421 but the 685 is superior in every other respect.
A lot of 685 operators who complained of poor TO performance were always operating well over Gross at takeoff.
If I remember correctly it will hold ove 1800 pounds of fuel. Full tanks are seldom necessary for most flights.
Average fuel burn was 48 GPH and cruise was 205KTS TAS consistently.
The GTSO 520Ks will probably need top overhuals at 900 hrs. The bottom end of the engines should meet or exceed TBO if treated properly.
Lots of old wives tails about the 685s most of them untrue.
We have at least 2 685 check pilots on the list who can give you further guidance.
--------
Milt
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382879#382879
===========
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
===========
http://forums.matronics.com
===========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===========
|
--
Thank You
Paul Gendron for
www.RPMCommander.com LLC
954-547-3002
[quote]
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
http://forums.matronics.com
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
[b]
| | - The Matronics Commander-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rpmcommander(at)GMAIL.COM
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:56 pm Post subject: Cessna 414/421 v 685 |
|
|
N, it had a camera window On Sep 15, 2012 9:30 PM, "Moe Mills" <moe-rosspistons(at)hotmail.com (moe-rosspistons(at)hotmail.com)> wrote:[quote] Hi Paul,
Is your 685 pressurized?
Moe
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 05:54:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Cessna 414/421 v 685
From: rpmcommander(at)GMAIL.COM (rpmcommander(at)GMAIL.COM)
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com (commander-list(at)matronics.com)
Hi All. I'm UNFORTUNATLEY parting out a 685
If anyone need a spare anything?
Give me a call [url=tel:954-547-3002]954-547-3002[/url] Paul
RPMCommander(at)gmail.com (RPMCommander(at)gmail.com)
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:25 AM, n395v <airboss(at)bearcataviation.com (airboss(at)bearcataviation.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> Commander-List message posted by: "n395v" <airboss(at)bearcataviation.com (airboss(at)bearcataviation.com)>
I owned and operated a 685 for several years. My hangar mate had a 421
>From a cost standpoint there was no significant difference.
I would however ech Moe's opinion about take off distance. The 685 is not a short field airplane. Not sure how takeoff distance compares with the 421 but the 685 is superior in every other respect.
A lot of 685 operators who complained of poor TO performance were always operating well over Gross at takeoff.
If I remember correctly it will hold ove 1800 pounds of fuel. Full tanks are seldom necessary for most flights.
Average fuel burn was 48 GPH and cruise was 205KTS TAS consistently.
The GTSO 520Ks will probably need top overhuals at 900 hrs. The bottom end of the engines should meet or exceed TBO if treated properly.
Lots of old wives tails about the 685s most of them untrue.
We have at least 2 685 check pilots on the list who can give you further guidance.
--------
Milt
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382879#382879
===========
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
===========
http://forums.matronics.com
===========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===========
|
--
Thank You
Paul Gendron for
www.RPMCommander.com LLC
[url=tel:954-547-3002]954-547-3002[/url]
[b]
| | - The Matronics Commander-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
