Anyone here own or fly a Cessna 340?

fastpat · 04-02-2006, 08:44 PM

Just wondering how you like it and what ownership is all about.

BlueSideUp · 04-03-2006, 01:25 AM

Yeah I have a few hours in one and many more in a 421. The 340 is nice if you are under 6'2". I'm 6'5" and it is a little tight in the cockpit for leg room.

The 340s with RAM conversions (more power and vortex generators) are a lot nicer for carrying capability and speed. The TSIO-520s take some care of course but with the right operating practices you can make them last a long time.

What are you upgrading from?

fastpat · 04-03-2006, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueSideUp
Yeah I have a few hours in one and many more in a 421. The 340 is nice if you are under 6'2". I'm 6'5" and it is a little tight in the cockpit for leg room.

The 340s with RAM conversions (more power and vortex generators) are a lot nicer for carrying capability and speed. The TSIO-520s take some care of course but with the right operating practices you can make them last a long time.

What are you upgrading from?

It'd fit me fine then, I'm 6'1", and I've looked at the RAM web site, very interesting. Looks like the later years are the best if you can find a moderately low time airframe.

Actually, I'm not upgrading from anything, it's been years since I piloted an aircraft, but I'm finding the urge hasn't left me, but I'm not particularly serious yet either.

Thanks for the info.

Joeaksa · 04-03-2006, 07:30 AM

Flew one for a year or so a long time ago. Very nice airplane at that time but that was years ago. Like Blue above, I had been flying a 421 before that and liked the 340 as it was fast but a bit smaller. Can hold 4 people and bags and still fly a reasonable distance.

Stay away from anything with geared engines, ie. the GTSIO-520. Unless they have been overhauled just before you by the bird, you have no idea on who has been flying them before. Geared engines need a slow steady hand, not some who jockyies the throttles and repairs can be expensive.

Likewise the turbo'ed versions can be expensive to keep going. Get one only if you are looking to be flying out of a high altitude airport (travelers rest, at about 1000 msl is not) or doing high altitude flights on a regular basis. They are a lot more expensive to keep going unless you really need it.

JoeA
pilot/A&P for 27 years

bigchillcar · bigchillcar's Garage

what joe said.

how about a cessna 310 (bigger airplane feel) or twin commanche (small, but quick)..definitely avoid the apache (too underpowered..in the **** on single-engine). i've flown the piper aztec, it was okay and a cpl of baron models (55 and 58), but i really liked the 310 and the twin commanche.
ryan

pwd72s · 04-03-2006, 08:03 AM

Does having flown in one count? I'm 6'3". Has plenty of passenger legroom. The one I was in was a Turbo model, owned by a now deceased friend's father's company. My friend was only licensed for single engine, so they had a company pilot. One landing in Reno had me sweating when a gear down lamp didn't come on. Went through the hand crank routine. Made a pass by the tower, all gear "appeared" to be down. Safety trucks, lights flashing were alongside as we landed. Not long after we stopped, FAA inspectors were boarding. The problem turned out to be a bad bulb in the lamp. "Bert", the company pilot was a former navy pilot. All those carrier landings must have paid off...it was the smoothest landing I've ever felt, commercial or private. But gosh, this was back in the mid 70's. I'd have thought the 340 would be considered obsolete by now.

bigchillcar · bigchillcar's Garage

it's beena while, but i don't think that the 340's saftey record has been stellar, but primarily due i think due to inexperience at the hands of the pilot. scenario i'm picturing is a 'doctor' purchases one, earns his multi ticket in it and then goes out, loses an engine with family aboard and augers in..
ryan

fastpat · 04-03-2006, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pwd72s
Does having flown in one count? I'm 6'3". Has plenty of passenger legroom. The one I was in was a Turbo model, owned by a now deceased friend's father's company. My friend was only licensed for single engine, so they had a company pilot. One landing in Reno had me sweating when a gear down lamp didn't come on. Went through the hand crank routine. Made a pass by the tower, all gear "appeared" to be down. Safety trucks, lights flashing were alongside as we landed. Not long after we stopped, FAA inspectors were boarding. The problem turned out to be a bad bulb in the lamp. "Bert", the company pilot was a former navy pilot. All those carrier landings must have paid off...it was the smoothest landing I've ever felt, commercial or private. But gosh, this was back in the mid 70's. I'd have thought the 340 would be considered obsolete by now.

They were built from 1972 to 1984 I think, definite on the last year. They're not obsolete, there's nothing being built to replace them at the moment. Consider that a new Cessna 182 sells for over $250,000 these days, there's no wonder.

Dantilla · 04-03-2006, 08:23 AM

My dad owned one for several years when I was in Jr. High/ High School.
Great way to move a family of six around the country. I flew it quite a bit from the right seat.

pwd72s · 04-03-2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat
They were built from 1972 to 1984 I think, definite on the last year. They're not obsolete, there's nothing being built to replace them at the moment. Consider that a new Cessna 182 sells for over $250,000 these days, there's no wonder.

Nice to know. And thanks for giving me fun memories by mentioning the 340. Ol' Amos Horner loved to spend the $ he made in the timber industry. Their other airplane was the one I flew in most. A Cessna 180 (taildragger) with loads of instruments and had been given a STOL conversion by a firm up in Washington state. A long runway NOT a requirement .

I've often wondered where those planes are today.

fastpat · 04-03-2006, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pwd72s
. I've often wondered where those planes are today.

If you remember the tail numbers you can probably look them up.
http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/

pwd72s · 04-03-2006, 08:47 AM

Thanks Pat...now I need to dig through some old slides, see if the numbers are in any of the photos...

BlueSideUp · 04-03-2006, 02:37 PM

The problem for me in the 340 was the leg room, I just couldn't move the seat far enough back (36 inseam). The 421 was better but even a C90 was a little tight for me due to the low yoke.

Joeaksa is right about the GTSIOs. Our 421 was very reliable but only because only two or three people flew it after the factory remans. I'd always cringe when I'd hear a 421 go by with the gearboxes clacking away at low idle

fastpat · 04-03-2006, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueSideUp
The problem for me in the 340 was the leg room, I just couldn't move the seat far enough back (36 inseam). The 421 was better but even a C90 was a little tight for me due to the low yoke.

I never flew a C421, flew in one, but that's it. Nice, stable, roomy in back. I did manage a couple of hours in a B200, very roomy in the right seat.

Quote:

Joeaksa is right about the GTSIOs. Our 421 was very reliable but only because only two or three people flew it after the factory remans. I'd always cringe when I'd hear a 421 go by with the gearboxes clacking away at low idle

I could be wrong, but I don't think any of the C340's came with geared engines, even the RAM conversions didn't go to those, am I right?

Dantilla · 04-03-2006, 05:08 PM

Nope. No geared engines. All 340s had TSIO-520s. The upgrades are to the intercoolers.

I suppose that conversions to TSIO-550s may be available now.