Ewfflyer

For the price, it won't be a top seller. I'm sure there will be a few 421 fanatics that just have to have it, but beyond that I just don't see it. TBM or PC 12 trump it in every way

727gm

Except the ability to land on an airport runway after an engine failure...

UnderOveur

Ewfflyer

And how often does this happen exactly? This isn't the glory days of the giant radials. PT-6's are fantastic. The world is changing in efficiency and reliability. Single engine musts isn't "dangerous" like it once was considered.

There were some issues with the PC-12's with a FCU or something of that nature causing some rollbacks, but with the countless thousands upon thousands of hours operated, I have no problem with them.

Cubdriver

The FedEx 206 fleet has had extraordinary success with the PT6A as has the PC-12 and many others using it, no doubt about that. I am sure there is plenty of data shoing the extra engine is not really worth the money. It continues to remain an issue of public perception that two engines is safer over water though.

M696

The Cessna Caravan is the C-208. Having two PT-6's seems better than one but actually doubles your odds of having an engine failure. Having several Atlantic crossings in single and twin turbo props I never had any heartburn about crossing in a single...as long as it was a PT-6 out front.

CrimsonEclipse

With an engine failure, I'd rather be in a C-421C with PT-6's than any single turbo prop.

There are extended explanations to each side's logic.

1. Single engine reliability.
Well DUH!! By that logic, gliders are the safest aircraft in the world

2. Are multi engine aircraft are more dangerous during an engine failure.
let's look at this from a few points of view:
a. Can it be controlled?
Think MU-2 and other less forgiving aircraft.
The C-421 is easy to fly on 1 engine, especially with all of the additional power
b. can it climb on 1 engine?
Many of us trained on under powered Seneca I's and Seminoles that MIGHT not descend on 1 engine.
Again, the C-421 with PT-6's would not have a problem here.

Fly over icy water beyond glide distance and tell me you feel safe. It's likely that you've never had the pleasure of swimming in 35-40 degree water. It means you have 5 minutes IF you are in excellent shape. It'll take 15 for the helos to find you if you're REAL lucky. Do the math.

So frankly, the safety question is blown out of the water.
Sure, some of the arguments apply with light piston twins (including the GEARED piston 421), but these go away with a turbine conversion. If you are afraid of a single engine event in your aircraft, you have no right to be there.

The argument that remains is cost effectiveness. Are you getting what you pay for?
It's really a case by case basis. Proven airplane, proven engine. The worst part of the 421 was the engine and exhaust. The wet wing of the C model was just begging for a turbine.

Are there fewer reoccurring AD's and inspections than the 440 series? honestly not sure.

My reservations would remain with pressurization at service ceiling and cost.
$2.5 is approaching many jets.

A complete overhaul and re certification of a Conquest 2 would seem like a better cost/performance ratio.

Ewfflyer

I guess we can all agree to disagree. Either you feel comfortable with single engine, or you don't. I do, I fly a lot of them.

Personally I just don't see this selling well because of pricing alone. There is just too much competition, even from C441's to king-airs, to new airframes.

CrimsonEclipse

Either you can fly a multi engine aircraft or you cannot.

Cubdriver

I actually agree about the safety and economy of single engine turboprops, the safety and cost numbers show it. But these rebuilt 421c's will sell, simply because cabin class twins are still widely used by small operators. That's not a very good reason in itself, but it is a fact. Lots of operators are still driving '60s and '70s cabin class twins well into the 20-30,000 hour range. Those operators will buy these rebuilt 421cs, and we can argue about the merits of that decision all day long, but there is no reason to think they will choose suddenly to go to a single engine airplane. They bought and paid for their operating certificates long ago, and will continue to operate on them with the equipment they are supposed to fly.