Piper Cheyenne Series Questions
Lickity Split
A 2,000 hp glorified Navajo would be Lickity Split, and Piper employed Chuck Yeager to prove it. Merlinxx, I think I know the rocket ship you are talking about.... It left the local King Airs and Conquests in the dust and was a gorgeous sight to behold on the ramp too!
The practicalities of owning an orphan type as described by Winnebago would put me off owning a 400LS - but it would be fun to fly! If I was sitting down the back enjoying my corporate turboprop then I'd want peace of mind knowing that the pilot/s were properly trained to the best standards and in regular practice. That would mean initial and recurrent flight training at FSI or similar. Is that training available in the Cheyenne series?
Johannes
This is my first question - will the crew be trained & current in a decent simulator? If not, then it's a deal breaker: back to a King Air or a PC12 for me.
The practicalities of owning an orphan type as described by Winnebago would put me off owning a 400LS - but it would be fun to fly! If I was sitting down the back enjoying my corporate turboprop then I'd want peace of mind knowing that the pilot/s were properly trained to the best standards and in regular practice. That would mean initial and recurrent flight training at FSI or similar. Is that training available in the Cheyenne series?
Johannes
Please don't tell me to buy a King Air - at least not without giving me good reasons to forward to the man with the wallet...
Last edited by pithblot; 10th Jun 2017 at 22:17.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Village of Santo Poco
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More often it is the phugoid natural mode of motion that needs to damped out in order to allow the autopilot to achieve accurate height hold control.
By definition (assuming significant bits of the aircraft haven't fallen off or stopped working) , the phugoid is a long period minor nuisance pussy cat sort of problem and ought to need no outside assistance ... the SPO, however, can be a different animal.
By definition (assuming significant bits of the aircraft haven't fallen off or stopped working) , the phugoid is a long period minor nuisance pussy cat sort of problem and ought to need no outside assistance ... the SPO, however, can be a different animal.
Good Lord, John, not the phugoid again!
https://www.simulator.com/turboprop/cheyenne/i
Don't know if it is full motion, but it is training
Presently flying a 2xl. It is a good solid 250 kt plane burning 500#at 210ish. Do about 150/year runs about 1200 Cdn/hr
Don't know if it is full motion, but it is training
Presently flying a 2xl. It is a good solid 250 kt plane burning 500#at 210ish. Do about 150/year runs about 1200 Cdn/hr
Last edited by rigpiggy; 11th Jun 2017 at 15:44. Reason: Add
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piper Cheyenne II
Hi Johannes,
I own and operate a Piper Cheyenne II and have about 2000 hours in it as PIC. The Piper Cheyenne II has lots of power in fact the aircraft is certified for takeoff single engine with passengers! Of course that is not recommended but it shows the capability of the plane. The SAS creates a gradually increasing elevator down force via a spring after the critical angle of attack is exceeded. During normal flight operation the SAS system has no influence. I have not had any parts issues. Gyro maintenance is a big expense and reduces the availability I would therefore recommend upgrading to a G600 with electronic AHRS and remove as many mechanical gyros as possible. You and your boss are welcome to take a test ride in my Cheyenne. The Cheyenne's and King Air's are very similar and it is the old Chevy - Ford discussion. It is simple a personal preference. I owned a piper Navajo CR, Panther Chieftain and then a Cheyenne and the upgrade was logical. Most important is the engine time or time SMOH. Engine overhaul is expensive on the PT-6. I do not recommend purchasing an aircraft with engines on the MORE program or engines with more than 3000 hours SMOH. Its a great aircraft, good luck!
I own and operate a Piper Cheyenne II and have about 2000 hours in it as PIC. The Piper Cheyenne II has lots of power in fact the aircraft is certified for takeoff single engine with passengers! Of course that is not recommended but it shows the capability of the plane. The SAS creates a gradually increasing elevator down force via a spring after the critical angle of attack is exceeded. During normal flight operation the SAS system has no influence. I have not had any parts issues. Gyro maintenance is a big expense and reduces the availability I would therefore recommend upgrading to a G600 with electronic AHRS and remove as many mechanical gyros as possible. You and your boss are welcome to take a test ride in my Cheyenne. The Cheyenne's and King Air's are very similar and it is the old Chevy - Ford discussion. It is simple a personal preference. I owned a piper Navajo CR, Panther Chieftain and then a Cheyenne and the upgrade was logical. Most important is the engine time or time SMOH. Engine overhaul is expensive on the PT-6. I do not recommend purchasing an aircraft with engines on the MORE program or engines with more than 3000 hours SMOH. Its a great aircraft, good luck!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A great aircraft in its day....
https://www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft...piper-cheyenne
To me though there is a reason certain models are still in production, ie the King Air.
It may seem cheap now but what about when you can’t find that part like the SAS thinghy?What will beingngrounded cost you?
So many decisions when buying a machine!
How about the King Air 100 was that the Garrett model?
https://www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft...piper-cheyenne
To me though there is a reason certain models are still in production, ie the King Air.
It may seem cheap now but what about when you can’t find that part like the SAS thinghy?What will beingngrounded cost you?
So many decisions when buying a machine!
How about the King Air 100 was that the Garrett model?
How about the King Air 100 was that the Garrett model?
http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/c0a846816b9bfac386257385005c5f33/$FILE/A14ce.pdf
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep ya got me on that... didn’t realise only 137 built!
Curiosly apart from the engines do they share common parts?
Curiosly apart from the engines do they share common parts?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My best GUESS is, there is not much different from the regular 100s. I only ever have flown a B100 once (15+ years ago) and never a 100 or A100. The B100 has no trim wheel, but electric trim and the 90s and 200s I´ve flown all had trim wheels. Thats - apart from engine handling - the biggest difference I remember.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why torture yourself? Go for a Turbo Commander - it will outrun, ouclimb, outspeed, outgross any of these (except the 400LS) burning less fuel. They're simply best in class.
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 27th Jun 2018 at 01:07.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adam I am surprised that you have made such a statement, as you reported elsewhere you bought an AC and after throwing mega bucks at it you have still yet to get it serviceable, it leaks and the floorboards are covered in gunk or bathroom sealant. You have reported a never ending series of woe and there are yards of abandoned Turbo Commanders in similar condition with run out engines, old outdated avionics, autopilots and flight directors. I've flown them from the old 520 to the 1000 which I found tended to 'tuck under' when decending at close to VMO. Yes they are nice to fly but they are not best in class as you have found out to your cost.
RANGE:
1. Merlin 2600nm
2. Conquest/Commander 2000nm
3. MU-2 1300nm
USEFUL LOAD:
1. Merlin: 4387 Lbs
1. Commander 1000: 3961 Lbs
2. Conquest II: 3716 Lbs
3. MU-2 Solitaire 3510 Lbs
TAKEOFF DISTANCE:
1. MU-2 1791ft
2. Commander 1800-2000ft
3. Merlin 2700ft
4. Conquest II 2800ft
SPEED:
They all pretty much hit 300-310kts if they have the later -10's.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mine flies, thank you very much. But, I was talking performance, mainly. We can forget anything PT6, as the Garrets simply are 20% more efficient. That doesn't leave that many left - Conquest II, Merlin, MU-2, maybe the King Air B100 (but it's really slow compared to the others). Conquest II comes close - it has great performance. Merlin certainly can perform in the range department. But overall, as a good allround performer in all disciplines the Commanders are hard to beat.
RANGE:
1. Merlin 2600nm
2. Conquest/Commander 2000nm
3. MU-2 1300nm
USEFUL LOAD:
1. Merlin: 4387 Lbs
1. Commander 1000: 3961 Lbs
2. Conquest II: 3716 Lbs
3. MU-2 Solitaire 3510 Lbs
TAKEOFF DISTANCE:
1. MU-2 1791ft
2. Commander 1800-2000ft
3. Merlin 2700ft
4. Conquest II 2800ft
SPEED:
They all pretty much hit 300-310kts if they have the later -10's.
RANGE:
1. Merlin 2600nm
2. Conquest/Commander 2000nm
3. MU-2 1300nm
USEFUL LOAD:
1. Merlin: 4387 Lbs
1. Commander 1000: 3961 Lbs
2. Conquest II: 3716 Lbs
3. MU-2 Solitaire 3510 Lbs
TAKEOFF DISTANCE:
1. MU-2 1791ft
2. Commander 1800-2000ft
3. Merlin 2700ft
4. Conquest II 2800ft
SPEED:
They all pretty much hit 300-310kts if they have the later -10's.
A quick look at many of the figures show that you have quoted the max speed and range but you cannot do these at the same time. It's what the average performance is on an average day for an average pilot with average passengers on board. If you are flying young family or older guys then you have to keep the cabin low and also in many aircraft keep the noise/vibration levels low, nervous passengers don't like to face aft and climb like a home sick angel.
You posted on a public forum in June this year an excellent write up of your experience with your beloved aircraft. I do hope that it is now fully serviceable and that you can soon continue your travels without undue woe. I enjoy reading of your escapades but trying to turn a pigs ear into a silk purse is often a waste of time and money.
Happy flying.
"
Plane is now finally out of the clutches of my less than honest former mechanic. A lot of time was wasted and work not completed. Sad to find this out after so many years thinking he was a honest guy. But now I'm back in the reins and she's flying, albeit with a few things left to do. Panel is finished and working well.
Last month I completed first longer xcountry from Los Angeles to Kansas City.
Outboard LR tanks leaking after sitting too long and drying out at mechanic (bladders), so had to rely on the inbords only, which is 237gal. Gives about 3.5hr endurance, so you kind of want to be on the ground after about 2.5hrs. This necessitated 2 stops between LA and Kansas City – something I could probably have done direct had they not leaked.
1st leg, LA to Gallup, NM: SoCal dicked me around a little getting out of LA, but not too bad and was soon cleared to 17000ft. Some IMC over the Rockies and some trace ice in the clouds. Eventually dropped down to 15000ft to avoid being in them all the time – at 15K I was just skimming the undersides. Pretty bumpy. With my leaky cabin, 17000ft was the limit. I would probably have cleared them at FL210, but the cabin press is not there yet. Landed Gallup at 6500ft fuel elev with a quartering tailwind. It was pretty exciting stuff. Low fuel warning light came on on steep final, got me worried I’d somehow burned more than totalizer said. But it was exactly correct to the gallon when I filled her up. Now I know the low fuel warning light can come on when you have steep descent and fuel gets sloshed around. Learn each plane’s idiosyncrasies as you go along. Self serve Jet A1, good price, around $3.50/gal. Of course I managed to soak myself in jetfuel – never fails. Stank the whole rest of the trip. 2.1hrs
2nd leg, Gallup to Garden City: Took off (the right way, into the wind this time) and picked up IFR clearance with Albuquerque at 10000ft. Cleared direct at 17000ft. Old girl climbed like a bat and got up there pretty quick. Still can’t make more than 2.5psi diff, despite some more sealing of inspection panels. But we’ll get there. Only so many places left to look. ATC offered to steer me around the worst parts of the fronts, but the direct track magically took me between most buildups and I didn’t need much deviation. Eventually it all cleared up and sun set behind me and it was pretty nice leg. By now it was night. Landed visual at Garden City and did quick refuel at FBO. Price a little higher, but not too bad. Another 2.1hrs. Here I toyed with the idea of finding a hotel, staying the night and do the last short leg in morning. But I wasn’t tired, so decided to continue. Quickly filed another IFR flight plan and fired up.
3rd leg, Garden City to Kansas City: Decided to stay at 15000ft, so the cabin stayed well below 10000ft for clarity of mind. Beautiful night – all the stars were visible. By now over the flatlands of Kansas. Humming along. Going into Wheeler Downtown Airport in KC, I tracked the ILS to Rwy 3 and then circled to Rwy 1 for landing. Couldn’t get the GS on my primary instrument, which bummed me out. I know it worked last week – why not now? Checked NOTAMs to see if the GS was out of service, but no. Need to troubleshoot next flight. Tower was still there and dicked me around until I ended up in the laps of Atlantic Aviation, despite asking for transient. But at this point I was pretty tired and it was nice to see someone marshaling you into a parking spot, so decided it was worth it for one night. They were really friendly and even towed it to the transient for me the day after. Fuel was no joke at $6.21/gal, though!
Except for all the cabin pressurization stuff, heating not working well etc, she did good. Great climb and good cruise speeds of about 250kts. About 430lbs of fuel burn/hr (which is about 64gal/hr). New Avidyne IFD 540 is intuitive enough, even managed to load some approaches on first try. Hope to have all the niggly stuff fixed soon – it’s been a lot of wasted time. Just happy she’s back flying regularly and doing well.
You invested in an AC I think a 690 and this cost you a lot of time and money and as of a month or so ago you still couldn't get max diff. so were stuck at lower flight levels.
