Piper Cheyenne Facts

[PorcoRosso]

As my boss is seriously considering to buy a Piper Cheyenne II for business flights
across Europe, I am looking for Technical informations from pilots of this aircraft.
I would especially appreciate some Weight & Balance figures, and operationnal advices & tips
How many persons on board maximum with full tanks ? etc, etc ...
Specialits of this toy could also be very helpful by listing the pro's and con's of this Piper Turboprop.
Many thanks

[PorcoRosso]

Longwing

Thank you for infos ! Do you have comment about the mainenance ?

[GUSTO]

Hello out there ,

I am also looking for info on the piper cheyenne 3 .
Longwing , I will appreciate any comment on take off performance . Is it better than a BE 200 ?

BYE ,

GUSTO

[Airking]

Hi Porco,
our company operated Cheyenne 2´s for 13 years (3of them, one at a time) and changed to KingAirs(B200) 1990.
So my knowledge is somewhat rusty...
W&B can give you a headache in the 2, especially when the 8th seat is fitted you´d need a sandsack in the nose baggage compartment, otherwise she is tailheavy. Since the weight varies very much with equipment, its not possible to tell exact figures without knowing the empty weight of the specific airframe.
A few numbers i can recall:
MTOW: 9474 LBS
MZFW: 7600 LBS
MLW: 9000 LBS
FUEL CAPACITY : 2452 LBS
TAXYFUEL: 66 LBS
MAX BAGGAGE WEIGHT FORW COMP: 300 LBS
MAX BAGGAGE WEIGHT AFT COMP: 200 LBS
WE PLANNED 500LBS FUEL BURN IN THE FIRST HOUR AND 400 LBS EVERY NEXT HOUR AT 240 KTAS.
THE AIRPLANE ITSELF IS VERY SPORTY TO FLY; HOWEVER IF YOU PLAN TIO FLY COMMERCIALLY I´D SAY ITS NOT UP TO DATE ANYMORE. EG: THE JANITROL HEATING SYSTEM, THAT HAS A TENDENCY TO FAIL. BAGGAGE SPACE IS RELATIVLY SMALL IF THE AVIONIC INSTALLED REQUIRED THE SPACE,THE FORWARD BAGGAGE COMP WAS SCALED DOWN.
THERE IS A CANADIANT COMPANY RETROFITTING THE 2 WITH THE-135 ENGINES (THE ONES USED ON THE F90 KINGAIR) WHICH BOOSTS THE SHIP TO 290KTAS.

BTW: IF YOU LIKE A REAL AEROPLANE, BUY A KINGAIR B200-Raisbeck! :-))

t/o data
PAY2 BE200-raisbeck BE200BASI
2900FT@9474LBS 2300FT@12500LBS 2875FT
2600FT@8500LBS 2200FT@11500LBS 2490FT
2200FT@7500LBS 2000FT@10500LBS 2150FT
sealevel/ISA DAY
HOPE THAT HELPED YOU A BIT.

[ 04 November 2001: Message edited by: Airking ]

[PorcoRosso]

Thank you for those helpful facts, Airking

I understand the Cheyenne 2 is not suitable for Airline operations
As a matter of fact, We plan to use her only for business flying, probably never with 8 persons on board.
A beech 200 would definitely be too big for what my company need, and the 90 is too slow considering she has the same engines as the Cheyenne.
Anyway, I appreciate your comments and the figures you gave me
Best regards

[Airking]

yOURE WELCOME, PORCO...
I hope you´ll get that little sporty plane...
try to urge your boss to let you have simu training...the cheyenne 2 is very nasty in slow speeds not dangerous but far more demanding than a kingair...especially if your a newcomer to turboprops (?)
Good luck
airking

[Saint Exupery]

Gusto,

I have about 400hrs on the CIII, (we have two), but only newly endorsed on our B200 Raisbeck.

I don't have the performance figures handy but I can provide some info in a couple of days on the CIII.

In my experience (and this is not based on perf figures), the CIII will take off in a shorter distance than the B200, but the landing distance is greater than the B200.

The CIII max reverse is limited to 500lbs/ft of torque, but the B200 is limited to 1900lbs/ft. The engine mounts are obviously stronger than the CIII. Added to this is the four bladed props of the B200 Raisbeck which help it stop quicker.

CIII basic data: B200
PT6A-41 720 HP PT6A-41/42 850hp
AEW 7218/7137lbs 8000lbs
ZFW 9150 10400
ZFW 9350
(with100lbsin wing lockers)
MTOW 11200 12500
MLW 10330
Max fuel 3752lbs 3600
Nose baggage 300lbs
Aft baggage 300lbs
wing lockers 100lbs each

Fuel
The CIII carries slightly more fuel than the B200, but due to the flat rating to 720hp and the B200 850hp, the CIII travels further due reduced fuel burn and a slighter higher TAS.

Weight and Balance
The CIII has a problem with 10 males on board in that it must have weight in the nose to keep in balance. The B200 does not share the same problem and it can also carry
up to 14 whilst remaining within the envelope. The B200 can carry more pax but obviously costs more to purchase.
SYSTEMS
The CIII utilises hydraulics for gear operation and electrics for flap. The B200 is basically all electrics using a substantial amount of circuit boards.
The CIII has main gear PSI of 100 and so on soft strips is susceptible to bogging. The B200 with dual main gear tyres doesn't suffer as much.

To fly, the CIII is far nicer, similar to a Baron, whereas the B200 is similar to a Navajo.

I'll post the data later in the week.

Hope this helps.

[Saint Exupery]

Porco Rosso,

The CII was not certified in Britain, though here in Australia it was given certification.

The Brits believed the Stability Augmentation System (SAS) made the aircraft unstable, which I think is what Airking was referring to. I think it had lead weights in the tail with a pulley system, but cannot fully confirm this. Airking should be able to update this.

We used to own a CII. I can enquire if you'd like about maintenance with our engineering dept.

Regards

[PorcoRosso]

few facts about me : If you check my profile, you will notice I am definitely a newcomer to Turboprop. I am presently Flying a Seneca 2 ; and I expect a big change with the cheyenne.
Saint-Ex, I will definitely appreciate some maintenance-related comment & fact about the CII

Many thanks for your help, folks .

[Airking]

Saint Ex,
your system discription (SAS) is correct, basically the system(steered by an AOA vane & Computer) would use the lead weights during high AOA to increase the force you need to pull back the yoke. A nogo-item if u/s, no backup system installed.
Maintenance - wise the c2 is a good (reliable&easy to maintain) aeroplane, however its out of production quite a while. I would strongly recommend to ask an maintenance shop that works on more than one cheyenne about the might-be problems on optaining spares.

[ 07 November 2001: Message edited by: Airking ]

[Saint Exupery]

Gusto,

Those perf. figures I promised on the CIII.

T/O dist-Normal Procedure
Paved, level dry runway, flap 0, oil cooler doors open, ecs low, gear extended to 50'

Isa, max t/o weight 11200lbs, 0 wind
ground roll: 2600'
over 50' obstacle: 3200'

Recomm. cruise power 1900rpm, ISA
alt ff lbs/hr tas11.0lbs tas9.1lbs
18000' 746 282 288 (tq1882)
22000' 648 276 285 (1631)
26000' 558 269 279 (1396)
30000' 478 256 269 (1186)
Torque in far right column,
Max torque 1995lbs@2000RPM

Long range power 1700rpm, ISA
18000' 462lbs/hr/[email protected]
410lbs/hr/[email protected]
22000' 432/[email protected]
380/[email protected]
26000' 416/[email protected]
356/[email protected]
30000' 400/[email protected]
340/[email protected]

Hope this helps

[Saint Exupery]

Porco Rosso,

I spoke with our engineers re the CII.

We had some trouble with Avionics and difficulty getting parts, mainly due to older style avionics. We are situated in Australia so the time taken for parts to arrive doesn't help. Apart from this we didn't have really any other problems. The engines and systems were pretty reliable.

Regards

[PorcoRosso]

Saint-Ex

As far as Avionics are concerned, we plan to refurbish the standard equipment é replace it with garmin Dual GPS/NAV/COMM (430&500)
This will probably help to sort out the spare parts problem on this side.
I am presently using the 430 unit on the Seneca, and am very satisfied of it.

Keep the flow of info !!!
thanks guy

last question :

Do you think a 1000 hrs guy (200 ME) can handle this baby ? My boss and I are planning a simulator training, of course.

[GUSTO]

Hi Saint Ex ,

I really appreciate all the info you sent me . I think I will be interested by a BE200 with the raisbeck conv as the plane will be based in Cameroun and there is some naughty airsrips over there .

I think the transition from the Chieftain ( currently flying ) to the BE200 won't be a big problem concerning the flying caracteristic.

Take care ,

GUSTO

[gaunty]

Porco and GUSTO

IHMO you are barking up the wrong tree with the Cheyenne 11 or 111.

The Brits got it right on their unwillingness to allow it certification in the UK.

The pitch stability was always marginal on the Navajo hence the bob wieghts, it got worse on the Cheiftain and no better on the Cheyenne despite the T Tail. The SAS is a no go item. And that you need an SAS at all speaks volumes about the overstretching of a limited design.

There was also some controversy regarding the certification data.

Apart from that, who is now supporting the aircraft. They were not a very succesful type in the market. It follows therefore that they do not perform or do the job overall all as well as their competitors.

You don't have to do much poking around the AFM to find out where the weakness are.

[N1/TOGA]

salut porco, did you read aviation&pilote magazine, may 2001? (pa-31-II flight test)

[Airking]

Porco,
IMO you should convince your boss to have a supervisor with you when you start flying the Cheyenne 2. Pitch stability is okay as long as DON´T use the 8th seat and don´t take big weights in the aft cabin cargo compartment.Clearly , this airplane needs attention and she´ll bite you , if you don´t respect her... the control surfaces were laid out for 2 310hp recips, then they installed 2 628shp pt6ses... But, plainly from the fact that I was able to handle it:
with good training and supervision there is no reason whatsoever why you shouldn´t fly it.
Installing equipment you already know sounds good to me, makes transition easier.
good luck

[ 09 November 2001: Message edited by: Airking ]

[PorcoRosso]

Airking

My boss and I will go to USA to take the required training on the lady, which means, Sim, and hours of handling. Furhter to that, we will also ferry the Cheyenne under the supervision of a specialist, and after those hours, we hope to be ready to fly her by hourself.

I tried to send you an e-mail, but it seems the one in your profile doesn't work.
Could you drop me a mail at my Pprune adress below ?

best regards

[ 08 November 2001: Message edited by: PorcoRosso ]

[Airking]

HI PORCO;
did you get my message ?
btw, [email protected] works for sure
greetings

[PorcoRosso]

Yep Airking
I write to you immediately.
I may fly to germany next week, to Friedrischafen . Any chance to meet over there ?