Piper Cheyenne Series Questions

[jdbb]

Hi there,

my boss wants to upgrade to a Piper Cheyenne IA, II or a IIXL from a Piper Seneca - I need opinions about the stability augmentation system of the II, reliability etc - and generell opinions from people who have flown one of these 'tuned navajos' :-)

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...

Thanks a lot in advance,

Johannes

[His dudeness]

Johannes, buy a KingAir!

Now seriously, from what I hear, part availability starts to be a problem.

I have extensive KingAir experience and just a little bit of Cheyenne time - in the II - but a near relative of mine flew the II from 74 to 1990 and this bird is reliable. I asked for a memory check and the SAS was inop only once in about 7000hrs in 4 different II´s flown.

Bear in mind that the airplane were new then and are old now (when did production of the II cease? mid eighties?)
Try to contact Aerodienst in Nürnberg, Mr.Horneber. They were our maintenance shop for more than 20 years and have real knowledge of both, KingAir and Cheyenne. Also Jet Aviation Kassel do know the Cheyenne inside out.

Flying the II is big fun, but the Airplane can bite - SE low speed can really give you a handful - hence the SAS. The IA is a good airplane to, the tradeoff in performance is not so big, but it is definetely cheaper to operate.

The II and IA are true `pilot aeroplanes`and a big step up from the seneca.

[Pace]

Why a Cheyenne? there are far better turboprops. Look at a Conquest 1 or if you want faster a Conquest Blackhawk.

The Conquest has delicious handling, good speed, fuel economy and looks good too.

Cheyennes come cheap but everything has a reason!

Pace

[radicalrabit]

We looked at Cheyennes and spoke to Airmed who run or ran the XII and the III and both are useful but as pointed out spares can be a problem.
Someone else with vastly more experience has already gone into the smaller ones so I wont comment.

If I was buying one , which I really considered, I would only get the LS400
It will out climb everything else operate higher and for less money and looks better as well. Ok there will be a million people along shortly to tell you I know nothing because I am only a PPL student but I have spent the last 6 months looking at these for our own project.

The performance of the others you mentioned is lamentable by comparison and you would, according to the 20 odd people I had advising me, soon regret it.

The III and the 400 are what you should be looking for. (again in my opinion)
There is one for sale in Germany at the moment finnished in Metalic Green that is worth looking at (in my opinion) but listen to what everyone else says. Parts and cabin size will be an issue.

B200 are the tool for the job in our case because they do what it says on the tin, they still make them and they cost more because they are better built and give you more space (cabin size) and more reliability . If you are only flying with 3 or 4 on board you wont need the space, any more and you will notice the difference.

Do go and talk to the people who are operating them and ignore the guys who are trying to sell them to you . I could put you in touch with someone who has one for sale but I dont want to be treading one anyone elses toes so I wont.

GET INDEPENDANT OPINIONS AND ADVICE, asking on here was a good move, you will get advice.. I haven't mention the other aircraft as you asked specifically about the Cheyenne range.

[Dream Land]

Hi there,

my boss wants to upgrade to a Piper Cheyenne IA, II or a IIXL from a Piper Seneca - I need opinions about the stability augmentation system of the II, reliability etc - and generell opinions from people who have flown one of these 'tuned navajos' :-) The SAS system is no problem at all, have extensive time on all the Cheyennes mentioned, I did have a problem on the SAS system on a Merlin 3 when a lineman tried to straighten out the vane, that cost the FBO a few dollars!

[SOPS]

Just curious..as I have never flown one...what does the SAS system do?

[portsharbourflyer]

SOPS,

In general a SAS (Stability Augmentation System) will damp out one of the aircrafts natural modes of motions in order to bring the flight dynamics to a state that is easier for the pilot to control or allow the autopilot to control the aircaft.

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.

However the above is just a general decription and I don't know the exact details for the aircraft mentioned in this post.

[jetopa]

Hi jdbb,

I've flown Piper Cheyenne I, II XL and 400LS a number of years ago. If you're stepping up from a Seneca, the 400LS is too far away, too dicey to handle (at least on the t/o-run), too expensive to operate and with parts difficult to locate (only 45 built - 2 known crashes).

My boss did the same: I wanted the King Air, but it was too costly then. A King Air has many obvious advantages, but you have to face reality.

A Cheyenne Ia is a good compromise and probably cheap to get. You don't know what's going to be next. Maybe you'll have a nice little jet under your seat some time soon...

Good luck!

[what next]

Hello!

> Just curious..as I have never flown one...what does the SAS system do?

I know nothing about the Merlin, but in the Metroliner (a development from the Merlin) that I fly, SAS stands for "Stall Avoidance System" and consists of two AoA (Angle of Attack) vanes, some circuitry, an AoA indicator, a stickshaker and a stick pusher. I cannot imagine that a Merlin has the other kind of SAS (stability augmentation system) described above, apart from a yaw damper.

Greetings, Max

NB: If a Kingair is too expensive, a Merlin could be an alternative to the Cheyenne. They are comparatively inexpensive and offer good performance, but they are certainly not aeroplanes to be flown single-hand by people who come straight from the Seneca...

[His dudeness]

its roughly 18 years ago that I flew a Cheyenne II, but the SAS is - the TO said - a "stability augmentation system", basically it varies the force you need to exert to bring the nose up. The II (which really was the first Cheyenne to be build) had provisions for an eight seat in the baggage compartment which brought the CoG back considerably. And it has roughly twice the power of its origin, the Navajo. It also has a power limitation when approaching a stall, otherwise she´ll depart controlled flight. The AoA vane drives an AoA meter and a device that requires more force to keep the nose up the slower you get.
Hope my memory isnt as bad on this one as it is on finding my keys...

[Dream Land]

In general a SAS will damp out one of the aircrafts natural modes of motions in order to bring the flight dynamics to a state that is easier for the pilot to control or allow the autopilot to control the aircaft ????? :ugh:

Not quite, it's a system given to aircraft with not so good stall characteristics basically, has a stick shaker and also applies forward stick force, kind of an angle of attack indicator also.

[portsharbourflyer]

Sorry Dreamland, but SAS also stands for Stability Augmentation System, which I was referring to in my post. However my description wasn't quite accurate as I did say damp out natural modes of motion of the aircraft, where it fact it can also enhance stick fixed and stick free static stability.

Please note one of the posters above did actually point out that SAS can also mean Stall Avoidance System (which you are referring to). However the first poster in this thread did actually use the term Stability Augmentation System in reference to the Cheyenne.

The system is as His Dudeness describes but his decription makes it sound as though it is for stall prevention, quite simply the system prevents the control forces becoming too light with an aft c of g (essentially what His Dudeness stated). With very light control forces then pulling up into a stall too easily is obvioulsy a possibility but with the control force too light it can become very difficult to hold a steady attitude. Longitudinal static stability (controls free) is measured as a function of control force on the stick in relation to speed change, the SAS on the Cheyenne is therefore a Stability Augmentation System and not a Stall prevention System.

[rick1128]

After operating several TP's over the years, I have formed my own opinions. While the King Air is the Cadillac of the class, you pay for that. The Cheyenne IA and II are decent work horses. There are enough of them out there, that parts can be gotten. The III is another story. Part are becoming more difficult to find. The Conquest is going through a SID program which may see several parked permanently. And it will cost upwards of 180,000 USD to meet. While I like the Merlin 3, unless you have some high performance experience, it will eat your lunch and desert also. Plus parts are getting difficult to come by. For a personal TP, I would go with either the Merlin 3B or the King Air B100. The B100 is the sleeper of the family. It has the same cabin as the 200, but burns a lot less fuel than any of the King Air family. Plus since most "King Air" pilots don't consider it a King Air, the price is much lower than even a C90. With the -10 engine mod, it will make serious tracks, plus handles ice reasonably well.

[Dream Land]

The system is as His Dudeness describes but his decription makes it sound as though it is for stall prevention, quite simply the system prevents the control forces becoming too light with an aft c of g (essentially what His Dudeness stated). With very light control forces then pulling up into a stall too easily is obvioulsy a possibility but with the control force too light it can become very difficult to hold a steady attitude. Longitudinal static stability (controls free) is measured as a function of control force on the stick in relation to speed change, the SAS on the Cheyenne is therefore a Stability Augmentation System and not a Stall prevention System.
Yes correct, have lots of experience with both systems, Piper and Swearingin, the system seemed to do it's job fine as long as techs were able to calibrate it properly, no problems with SAS or SAS squared.

[tsfb]

Does anyone has real life experience of the American Aviation Mods for Cheyenne : both the ram air recovery and the exhaust stacks? Does it do what is claimed, that is increase cruise speed by 15 to 20 kts, increase climb speed and lower temps?

[fleigle]

One of the columnists for the US Fl*ing Magazine has been flying and commenting on his Cheyenne for years, his name is Dick Karl.
A peruse through their website could glean you a lot of useful information.
I had the right seat for a 3-hour flight a few years ago, it was fun!

[southcote]

The Cheyenne IIXL is the better of the smaller Cheyennes and it doesn't have the SAS systems, it also has an improved environmental system over the I and straight II. Parts are not a majot issue, if you get stuck Cheyenne Air Center are a great help. The autopilot can be a bit of a problem but there are still people around that look after the KFC300.
Speak to AirMed at Oxford as they have a good mix of IIXL's and IIIA's or PM me.

[Winniebago]

If you are in the market for aircraft of this vintage/value, you've really got to minimise the risk of it all going pear-shaped. Whther Cheyenne, Conquest, Turbo Commander or King Air, think about overal population of the type in your own country and Europe-wide. How maintenance shops have proper experiance on type on your doorstep, where can you and spare pilots get trained on tyoe, what's spares availability like etc.? Some hold there value better than others whilst the likes of the King Air have so many pilots around rated on type that you'll always find a back up crew member if colleagues are on leave or off sick etc. Without any doubt whatsoever, the King Air family represent the lowest risk of purchase but if you are based at an airfield where one of the other types are already operated and supported, then the risk of ownership is mitigated. Be wary of going for a TPE-engined ship rather than a PT6 engined aircraft. Again, engine fleet size is as important as airframe fleet size in one's region of operation. Don't get sold on fantastic performance figures, just look for reliability, ease of access to pilots, support and fleet size. The Cheyenne is fine if you have local support, in which case it will prove cheaper to operate than the King Air and cheaper to buy. But don't touch anything where you are the only game in town for 100 miles. In some cases the configuration or performance capabilities may win the day be be very careful - you can lose your shirt on a 1980s 'cream puff' when your stuck on the ground looking world-wide for that essential widget which can only be found in a scrap yard in Arizona.

[merlinxx]

400LS had a customer bring one up from OZ to the UK many moons ago, and his story of p*ssing off a QF 747 crew by descending after a comment was made on 12345, " a Cheyenne at 410 ?" to let the 747 crew have a butchers, then he fecked off back up to 410:ok::E He was an Ocker by the way & a furloughed QF SFO:E

[john_tullamarine]

Reading through this thread, I wonder a bit at the stories regarding SAS.

Consider that the usual requirement is in a piston to turboprop conversion airframe with the usual CG problems of a lighter engine's being addressed by sticking the new motor out a bit further toward the front.

This fixes up the basics of the CG numbers but has an undesirable effect on static stability, especially at low speed and high thrust .. ie, missed approach.

The propeller normal force (think about the change in airflow direction through the prop disc with the aircraft at a high body angle .. a bit like a wing and there is a significant vertical lift force in the plane of the propeller which provides a very undesirable nose up pitching moment. Add this to the higher SHP output of the new engine and things can get interesting rather quickly.

Without the SAS operating, this arrangement can (and does) cause a reduction in the usual static stability required pilot stick pull force as the speed reduces below the trim speed. I recall, from a flight test course, many years ago, that the Metro could find itself in a situation where the stick force gradient reversed .. not nice for the unsuspecting line pilot.

One then usually sees a limitation with SAS U/S whereby there is a power restriction for the missed approach to keep the prop normal force in a sensible paddock.

As another poster observed, the SAS usually provides a variable downspring elevator load in the affected flight regime to give the pilot the impression that he/she is seeing a normal static stability in the aircraft's handling. (Would engineers pull the wool over a pilot's eyes .. of cause we wouldn't).

As for the allegation that an Examiner purported to require a crew to disable what would be a basic certification-required system and then abuse the aircraft's handling in respect of the problem which the disabled system looked after .. such a demand would be not much short of gross stupidity, probably brought on by a severe dose of technical ignorance.

I presume that the said system involved AFM limitations .. and, with that presumption, did the Examiner require the operation to comply with AFM limitations or was he suggesting that the crew play untrained TPs ?

The closest I've come to this situation is with GA I/R renewals .. my standard brief included some words along the lines of "touch anything below (height and/or speed I nominated) and I'll close both throttles and land ahead". Strange, I was never put in the situation of having my resolve tested ..

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.

[pithblot]

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
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...

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.

[Amadis of Gaul]

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.



Good Lord, John, not the phugoid again!

[rigpiggy]

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

[Miromesnil]

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!

[Dufo]

The Piper Cheyenne II has lots of power in fact the aircraft is certified for takeoff single engine with passengers!

Seriously?

[Tinstaafl]

The reduced horsepower Cheyenne 1A doesn't have a SAS. It was reduced to 500HP from the II's 620HP of the I & II, eliminating the stability issue.

[megan]

the aircraft is certified for takeoff single engine with passengers Absolute rubbish.

[His dudeness]

Absolute rubbish.

Come on megan, its a good story. Why using facts to disturb it. (especially when I think back to that little placard in the cockpit, requiring a reduced power setting below a certain speed during SE G/A to be able to maintain directional control...)

[Global Aviator]

A great aircraft in its day....

https://www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft-and-ownership/aircraft-fact-sheets/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?

[megan]

How about the King Air 100 was that the Garrett model? Model B100, rest of the 100 series had the venerable PT-6.

http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/c0a846816b9bfac386257385005c5f33/$FILE/A14ce.pdf

[His dudeness]

How about the King Air 100 was that the Garrett model?

137 built.

In your words:


To me though there is a reason certain models are still in production, ie the King Air B200/250.


The Garretts are certainly more efficient, but...

[Global Aviator]

Yep ya got me on that... didn’t realise only 137 built!

Curiosly apart from the engines do they share common parts?

[His dudeness]

Curiosly apart from the engines do they share common parts?



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.

[AdamFrisch]

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.

[pithblot]

I guess the Dog Whistle, sorry, Garrett, powered King Airs don't have auto-feather?

[inbalance]

I guess the Dog Whistle, sorry, Garrett, powered King Airs don't have auto-feather?
No, but they have a Negativ Tourque Sensing System, which operates similar to an Autofeather system.

Inbalance

[gordon field]

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.

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.

[AdamFrisch]

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.









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.

[gordon field]

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.

Adam, in kindness all I can say is that you have quoted from an unknown sources data about various aircraft types without specifying which model with which engines and all rather biased towards your love of the Aero Commander range. When purchasing an aircraft to fulfill a mission then it needs to fit in with your lifestyle and need. For these older aircraft it is important that knowledgeable service is available at or close too your home base, its no good the shop for your AC being hundreds of miles away and all of the mechanics with the required knowledge retired and playing golf in the sunshine.

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.