PAY2 ?

[Crashdriver]

So I work for a small U.S. Charter company (PT 135, for those of you who know FAR's) And we just bought a Cheyenne II I got assigned to fly the Cheyenne. I'm stepping down from a King Air, but upgrading to captain and single pilot, so I'm a little nervous there. But about all I know about a Cheyenne is it's powered by two PT6's and it's made by Piper. Anything I should know that aren't going to be communicated through the manual and training?

Thanks!

[His dudeness]

Has been a looooooong time since I last saw a PA31T2 from the inside...

Weight and balance is an issue if neglected. The II is the only small Cheyenne with the SAS (stability augmentation system) and the reason is W&B. When the SAS is U/S there is a torque limit. (Its a servo motor that pulls on a spring that is attached to the elevator up cable, requiring more and more strenght to pull, the higher the AOA.

When the 8th seat is installed, you will require weight in the nose (at least all the IIs I´ve been involved with were like that)

Otherwise its a fine machine, loads of fun to fly. The Janitrol heater can be a pain in the butt, that varied from airframe to airframe. Some worked always, some didn't.

[Crashdriver]

So will you feel the SAS become active. Like will it be a sudden change in elevator force? Or is it more gradual, and really only feel it after a few hours to know what the plane feels like normally?

[Kerling-Approsh KG]

Don't worry about the SAS, it's pretty seamless.

Do worry, though, about the fact that it's probably completely impossible to operate a Cheyenne for less than it costs to operate a King Air, and spares will be a living, breathing, nightmare with sharp teeth and huge claws!

I say 'probably' because your Cheyenne may come with a huge spares inventory, or you may have a specific task which the Cheyenne fits and the King Air doesn't (though I struggle to think what it might be... Clients with agorophobia, perhaps?) and you can charge a premium for the aircraft...

Do tell, why did they buy the machine? I could find you a good B200 for a great price if it's not too late!!!

[Crashdriver]

I'm not sure why they bought the Cheyenne actually. I personally think they could have done better with a Meridian or TBM 750, since they're going to use it for the shorter flight assignments. I wouldn't be surpised if was a client pressured decision. If we had gotten something like a Meridian I can just see it now! "OH MY GOD! We are not going to get on that unsafe thing, not only does it have a propeller, but it's only got ONE!" Americans and their view of bigger is better, cause I mean really, why drive a Golf when you could have an Escalade :ugh: Whatever, I got 4 stripes now and I ain't payin the bills :rolleyes:

We've been needing a 2nd airplane for a while now, and our King Air had a run in with a wayward fuel truck a few months ago, so it's got some damage history and could be going away in favor of a jet. But that's all speculation, and still doesn't explain the purchase decision. I try not to get too involved in the politics of the company.

[aerobat77]

we fly in our company the cheyenne I and III and i was the first hours stunned how different flight characteristics the I and III has - especially at landing. the III has relativly smooth response to control inputs and the I is in comparision here a sporty diva with very sharp response to inputs. i personally find the far bigger III easier to fly than the I .

on the other hand - when you sorted it out , you can positon a I with its pretty direct control response exactly where you want to, which is befenit at short field operation, especially because a I will virtually stop flying when you retard to idle with props forward since a III will flare in.

i hope that some of i wrote about the I is valid also for the II since they share the same fuselage with bigger engines on the II.

i think you will have a lot of fun and good airborne time with this bird, the king air tends to be more the luxury sedan where to cheyenne is the sports car :ok:

[Crashdriver]

Well I got my training/operating materials about a week ago and it seems like a fairly common sense airplane. A little more complicated than the B200, but it is older and less automated, so I'm not too surprised there. One thing that is frustrating me though is this Electrical System schematic in the PIM. :ugh: It's only slightly more useful than toilet paper. Does anyone have a better schematic than the one supplied by Piper?

[funflyer12345]

I have flown a 1978 Cheyenne 2 for the last 300 hours. I can tell you that it is a great machine, rock solid in ifr, handles great, good climber, burns about 70 gph avg at 250 knots, 23k ft. The SAS system is a non-issue, you will never know it's there. It only kicks in at a very high angle of attack, low speeds to prevent a stall. In fact it's about impossible to stall the plane because of the SAS force on the yoke, prior to a high angle of attack stall. the Cheyenne 2 has gobs of power, and part of recurrent training consists of single engine landings and even go arounds...amazing power, climb and stability with one engine dead. It is even certified to fly with autopilot, single engine! Never had a problem getting parts and maintenance costs have been very reasonable. Also, a meridian or tbm does not have a potty. I have seen passengers use it on many occasions. Awesome machine, especially for the price.

[rak64]

While training single engine operation, never bring the feathered propeller fast forward. That cause some kind of overspeed condition, it give more moments than aileron and rudder together can produce. If it ocours just pull the propeller lever a little.