Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Biz Jets, Ag Flying, GA etc.
Reload this Page >

Piper Cheyenne Series Questions

Biz Jets, Ag Flying, GA etc. The place for discussion of issues related to corporate, Ag and GA aviation. If you're a professional pilot and don't fly for the airlines then try here.

Piper Cheyenne Series Questions

Old 9th May 2008, 18:07
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 53
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Piper Cheyenne Series Questions

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
jdbb is offline  
Old 9th May 2008, 20:07
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,437
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
His dudeness is offline  
Old 9th May 2008, 23:49
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
Pace is offline  
Old 10th May 2008, 08:18
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Derbyshire
Age: 67
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ask someone who runs them

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.

Last edited by radicalrabit; 10th May 2008 at 08:26. Reason: spelling check
radicalrabit is offline  
Old 10th May 2008, 08:46
  #5 (permalink)  
PPRuNe supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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!
Dream Land is offline  
Old 10th May 2008, 09:41
  #6 (permalink)  
short flights long nights
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 3,872
Received 147 Likes on 46 Posts
Just curious..as I have never flown one...what does the SAS system do?
SOPS is offline  
Old 10th May 2008, 13:56
  #7 (permalink)  
Educated Hillbilly
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: From the Hills
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.

Last edited by portsharbourflyer; 10th May 2008 at 17:39.
portsharbourflyer is offline  
Old 10th May 2008, 15:03
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: where the money is
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cheyennes

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!
jetopa is offline  
Old 10th May 2008, 16:27
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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...
what next is offline  
Old 10th May 2008, 16:54
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,437
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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...
His dudeness is offline  
Old 10th May 2008, 17:01
  #11 (permalink)  
PPRuNe supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
?????

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.
Dream Land is offline  
Old 10th May 2008, 17:45
  #12 (permalink)  
Educated Hillbilly
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: From the Hills
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.

Last edited by portsharbourflyer; 10th May 2008 at 21:09.
portsharbourflyer is offline  
Old 11th May 2008, 01:43
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
rick1128 is offline  
Old 11th May 2008, 02:33
  #14 (permalink)  
PPRuNe supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Dream Land is offline  
Old 23rd May 2009, 18:01
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: France
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ram Air Recovery for Cheyenne

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?
tsfb is offline  
Old 23rd May 2009, 19:08
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: California
Posts: 349
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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!
fleigle is offline  
Old 24th May 2009, 21:05
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South East
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
southcote is offline  
Old 26th May 2009, 19:00
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Which 6-8 seat turboprop?

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.
Winniebago is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2009, 15:48
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: It wasn't me, I wasn't there, wrong country ;-)
Age: 78
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 He was an Ocker by the way & a furloughed QF SFO
merlinxx is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2017, 08:14
  #20 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,178
Received 92 Likes on 61 Posts
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.
john_tullamarine is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.