Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Cheyenne 400 VS King Air 200

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
mzaharis said:
An interesting review of the Piper 400LS - The website was shut down, so here's the cached version from google.com:

Page 1
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:foaIj38skjwJ:www.fliteguide.co.za/Imperial_Aviation/Full_aircraft_reports/FR_piper_cheyenne_pg1.htm+%22cheyenne+400LS%22+%22imperial+bank%22&hl=en

Page 2
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:3hjFlvB80D4J:www.fliteguide.co.za/Imperial_Aviation/Full_aircraft_reports/FR_piper_cheyenne_pg2.htm+%22cheyenne+400LS%22+%22imperial+bank%22&hl=en



Excerpts:
The result is astonishing. The 400LS will out climb most small to medium business jets. In terms of hard numbers, it has a maximum true airspeed of 360 knots and will cruise at over 40,000 feet at 340 knots for nearly seven hours. It will accomplish this seating nine people in stretch-out comfort and at less than half the fuel burn of a Citation II. . . .

During the pre-flight walk about it is clear this is a Piper and not a Beechcraft product. PHO's age is beginning to show in the general fit of the panels and particularly on the fibreglass mouldings, which were beginning to craze. The heavily over-engineered solidity of Beech products seems to be lacking, most obviously when looking at the access panels which appear to be loose fitting. . . .


The huge power of this Piper has made this not just a hot rod special of limited utility but an aircraft of immense practical use. It is capable of taking as many people as a Citation I a far greater distance at a similar speed. The owner says that on a Lanseria to Luanda leg, the aircraft can carry more payload than a King Air 200. With 2,000lbs of fuel for four hours there is still capacity for another 2,200 lbs of passengers. Typical fuel burn at a high cruise level is 400lbs (60 US gallons) an hour - half that of a comparable Citation. With total useable fuel of 570 gallons, the aircraft can comfortably make Johannesburg to Mauritius non-stop. . . .


Thats faster than the Piaggio?
 
Piaggio is a 390 KTAS Beast. With twice the cabin.
 
mzaharis said:
It will accomplish this seating nine people in stretch-out comfort and at less than half the fuel burn of a Citation II. . . .

I don't know about nine people in stretched out comfort. The fuselage is just a Navajo, isn't it?


The 331's it's sporting are thermo'd at 1500 shp flat rated to 1000 shp. Piper did a PR stunt with it back in the early '80's by having Chuck Yeager break several time-to-climb records in one that was void of an interior. It was documented in one of the old Wide World of Flying videos.

That thing just looks fast on the ramp.




I forgot...




Go Spartans!!!:D
 
The 400 has the same cabin as the III and I've flown the III multiple times coast to coast. I don't think that I'd describe the process as stretching out in comfort. :eek:

Anyway you cut it, anything with a cabin that size starts to get cozy after a couple of hours.

As far as the Piaggio goes, it's an interesting airplane, but the jury is still out. It has very impressive numbers and an impressive cabin, but it had those the last time they tried to penitrate the American market. It remains to be seen if the can manage to sell some. If they do, then it will probably be the turboprop to beat. However, they've got to sell more than a handful in order to be a viable airplane. I'd hate to have to try and maintain one 15 years from now if Piaggio pulls back out of the north american market like they did a few years back.

'Sled
 
mzaharis said:
An interesting review of the Piper 400LS - The website was shut down, so here's the cached version from google.com:

Page 1
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:foaIj38skjwJ:www.fliteguide.co.za/Imperial_Aviation/Full_aircraft_reports/FR_piper_cheyenne_pg1.htm+%22cheyenne+400LS%22+%22imperial+bank%22&hl=en

Page 2
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:3hjFlvB80D4J:www.fliteguide.co.za/Imperial_Aviation/Full_aircraft_reports/FR_piper_cheyenne_pg2.htm+%22cheyenne+400LS%22+%22imperial+bank%22&hl=en



Excerpts:
The result is astonishing. The 400LS will out climb most small to medium business jets. In terms of hard numbers, it has a maximum true airspeed of 360 knots and will cruise at over 40,000 feet at 340 knots for nearly seven hours. It will accomplish this seating nine people in stretch-out comfort and at less than half the fuel burn of a Citation II. . . .

During the pre-flight walk about it is clear this is a Piper and not a Beechcraft product. PHO's age is beginning to show in the general fit of the panels and particularly on the fibreglass mouldings, which were beginning to craze. The heavily over-engineered solidity of Beech products seems to be lacking, most obviously when looking at the access panels which appear to be loose fitting. . . .


The huge power of this Piper has made this not just a hot rod special of limited utility but an aircraft of immense practical use. It is capable of taking as many people as a Citation I a far greater distance at a similar speed. The owner says that on a Lanseria to Luanda leg, the aircraft can carry more payload than a King Air 200. With 2,000lbs of fuel for four hours there is still capacity for another 2,200 lbs of passengers. Typical fuel burn at a high cruise level is 400lbs (60 US gallons) an hour - half that of a comparable Citation. With total useable fuel of 570 gallons, the aircraft can comfortably make Johannesburg to Mauritius non-stop. . . .




I have been operating the III for a couple months now and have been researching the 400LS for one of the bosses who wants one bad. From what I have found 2000 pounds fuel is not 4 hours. More like 2 and some change. I think it would be an awesome airplane to fly and kinda wish we would get one but, the things I have learned is 1. RVSM is a must and 2. heaven forbid should you need prop MX. Blades run about 20K each if you ding one. RVSM is runnng about 125K. I think the shear size, power, and weight of the Garrets help with the CG problems the III has, which yes, IS a problem in the III. I have heard from several KA200 guys that getting it out of CG is almost impossible. And the 7 hours mentoned in the above article, well maybe so, but with no people. From what I saw, plan on about 1000 NM with full passengers, or about 3 hours or so.

I have found this by asking around. Check with Cheyenne Air Service Center in PA or Columbia Air Service in CT, they seem to be the resident experts on Cheyennes.
 
Pilot's airplane

I flew a 400LS for about a year and a half (4-500 hrs) and absolutely loved the thing. That's cause I wasn't paying the MX bills. It was not like it was real MX intensive, just that there was no great support network and we were practically charting new territory every time line maintenance was required. Also, that was prior to DRVSM and I had no experience taking one through that process. The long-short of it is this-talk to a lot of people who have operated them, and then when it is all said and done, just let them keep the plane and you live vicariously through them. I think the 400LS had a pretty decent shot at being a pretty great plane. The only thing that stood in the way of that is the brand name. Yet another product Piper doesn't support. Go for a ride, remember it, buy a King Air.


knelson
 
I had found that article because I had gotten my PPL at the Piper dealer in DSM (Des Moines Flying Service), and that airplane was the ultimate propeller lust object for me at the time. Still is, but it sounds like it's also a lot of trouble if you actually have to own and maintain one.
 
Cheyenne vs 200

I have a friend who flew the 400 for about a year, great preformer. Downside they are no longer in production, he waited six weeks for a replacement fuel cell. It seemed to be pretty maintenance intensive. If I remember right most of the 400's were sent overseas. If you are getting an airplane for business you better get something thats dependable.
 
Why would you want a turbo prop that is RVSM qualified. If you are operating at 28,000 and above, you are either in the wrong aircraft for your mission or you don't understand the performance curve of a turboprop.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top