Cheyenne II vs. Commander 690B

[rchcfi]

Can someone give me pros and cons from a pilot's and passenger's perspective.

Thanks

 

[Parrot_Head_Fly]

Commando 690B

The Turbo Turd is a great plane, Maintenance hog, but beats the king air on fuel burn. Haven't flown the Cheyenne II, I hear its a rocket. The comander is for sure a pilots plane, if you can taxi it, you can fly it. Good luck.

 

[JimG]

"The comander is for sure a pilots plane, if you can taxi it, you can fly it...."

No kidding.

Never flown the 690, but I have a couple of hours in a Shrike.

Once I got it in the sky, I liked it.

 

[pilotyip]

690 has real engines, fixed shaft turbo props, non of this slip slide free turbin stuff. On go-around the power is always there in the 690, no one potato, two potato, waiting for the engine to spool up. I have about 2500 hours in King Airs, and 1500 in the 690, from a pilot's point the 690 has it hand down over the PT-6 powered airplane. Now! the LS-400 that is a different story.

 

[rchcfi]

if you can taxi it

I have 600 hours in a Shrike, so I think I have that down. I am a company instructor in the Shrike, and I love the first "taxi" session with the rookies. (minus the whiplash of course) The Shrike is also hands down my favorite piston twin I've ever flown.

The reason I am asking is because my company has bought a "Turbo Turd" (I like that) to compete in the 135 charter world with the Cheyenne II across the field. I guess I'm wondering what you've heard from passengers you've flown.

Thanks

 

[Lostdog65]

The 690 is a bit quiter inside than the Cheyenne if my recollection of my short but sweet Cheyenne time can be recalled. Almost didn't need the Bose in the 690. And yeah...if you can taxi it...you can fly it. Just don't hot start the sucker...can you say $90K in overhaul??? I knew you could.

Eric

 

[FL420]

Don't know how useful this info can be but I once saw a AC690 that had just landed gear up. It was resting on it's belly with no damage to the props or the wingtips. By the time I drove around to the airport entrance and got to my office, the 135 operator flying it had it jacked up, on it's gear and had it towed into the hangar and shut the hangar door. It was just after dawn and the tower wasn't open yet. I'll bet a hundred bucks the FAA never found out about that one.

I have a little time in both the Cheyenne I/II and the AC690/A from a long time ago. The main differences to the pilot are engine operations. I recall that a catastrophic engine failure in the direct drive Garrett TPE-331's generated a whole lot of drag real fast requiring the pilot to be pretty sharp on engine failure procedures. The P&WC PT-6's are more forgiving if you're a little slow getting it feathered.

You sit a lot further out front and closer to the ground in the AC690. The passenger door is closer to the ground and downward visibility while airborne is better. The rear bench seat, when occupied, can make it awkward for the pilot to close and lock the door.

When loaded to the aft CG limit, the Cheyenne II(but not the I) is just about neutrally stable in pitch. That's why it has that hokey pitch feel spring system. I forget what it's called and am too lazy to look it up. I just remember it wasn't too comfortable to fly with an aft CG at first. Took a couple of flights to get used to it.

 

[414Flyer]

Stability Augmentation System on the Cheyenne II

 

[jergar999]

I do some part time work in a Commander 690B. It has less room than a King Air, but is still amazingly comfortable. The owner swears up and down he bought it because of how quiet it is, and the beautiful view from the picture windows. The last trip I flew the aircraft trued out between 276 and 285 knots on about 500lbs/hour.

I have never flown a Cheyenne, but I love the Commander.

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

um.....PT6 or TPE331????mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


Turbo Commander!