Cheyenne II vs. Commander 690B

[NoPax]

You'd be surprised at how the passengers will like or dislike the airplane because of what pilots think are insignificant things...for example - I know of a very weathly person that took a ride in a Global Express, and a Gulfstream V, and opted for the GV because of the position and view from the windows.

I think the looks of, and the windows on the Turbo Commander are a big selling point for passengers (everything except for the 1000). The superior engineering on the Turbo Commander should be a big selling point for the pilots. The Turbo Commander is similar to Beechcraft as both are 'overbuilt', very tough airplanes. Nothing gets close to cabin room on a King Air.

The Cheyenne II has always seemed to me to be a little cheap, ie a piston twin with turbine engines - and I'm looking from the outside in, never flown one. The pressurization vessel, leaves very little room on the inside - ie it's cramped. The IA, I have heard is a great performer, but even smaller than the II.

If you choose a Turbo Commander, get a -10...or a high time -6, then upgrade it to -10.

The 400LS...is a completely different animal...looks like it's going 300kts on the ramp!

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

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.

i love the -14.

I have played with the Pt6-60 on the BE30 and played with the 331-10 on the Mu2.....The marquise was fun, fast, the KA300 is a much quieter roomier airplane, but the 400LS is a monster when it comes to power and speed. If i had to pick a TP to fly from a Cheyenne 1 to a Piaggio, id take the Mu2 any day of the week, there has to be a way to slap a -14 on a Solitare!

 

[Ultraman]

I'm currently flying a 690D (900) with -10's and a King Air 300. Both flight plan at 295 KTAS.

The Commander is by far a more solid-feeling airplane. The NTS (negative-torque system), if working correctly, will take the prop toward feather in the event of engine loss, just identify and then feather with the condition lever. No big deal.

I hate having to crawl across all the passengers in the King Air to get to the cockpit.

The King Air seems to be a labor-intensive plane what with the ice vanes, auto-feather and all the various other switches that have to be manipulated before take-off and landing.

Just my two cents.

Ultraman

 

[some_dude]

I have been flying Commanders for years, and regularly fly a couple of 690As and a 1000. I've only been in a Cheyenne for a few hours 15 years ago, so I don't have much to go on there.

I like the 690s. They are nice flying airplanes, and as a passenger I always liked the back couch and the picture window. Because of the aft couch and the window, I actually prefer the cabin of the 690 to the 1000 (from a pilot's perspective, the 1000 is much nicer).

They are getting pretty darn old, though. They also don't have the best reputation for hanging together at high speeds in turbulence-- if you end up flying one, don't descend on the barber pole in anything other than absolutely smooth air.

Of course, the Cheyenne IIs are from the same vintage, so I would expect similar maintenance issues. I would guess that parts support for the Commanders might be a little better, though. And if you can get a Commander which has been through the Grand Renaissance program, you'd be getting a very nice airplane.

 

[Lostdog65]

You can get cool pictures like this out of a Commander...not so sure about getting one like this out of a KA...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/Leadfiveone/MiscPics/webmtshastaprop1.jpg

Eric

 

[Peanut gallery]

Biggest concern

From a passenger's perspective not having heat at FL250 is a real problem. The PA-31T has a combustion heater that may or may not start all the time.

 

[Lead Sled]

I've got a lot of time in both the Turbo Commander and the Cheyenne II. There is absolutely NO comparison. The Commander is a real turbine-powered airplane with real performance. The Cheyenne is Piper's attempt at how can we best hang PT-6s on a Navaho without doing anything more than the bare minimum. I'd hate to have to maintain a Cheyenne now, I hear the Commanders are much better. Operationally, the big issue with the Commander is learning how to taxi the beast. It's alway great sport watching guys during their first few attempts. Once you're in the air, there are few airplanes that fly as nice. The Cheyenne isn't one of them.

'Sled

 

[Corona]

You can get cool pictures like this out of a Commander...not so sure about getting one like this out of a KA...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/Leadfiveone/MiscPics/webmtshastaprop1.jpg

Eric

Heh, heh; for a minute I thought that was one of my pictures, until I saw the paint scheme. I've got a bunch of pics like those.

The TC is a nice-flying airplane...once you get it off the ground.

I second the advice about getting the -10 vs the -5 engines. The -10s are by far the engine of choice. You'll get full power on all but 100+ degree days.
The down side is that you'll still have a hot cabin @ FL250 after taking off in 100+ degree wx, because the pressurization sux.

Parts availability is a big problem as others have noticed; probably the same issue with the Cheyenne, though.

The airplane does have some real solid points; landing gear, contiguous wing spar and nice, low center-of-gravity.

Weak points include the damned nose-wheel steering previously mentioned; the rudder spar (too thin) and general high-maintenance.

Commander nearly perfected the airplane in the 1000 series (695A & B), IMO. Too bad, cause that's right when they went out of business.

C

 

[iflyabeech]

I have never flown a 690, but I rode in the back of one the other day to pick up my Cheyenne, and it was reallly loud. I love flying the Cheyenne, it flies really nice and will outrun and outclimb the KingAir. It is kind of small but I thought the 690 was small as well.
I would much rather fly with a good ol reliable PT6 than the garrett

 

[Headwind]

I flew a Cheyenne II about 600 hours and it was just OK. I have more time in a B-200 and it's much more airplane. The Cheyenne II climbs better below 12,000, but who cares? Never flew a 690 but have flown others with 331's and prefer the 331's over a PT-6 hands down.
The Cheyenne II XL is much better than the II. The things I don't care for on the Cheyenne II:
1. Heater
2. SAS
3. Engine inlets are electrically heated (poor design)
4. Too small
5. Can't always get above weather - the -28's play out at low 20's.
6. Heater!!
7. Dukes pressure controller.
8. Door & seats are small. I have had passengers larger than the seats.

Hope this helps, HEADWIND