Cheyenne II vs. Commander 690B

[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

 

[iflyabeech]

I have had my Cheyenne II at FL270 and it does great. Above that, RVSM realistically pretty much takes care of all of the older turboprops. Don't have to worry about the heater since I am in FL. You never have to mess with SAS system. Engine inlet heat works well. The dukes pressure controller sucks big time. Seats are normal sized and comfortable. Cabin is kind of small. I do not have a cargo door but door size is not a problem for pax. I have had passengers larger than any seat I have ever seen before.

 

[Lead Sled]

I would much rather fly with a good ol reliable PT6 than the garrett

FWIW, I've come real close a couple of times to having to shut down PT-6s in flight. I've never had any type of issue with the Garretts. I've got friends that have thousands of hours behind both engines and their my experience echos theirs as well. I think this whole thing about Garretts being troublesome goes back to the early days of the "pre-century" series engines; but that was what? 40 years ago?

'Sled

 

[jergar999]

Both engines are wonderfully reliable. With a PT-6 on the the MORE program, I believe you can go 8000 hours between major overhauls with a Hot Section Inspection at 4000 if you follow certain protocols and do oil analysis and some other odds and ends. The Garretts can go 5400 with a hot section at 2700.

I have flown both, and my first experience with the Garretts were -10s on a Metroliner with questionable maintenance. The operator was cheap on batteries and didn't have a battery cart or GPU, so it was common to see hot starts, and poor maintenance led to other problems with the SRL comp and fuel limiter. I now fly a Commander that gets new batteries every year and has major maintenance done at Eagle Creek, and I have yet to see an engine misbehave. The PT-6 has always been rock solid, the only thing I have ever had happen was a diaphragm in the P3 valve broke shortly before takeoff. I aborted the takeoff, and it was repaired. Overall, neither engine gives me pause.

 

[$$$4nothin]

Go with the Commander. They look so much cooler. STYLE counts.

 

[pilotyip]

How they look usually reflects how they fly. If they look sleek and fast they are normally neat to fly.

 

[rchcfi]

Thanks everyone for your opinions. I just returned from Flight Safety and have to say I am excited to get my hands on the real thing.

I do have a question for real world operations though. How many of you that have flown them did that Overspeed Governor check before taking the props off the locks? Seems to me as you would piss off about everyone within 5 miles with that test on the ramp. Is there a way to do it after taxiing away? I was told by some people that they never did it. I was wondering what other "real world" tricks you've used in general.

Thanks!

 

[pilotyip]

The overspeed gov't check is not like a mag check, it does not have to be done every flight. I can remember doing them, but I do not thing there was any set interval. Also I do not think you can taxi with props locked, they are in the zero thrust position.

 

[rchcfi]

Also I do not think you can taxi with props locked, they are in the zero thrust position.

After I posted that I realized I had answered my own question. Once you take the props off the locks, the only way to get them back on the locks is to shut the engines down. And you are correct sir, if you try to taxi with the props on the locks, you'll just be making a lot of noise.

 

[Lead Sled]

Also I do not think you can taxi with props locked, they are in the zero thrust position.

I didn't think you could do it either until I was sitting in the back of an old Horizon Metroliner on a flight out of Portland Oregon a few years ago. Everything seemed routine from where I was sitting, but I was half asleep and not paying much attention. Evidently we had been cleared for takeoff prior to getting to the end of the runway - the crew kept it rolling at a pretty good clip and brought up the power. The next thing I knew we were about 45 degrees to the runway centerline and heading for the weeds. The crew immediately aborted and taxied off the runway. As they were taxiing back to the approach end you heard them take the props into reverse three or four times. Evidently, they didn't catch it the first time around back on the ramp.

I would have thought that you could tell by the power required that something wasn't quite kosher. Someone once told me that you got something along the lines of 75 hp out the back of a -10. (The Metro's -11 is basically just a -10 with the inlet on top.) I would imagine that if you really wanted to, you could keep both props on the locks and run the power up. The equivilent of 150 hp ought to get something moving.

'Sled

 

[jergar999]

I didn't think you could do it either until I was sitting in the back of an old Horizon Metroliner on a flight out of Portland Oregon a few years ago. Everything seemed routine from where I was sitting, but I was half asleep and not paying much attention. Evidently we had been cleared for takeoff prior to getting to the end of the runway - the crew kept it rolling at a pretty good clip and brought up the power. The next thing I knew we were about 45 degrees to the runway centerline and heading for the weeds. The crew immediately aborted and taxied off the runway. As they were taxiing back to the approach end you heard them take the props into reverse three or four times. Evidently, they didn't catch it the first time around back on the ramp.

I would have thought that you could tell by the power required that something wasn't quite kosher. Someone once told me that you got something along the lines of 75 hp out the back of a -10. (The Metro's -11 is basically just a -10 with the inlet on top.) I would imagine that if you really wanted to, you could keep both props on the locks and run the power up. The equivilent of 150 hp ought to get something moving.

'Sled

I have a similar story, my first ride in a Metro I thought for sure would be my last. NWS was an afterthought so a nasty old joystick-like tiller had been added above the armrest on the left side. It was bitter cold, the taxiway and runway were sheets of ice, and to make it a trifecta the pilot had very few hours in Metros, one orientation flight and one 135 check/type ride. He hadn't finished IOE or anything, but this was a 91 maintenance leg. To make a long story short, he taxied the thing all over the short taxiway, made some checks, lined up, and the next thing I knew we were sideways at a high rate of speed. I remember thinking that had there been a single dry spot on the runway and had we found it with the wheels it would have been disastrous.