Cheyennes - why not popular?

[mzaharis]

It seems to me that, in their day, Cheyennes were not nearly as popular as King Airs and Conquests. Also, on this board, it seems that Cheyennes get relatively little attention. As a non-(current)pilot, I'm a bit baffled as to why this would be the case. Especially the 400 LS, which would seem to be a Citation killer (nearly as fast, better climb, low fuel consumption compared to an early model Citation). Are they maintenance pigs? Delicate? Challenging handlers? Why didn't they catch on better? Bad timing (the 400 LS coming out during the mid-80's GA downturn)?

 

[Tripower455]

I flew a Cheyenne II for a lawyer for a while (250 hrs or so) early on in my career. VERY nice airplane. Handled great, and climbed like a homesick angel.


I can't answer why they weren't/aren't more common though.......

 

[Headwind]

I flew a Cheyenne II about 3 years and it did climb well, but did not fly as good as a King Air. The problems: SAS, has a heater like my Aztec (designed for gasoline & gives problems with kerosene), engine inlet heat is electric, small cabin, poor support from Piper.

HEADWIND

 

[Publishers]

reason

The main reason that they died out was at that class of aircraft, the owner is not the person in the cockpit, they are in the back. Back there, the cabin feel is everything and a King Air was much more comfortable.

I had a King Air and a cheyenne in charter--could not give the Cheyenne away.

 

[jumppilot03]

Good queston. I flew them in the north east on charter and they were always very well received. Fast, hauled a lot and could go into any field. As far at the heater like an Aztek, the IIXL solved that problem with blead air heat. The II is definitly very pitch sensitive even with that silly SAS (stability augmentation system). The IIXL I think is the best of the line. Anyone else flown a IIXL?

 

[414Flyer]

I am currently flying a Cheyenne II (for about 10 more days), and it seems to be a good plane. I can see why it would not go over all that well for charter, since it is just basically a P-Navajo cabin, and a King air 90 might be a bit nicer.

But yeah, it does climb great. I dont care much for the front windows, its about like looking thru tank slits.

 

[Headwind]

When I was flying the II I made some trips in a IIXL and it was an improvement. The bleed air heat and -135 engines and the stretch made it fly like the II should have flown. Anyone looking at a II should look at a IIXL.

HEADWIND

 

[mzaharis]

Thanks for your responses.

 

[Lead Sled]

I flew a Cheyenne II about 3 years and it did climb well, but did not fly as good as a King Air. The problems: SAS, has a heater like my Aztec (designed for gasoline & gives problems with kerosene), engine inlet heat is electric, small cabin, poor support from Piper.

I think that you hit the nail on the hear - the Cheyenne is a classic example of a company doing the absolute bare minimum to convert a piston airframe to turbine power. Like Headwind mentioned, the SAS system, electric engine inlet, and the infamous cabin heater were all issues that could have been resolved with a bit of engineering time. Oops, I forgot about the 55 gallon oil drums that they had to put on each wing tip to give it enough range to go anywhere. For what it was, it was a good airplane.

Lead Sled

 

[414Flyer]

The tip tanks on the II are actually only about 20 gallons a piece.

 

[350DRIVER]

The Cheyenne has always been known as the "poor man's King Air". I have but only a handful of hours in them but given the choice it seems as if most prefer a King Air when it comes to charter given the choice. I still see quite a few Cheyenne's being owner/operator flown under 91. Seems as if there is still that "market" if you can even call it that. You can aquire one much cheaper than what the comparable King Air goes for present day. It is a nice bird and will get the job done under most circumstances for a much cheaper price tag.

I just don't think the Cheyenne ever found it's place in the charter market. I can't even think of more than a handful or so 135 operators that even have them on certificate for charter. Maybe I just live in a cave, dunno!! !!.

3 5 0

 

[jetdriven]

that's why they call them "K-mart Kingairs"

 

[mzaharis]

Yeah, it seems that their performance would appeal to owner/operators, even if their other characteristics rendered them unsuitable for charter or corprorate operations. Guess you can't build a line of turboprop twins focused on the owner/operator market.

 

[Lead Sled]

The tip tanks on the II are actually only about 20 gallons a piece.

Are you sure about that? I thought they were actually a little over 40 gallons each. I may be confusing the Cheyenne II and III - it's been nearly 20 years since I flew either airplane. It doesn't matter - they still had to hang oil drums on the wing to get it to go any where.

'Sled

 

[wildbill]

The Cheyenne II was a fun airplane to fly. Like a little race car, however the problems described above took away from the airplane. I got tired of sitting under a blanket because the heater did not work or taking off in bad weather and the SAS warning would go off. Taking off with the air conditioner on tended to over temp the engine on a hot day. The cheyenne 400LS had major electrical problems from what I have heard in the past. I know of one owner who took his back and told piper to stick it.

 

[414Flyer]

Are you sure about that? I thought they were actually a little over 40 gallons each. I may be confusing the Cheyenne II and III - it's been nearly 20 years since I flew either airplane. It doesn't matter - they still had to hang oil drums on the wing to get it to go any where.

'Sled

yeah, I was looking it up other day in the POH. Its about a 40 gallon difference total, if you do not fill up the tip tanks. I think it was something like 334 if you did not put any in the tips, and 375 total if you did fill up the tips. So comes out to about 20 a tip tank. This is the II, which is actually the first Cheyenne anyways