• This site moved from forums.flightinfo.com to flightinfo.com. Please update your bookmarks.

Experienced PIPER CHEYENNE II pilots??

skyking328

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2002
Posts
12
Total Time
5600
Hey I was hoping to get a pilots perspective on the PIPER CHEYENNE II. My folks are getting ready to retire and will need some transportation. I have been out of the GA loop for too long and the airlines have turned my brain to mush.
Any info would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
 

Timebuilder

Entrepreneur
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
4,625
Total Time
1634
I have some friends who operate one.

The plane's detractors call it a turbine Navajo, and there is a grain of truth there. Just like a Chieftain, you bend over to walk down the isle.

I'd consider a C90B instead. More headroom, added flight stability. Still, the Cheyenne II is a big improvement over the Cheyenne I.

Hope that helps.
 

Burt Gutherie

Active member
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
31
Total Time
5500
Pa-31T

The C-90B is fine, but for speed and economics the Cheyenne II is a good aircraft. Raytheaon parts are very expensive. The Cheyenne is a hot rod. You do give up some space in the cabin. Read last months Flying magazine, it will give you a good insight about small turbine twins.
 

knelson

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
184
Total Time
not mu
I don't have much time in the c-90, but just ehough to know that it is really underpowered on a warm day with any kind of load. The Cheyenne II is a good airplane for what it was designed for. I have heard a lot of horror stories on the "lack of parts" for older Piper aircraft. I personally have not had a problem and I don't know any operators that have. It's always "i used to know a guy that had a friend who flew a Cheyenne and they were always having problems getting parts." you know how it is. I hear a bit of trash talking about the Cheyenne I also, but personally, the later model Cheyenne I's have a little different electrical system on them and with not much horsepower difference added to the fact that it is the same fuselage, there really is not much difference in performance. As far as the be90's go, again I don't have much experience there, but I know that they burn a little more fuel and go slower. As previously mentioned though, you have to give up a little more cabin room. Good luck with your choice. . . it's a buyers market.

knelson
 

Timebuilder

Entrepreneur
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
4,625
Total Time
1634
Good replies.

I know what you mean about old Piper parts. One of our customers landed one of the Seneca 1's with the right gear up last year, and it took a while to find a right side flap for the repair.

Both the Cheyenne and the C90B are part of a 135 op, and the customers prefer the Beech, mostly for comfort. Your family might prefer the Beech too.
 

skyking328

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2002
Posts
12
Total Time
5600
Thanks

Hey guys thanks for all of your input. It can be very difficult to get a consensus on a particular airplane. I should know having flown MU2s for a few years. Pilots either love certain airplanes or they hate em. I liked the MU2 but do not care to fly one 2 or 3 times a month. I want someting a little more pilot friendly.
Again thanks for all the help!
 

FearlessFreep

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2002
Posts
330
Total Time
??????
When the Cheyenne's first came out the Cheyenne II was actually the first model. There were some perceived pitch stability problems that related to pitch feedback inasmuch that the pitch forces did not correspond to what was considered "normal" for that class of aircraft. If I remember correctly there were a number of crashes that was attributed to this situation.

To remedy this condition Piper installed a "Stability Augmentation System" referred to as "SAS". The SAS system consists of a spring, bobweights, actuator,SAS vane and computer that would vary the elevator load for airspeed and angle of attack. An operative SAS is a go/no go item.

This system is pretty typical in larger part 25 aircraft and was not usually seen in part 23 aircraft , so it created some consternation. Piper then created the Cheyenne I, which had less powerful engines. I do not remember the rating but 580 eshp seems to come to mind. The installation of these engines negated the requirement for SAS, so this was accomplished to salvage the marketing disaster of the original Cheyenne.

The Cheyenne II has PT6-27's which are rated at 620 eshp and this represents a fair amount more power. You might want to check with an insurance company to see what kind of differences in rates there are for the Cheyenne I vs the II.

On a side note: I have flown the II in rather adverse conditions, specifically ferrying the aircraft overseas (tanks, overweight, etc.) It was a bit squirrely in those conditions, when operated normally it seemed fine. It was also rumored that there were a number of pilots that would operate with the SAS system either inop, or deactivated. The important note here is that you would have to operate the aircraft with strict adherence to airspeed readings as your pitch feedback will not correspond to what you would experience in other aircraft operated under the same conditions.

Have fun!
 

Timebuilder

Entrepreneur
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
4,625
Total Time
1634
Great post, Fearless!

I was headed out to the flight school this morning, and I didn't want to take the time that you did to go into the pitch problem.
In addition, I should have clearly stated first and second versions of the Cheyenne, instead of simply one and two.

Good info.
 

knelson

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
184
Total Time
not mu
Cheyenne 1

dusted off the 'ole manual today for the Cheyenne 1 and it has PT6-11a's on it at 500shp. Man, if I had only done some research when I was in school. . .

good luck on your search and by the way fearless, great post.

knelson
 
Top