News: Added Links For Twin Commander and Facebook Pages

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Cheyenne IIIa vs Jetprops  (Read 6975 times)

JimC

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 387
Cheyenne IIIa vs Jetprops
« on: March 12, 2018, 09:32:33 am »
I've seen a lot of posts on forums where people compare a Cheyenne II to a 690A/B.

What about a Cheyenne III vs an 840-5, or Cheyenne IIIa vs a 1000? On paper, the Cheyenne looks like a serious competitor:

Cheyenne IIIa:
305kts at FL220
282kts at FL350
2280' takeoff over 50 ft obstacle
800lbs baggage (300 in cabin)
4400 useful load
560 gallons fuel
massive cabin door (max dimensions 47"x46")
6.3 PSI differential
9 seats in normal config with sliding door lav
2270nm max range w/ 45 min reserve (2055 at maximum cruise power of 282kts)

Prices seem to be in the same ballpark.

Has anyone here flown both?
500B, B200

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3220
Re: Cheyenne IIIa vs Jetprops
« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2018, 12:34:33 pm »
Cheyenne IIIA is a fantastic airplane. I'd probably prefer one over the 400LS. It's also the quietest turboprop I've ever been in. The 1000 is the natural competitor.

It's been many years since I've flown one (and only a few times at that). As I recall, it flew remarkably well.

I would question the claimed speed numbers-- as I recall, it's more like a 270kt airplane, which is still not bad. I don't remember what the fuel burn is, but the range is pretty impressive.

All in all, an excellent airplane. The big issues with it, in my opinion, are support (Piper wishes they would all just go away), PT6s... and that's about it.

In sum, the 1000 is going to perform a bit better, but it's noisier and the cabin is smaller. Support for the 1000 is going to be significantly better. I'm pretty sure the 1000 will burn less fuel for a given trip, but I don't know exactly how much less.

Another close comparison for the Cheyenne is the Merlin IIIB/C. The Merlins are going to be faster and more efficient, with a similar size cabin-- actually a more pleasant cabin geometry, in my opinion, but a little bit noisier.

The final competitor in this group is the Cessna 441, which is almost certainly the best performer of the bunch. It really puts all the others to shame.

I considered a IIIA, 441, and Merlin before getting the 980. The only one I haven't flow is the 441, but everyone I know who has absolutely loved it. In the end, I didn't need, or particularly want, the big cabin of the IIIA or Merlin, and I didn't want to spend the extra money for a 441-- plus I was concerned about support for that airframe as well. Also, I have a Commander service center on my home field, and years of personal experience with Commanders.

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3220
Re: Cheyenne IIIa vs Jetprops
« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2018, 12:38:49 pm »
It's interesting to note that in the early 1980s, Garrett/Honeywell really seemed to be the winner in the turboprop game. On the Garrett side you had:

Commander
Cessna 441
Merlin
Cheyenne 400LS
King Air B100
Mitsubishi

On the PT6 side, you had:

King Air (other than the B100)
Cessna 425
Cheyenne (other than the 400LS)

Yet in the long run, the PT6 ended up with the longevity... other than the Predator, are there any new Garrett aircraft on the market?

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3220
Re: Cheyenne IIIa vs Jetprops
« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2018, 06:04:34 pm »
I have to add, by the way, that of the wealth of riches of 70-80s turboprops, the only one which continues in production is the King Air-- by far the weakest performer and least bang for the buck. Inexplicable...

I've always found the 840/980 cabin to be preferable to the King Air 90 cabin, too... although I will concede that over time the 200, and especially the 300 derivatives, have evolved into a nice airplane. 30 years of development will do that, of course.

Adam Frisch

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1656
    • Adam Frisch FSF
Re: Cheyenne IIIa vs Jetprops
« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2018, 06:15:01 pm »
The problem's with Piper is that, well, they're Pipers... ;)

The only one I would consider is the 400LS. What an incredible performer. But the big block -14's are as pricey as PT-6's to maintain and feed, so at that price point it's almost better to look towards jets... Personally I'd buy a P180 before I'd even look at any of the Pipers, but that's just me.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2018, 06:17:42 pm by Adam Frisch »
Slumming it in the turboprop world - so you don't have to.

Bruce Byerly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 957
Re: Cheyenne IIIa vs Jetprops
« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2018, 06:42:06 pm »
The problem's with Piper is that, well, they're Pipers... ;)

The only one I would consider is the 400LS. What an incredible performer. But the big block -14's are as pricey as PT-6's to maintain and feed, so at that price point it's almost better to look towards jets... Personally I'd buy a P180 before I'd even look at any of the Pipers, but that's just me.

Who wants a p180?  I have a friend who is VERY motivated Sell ...

As to the IIIA, I had a dozen hours in one last year.  It actually surprised me in some ways as better than I remembered.  But no way it’s a 300 knot plane. Easy to load aft, and they call it a Kmart King Air for a thousand reasons. But I kind of got a kick out the old girl for hauling a load from A to B. Far from a rocket like a -10, but it’s probably the best of the deisel powered Navajos.

JMA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
Re: Cheyenne IIIa vs Jetprops
« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2019, 03:28:41 pm »
Can I ask what about 400LS vs 980/1000 Jetprop.
Looks like they were produced around the same time.  Appears the 400 might have a slight speed advantage.
Were original sticker prices close?

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3220
Re: Cheyenne IIIa vs Jetprops
« Reply #7 on: April 27, 2019, 12:29:49 am »
400LS is significantly faster than the 1000, goes higher (FL410 ceiling, and you can actually fly it up there), larger cabin... pretty much all the advantages. I'm sure the list price was significantly higher as well.

The 400LS is why Commander tried to bring out the 1200-- even then, I think the 1200, had it done what they intended it to do (which it did not), would have been slower and flown lower than the 400LS. And of course the cabin would be smaller. The 400LS is just a beast.

The 400LS, however, has expensive engines and props, and poor support from Piper, so today I'd think twice about one.

Adam Frisch

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1656
    • Adam Frisch FSF
Re: Cheyenne IIIa vs Jetprops
« Reply #8 on: April 27, 2019, 12:26:00 pm »
As I understand it the 400LS's engines, the -14's, are "big block" TPE331's. Meaning, they're physically larger. The -12 was the highest powered one they made out of the "small block" engines. One good thing about the -14 is that it has electronic fuel control unit, so no need to overhaul expensive analogue FCU's. Not sure if that makes it actually cheaper to maintain, but probably not. But I never understood why there wasn't a completely electronic FCU as a retrofit for the TPE's? Would make a lot of sense. Overhauling analog FCU's is very expensive.
Slumming it in the turboprop world - so you don't have to.

Bruce Byerly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 957
Re: Cheyenne IIIa vs Jetprops
« Reply #9 on: April 27, 2019, 12:33:42 pm »
All I had to do was look at the electrical system on those things.  Seems like a rats nest of chaffing cables. Hopefully I’m wrong, but I think age is an issue with the Pipers more than others. And support is not even comparable to Commander. Still ended up with some hours in the IIIA over last couple of years and enjoyed it. 275 knots. Long cabin.