840 real world full fuel payloads

[JimC]

An 840 has a MGRW of 10375 lbs and a MGTOW of 10325 lbs.

It carries 3175 lb of fuel with full long range tanks.

The marketing weight is way down around 6300 lbs, but it seems most of the real world planes are much closer to 7000 lbs.

So if I take my 200 lb rear end and put it in a 7000 lb 840 with full tanks. I can't even take a toothbrush. I can buy a toothbrush when I arrive, but I can't buy a wife.

Are 840s really that fat? Do people just load them with a wink, wink?

And yes, I do need all that fuel fairly often - otherwise, I'd be looking at something cheaper.

[donv]

The official marketing brochure I have for the 840 lists empty weight as 6,702 pounds. That's before any options, of course. Incidentally, the 980 is shown as 6,801.

So 7000 is pretty reasonable. I think none of them were actually 6700 pounds even when new. Mine is right about 7,000 pounds now, and is pretty light-- no super sound proofing or heavy avionics.

My airplane, for unknown reasons, won't hold more than about 2850 pounds of fuel (and yes, it has the long range tanks). So it's not a big issue for me, and my wife doesn't like to be stuck in the airplane that long anyway-- so most of the time that I fill the tanks, it's just me.

3175 pounds gives you a real world endurance of 6 hours... that's a pretty long time, in a Commander. I can get 5+ hours out of my 2850 pounds, and have done so many times. One scenario where I do fill it up is if I am going somewhere which doesn't have fuel available, and I need to tanker some.

Ultimately, if you need to carry passengers and use the full 3,175 pounds on a regular basis, I would suggest that a 1000 is the right airplane. It will do that no problem.

[JimC]

I don't need to fill the plane with passengers at max range. 600-700 lbs would be nice. 400lbs is a minimum. I can go 4 hours easily, 5 isn't too bad and I've done several 6 hour flights. My wife's endurance exceeds mine by hours. For me, the point of going farther is to skip fuel stops (and thus go faster.)

Did you do anything to lighten your plane? Has it ever weighed significantly more or less while you've owned it?

My numbers are calculated for a 840-5. An 840-10 would fit my needs well.

I'd be happy to get a 1000 or a 840-10 if I can just borrow your wallet for a second.

[Steve binnette]

I always thought if there were more Commanders out there somebody would have come up with a paperwork GW increase.

Something like the HALO STC for king airs.

The king air 250 has the same problem. A load of fuel Max’s it out.

[SKYFLYER]

I agree with Steve on the "paper" GW increase as there is more than ample data out there to justify it, but there just is not enough serial numbers flying in the fleet to pay for all the paperwork it would take.

As an example:

This 900 converted to a 695A ferried from the West Coast into the Pacific with a ferry permit allowing 12,015 pounds.

Not that anyone would ever admit to anything, but I think the aircraft was closer to 13,000 (6.5 tons) after all the survival gear and odds and ends.

So based on all the various long haul ferry permits issued over the past 50+ years a min 500 pound increase across the board would not seem unreasonable.  Of course this is all star gazing and hoping the cows come home as well.

The factory model comparison for the 1000 is the 695A model

[Bruce Byerly]

As the wise old pilot once told me “son, any plane that can carry more than a pilot with full fuel doesn’t have enough fuel.”

6 pax 900 miles or top it off and go 1600.  At least you have the flexibility.

[donv]

When I did my avionics upgrade in 2012, we removed all the old wiring. I think the airplane lost about 150 pounds of weight in that process.

Remember, also, that 5 hours at 300 knots takes you a lot further than 5 hours at 200 knots!

Did you do anything to lighten your plane? Has it ever weighed significantly more or less while you've owned it?

My numbers are calculated for a 840-5. An 840-10 would fit my needs well.

I'd be happy to get a 1000 or a 840-10 if I can just borrow your wallet for a second.

[Steve binnette]

If I am not mistaken if my plane was operated on a 135 certificate in Alaska the FAA would allow it to operate at 115% of GW.

[donv]

Jim, what are some of the legs you envision flying? Maybe we could figure out what the fuel requirements might be, and how the weights would work.

[JimC]

I  used to live on the east coast. My piston twin did well getting me to all of my different business sites. The exception was the New England->FL trip, which required a fuel stop coming and going.

Now I moved much farther west and most of my business is still east. I have 3 different likely east coast destinations, each of which is just under 1400nm. My no-wind calcs show that to be about a 2500lb flight in a 840-5, so with a 475lb reserve I have about 400lbs of payload - just two people and bags.

Sure, there's a tailwind right now, but it's not there every day. I accept that there will be a refueling stop going westbound on all but the most unusual days.

I understand that adage about "any payload more than the pilot is excess" but "pilot + 3 people + light bags" is a very reasonable payload for a twin turboprop. I was hoping to find something that would carry that load 1400nm regularly. The Cheyenne IIIa would do it. It burns more fuel, but carries almost 90 more gallons and flies up at FL350. The IIIa has so much more fuel it would make the return trip nonstop almost 1/2 the time. Unfortunately, it's a runway hog and I have several sub 3500' strips I want to use.

And I know there are a chorus of "I'd much rather have a JetProp than a Cheyenne" comments coming, but the truth is if you take a Cheyenne and a Commander with the same equipment and performance, the Cheyenne will be much cheaper to acquire. SOme of them are about $200k apart, and that buys a LOT of JetA and a HSI or two.

[Bruce Byerly]

Jim,

Cheyenne IIIA Vs a Commander 840?  For an owner pilot, and I don’t mean to be flip but it’s like comparing a Chevy Malibu to a Porsche 911. They both have their place.

FL350 in a IIIA? Are there any of those so certified out there?

I have 25 hours in a IIIA in the not so distant past.  It’s an interesting plane but I’m not sure where you are getting your info. Most concerning are aging issues with Navajo and Cheyenne electrical systems.  And if you are basing your decision on $200k price differentials on the Internet, then you probably should reconsider your acquisition plan.  An equivalent Commander (a 900 or 1000 is more direct comparison)  is worth way more than $200,000 more than a IIIA. Come see and fly the Commander, and we”ll fly you to see and fly my friends nice IIIA.   You can then make an informed decision.

[donv]

IIIA is a very nice airplane-- I think we have a thread around here comparing the two. It's my favorite of the Cheyenne series (yes, even over the 400LS). The Cheyennes have some real disadvantages, though, starting with product support. Piper would prefer that they all disappeared...

Realistically,  you are always going to have some wind. With my 2850 pounds of fuel, I can do 1500 miles with a slight tailwind, or even no wind-- HIO-SUS is a leg I do about once a year, and I can always make it nonstop eastbound, and once in a while westbound-- 1,489 nm. If I had 3200 pounds, I could probably make it westbound a higher percentage of the time... but it is another hour.

A 441 would be another way to go, but I believe that would be even more than a 695B, and honestly at that point, the 695B is really hard to beat.

[JimC]

re: FL350
I believe all IIIas are certified to that height (assuming RVSM work, of course.) Source: Friend Aircare.
https://www.friendaircare.com/sites/friendaircare.com/files/2019-06/CHEYENNE%20IIIA%20%20SPEC_PERF.pdf
The III is certified to FL330, although it can rarely get there. I don't have a IIIa manual in front of me, I bet it can't get to FL350 in summer.

re: Malibu vs 911
Absolutely. But overall, I'm the kind of guy who drives a Malibu instead of a 911 and puts the remaining money to work. I don't need "the perfection of flight", I just need to be "not uncomfortable."

re: IIIa vs 840 vs 1000.
I'm trying to compare planes at vaguely similar price points as well as performance levels. Yes, any 1000 is multiple 100k more than the best IIIa. It seems the III is a good comparison to an 840-5 and the IIIa compares to an 840-10. The problem with a III is that the hot & high performance is pretty abysmal. I moved to a hot & high airport (DA over 10,000 ft at times.) The IIIa and 840-5 have enough H&H performance for me; anything else is gravy on top.

re: passenger comfort in the back
I know the Pipers aren't known for being nice. But I don't sit in the back, and the friends who will sit back there have never been in anything nicer. My "competition" is coach class on AA and a 3 hour layover at LaGuardia, not a King Air. The bar's not very high.

re: aging and support
Now we're talking. What I'm really interested in - which is the better value? Just on paper, the IIIa looks like it beats an 840-10 in performance and is cheaper to buy. But after 5 or 10 years, which is the better deal? How often is the Piper down for mx vs the Jetprop? How long are the mx events? Which one will get me from A to B and back again most often and most economically?

[SKYFLYER]

Seems I have read all this not that long ago when Glen was stewing over his issues that just about match your's. All be it piston not turboprop and he ended up with a Beech 18.

[JimC]

My airplane, for unknown reasons, won't hold more than about 2850 pounds of fuel (and yes, it has the long range tanks).

<scratches head>

Ummm...I'm not sure how to tell you this...but...

The factory planes with standard fuel hold 425 gallons of useable fuel. Long range planes hold 474 gallons useable fuel.

At 6.7 lbs/gallon, that's 2,847 lbs and 3,175 lbs, respectively. 2847 is very, very close to "about 2850."

It sure sounds like you don't have long range tanks. Maybe there's another explanation?