The Cheyannes I've seen have the spar protruding into the cabin space behind the cockpit? Do all the models have this type of design?

I used to fly a 79' I. It was over 20 years ago but I loved the plane. I like them better than a KA90 but I'm cheap at heart.

Back in the mid 90's we had one of the pt6's O/H at Prat. It was $112,000 back then and I think TBO was 3500 hrs.

I thought it was a great plane. It was a bit on the snug side for me at 6'5".

They all have the spar bet the cabin and cockpit, cabinets sit on it sticks up abt 6 inches. Not or ally a big deal as ur not loitering in that area anyways. I actually like it makes it feel like there is definitely a cabin and cockpit.

The Cheyenne I,II,IA were built for the owner pilot instead of for 135 Charter operations.
That explains why the smaller cabin, but allowed for more speed . Today you can call PIPER and what parts they don't have on the shelf, for a price they will make and supply any parts needed. Best to find used when possible. Timing was just bad for the market Piper approached and never recovered.
My best friend has a II and I have a I, I fly both. The I has 500SHP and the II has 625/650SHP. My Cheyenne I to me was the best step up into a Turbine from my B55 Baron PII, I didn't need a turbine ,but for my missions and the cheaper price, Baron/Cheyenne I , All I need is the great B55 PII but the Cheyenne I pricing gets me into a Pressurized cabin, Turbine reliability, FIKI, cabin room, A/C, speed, range,ect.

Cheap price, my only conclusion was: mostly a owner /pilot used plane in the US, thus a limited market of buyers is my best answer for the low price, our gain to be able to get into a low price low maintenance Turbine Aircraft.
90% of the time-me only, 7% of the time wife and I, 3-4% time 4 of us.
My plane was owned and maintained by the same owner and mechanic for 14 yrs when I bought, my buddy has a II and for the past 17 yrs the same mechanic has serviced both planes. He services KA's and Cheyenne's and loves both.

I don't know of another solid Turbine for the money if it fits your mission.

The comment about Airframe age and value vs engine cost value, plenty engines out there to swap , at these prices the airframe is minimal, money in the engines.

Lastly, the big difference between KA and Cheyenne I,II,IA is the cabin pressure in a KA uses the Fuselage to pressurized the cabin, the Cheyenne pressurizes the CABIN, therefore saving money in manufacturing cost. No gear mandates, fly it , fix it when needed as needed, enjoy a very comfortable solid turbine aircraft.

I had a Flight Safety manual from the Cheyenne if any of you guys are interested in the plane. Let me know if you would like it. I have not seen the manual in years but I will look for it if you think you are serious about the Cheyenne. I can't remember but I think it covered the I, 1A, and II. It would be some serious digging on my part. I can't believe how many years ago I flew that plane. It was my first PIC turbine.

That's one heck of an offer Craig. I was just in South Jersey a month ago. I'm sure I'll be there again before long. When I am I'll give you a shout.

Absolutely, I'm at 919.924.8259.

The Cheyenne does have that hump for the spar, but it's not in the way at all. I really wish there weren't those life limits on the 400LS...

I have a good friend that wants to build turbine time. I am trying to talk him into an older Cheyenne I which will do what he wants. He doesn't want to step up to a jet. If you have a good shop that knows the birds, they are really useful.

Just like all the older turbines, the value is the engines and it is a shame that they aren't worth really investing in avionics, etc.

I was working for ATCO, the west coast Piper distributor back in the late seventies and early eighties. Piper was devleoping the Cheyanne III, a real hot rod, good utility but a shipping tube inside. Its development was delayed early on and the spin from the sales side of the Piper house stated the delay was to lengthen the fuselage three feet to make it more competitive in the corporate market. Widening it may have made it more acceptable, more than one wife nixed sales when they found their asses did not fit between the seats going down the isle.

I asked one of my Vero Beach inside contacts about this fuselage streach. His comment was that was how marketing told them to spin it. In reality when they were completing test flights they would tell the pilot when and what engine they were going to cage but, they could still not keep the aircraft from rolling onto its back at power with one engine caged. They needed to streach the fuselage to give the rudder a bit more athority.

The true hot rod was the 400LS.

Our shop repaired a 400LS in the early ninties that suffered a gear collapse on an overgross ferry flight to New Zealand. Very challenging due to limited parts availability at the time, had to fabricate many skins. Repair took well over six months. Engine reworked and props exchanged at a mind numbing cost. Aircraft left our facility for paint work, was hit by lighning on its way there, lost all avionics displays, did not matter initially as pilot, Lad Cane was temporarily blinded by the lightning flash. When he regained his sight he found airspeed bleeding off, displays started to come back slowly in black and white. Took a bit of time for the him to figure out what was going on with airspeed. Turns out the lighning strike blew the squibs on the gear and it was extended during the event.

Lightning inspection revealed a 3/4 inch hole in one of the right prop blades and exit damage on the horizontal stab. Engine and prop removed for repair, another large sum of money to Dowty Rotal and Honeywell. Another three months before the aircraft made it to NZ.

Been told by maintainers that the III Is kind of junky.

I think the build quality is uniform in the Cheyenne line. Not junky but a different engineering mind set at Piper. It is Ford/Mercedes thing, they both get the job done, reasonably robust primary structure though Piper thoughout their models will often utilize a steel bracket at load points where others may use a more sophisticated casting. Many of the systems are equally less sophisicated, still a good airplanes and good performers but, like Cherokee v Bonanza you can tell how much went into it when you work on them.

Pretty simple systems on the I and II basically a Navajo w set of pt-6's on them. Eg 4 fuel cells as opposed to something like 22 on a commander.

The spar is definitely out of the way. People in the cabin would not notice it. On the heater issue, my seller put in the electric auxiliary heat mod. I've never used it. He says he learned a different procedure with the combustion heater after which he never had problems -- activate the Heater Fuel switch at low altitude, preferably shortly after take-off. He got 100% heater reliability after using this technique, so I follow it also. The environmental system has been trouble free for me – heater, air conditioning and pressurization. On the auto setting, the temp control is set and forget, never had to adjust it summer or winter or at altitude.

The Cheyennes have a combustion heater? Really?

Why would anyone do that with bleed air from the turbine engines? A combustion heater is dangerous and troublesome compare to simple bleed air.

One of the reasons I went turboprop instead of piston twin was a strong dislike of the combustion heater concept. I've heard too many stories of fuel leaks, fires, fail to start, overheats, fan problems for me to want such a thing.

MU2 has ACM. Mixed air provides heat or cooling as required. Simple, reliable, and I haven't touched the controls for years, it just does the right thing, summer or winter, ground or altitude. Only negative is that ACM doesn't work without engine, so no precool.

Mike C.

The Cheyennes have a combustion heater? Really?

Why would anyone do that with bleed air from the turbine engines? A combustion heater is dangerous and troublesome compare to simple bleed air.

One of the reasons I went turboprop instead of piston twin was a strong dislike of the combustion heater concept. I've heard too many stories of fuel leaks, fires, fail to start, overheats, fan problems for me to want such a thing.

MU2 has ACM. Mixed air provides heat or cooling as required. Simple, reliable, and I haven't touched the controls for years, it just does the right thing, summer or winter, ground or altitude. Only negative is that ACM doesn't work without engine, so no precool.




Mike C.