Hello. New here. Anyone have Cheyenne III or IIIA experience? Preferably comparable experience? I would like to understand the performance differences between the two. Also useful load comparisons. And since we are in the heart of the King Airs, how does King Air 200 compare to the Cheyenne III or IIIA? I own a Cheyenne I and contemplating an upgrade. Any help would be appreciated.

I have heard that the III is a bit of a dog and lacks in the useful load category compared to the IIIA. Being part 91, I do think it is appealing that the III with the -41/42 engine has the ability to be put on the MORE program to go beyond TBO. Also, I think I could run the Cheyenne IIIA’s -61 engine beyond TBO for a period of time as well, even though it cannot be put on the MORE program. Just looking to see if anyone has thoughts on this scenario as well.

How does the Cheyenne compare to the KA 200? I know, lots here, but I think I am in the right place to get some answers.

Thanks!

Part 91 I thought didn’t need the MORE program, but could simply run beyond TBO, continuing to do HSIs on the normal schedule. I thought MORE was for Part 135 operators primarily.

Is that not the case?

You are correct. I probably could have worded that better.

Anyone have Cheyenne III or IIIA experience? It seems more likely to get feedback in the “turbines” section, but I don’t want to get hollered at for talking about Brand “X” in that forum.

Len -

I only have very limited experience around the IIIA, which in general is considered to be the best airplane Piper ever put out. Very fast with good useful load (won't catch the 400, but is an honest 300 KTAS airplane). Much more range than small body Cheyennes.

As I understand, the -61's are unique to the Cheyenne IIIA, and are spendy to repair. Not only are they not eligible for MORE, but you don't have many options for spares or used replacement engines if that is of any importance to you. Factor that into the purchase price and you're fine.

King Air 200 noticeably larger cabin volume, Beech build quality, lots of shops know them. Direct performance comparisons depend on which flavor 200, but the only straight 200 I have some touch with wouldn't match the speed / payload / range of the IIIA. Later ones probably do better.

Hopefully someone with better knowledge speaks up - thought I'd give you what I could.

My general take from being a voracious turbine wannabe reader is that an airplane with common small block pt6’s is going to be much more economical than your model only big blocks.

I own a -III, and we have a -IIIA on the field.

Both are phenomenal airplanes. Mine goes about 280KTAS on 85 gph. It will haul a pilot+6 800nm. Once you're in it, most pax like the Cheyenne's better than the Kkng Airs because the bigger windows make it feel more open.

Parts are a concern for the aging Piper's, but I've had no problems. And the parts are much cheaper than Beech parts. The long fuselage airplanes are MUCH more pleasant to fly and especially to land.

All in all, the -III will haul as much as a -200 25 kts faster, and the -IIIA will almost keep time with a -300 for a fraction of the purchase price and a considerablely lower operating costs.

I am very happy with the -III

Len,
I owned a Cheyenne I for 7 years and a Cheyenne IIIA for 12 years. Before the Cheyenne airplanes I was Beech owner for 11 years. (V-35B 2years, Barron 2years, Duke 7years).

I currently own/fly a B200, BB-1586, with -61 engines and G1000NXi, with close to 800hrs in 4years, 4months.

The Cheyenne IIIA is great airplane it is faster and climbs better than the B200. Our Cheyenne IIIA had twin G600s and G530w. The downside to the IIIA is parts and finding good shop close to you location to work on it. Also the analog autopilot did not interface very well with the G600s. That is why we sold it for the B200 that we currently own.

Also, my wife flys and she flew the Duke, the Cheyennes, and the King Air. She grew up flying Beech products Bos and Barons, and she likes the B200 the way in flys, the room in it, and G1000.

When we were looking to replace the Cheyenne IIIA we flew PC12, and JCs. I did not have the room in the cockpit that needed, I am 6’5”, to be comfortable, plus, when I first flew B200 I knew I was in a Beech product, it flys better than the Cheyennes.

I look at it this way, flying the B200 is like putting on an old pair of jeans, it is comfortable and great way to travel.

However things could change for us, I am 70 and my wife is 66, we will not be able to fly ourselves some day, what type of airplane or program that would bring I am not sure.

If you have any other question PM me.
Larry Smith

Thank you for the info Doug. Why did you decide on the III vs. the IIIA?

The -III belonged to a friend/customer. I knew the airplane. It was kind of an impulse buy...

Doug,

When in cruise flight, what is your limitation? Is it NG, torque, or ITT? I have a friend who flys a -III, and it seems his limitation is NG. I my -I, my limitation is IIT when I am above FL180. Never been close to NG limitation.

Apologies for slight thread drift but what about the Cheyenne II? They look to be a fairly cheap entry into the TP world----but is that for a reason??

I am happy to start another thread if that is more appropriate??


Matt

[quote="Matthew May"]Apologies for slight thread drift but what about the Cheyenne II? They look to be a fairly cheap entry into the TP world----but is that for a reason??

I am happy to start another thread if that is more appropriate??


Matt[/quote
Great airplane owned mine for nine years. Came out of a baron. Not a lot of people on this forum that own them and everybody seems talk up their own plane. operating costs at 100-110hrs per yr sans fuel $500 per hour. Fuel about $300 per hour. People scared of parts availability, never had a problem in all my years of ownership. I don’t really worry about it as there are a lot of airframes still in service. great advantage of this plane also is it’s simplicity which translates into less things breaking. Relatively fast and efficient, in the mid to high 20s anywhere between 240 to 265 kn depending on altitude weight and temperature.

Thanks Philip----was just looking at what seems like the cheapest entry point into the TP world and so far, I have heard positive things about them. Thanks again!!




Matt

Len,

I have never seen it temp out on T/O. Torque is always limiting, might be different on a hot day in Denver. And we use about 715 as a cruise temp limit, I think redline is 740. Typical cruise is FL 250-280 and most of the time that is with the levers at the stops. Occasionally you have to pull back a bit to stay below 720, but not usually.

It's a great machine.