banner
banner

19 Jun 2021, 15:25 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Greenwich AeroGroup (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2021, 22:31 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 1751
Post Likes: +1867
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
Username Protected wrote:
For the TBM and the Meridian that did suffer an inflight breakup, they had one thing in common, they were dead before the plane broke, up, because they had lost control, and far exceeded the certified performance envelope of the aircraft.

concur.


57? Really? My M600 was built at the end the 2018, and is serial number 98. And yeah, the Meridian/M500 is around 700 airframes.
_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2021, 22:48 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 10/11/10
Posts: 499
Post Likes: +181
Location: Lincoln Park, NJ
Aircraft: Bonanza - 1997 A36TN
Username Protected wrote:

If you are looking at SETPs, you’d be remiss not to look at the TBM700C2. Great performer. Less than the m600, does more.


From what I understand the TBM is significantly more expensive to maintain with several expensive time related not hour related items. If I'm wrong let me know. The TBM is a great plane though.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2021, 23:56 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 06/17/14
Posts: 3374
Post Likes: +1122
Location: KJYO
Aircraft: FF-AX7, C-182, BE-95
Mike makes too much sense. Even the Grumman Tiger/Gulfstream Tiger (AA-5B) has a 12,000 hour life limit and it has never gone down. It's peculiar to see the hours go down after certification. Usually they go up. It would be interesting to see why they went down.
The M500 has life limitations from EASA in excess of 10,000 hours and 15,000 hours dependent upon the airframe.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... e%2014.pdf

Someone tossed a turd into the punch bowl. ...wonder what it is.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 25 Apr 2021, 07:59 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 06/09/09
Posts: 4243
Post Likes: +2851
Aircraft: C182P, Merlin IIIC
Username Protected wrote:


Also much less prone to have the wings ripped off in case of inadvertent CB penetration.


Why would you say that??


This is why I (and many others) would say that.

viewtopic.php?f=41&t=195156

The PA46 and its variants (of which the M600 is one) have a history of inflight breakup.

I read the M600 has a stronger redesigned wing so it hopefully will not add to those numbers, but it is still a turboprop with piston heritage.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 25 Apr 2021, 08:28 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 03/15/16
Posts: 605
Post Likes: +264
Location: Charlotte NC
Aircraft: Piper Mirage
None of the inflight pa-46 break ups are from a faulty airframe design. Please see the article below. The airframe is sound. Wings don’t flutter until 600kias. Tail at 1000 kias. Tail breaks off at 9G’s (after the pilot goes unconscious).

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... ibu-mirage

Val


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 25 Apr 2021, 12:23 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 08/12/08
Posts: 6514
Post Likes: +1502
Company: Retired
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Aircraft: '76 A36 TAT TN 550
The very low wing life limit is a real black mark on the long term viability record of an M600.

Hopefully Piper will address that very soon.

Otherwise I suspect a lot of M600’s will simply be traded back into Piper for new ones and let Piper figure out what to do with the airframes.

It’s interesting that I haven’t seen this mentioned anywhere but here on BT.

If I were in the market for a SETP this is absolutely information I would want to know.

_________________
ABS Life Member


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 25 Apr 2021, 12:29 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 1751
Post Likes: +1867
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
Username Protected wrote:
The very low wing life limit is a real black mark on the long term viability record of an M600.

Hopefully Piper will address that very soon.

Otherwise I suspect a lot of M600’s will simply be traded back into Piper for new ones and let Piper figure out what to do with the airframes.

It’s interesting that I haven’t seen this mentioned anywhere but here on BT.

If I were in the market for a SETP this is absolutely information I would want to know.


Not mentioned, because it is a non-issue. Piper sent a letter to all the owners, and said it is simply that they need to complete the fatigue testing, and expect to achieve at least what the M500 has as to limits. The wing is substantially overbuilt.

_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 25 Apr 2021, 12:35 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 1751
Post Likes: +1867
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
Username Protected wrote:



I read the M600 has a stronger redesigned wing so it hopefully will not add to those numbers, but it is still a turboprop with piston heritage.


There is not a single interchangeable part to my knowledge between an M600 and a Malibu.

The TBM 700 also started life as a piston aircraft. The Mooney 301. Look familiar?

Attachment:
1.jpg


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.

_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 25 Apr 2021, 13:06 
Offline


 WWW  Profile

Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 13363
Post Likes: +16329
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEVV
Aircraft: MU-2B-26, C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Piper sent a letter to all the owners, and said it is simply that they need to complete the fatigue testing, and expect to achieve at least what the M500 has as to limits.

Can you provide a copy of that letter?

Quote:
The wing is substantially overbuilt.

Then why was the wing lifetime revised downward in the latest TCDS revision, just 4 months ago? Did the Piper letter explain that change?

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 25 Apr 2021, 15:02 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5315
Post Likes: +2231
Aircraft: Warbirds
Username Protected wrote:
The TBM 700 also started life as a piston aircraft. The Mooney 301. Look familiar?

The only Mooney remnant in its legacy is the M in TBM.
What could've been.

_________________
Be careful what you ask for, your mechanic wants to sleep at night.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 25 Apr 2021, 15:20 
Online


 WWW  Profile

Joined: 08/24/13
Posts: 4782
Post Likes: +1796
Company: Aviation Tools / CCX
Location: KSMQ New Jersey
Aircraft: TBM700C2
Username Protected wrote:
The TBM 700 also started life as a piston aircraft. The Mooney 301. Look familiar?

The only Mooney remnant in its legacy is the M in TBM.
What could've been.


The the TBM long flaps with short ailerons/spoilers originated on the 301.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 30 Apr 2021, 14:37 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 01/08/17
Posts: 254
Post Likes: +159
Aircraft: F33A
Username Protected wrote:
Down the line it will definitely be much harder to sell and get your money back out of the Cheyenne than the m600.


If you are buying it right, you should not be much more than $150k over the value of the engines. That is a pretty easy exit in the worst case scenario.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 30 Apr 2021, 14:43 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 01/08/17
Posts: 254
Post Likes: +159
Aircraft: F33A
Username Protected wrote:
If you're a non-pilot, which of these inspires more confidence and comfort?

As someone who is pondering the purchase of a 40-year-old jet, I can say that it would not cost very much to have that Cheyenne interior look like the M600. Passengers will get that "new airplane smell." Exterior paint is not cheap but if you care about such things, you can have the latest fashions in exteriors as well. Avionics upgrades are another order of magnitude of course, but IMO, plenty of airline cockpits still look like the Cheyenne one and people still get on them. Plus, that Cheyenne panel can be upgraded more cheaply as technology changes in the future. W/ the M600, you could become orphaned w/ the current tech since it is all integrated into one monolithic and proprietary system.

For the OP, you should try and fly both of them and see which one you like to fly. You're going to be spending a lot of time in that seat, so get the one that is the most comfortable.

Finally, if you like to tinker and have the time, the Cheyenne can be rewarding. You will be free to make the changes that suit you, on the schedule you want. If you don't have the time or don't like doing that kind of stuff, get the M600. It will "just work."


And the Cheyenne interior is quite a bit larger in the comparison to the M600 than those pictures suggest. The Cheyenne has a huge aft cabin baggage area, a potty (7th seat in a pinch). The Cheyenne also has a decent size nose baggage area. The Cheyenne will do six comfortably. The M600 is going to be much tighter for the people and the baggage.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 30 Apr 2021, 14:51 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 01/08/17
Posts: 254
Post Likes: +159
Aircraft: F33A
Username Protected wrote:
On resale likely to lose more on the newer airframe. MX from what I’ve learned would most likely be a wash if the cheyanne is actively flown and maintained.


From what I have heard first hand from a Piper dealer who shall remain unnamed - the yearly maintenance on a Cheyenne that is well maintained on purchase is equal or very likely less than the Meridian.

If you buy in the lower 3/4 of the market, all bets are off as far as what it takes to put the plane into shape in the first place!


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2021

.CiESVer2.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.STLAir_85x50.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.Expert_Aircraft_Solution_85x50.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.kingairdom.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.aspen-85x100.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.airpower-85x50.jpg.
.methodseven-85x50.jpg.
.southseas-85x50-2021.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.concorde.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.Flaremeter_85x50_v2.png.
.SCA.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.bkool-85x50-2014-08-04.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.avionicssource-85x50.jpg.
.avidyne-85x50-2017-11-22.jpg.
.dynon-85x50.jpg.
.greenwich-85x50-2020-08-10.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.Davis_Aviation_85x50.jpg.
.jaair-85x100.jpg.
.EagleFuelCellsTriple.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.dbm.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.garmin-85x200-2021-05-24.jpg.
.McPeck_85x50.jpg.
.SierraTrax_85x50.jpeg.
.truecourse.jpg.
.rtc-85x200.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.instar.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.heartlandsm.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.echelon-85x50.png.
.ps_engineering.gif.
.Microkit_85x50.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.westsky.jpg.
.dshannon.jpg.