29 Mar 2024, 03:05 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600 Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 08:12 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/05/09 Posts: 4946 Post Likes: +4785
Aircraft: G44, C501, C55, R66
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Most of the Cheyenne IIs on controller have engines near TBO so in 2-5 years most will need both engines overhauled. That's probably around 500K. (Unless they offer a 2 for 1 discount ). So I think with the M600 continuing to come down a little in price the differential is probably in the 1M ballpark. That still buys a lot of gas and maintenance. But that also depends on how long I would keep the plane. After a while is does start to add up. It seems people are pretty happy with both planes. No one is overhauling PT6s anymore. Hot section and carry on. My crop duster buddy has something crazy like 21000 hours on a PT6 that he bought new that has never been overhauled. Turbine gas compressors simply last almost forever! Hot sections are like tires.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600 Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 09:07 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/12/10 Posts: 561 Post Likes: +138 Location: Atlanta
Aircraft: Cheyenne II, BE-55
|
|
No one is overhauling PT6s anymore. Hot section and carry on. My crop duster buddy has something crazy like 21000 hours on a PT6 that he bought new that has never been overhauled. Turbine gas compressors simply last almost forever! Hot sections are like tires.[/quote]
Lots of people, me included, think this is the smart money play.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600 Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 10:50 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/12/10 Posts: 561 Post Likes: +138 Location: Atlanta
Aircraft: Cheyenne II, BE-55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: John's thoughts summarize my take on this as well but his words are much more relevant and powerful since he can provide first hand experience.
Cheyenne's have many nice characteristics as do Conquests but they are still old, old airframes that required a lot of TLC and even if they are well maintained, there is just going to be much more to be concerned about vs. a couple year old airframe. The other big factor there is the passenger experience. Take a non pilot into an M600 cabin and then a Cheyenne cabin. Yes the Cheyenne is a bigger airframe and twin screws but the experience from a non-flyer perspective is night and day.
If you're a non-pilot, which of these inspires more confidence and comfort? The one with two engines.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600 Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 10:59 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/19/11 Posts: 3302 Post Likes: +1424 Company: Bottom Line Experts Location: KTOL - Toledo, OH
Aircraft: 2004 SR22 G2
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If you're a non-pilot, which of these inspires more confidence and comfort?
The one with two engines.
For some, yes I agree.
_________________ Don Coburn Corporate Expense Reduction Specialist 2004 SR22 G2
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600 Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 11:17 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/20 Posts: 1276 Post Likes: +1270 Location: Tulsa, OK - KRVS
Aircraft: C501SP
|
|
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."
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600 Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 11:48 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/29/10 Posts: 2528 Post Likes: +2187 Location: Dallas, TX (KADS & KJWY)
Aircraft: T28B,7GCBC,E90
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If you're a non-pilot, which of these inspires more confidence and comfort? The non-pilot will gravitate to the physically larger airframe with the larger and more comfortable seating area. That's one of the reasons I have a King Air... I've never seen the M600 and Cheyenne as competing products - There is a significant physical size difference for passengers. While I admire what Piper continues to do with the variants of the Malibu, they are just too small for my missions. Robert
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600 Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 13:12 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/24/13 Posts: 8409 Post Likes: +3662 Company: Aviation Tools / CCX Location: KSMQ New Jersey
Aircraft: TBM700C2
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Someone once said, "Buy the plane that will fulfill 80% of your missions". "Orville Wright 1903"
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600 Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 14:24 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23615 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: My advice is to buy the M600. The twin turboprop is going the way of the dodo bird. Actually, the M600 is MUCH closer to being a dodo bird than the twin turboprop. The twin turboprop is likely to be flying long after the M600 is in the scrap yard. Please read the TCDS on the M600. https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guid ... SO_R34.pdfNote this: PA-46-600TP The life limit of the wing assembly, P/N 46W57A100-001 is 3,767 hours time in serviceYou don't need to overhaul the PT6 because the M600 WING will be toast at that time. Now someone might say "well, Piper will extend that time as the fleet operates, so it isn't a real limit". I've got news for you, they updated that time in this revision DOWN from 5132 hours in prevision revisions. It is getting WORSE. M600 owners should be in an uproar about this. I am going to presume that a full on wing replacement will be uneconomical to perform when the life limit is up. Even if it isn't, there are also life limits on the fuselage that come into play as well. This means the plane is scrap, disposable, after one TBO cycle. Since you won't HSI or OH for another ~150 hours, the effective life limit is 3600 hours. A $3M airplane over 3600 hours is $833 per hour just for airframe life. I'm flying my MU2 for less and that includes fuel, maintenance, hangar, insurance, and the airframe is still worth something when I'm done with it! Older airplanes have a LOT of advantages. Less rules, more options for mods, more available used parts, less life limits, weaknesses addressed, less intensive inspections, lower parts costs, costs less to get, etc. They can be cheaper than newer airplanes to maintain, sometimes by a LOT. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600 Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 14:27 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23615 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Someone once said, "Buy the plane that will fulfill 80% of your missions". No matter which plane I have owned, I've always wanted them to do 25% more than they can, so I must be right on target every time. Each new plane opened up new missions, so don't limit your next plane based on your current mission profile, buy your next plane to expand that. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
Last edited on 23 Apr 2021, 23:51, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600 Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 14:56 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/24/17 Posts: 1023 Post Likes: +949
Aircraft: A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Note this:
PA-46-600TP The life limit of the wing assembly, P/N 46W57A100-001 is 3,767 hours time in service Wow that is crazy. I'm not doubting you Mike, but how can this be right and how can Piper not have addressed this? Surely those planes should be flying up to 10,000 or even well past that??
|
|
Top |
|
|
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
|
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 2007-2024
|
|
|
|