banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 03:05 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 23 Apr 2021, 00:57 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/28/09
Posts: 14129
Post Likes: +9075
Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
Down the line it will definitely be much harder to sell and get your money back out of the Cheyenne than the m600.

_________________
http://calipilot.com
atp/cfii


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 23 Apr 2021, 08:12 
Offline



 Profile




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 :D ). 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

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 23 Apr 2021, 09:07 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 23 Apr 2021, 10:10 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/10/10
Posts: 937
Post Likes: +620
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Aircraft: Conquest
I own a 36 year-old turboprop and am getting tired of flying an antique. I worry some day it will be worth the market price of what it weighs in aluminum. My advice is to buy the M600. The twin turboprop is going the way of the dodo bird.

And yes, I agree, no need to overhaul a PT6.

_________________
----Still emotionally attached to my Baron----


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 23 Apr 2021, 10:33 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/19/11
Posts: 3302
Post Likes: +1424
Company: Bottom Line Experts
Location: KTOL - Toledo, OH
Aircraft: 2004 SR22 G2
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?


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

_________________
Don Coburn
Corporate Expense Reduction Specialist
2004 SR22 G2


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 23 Apr 2021, 10:50 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 23 Apr 2021, 10:57 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/19/11
Posts: 3302
Post Likes: +1424
Company: Bottom Line Experts
Location: KTOL - Toledo, OH
Aircraft: 2004 SR22 G2
One of the most significant differences between these two choices is acquisition costs and depending on your usage scenario, there's a substantial financial benefit available if it's predominantly business usage.

Assuming the M600 is roughly $2M and the Cheyenne II is $500K, there's a $1.5M delta in acquisition cost. Assuming 100% business usage, that added tax benefit for the M600 is roughly $525K over a 5 year depreciation schedule or roughly $105K per year (assuming 35% tax rate). Obviously you're not entirely avoiding these taxes but kicking the can down the road. What is real is that you have an additional $105K free cash flow available annually for 5 years. Assuming you invest that $105K per year in an S&P500 index fund yielding 10% on average, you earn on the order of $36K per year ($180K over 5 years) in investment income with that added cash flow.

You'd have to do a more thorough financial comparison to take all factors into account but these comments about "$1M buys a lot of fuel / mx" misses the big financial picture.

_________________
Don Coburn
Corporate Expense Reduction Specialist
2004 SR22 G2


Last edited on 23 Apr 2021, 11:02, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 23 Apr 2021, 10:59 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 23 Apr 2021, 11:17 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 23 Apr 2021, 11:48 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




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

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


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/15/21
Posts: 2514
Post Likes: +1240
Someone once said, "Buy the plane that will fulfill 80% of your missions".

_________________
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 23 Apr 2021, 13:12 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 23 Apr 2021, 14:24 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




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.pdf

Note this:

PA-46-600TP
The life limit of the wing assembly, P/N 46W57A100-001 is 3,767 hours time in service


You 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

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 23 Apr 2021, 14:27 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Piper Cheyenne II vs M600
PostPosted: 23 Apr 2021, 14:56 
Offline


 Profile




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

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next




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 2007-2024

.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.midwest2.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.SCA.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.