I understand all that. Wait for all fatigue and any other pertinent analysis to be completed. Do you know for a fact it hasn’t? No. Holy. Good thing they didn’t ground the Mu-2 based on initial data. People would be asking you what facts you were waiting for after all the fatalities.

Do you know the lifetime testing isn't finished?

The M600 has been out for 5 years which seems more than sufficient to complete fatigue cycling tests on wing articles. The TCDS latest revision is from only 4 months ago.

Why would they adjust the lifetime lower if they didn't have data to support that conclusion?

Mike C.

We stepped out of meridian and went with a Blackhawk 2. Our cost went down when we got the Cheyenne. We could make dc to fll nonstop using the Atlantic route and it saves us on average 2.4 hours a trip to south Florida. We fly ours roughly 450 hours a year and love it( one year we put 680 on it) We did a full panel in 2017 and it’s been great. Our full fiel payload is 1100 and change. She’s been absolutely billet proof. The systems are stupid simple and not much to break. The aoa vane has gotten harder to find, but I got a brand new one a little over a year ago. The Sas system is nothing to worry about at all.

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??

Ive flown in Craigs Cheyenne, i have to stop myself daily from selling the house, wife and kids to go buy one . I am curious though, are cost going down from the Meridian a factor of less stops due to the longer legs you fly? Would the cost be less if most trips were 500 miles or less?

Is the aircraft you are describing a Cheyenne II with Blackhawk modifications?

I’m curious about the costs goinG down too. Just due to the 2nd engine alone engine reserves must be at least $100/hour more and fuel another $150/hour. That’s a $250 delta to overcome which is about double what I spend per hour in maintenance on my Meridian. Plus larger hangar, more expensive ramp fees, etc. How is this possible?

I have done the spreadsheets more times than I can count and assuming you don’t mind older hardware, you will never beat the cost efficiency on the older turbines. Layer in part 91 do hots and keep going and you don’t even need a spreadsheet to decide.


That said, the older stuff is more work and IMO requires you to be an active maintenance manager and to know your plane better. I know a lot of pilots who just want things to work, a dealer to maintain it and the latest and greatest of everything. M600 wins there. M600 also wins the range war.

Safety wise, m600 is safer, although I doubt it is statistically significant if you could normalize for all factors and assume a well trained pilot. I know I would personally rather have two engines, I don’t care what the stats say.

Cabin on Cheyenne is better and bathroom is a bigger deal than I ever could have imagined for Pax comfort. If I am just doing family flights, I don’t think it matters much. With work people onboard, you need a potty if doing flights over 2 hours.

If you get gtn750s and NxI panel, I don’t think the flying workload is any less on an m600 vs a Cheyenne. If the avionics workload scares you on either, that is a bigger safety risk than number of engines by far. I don’t think anyone flying less than 100hrs a year in turbine hardware is truly safe. Fly more than that and you get used to all the complexity, even old avionics.

Fadec would be a nice workload relief but neither plan here has it. Setting two engines is the same effort as setting one.

Good summary Anthony. Your quote below is the primary question anyone has to ask themselves. Which of these better describes me?

“That said, the older stuff is more work and IMO requires you to be an active maintenance manager and to know your plane better. I know a lot of pilots who just want things to work, a dealer to maintain it and the latest and greatest of everything.”

Guys who like to tinker and have the time and interest to be more ‘hands on’ from a mx standpoint may be well suited in an older twin. I’m more in the latter camp and don’t have the time or interest at this point in my career to spend much time maintaining a bird. When I retire someday, that will likely have much more appeal.

It is kind of nice to have a plane that just works. The M600 for most people will go annual to annual with no interim maintenance events. We fly ours 400 hours a year, so we typically will need beta-blocks, tires, or igniters at some point between annuals. And it seems that some items wear a little too much by 400 hours like front wheel bearings if you don't lubricate them. So we are going to 200 hour maintenance events, with a schedule 1 schedule 2 annual, so that every 6 months we get half the annual and hopefully shorter down times. I don't mind running the tires a little thin on tread in the summer, but we fly a good bit of snow and ice, so need good tires in the winter months. Maintenance including annuals, minus expendables is all included for 5 years with Piper ultimate. So for most people will be very inexpensive.

Like you, I have no time, interest or skill to tinker with my plane. It is like my car. I expect it to go and don't want any fuss.

At the risk of being a Pariah, if these planes weren't so dang expensive, we would not even being having a debate on new versus old. Nobody drives a 40-60 year old car and expects it to be as safe and reliable as a new car. I like flying old planes, but consider it more of a hobby. Flying a well maintained old plane in good weather, with other like minded risk takers is fine. But flying in weather, day in day out , night, IMC icing, with family and non-pilot passengers. It is just not as safe. Like this accident. At some point, you are just asking too much of these beautiful flying pieces of history.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/253831

That accident just happened yesterday. There is no indication at all as to what occurred, let alone if the age of the aircraft was a factor.

The “logic” in these statements, the inapposite comparisons, the evidence-free reference to the Merlin accident, are so stunningly faulty that they flop on their own. No rebuttal needed.

Is it not reasonable to assume that the older an airframe the more likely it is to have failures? The further each component is from new the cumulative wear and tear, vibration, corrosion, etc. must result in increased failures. One can debate acquisition/maintenance costs, and twin/single safety. But, I'm failing to find fault with the assumption that the older something is the more likely something is to break. Unless, the argument is "they don't build 'em like they used to"..... Which may be true. My gut feel is that is not the case, but I don't have a strong opinion on that.

The claim is not that older components fail more often. It’s legacy turbo props are “not as safe”, making the wild comparison to the same age autos. No need to assume anything in an activity that is backed up by decades of experience and tens of thousands of hours of safety statistics. If that outlandish claim were true, statistics would show it. With 100 hour and annual inspections required, I’ve never had a component fail in flight and lessen safety margins (knock on wood). I have had components that did not meet inspection standards and were replaced at inspection time. Big difference.