Piper Mojave - Anyone?

I'd get a Cheyenne I. Not much more expensive, yet much safer, faster, and more capable. If you don't believe me, fly both and see what you think.

 

Cheyenne is the most bang for the buck in terms of acquisition cost.

I wouldn't touch a big old piston twin unless you want to be buried in it. You'll burn just as much gas as the Cheyenne anyways.

 

+1 for the Cheyenne.

About 5 years ago we chartered a Cheyenne II to take our family from JYO to CRE for an extended Memorial Day weekend.
What a great plane. We cruised at 25k feet at approx. 220 kts in a pressurized cabin.

I love my simple Cessna 182 but if I ever move up to a turboprop, the Cheyenne would be the kind of plane I'd buy.

Here are a few pics of the plane we chartered.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I highly doubt the Cheyenne will cost you as much more as you think. The Mojave is basically a piston powered Cheyenne, and while in theory the engine reserves are higher for the PT6s, in reality they are going to be more reliable and need much less work between overhauls than the Lycomings. Furthermore, the PT6s will make TBO, while the Lycomings very well may not.

I also doubt that the fuel burn on a Mojave will be half that of a Cheyenne I-- especially on a per-mile basis.

I think when you put all the numbers together on a per-mile basis, you'll find the costs to be pretty close.

 

I could give you a little insight.....I owned and operated a charter service for some years and owned all manner of these (and I know big Piper twins pretty well).

Don't kid yourself. Cheyennes are an excellent value proposition at the prices they are available for these days, but there is a step function increase in ownership / operating cost.

Mojave Pros / Cons

Pro -

Final iteration of Piper's pressurized piston, excellent and reliable systems. Good speed / performance for the money. V2AD version of Lycoming's TIO-540 optimized for high-altitude.

DEPENDING on your ability (if you are going to fly it yourself), a good bang-for-buck way to get you and your family around in a well built pressurized airplane with good comfort and weather capability.

They were usually delivered well equipped....so they usually have good panels.



Con -

Teriible useful load. Actual as-equipped airplanes end up with useful loads a little over 1500 lbs (which is terrible for a plane that size).

A few orphaned items as they didn't build very many and there are several assemblies that are unique to the Mojave.

The fact that it is a big piston twin......which means that it will take you a long time to re-sell when you are ready to move on, if they don't find a drop-in replacement for 100LL it will become an expensive paperweight, may kid you into thinking that you have better single engine perfomance than you do if you don't know what you are doing.

Most sellers are asking pretty high prices, which you will have to look at seriously in terms of what the aging instrument panel might need.


Why is a Cheyenne going to be a LOT more money to own and operate?

- To buy one that has decent engine times and doesn't need $50,000 to $100,000 in new panel stuff will cost you at least double what you could probably get an acceptable Mojave for (I know - you see them occasionally for $395k, right? Refer to engine time comment and see below.....)

- Turboprops are usually equipped with a higher level of avionics and equipment (for example, Early King Gold Crown and KFC-300 autoflight systems instead of the KFC-250 in the Mojave.... have fun paying the price for the transistors, step-motors, relays, and servos (if you can find them) for that class of autopilot as it breaks down from age.

- Powerplant and associated accessories are simply built to a different standard....but that is an expensive standard. Starter-Generators can be an $8,000 item (not that you don't have expensive assemblies on a piston. just not AS expensive). Of course eveything on a PT-6 is far more relaible and lasts way longer, but don;t have any illusions about what it will cost when it goes bad. PT-6's are actually pretty terrible as far as fuel specifics, but they DO acheive terrific reliability.

- Turbines of any kind are massiveley fuel inefficient without quick climbs to high altitudes and long legs. It is not a true comparison to say that "at cruise Cheyenne burns X and Mojave burns Y"...... if you are anywhere near busy airspace (like the northeast or SoCal) you can easily see 85 to 90 gph block averages in a Cheyenne.


It is a fallacy that even on a per-mile basis turboprops cost less. They cost substantially more. Jets cost another level of substantiality more. Next to women, airplanes are the most powerful money-destroying agent known to man (though we rightfully still love them both!!).

Note - I am NOT saying the turboprop isn't better for someone's situation, but to the poster's question and comparison.....a Cheyenne is a better airplane but it definately has an overall substantially bigger price that goes with it.

If you would like any more Mojave - specific insight let me know....I'll share with you what info I have.

 

I would like to have a deeper chat about this. Really need to pick your brain about this topic. How can we connect together?

 

If you really want a big piston twin for some reason, get a 414. They are reliable, they made tons of them (for a reason), you can find parts, and you can find people who know how to work on them.

I stand by my opinion that a Cheyenne I is going to be only slightly more expensive to operate on an annual basis versus a Mojave. And much safer, faster, and more comfortable. It is true that if the Cheyenne breaks, it can get expensive fast, but that is also true of the Mojave. The reality is that if you can't afford to operate the Cheyenne, you probably can't afford to operate the Mojave either.

There is a reason no one makes pressurized piston twins any more-- and hasn't made any for 25 years? 30 years?

 

Had a friends with a IIIA, hell of a plane, to me better looking than the venerable King Air. We flew to EAA for a week full of memories, rented a lake house right in the flyway, just a terrific week.

 

IIIA is a great airplane, other than I hear the support is lousy these days. But as long as it doesn't break, it's a great airplane.

I looked, and the last pressurized piston twins that I could find were made in 1985-- the 414, specifically. So 36 years...

 

The Mojave is a good plane...back in the day. It was the Cheyenne originally but was coming to market at a bad time in the economy. That's why Piper quickly installed the TGIO 541 E. It's the identical base (TIO 541) on the Beech Duke and Baron 56 (which was the Duke testbed) with the addition of a gearbox much like the 421.
The 541 series does make it to tbo if operated properly. adding the gearbox makes that much more of an issue. Today parts support for the 541 is very limited and there have been several issues with SB's on the parts of the engine. VERY prone to cam and lifter flattening!

Alternatives abound in terms of cost and safety, just make a list and plot an x-y chart. If a cabin class isn't as necessary you options open up.

 

Greetings from Australia, I know this post is old but I would love to get in touch as I am looking to purchase a Mojave and would really appreciate your advice if possible.

Many thanks

 

Hello Watson
Did you end up buying the Mojave?

 

The original post is 10 years old, and my advice is the same. Don't buy a Mojave.

 

Hey donv , I read your previous posts. Can you please elaborate on which parts you beleive would make the mojave expensive to fix?

I understand the performance difference to a Cheyenne (or turbo prop)

I am concerned about parts and its rarity, what would make a Mojave a lemon?

 

There is nothing about it which would inherently make it a "lemon"-- it is a function of rarity, poor parts support, dubious build quality (there is a reason Cheyennes are referred to as "K-Mart King Airs")... and the reality that twin turboprops are a better choice for almost any mission that a Mojave could do.

If you want to maintain a museum piece, go for it-- but understand that is what you are doing. If you seriously analyze your transportation needs, I doubt a Mojave would come to the top of the list.

If you want to buy one because it is cheap, well, there is a reason for that. And if you think you can afford to operate a cheap Mojave, then, um, good luck!

 

Maybe park it in the hangar next to that "cheap Ferrari" you picked up?