A 430w and 330es will make you adsb and 8.33 compliant. Not a big deal.

Double check on the fuel burn. I think the -1/-151 has enough derating to keep significant fuel burn up high. However, best I can tell the 680v has 4.0 or 4.2 psi pressurization. That's awful for a turbine. You will be stuck at relatively slow, thirsty altitudes unless you want to wear a cannula. The devil here will be in the details of what altitude works and what fuel burn/TAS you see.

I've never flown an Aerostar, but I've heard great things about them. I have flown plenty of Turbo Commanders and they are great planes, all 690's. I wouldn't touch one without a great maintenance history. Anything that has been sitting and not current I would be scared of cost wise.

I would stick with the Aerostar or head another direction with a different turbine.

That's the conundrum. It's been on a 135 charter certificate and has been regularly maintained according to seller, but maybe it's just better to wait until I can get my hands on a nicer 690 or other turbine. I'll still look at it in the week and the seller offered to take me up for a spin in it. Can't hurt to have a look.

At the right price it could be a good deal. But I think the right price has no 1's in it.

Adam, I wouldn't do it.

The costs with these airplanes aren't in the same ballpark as you're used to. As you know, I'm looking for a turboprop too, and I've been doing a lot of research. For a good commander that doesn't need much of anything you can figure on $1300/hr. Youre going to spend a lot more than that.

I also would read all the accidents on ASN regards the type. See if you notice the same trend I did.

Want a cheap little turboprop? Cheyennes are nice. If they had the range I needed I'd get another.

Good luck.

Heck yeah, I would. I think it would be a blast. It has the cheapest currently supported turbine engines hanging on it, and I bet the props are the cheap ones as well. That's probably the same set up as an F model MU-2 and they are known for being economical to operate, well as far as turbines go anyway.

You only live once, and for most of us, only a fraction of that life offers exciting opportunities.

That isn't necessarily true. I agree there is no free lunch, but turbines can be cheap because they are money pits or just because they are inefficient or inconvenient. My guess is that the 4.0 PSI pressurization and super 1 engines are a pretty bad match and that this plane probably runs 220 KTS KTAS on 70-80 GPH in the high teens. So it's just not an efficient airplane for $1300/hr, but probably flyable for that amount as well as a 690.

Craig, who did your math on turboprops? It seems real high to me.

I run a IIIC Merlin and I can tell you that the fuel on a per mile basis is about the same as a piston twin and the mx don't amount to much. Any way you slice it; you'll be dead soon and either you did or you did'nt!

I did my own math. For grins, here's some math from Eagle Creek. I think they've seen a commander or two. Keep in mind, they are selling these things, it's not in their interest to over inflate cost:

http://www.eagle-creek.com/wp-content/u ... e-2013.pdf

Here are the gotchas on a well maintaned TC-

Props, every five years
Landing gear, every five years
Air cycle machine, if it's a Sunstrand you'll be overhauling that often

Each of those is going to be ~25k, best case.

Hots can be 25k. They can also be 125k. You don't know what was done before you. Garrett's are great, but it's easier to screw up the start sequence and cook something spendy. You don't know until you know.

The wing spar and other dissimilar metal SBs/ADs are not only pricy but down right scary in my opinion. Again, tell me if YOU see a trend in the ASN literature.

Adam, give Jim Worrell at Eagle Creek a call. He'll shoot you straight.

It's a dog. No one who can afford to run a turbine will want that plane. But! It might be an opportunity. You seem to have reasonable expectations and also an understanding of the older commander support infrastructure. I am pretty sure that this plane has been for sale for years. That may be because they are unrealistic, but I suspect no one has wanted to buy it.

I would suggest showing up with $75,000 of cash in a suitcase. I bet you can walk away with a plane. I would only do this if you are content putting in a single GPS. It makes sense to fly this plane until overhaul and scrap it. Panel upgrades will just be more money lost.

Arrange to meet in Vegas. If they don't accept the cash then at least you will be well placed to utilize it.

Adam,

They look good fly great, low fuel costs and low price (for the capacity). I would be concerned with MX and downtime. There was an inspection created recently that "requires" replacement of a bulkhead that costs an arm and a leg. Have a friend who has run a 690b in their operation for two years. They are soo happy to have it sold and be looking for a replacement. They've decided they will have better dispatch and overall costs with another aircraft.

I'd keep looking.

Slight update.

Went and looked briefly at the plane today. Didn't fly it, but will next week. I'm still intrigued. It looks to be in decent shape, but only a thorough pre-buy will reveal it's true self. Tomorrow I'm flying up to my old Commander guru to run through all the basics and see what the gotchas are.

I did speak to the corporate pilot that's been flying it. He said everything works, no real problem areas except that the hull isn't tight. Cabin is at 10000ft when he's flying at 13500ft... He thinks it's the vent window on the pilots side that's the main culprit. Chasing pressure leaks can be a pain, but it's not the end of the world to fix. There are only so many places it can get out.

Burns 75gal/hr, but that's at 7500ft, he said. They never go much higher as it's been used from PSP to SMO and only for short hops. Seems to me you could get that down to 65gal or perhaps even less up high. Does anyone know how much reduction of fuel burn can be expected with altitude?

The 680 is completely different structurally from the later 690 models. If you look at them from the front the 680's have dihedral wings that attach straight to the fuselage. The 690's (and onwards) have a little straight bit tagged on before the dihedral starts to extend the wing. This means the nacelles are further out (to lower cabin noise and give room for a bigger props, presumably) and the tricycle gear has a wider track. The narrower stance and closer nacelles on the 680 puts less stress on the spar. That's why it's not affected by the same SB's and AD's as the 690. There's still an inspection every 500hrs or so, but it's just an Eddy current and not that much work. Mind you, the 690 has a very strong spar, it's just that the decided to go with a spar strap in stainless steel which could cause galvanic corrosion where it contacted the aluminium.

The pressure bulked doesn't apply and the gear overhaul doesn't apply either. Either way, as part 91 so SB's are not strictly mandatory. I'm not saying ignore them, but one has a little more leeway. The props need doing every 5 or 6 years, but so do they on a brand new King Air. Seems to be standard practice for turbines.

I'm not entirely sold yet, but I'm kind of talking myself into it the longer I speak about it….

Craig - so, have you given up on a turbine? I can't afford a Cheyenne. I heard they have great performance, but they have one big flaw - the wing is down low and your entire view is blocked by a nacelle...

Nope, I haven't given up at all. I need one for business and its got to have the legs to reliably get me back and forth from Dallas to Philly in a reasonable amount of time. I'd love a TC, they fly like a dream and they have all that visibility, but I don't think they're built ruggedly enough. Again, read the ASN pages. It's tougher than a Jetprop Malibu (or any Malibu), but think along the same lines.

The Merlin is what I want. I'm aggressively looking for one right now, I'd really like a IIIA with -10s. I'll keep the A* for dispatch reliability, shorter hops, but for really FUBAR WX and long range you can't beat a Merlin III. Guys crash them doing stupid things, but there has never been one lost to turbulence, convection, or ice. Again, read the ASN pages.