banner
banner

19 Mar 2024, 03:39 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Aviation Fabricators (Top Banner)



Reply to topic  [ 677 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 46  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 00:23 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/12
Posts: 610
Post Likes: +279
Location: London
Aircraft: TC690A
Anybody currently running these aircraft and have any color on performance, experience, operating costs?
Looking at 690A and 690B models at this point, -5 engines. They seem pretty interesting.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 01:14 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/31/11
Posts: 981
Post Likes: +631
Company: B777, 767, 757, 727, MD11, S80
Location: Colorado Springs
Aircraft: Thrush S2R, AC500B,
I have a 500B but you might want to get in touch with Morris Kernick. He owns Commander Services in Stockton, CA. There is not much about Commanders that he does not know.You just missed the annual Twin Commander Flight Group Fly In. Next years will be at the Hanger Hotel in Kerrville, TX.
Dan


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 14:07 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1911
Post Likes: +926
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
I might be able to help having just purchased a 980. I test flew a 690 with -5 and -10 engines along with a 1000. Then I got sidetracked and bought a house which put the airplane on hold for a year or two.

My take away was that the Garrett powered airplanes make the most sense if you are paying the bills and doing the flying.

I have some early experience flying the piston commanders and remember them as very nice flying machines. I flew through some awful weather in them and never had an issue even though it was some of the worst weather I have ever experienced.

Because of those memories I was leaning towards the turbo commanders when it was time to change from my 421.

The MU-2 interested me I loved the look and the stol performance. I did not like the range or the several seconds on every takeoff where you are exposed to an engine failure.

Still generally speaking the mu-2 is a little cheaper to purchase and close enough to be the same cost to operate.

The deal breaker for me was the range and better single engine performance of the commander.

You also have more choice on upgrading you avionics, particularly the auto pilot. The mu-2 is stuck with what they had at the factory the commander can be upgraded to a stec.

Of course if you want to really go crazy there is even a g950 for the commander which is a g1000 without the autopilot.

My 980 is still getting refurbished, so no real world experience with it. I hope just another month go as it is heading off to paint.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 19:01 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/16/09
Posts: 364
Post Likes: +157
Location: Snohomish, WA
Aircraft: PA-27 Turbo
Talk to Bruce Byerly at Naples Jet Center.....if you want to understand the Commander, he's the source.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 20:16 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19229
Post Likes: +23555
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
The MU-2 interested me I loved the look and the stol performance. I did not like the range or the several seconds on every takeoff where you are exposed to an engine failure.

When do those seconds occur?

I've had 200+ engine failures in an MU2 (mostly in sim). I haven't found those seconds you speak of.

It is fair to say the Commander has better OEI performance. I don't think it is fair to imply the MU2 can't be controlled during some part of the takeoff process if you lose an engine.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 20:43 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1911
Post Likes: +926
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
Retracting flaps on a schedule leaves you in a vulnerable position during takeoff for a longer period of time than in a airplane that take off without flaps.

I didnt say anything about control.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 21:41 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19229
Post Likes: +23555
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Retracting flaps on a schedule leaves you in a vulnerable position during takeoff for a longer period of time than in a airplane that take off without flaps.

The flaps on an MU2 work differently than they do on a Commander. It is perfectly fine to fly the plane on one engine with flaps out. You cannot misapply your knowledge of other aircraft to the MU2, particularly when it comes to procedures involving flaps.

The MU2 flies more like a transport jet where flaps are always used on takeoff.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 21:46 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 3003
Post Likes: +5595
Location: Portland, OR
Aircraft: Prusinski'ing
Username Protected wrote:

I've had 200+ engine failures in an MU2 (mostly in sim).


....mostly? :bugeye:


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 22:52 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1911
Post Likes: +926
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
Username Protected wrote:
Retracting flaps on a schedule leaves you in a vulnerable position during takeoff for a longer period of time than in a airplane that take off without flaps.

The flaps on an MU2 work differently than they do on a Commander. It is perfectly fine to fly the plane on one engine with flaps out. You cannot misapply your knowledge of other aircraft to the MU2, particularly when it comes to procedures involving flaps.

The MU2 flies more like a transport jet where flaps are always used on takeoff.

Mike C.


I am not misapplying any knowledge.

I have had a few engine failures in the sim myself. They were on airplanes that required the flaps to be retracted on a schedule. Most airplanes requiring a type rating do it this way. It's not uncommon.

But in the heat of battle, in the beginning of the battle I have seen some very experienced pilots ask for flaps to be set to the wrong setting at the wrong time. Fortunately there were two pilots.

Do that in a MU -2 on take off with engine out and you have a problem.

For single pilot ops by owner pilots who fly their airplane only 100 or 200 hours a year it's a risk I was not willing to take.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 22:58 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19229
Post Likes: +23555
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
....mostly? :bugeye:

About 30 simulated in airplane with zero thrust, about 8 to full feather, 1 landing feathered (7 air starts).

None were "real".

I have about one engine failure drill every 4-5 flight hours. They are almost boring now.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 23:12 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19229
Post Likes: +23555
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
But in the heat of battle, in the beginning of the battle I have seen some very experienced pilots ask for flaps to be set to the wrong setting at the wrong time.

You are correct, the MU2 is not for clumsy, panicky pilots who misconfigure things randomly.

But then, neither is the Commander even if you think so.

Your example pilot would probably feather the wrong engine at some point. He might not be safe in a single, either.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 23:27 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1911
Post Likes: +926
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
Quote:
You are correct, the MU2 is not for clumsy, panicky pilots who misconfigure things randomly.


The MU-2 can resemble a transport airplane in its procedures.

The commander is more like a king air or a piston twin in its procedures.

Even the best pilot with hundreds of engine failures in the sim can get distracted at the worst time.

Less to do , means less to do wrong.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 15 Oct 2015, 00:30 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19229
Post Likes: +23555
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Less to do , means less to do wrong.

You should buy a glider.

If it is really too much work for you to NOT move the flaps when an engine fails, then yes, buy a Commander.

MU2 engine failure checklist memory items:

1. Landing gear - UP
2. Airspeed - Vxse minimum for flap configuration
3. Condition lever - Emergency stop
4. Power lever - Takeoff

That's it. Basically, gear up, fly right airspeed, feather engine. No flaps mentioned.

What are the Commander engine failure memory items? It can't be any less and I suspect it says something about flaps.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 15 Oct 2015, 00:45 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/09/11
Posts: 1726
Post Likes: +2046
Company: Naples Jet Center
Location: KAPF KPIA
Aircraft: EMB500 AC95 AEST
Username Protected wrote:
Anybody currently running these aircraft and have any color on performance, experience, operating costs?
Looking at 690A and 690B models at this point, -5 engines. They seem pretty interesting.


The -5 690's are a bit under appreciated in my opinion due to good -10 planes under $1m. The -5 will climb directly to FL280 if you want or need and go over 1,000 nm IFR. I file for 265 KTAS. If cold it can be as much as 280 but my world seems to be ISA+ a bunch all the time and typically I expect 260+ using a reasonable temp setting and 97%. With approx 2,570 lbs usable, I'm on the ground in 4.5 hours unless using LRC type settings. All have an extremely accurate fuel totalizer.

They will take a lot of abuse, so you will find some well abused project planes on the market. Like any plane, I think it pays to buy the best plane possible in my opinion. Costs are comparable to other legacy turbines in my view though some bulletins over the past 6 years or so have increased the cost for the occasional flyer. They are really 30-40 yr old $5m airplanes, not $500k planes. Solid parts support and a worldwide network of service knowledge.

Extremely stable; no aerodynamic devices, patches or mods; wide operating envelope. No yaw damp required. No pitch changes with gear (200 KIAS limit) or flaps (1/2 at 180) No fuel system management, no cranking the gear down, etc. Nice IFR platform. Light wing loading and design plus the power give great performance and make it stall resistant. As a pilot, the great visibility of the bottom of the wing and engine inlet is comforting in ice; for the pax there is a window like no other pressurized plane. Big tires and exceptional brake effectiveness due to location under CG. Will not be confused with a trailing link gear. Easy to load and very difficult typically to get out of CG. They have lots of room up front for a taller pilot with the long seat tracks I consider mandatory.

They are fun to fly and I recommend doing so with a knowledgeable host as a first order of business if you are considering.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 15 Oct 2015, 10:56 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/11/11
Posts: 2252
Post Likes: +2213
Location: Queretaro / Woodlands
Aircraft: C525 BE40 D1K Waco
Username Protected wrote:
Less to do , means less to do wrong.

You should buy a glider.


The super duper pilot is being super duper abrasive... again. Is it necessary to put down anyone who is not a super duper MU-2 pilot at every opportunity?

Back to the OP - Patrick, you might want to call Richard Branch or Matt Hagans at Eagle Creek (+1 (317) 293-6935). They are some of the more knowledgable Turbo Commander guys out there and have several STC's and mods available. They can give you pretty close real world numbers.

http://www.eagle-creek.com/twin-commander/

Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 677 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 46  Next



Concorde Battery (banner)

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

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