banner
banner

19 Mar 2024, 02:13 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Aviation Fabricators (Top Banner)



Reply to topic  [ 677 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 ... 46  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2017, 00:58 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7090
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Username Protected wrote:
Professional BT poster. Hours are hell, but the lack of pay makes up for it.



There's no appreciation no more....none.... there are some brother still with you.........we should call ourselves the regulators......

_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2017, 01:27 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19229
Post Likes: +23554
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I know I'm a little rusty on Garretts, but isn't the -10 conversion and the TBO extension two separate issues?

Yes.

-10 conversion converts a -5, -6, or -8 engine to -10. As part of that, you can elect a new HSI/OH cycle of 2500/5000 hours (which nearly everyone does) or use the old cycle (which no one should do).

The -5, 6-, -8 engines had a HSI at 1800 and a TBO of 3600. But, at 3600, you can get a "TBO extension" to 5400. This involves a HSI plus a gear box inspection, GBI.

Further, -10 engines can be put on a 3500/7000 HSI/OH schedule if they meet certain requirements (namely certain rev level parts, mainly the burner can). I am not aware of any GBI ever required for the -10 engine until OH. This means you could go 7000 hours without cracking the gear box.

So you may ask why a -6 gear box requires an inspection at 3600 but the -10 conversion of that engine doesn't require one for potentially 7000 hours, given it is the same gear box. The reason is that the -6 engine may have an old torque sensor and other parts of obsolete revision that limit life. The -10 conversion requires more up to date parts in the gear box.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2017, 02:38 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/22/10
Posts: 438
Post Likes: +156
Location: KMMU/KSFB
Aircraft: B55/777/TBM940
What are -10 HSIs going for these day?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2017, 06:36 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/12
Posts: 610
Post Likes: +279
Location: London
Aircraft: TC690A
Username Protected wrote:

That's probably a fair description Patrick. The Meggitt was the best option to replace complicated and expensive mechanical attitude/flight director and flight instruments with digital autopilot compatible electronic equipment. They still work well but they obviously don't compare to the Garmin from the current era.

I did the first install and certification flying in the late 90's at Byerly Aviation. It was quite fun. The 2100 DCFS autopilot came along a bit later. I had to make a couple trips to Mineral Wells to dial the stability into the unit. It was interesting and gave me an appreciation for the stability of autopilots previously flown.


Interesting, I have the old Collins 106 autopilot, being driven by the G600. It works well, except in a steep climb in IAS mode, where it seems to over correct and oscillate in a slightly unpleasant fashion. Easy enough to set a climb angle/attitude, instead, and correct to maintain airspeed manually. I am without altitude preselect, which took some getting used to, especially during training and during flying with a mentor pilot - when not keeping a sterile cockpit due to discussions seemed to increase distraction and increased likelihood of, e.g., flying through an assigned altitude on a step climb out due to missing the not very loud alerting from the G600. It would be nice to have a digital autopilot but the upgrade cost I've heard seems steep for the limited additional functionality.

The integration of analog autopilot and digital systems works really well. I need to be somewhat understanding of the limitations i.e., not giving the AP superhuman intercept angles for approaches, but otherwise it's great.

My only confusion regarding my avionics setup is an altitude alert which I am getting during my climb outs and descents ("Check Altitude") which seems like it may be originating from my TAS 610 traffic system (maybe my terrain awareness system but I don't think so) which I control through my G600 or GTN750 but which I can't seem to find the menu for setting the altitude alerts...

Edited to include a bit more details and clarifications.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2017, 07:50 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6681
Post Likes: +7212
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
Username Protected wrote:
I know I'm a little rusty on Garretts, but isn't the -10 conversion and the TBO extension two separate issues?

Yes.

-10 conversion converts a -5, -6, or -8 engine to -10. As part of that, you can elect a new HSI/OH cycle of 2500/5000 hours (which nearly everyone does) or use the old cycle (which no one should do).

The -5, 6-, -8 engines had a HSI at 1800 and a TBO of 3600. But, at 3600, you can get a "TBO extension" to 5400. This involves a HSI plus a gear box inspection, GBI.

Further, -10 engines can be put on a 3500/7000 HSI/OH schedule if they meet certain requirements (namely certain rev level parts, mainly the burner can). I am not aware of any GBI ever required for the -10 engine until OH. This means you could go 7000 hours without cracking the gear box.

So you may ask why a -6 gear box requires an inspection at 3600 but the -10 conversion of that engine doesn't require one for potentially 7000 hours, given it is the same gear box. The reason is that the -6 engine may have an old torque sensor and other parts of obsolete revision that limit life. The -10 conversion requires more up to date parts in the gear box.

Mike C.


We're still missing something here, and again it's been probably 10 years since I've done anything in Commanders, but if my memory serves me correctly, I've encountered very few airplanes with 5000 TBO? It seems like there was some argument against the 5000 hr program and most elected to do the 5400 hr TBO.

Maybe Bruce Byerly can shed some light.

It could just be my perception based on the airplanes I personally dealt with. I don't think I managed one engine through HSI... much less 16!

You are the MU2 guru. You should consider being a buyer's rep.
_________________
It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2017, 12:21 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 11/30/12
Posts: 4006
Post Likes: +4407
Location: Santa Fe, NM (KSAF)
Aircraft: B200, 500B
Username Protected wrote:
You are the MU2 guru. You should consider being a buyer's rep.

He is. It's on the same pay plan as BT poster extraordinaire...

_________________
Be Nice


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2017, 13:06 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19229
Post Likes: +23554
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
We're still missing something here, and again it's been probably 10 years since I've done anything in Commanders, but if my memory serves me correctly, I've encountered very few airplanes with 5000 TBO? It seems like there was some argument against the 5000 hr program and most elected to do the 5400 hr TBO.

To be eligible for the 5000 TBO, a -10 engine has to meet certain revision/SB status. It includes such things as burner can and torque sensor, but maybe other stuff as well. The engine would have had to have been serviced in the late 1990s or later.

They can be planes with -10 engines prior to that, typically the ones that were originally -10 from the factory, where the -10 engine does not qualify for 5000 TBO. Perhaps you have dealt with a large number of older revision engines.

It should be noted that when the -10 engine first came onto the market in the late 1970s, it had a terrible first few years. The engines would gradually lose power and had to be hot sectioned after only about 1000 hours. The combustor was off and causing carbon or other problems. The problem got fixed and the -10 engines now enjoy a very good reputation.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2017, 16:13 
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:

We're still missing something here, and again it's been probably 10 years since I've done anything in Commanders, but if my memory serves me correctly, I've encountered very few airplanes with 5000 TBO? It seems like there was some argument against the 5000 hr program and most elected to do the 5400 hr TBO.

Maybe Bruce Byerly can shed some light.

It could just be my perception based on the airplanes I personally dealt with. I don't think I managed one engine through HSI... much less 16!

You are the MU2 guru. You should consider being a buyer's rep.


Chip - the -10's can be on 5,000 with one hot or 5,400 with two. So the overhaul conversion engines are generally 5,000 as it makes more sense to trade the one hot for 400 hour loss in TBO. If that makes any sense. So, most -10 converted Commanders are going to be on a 5,000 TBO. Unless, of course, they were "time continued" and modified without overhaul, in which case they would generally stay on the old 5,400 he program.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2017, 16:56 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6681
Post Likes: +7212
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
Username Protected wrote:

We're still missing something here, and again it's been probably 10 years since I've done anything in Commanders, but if my memory serves me correctly, I've encountered very few airplanes with 5000 TBO? It seems like there was some argument against the 5000 hr program and most elected to do the 5400 hr TBO.

Maybe Bruce Byerly can shed some light.

It could just be my perception based on the airplanes I personally dealt with. I don't think I managed one engine through HSI... much less 16!

You are the MU2 guru. You should consider being a buyer's rep.


Chip - the -10's can be on 5,000 with one hot or 5,400 with two. So the overhaul conversion engines are generally 5,000 as it makes more sense to trade the one hot for 400 hour loss in TBO. If that makes any sense. So, most -10 converted Commanders are going to be on a 5,000 TBO. Unless, of course, they were "time continued" and modified without overhaul, in which case they would generally stay on the old 5,400 he program.


I did figure out it is a "perception" thing, I looked back in my files from back in the day... yes I still have them! And all but a couple of the Commanders that I dealt in had 5400 TBO... the ones that didn't say 5400 simply didn't say, might or might not have been 5000... too busy to look them up and figure it out. But, interesting none the less!

They were all -10 airplanes... I don't think Ron liked -5's!!!
_________________
It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2017, 22:33 
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:

That's probably a fair description Patrick. The Meggitt was the best option to replace complicated and expensive mechanical attitude/flight director and flight instruments with digital autopilot compatible electronic equipment. They still work well but they obviously don't compare to the Garmin from the current era.

I did the first install and certification flying in the late 90's at Byerly Aviation. It was quite fun. The 2100 DCFS autopilot came along a bit later. I had to make a couple trips to Mineral Wells to dial the stability into the unit. It was interesting and gave me an appreciation for the stability of autopilots previously flown.


Interesting, I have the old Collins 106 autopilot, being driven by the G600. It works well, except in a steep climb in IAS mode, where it seems to over correct and oscillate in a slightly unpleasant fashion. Easy enough to set a climb angle/attitude, instead, and correct to maintain airspeed manually. I am without altitude preselect, which took some getting used to, especially during training and during flying with a mentor pilot - when not keeping a sterile cockpit due to discussions seemed to increase distraction and increased likelihood of, e.g., flying through an assigned altitude on a step climb out due to missing the not very loud alerting from the G600. It would be nice to have a digital autopilot but the upgrade cost I've heard seems steep for the limited additional functionality.

The integration of analog autopilot and digital systems works really well. I need to be somewhat understanding of the limitations i.e., not giving the AP superhuman intercept angles for approaches, but otherwise it's great.

My only confusion regarding my avionics setup is an altitude alert which I am getting during my climb outs and descents ("Check Altitude") which seems like it may be originating from my TAS 610 traffic system (maybe my terrain awareness system but I don't think so) which I control through my G600 or GTN750 but which I can't seem to find the menu for setting the altitude alerts...

Edited to include a bit more details and clarifications.


Patrick, are you using the G600 ALT selector? I understand that it's redundant but, unless you spin it to 31,000 or something out of range, you will get spurious warnings depending on where it's set. This is a perfect example of the limitation of the analog/digital interface. There's no connection between the systems and you have dueling ALT alterters or double data entry, or both.

We can add a pre-select if you want one. But as pre-selects go, it's not perfect.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 04 Apr 2017, 00:59 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19229
Post Likes: +23554
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
They were all -10 airplanes... I don't think Ron liked -5's!!!

There was a time, shortly after the -10 engine came out and had teething problems, when the -5 airplanes were more valuable than the -10 ones.

The engines got fixed in short order and now, of course, it is the reverse.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 05 Apr 2017, 04:21 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/12
Posts: 610
Post Likes: +279
Location: London
Aircraft: TC690A
Username Protected wrote:
Patrick, are you using the G600 ALT selector? I understand that it's redundant but, unless you spin it to 31,000 or something out of range, you will get spurious warnings depending on where it's set. This is a perfect example of the limitation of the analog/digital interface. There's no connection between the systems and you have dueling ALT alterters or double data entry, or both.

We can add a pre-select if you want one. But as pre-selects go, it's not perfect.


Bruce, while my G600 Alt selector doesn't physically drive anything I do use it to keep track of assigned altitude and rely somewhat on the tonal alerts. The verbal "check altitude" annunciation takes place in the climb or descent and doesn't correspond to what I've set in the G600, so it seems unrelated.
The messages resemble what I've read about in the manual for my TAS 610 traffic system, which, in the manual shows a physical controller in the panel (if I'm recalling things correctly). I don't have a panel mounted controller and my active traffic is controlled and displayed on my G600 and GTN750. I can't find any way in my Garmin devices to remotely manage altitude alerting of my TAS 610. From a practical perspective, the "check altitude" annunciation is much clearer and difficult to accidentally miss than the beep from my G600, so in a perfect world I would be using this tool, if I were able to set it. And I'm not 100% certain that it is the source of the words I'm hearing in my headset...

Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 05 Apr 2017, 11:13 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 11/30/12
Posts: 4006
Post Likes: +4407
Location: Santa Fe, NM (KSAF)
Aircraft: B200, 500B
I have a G500/ Gad43e and dual GTN750 installation and I've never heard the annunciation "check altitude" under any circumstances.

Do you have a cabin altitude alerter that beeps or speaks at 10,000 cabin alt?

_________________
Be Nice


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 05 Apr 2017, 11:27 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1911
Post Likes: +926
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
Patrick, I seem remember you had this question a while ago. I thought you had trace it back to your TCAS system?

I would look at your transponder it might have aural alerts for altitude.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander
PostPosted: 05 Apr 2017, 12:30 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/06/13
Posts: 402
Post Likes: +244
Location: KFTW-Fort Worth Meacham
Aircraft: C208B, AL18-115
What is the preferred autopilot on a Commander?

Collins AP-106, King KFC-300, Collins APS-65, Bendix M-4D, or S-Tec (Meggitt) 2100?

Which one would you avoid? Any no longer maintainable? Any not work with a G600?


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 677 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 ... 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

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