banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 19:09 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 218 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 15  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2017, 22:49 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 08/03/10
Posts: 1562
Post Likes: +1781
Company: D&M Leasing Houston
Location: Katy, TX (KTME)
Aircraft: CitationV/C180
I love my MU2. I think the F model is a unique plane and by far and away the most economical entry into the turbine world. There's nothing about flying the plane I don't like and in its current condition I could realistically fly it for 10 more years and do nothing major. But, I want 300knots (only -10 power), G600, new interior and paint and if I'm honest, we could use a little more room. I thought those things wouldn't matter and that the performance increase from the Baron to the MU2 would offset those other things. It did for a little over a year.....
I also don't want to pour money into another plane for someone else. I want to buy one someone else made perfect. The -10 turbo commanders are faster than the Marquise and I really like the bigger wing and SE performance. I don't like the more frequent inspections and less robust airframe but I've heard they are a dream to fly. There are a lot more options on the market for turbo commanders than MU2s. I also like the way the interiors on the Commanders look versus the long body MU2. They seem nicer and roomier even though there are fewer seats. There are some nice examples on the market for 600-700k.
I'm in the beginning stages of the convert. I'm past denial and maybe close to acceptance at this point. I love my plane enough and it does what I need it to do well enough that I can be patient on both the sale and acquisition of something else. Looking forwards to all comments and opinions especially those with direct experience on the TCs and the long body MU2s.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2017, 23:07 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
The -10 turbo commanders are faster than the Marquise

You got apples to apples observations?

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2017, 23:11 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6322
Post Likes: +5520
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
Look at the later Jetprop models (840, 900, 980, 1000), James. That's when they got everything right (except perhaps the air cycle machine). No more spar inspections or fixes, no SB 241 (after pressure bulked beef up), longer and completely redesigned wing (partial wet wing) more MTOW, better performance, well supported, etc, etc. And depending on your mission, you can find a model that will suit your needs perfectly.

However, a -10 Jetprop model would probably be hard to find for $600-700K with good times on it, since they're in demand. But a -5 model would be easy to find for your money, but it won't meet your speed criteria. So if that's your budget, I'd look at an 840 with slightly higher time -10's or that has maybe been a working plane before (photo, emergency, fire spotting). They're around, but you might have to live with a lesser panel or a bad interior.

I love to talk Commanders and although I don't know as much about them as forum member Bruce Byerly, I know enough to answer most questions. So if you have any, please fee free to PM me. Also, please join the Commander Forum (http://www.twincommandergroup.com) - there are a lot of Turbo Commander users there, a welcoming bunch and some great info.

_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2017, 10:47 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 03/23/08
Posts: 6908
Post Likes: +3553
Company: AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx.
Location: KDVT, 46U
Aircraft: IAR823, LrJet, 240Z
TC is a BIG airplane.
Just seemed to me the exterior was a hangar hog but the interior not much bigger than a short-body Mu. Whereas the KA200 and Long-Body have much bigger interiors. Unless I am mis-remembering the insides.

_________________
Tom Johnson-Az/Wy
AssuredPartners Aerospace Insurance
Tj.Johnson@AssuredPartners.com
C: 602-628-2701


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2017, 10:55 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/31/10
Posts: 13101
Post Likes: +6969
Hangar and ramp issues are my main concerns and what points me towards the Mits. I wouldn't buy one with the countless fuel bags which means a late model.

I totally agree regarding finding one that is done. I seem to keep "doing" them and that is not the right answer :) I also agree regarding the -10s. Its like a 340 vs a 421. Its essentially the same cost to run/maintain them. Go big and get the last generation of design.

Edit....good grief, I just looked at that TC that Bruce has listed in Florida. Wow! Talk about value.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2017, 11:14 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I totally agree regarding finding one that is done.

The ones that are "done" are either being kept by their present owners or they are being sold off market to a waiting list each owner already has.

Quote:
I also agree regarding the -10s. Its like a 340 vs a 421. Its essentially the same cost to run/maintain them.

The -10 engines are quite a bit cheaper to operate than earlier engines. This comes from increased inspection intervals, lack of gear box inspection (despite the odd fact it is the same gear box), and the far greater chance the -10 hot section parts survive HSI.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2017, 09:11 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/12
Posts: 610
Post Likes: +279
Location: London
Aircraft: TC690A
While the Turbo Commanders are definitely bigger in terms of external dimensions, I have to wonder on whether you would find them to be sufficiently large inside in terms of step up from a practical perspective than what you are currently flying, to justify the differential and selling one plane, buying another... Buying and selling planes is a hassle. That said I haven't spent time in the cabin of a MU-2, so maybe I'm underestimating the differential. I'm sure the Turbo Commanders have more cabin volume but I'm not sure how many more seated passengers you would fit.

I have been in my 690A and Steve's TC as well. It's good sized but not massive, given the external dimensions. I'm currently at (or am approaching) max capacity for comfort on longer flights, with three kids (two of which are little) plus two adults in the back. I may have room for one adult more, because my elder son likes to sit in the jump seat (which has the potty) but I don't think non-aviation interested passengers would like that seat for long flights. My external baggage compartment is simply massive, though. I don't get the rear space pod thing in the longer bodied turbo commanders... it doesn't seem like a good use of the volume to me... but everything is compromise, I suppose.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2017, 09:23 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 14702
Post Likes: +4285
Location: St. Pete, FL
Aircraft: BE 58
I used a 690B and the Marquise in the charter business I had years ago.

For a personal plane, I'd take the Commander any time. Even the -5 of the 690B we used was faster than the Mitz. The -10 would be a dream, but I've only had a demo ride in that one.

The Mitz did a pretty good job of hauling 8 pax plus crew. The Commander couldn't do that, and was tight with more than 6 on board.

The Commander was MUCH more fun to fly, better altitude and better short field. Cost of operation wasn't much different per mile. I didn't like the ADs on the Commander, so getting into the later ones with the -10 is a huge advantage.

However, both great planes.

_________________
Larry


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2017, 10:02 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I used a 690B and the Marquise in the charter business I had years ago.

For a personal plane, I'd take the Commander any time.

The Marquise is kind of big for a personal plane.

Quote:
The Commander couldn't do that, and was tight with more than 6 on board.

That makes it a short body competitor. The MU2 short body will go faster than the Commander.

Quote:
I didn't like the ADs on the Commander, so getting into the later ones with the -10 is a huge advantage.

With a price tag to match, over $1M.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2017, 22:02 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6717
Post Likes: +7255
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
The Mits is a tank... I'll give you that... but the Commander is a more refined airplane, it is a better performer... it is more fun to fly. It's better looking.


I have been nice about the Mitsubishi MU2 on this forum... but the Commander is a better airplane... no one got in a Mits and flew it halfway across the country on one engine... AND the Turbo Commander was built in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma... where was the Mits built?

Single engine safety[edit]
In 1950, when the developers were working to satisfy Civil Aeronautics Authority (CAA) regulations for certification of the 500, they chose a novel method of demonstrating its single-engine safety and performance: they removed one of the two-bladed propellers, secured it in the aft cabin, and flew from Bethany to Washington, D.C. on one engine. There they met with CAA personnel, then replaced the propeller and returned to Oklahoma in the conventional manner. The flight received nationwide coverage in the press.[9]

_________________
It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.


Last edited on 07 Mar 2017, 06:39, edited 2 times in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2017, 22:09 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 08/24/13
Posts: 8409
Post Likes: +3662
Company: Aviation Tools / CCX
Location: KSMQ New Jersey
Aircraft: TBM700C2
Username Protected wrote:
AND the Turbo Commander was built in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma... where was the Mits built?


San Angelo, TX


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2017, 22:48 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6717
Post Likes: +7255
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
Username Protected wrote:
AND the Turbo Commander was built in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma... where was the Mits built?


San Angelo, TX


The components of the airplane were shipped from Japan and assembled in San Angelo... by Mooney!

This is not a US built airplane designed and manufactured by a US company like the Rockwell and later Gulfstream Commander built in Bethany, Oklahoma... designed by a US aviation legend like Ted Smith. This is a Japanese airplane assembled in the US.

I appreciate the Mits in the same exact way I appreciate the Lexus SUV I drive... it's a great car... the difference is the Lexus is easy to work on... I do a lot of the maintenance myself. The Mits is a PAIN in the arse... and any mechanic will tell you that.

The Commander is an airplane loved by many and hated by few... the Mits is an airplane hated by many and loved by a few.

Just because a few people love the dang thing it doesn't mean it is special.
_________________
It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.


Last edited on 07 Mar 2017, 06:40, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2017, 22:58 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/24/11
Posts: 76
Post Likes: +33
Aircraft: Mitsubishi Solitaire
Username Protected wrote:
This is not a US built airplane manufactured by a US company like the Rockwell and later Gulfstream Commander built in Bethany, Oklahoma... designed by a US aviation legend like Ted Smith. This is a Japanese airplane assembled in the US.

The only good aircraft are designed and made in the United States? Where do you think the parts for the Boeing 787 come from?

Quote:
I appreciate the Mits in the same exact way I appreciate the Lexus SUV I drive... it's a great car... the difference is the Lexus is easy to work on... I do a lot of the maintenance myself. The Mits is a PAIN in the arse... and any mechanic will tell you that.

That's interesting, because I've now met six mechanics who know the MU-2 and they are all very fond of it. In fact, haven't met a single mechanic that didn't like it. I'm sure there are some.

Quote:
The Commander is an airplane loved by many and hated by few... the Mits is an airplane hated by many and loved by a few.

That hasn't been my experience, haven't met a single person that hated the MU-2 (except for you, here), but I've only been flying one for a couple of months.

I think they are both great planes.

Nathan


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2017, 23:10 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 08/20/09
Posts: 2394
Post Likes: +1857
Company: Jcrane, Inc.
Location: KVES Greenville, OH
Aircraft: C441, RV7A
Username Protected wrote:
The Commander is an airplane loved by many and hated by few... the Mits is an airplane hated by many and loved by a few.

Just because a few people love the dang thing it doesn't mean it is special.

You're in 'rare form' tonight...and about to be decimated.
As someone looking towards the next 'step', I appreciate your insight.

_________________
Jack Stull


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2017, 23:12 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6717
Post Likes: +7255
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
Nathan,

I'm not saying the best airplanes are built in the US... I'm saying if I have my choice between anything built in the US and Japan... the Japanese product better be a heck of a lot better.

I do drive a Lexus... it's a heck of a lot better than a US built vehicle.

You probably know more mechanics than me... but I can promise you most mechanics do not want to work on Mits. That's why everyone takes them to a handful of shops.

I do not hate the Mitsubishi... and I mean no offense to you or anyone else who owns one. If you want a rocket with wings... nothing compares to a short body.

The most fun I've had in an airplane is a short field take-off in a short body.

I don't hate... I respect :thumbup: BUT... the late model Commander is a better airplane... especially the Gulfstream built airplanes.

_________________
It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.


Last edited on 07 Mar 2017, 06:42, edited 1 time in total.

Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 218 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 15  Next




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

.ei-85x150.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.Marsh.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.