banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 06:47 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 218 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 19:36 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/15/13
Posts: 753
Post Likes: +297
Location: Florida-Missouri
Aircraft: V35B
Patrick,

Solitaire: 5 adults in the aft cabin area (I have a side bench seat) is comfortable from the comments received on mid-range flights. I usually fly solo to 3 passengers most flights;- plenty of room.

_________________
__________________________


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 19:37 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/12
Posts: 610
Post Likes: +279
Location: London
Aircraft: TC690A
apropos of Chip's mentioning the context of the Aero Commander but not really directly related...
I found this link to a 1974 Flying Magazine comparison between the TC 690A and a Cessna 421B to be an interesting read and surprisingly still relevant (given that I was choosing between piston and turbine) (hopefully the link works, pls let me know if it doesn't): https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BLEusG1WVg8C&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=commander+690+cessna+421+comparison&source=bl&ots=RlNpS0izyB&sig=_M3Gg_AUpnFMQGaZMCDWfYuB5lM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMsv6VxNTSAhWJLsAKHcv_B6kQ6AEIQDAJ#v=onepage&q=commander%20690%20cessna%20421%20comparison&f=false

[edit: upon reflection the best thing in this magazine is probably the advertisement on page 121 for the Jaguar E-type, probably the the only thing advertised which is has gone up in value significantly since the mag was published. I'm pretty sure that the Narco and King Silver Crown avionics haven't gone up in value.]


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 21:04 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/03/11
Posts: 1845
Post Likes: +1819
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
Mitts short body is very comfy for 5. I found legroom to be similar to commander but with a slightly wider aisle. The back bench is amazingly comfortable.

Downside is you are not carrying more than 6 comfortable. Yes, three across works on the bench but that is a kid seat. I have sat in the short body with side bench seat and it was not comfortable. The sideways commander potty seat was better.

If you are only carrying 5 or 6 max, including the pilot, I find the short body great. The marquise cabin is pc12 Esque. It's huge and most have a great lav.

I wish I had 8 seats sometimes. It would be nice to carry two families. That requirement almost got me into a commander. Even though the sideways seat isn't perfect, you can squeeze two fAmilies with kids in a 690. I flew Denver to Mexico in a commander with 8 total. I was annoyed with sideways seat by the end (6', 170) but everyone else was quite happy. The picture window is awesome. One thing the c1000 loses.

The marquise is faster pilatus performance with a cabin to match bit slower than dash 10 commanders. Solitaire is a slightly roomier Tbm on slightly less performance (or at least around 850, less than 900)


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 22:02 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I don't take offense at the slap towards me, after all I did start it by picking on the MU2.

You are a marketing troll posting in these forums to generate name recognition and awareness of you and your business. So stirring things up by creating contention furthers your goals. The MU2 is an obvious target being a controversial airplane over the years.

Quote:
I personally feel like I have given the MU2 a fair shake, but I have learned on this very forum that any slight towards the airplane is fighting words.

MU2 owners are often confronted by ignorance oft repeated by many much like yourself. So much of it has been repeated so long that the truth is far less visible than the lies sometimes.

The only treatment is to constantly provide factual and objective information and hope those who matter can tell the difference, and pitty those who can't.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 22:04 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6322
Post Likes: +5519
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
But it does beg the question that has been asked here many times before - does every f-ing thread have to become a MU-2 thread? Guy wants a Turbo Commander, let's talk Turbo Commanders.

_________________
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: 13 Mar 2017, 22:11 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
How many people can comfortably transported in the short body MU2 which James is discussing upgrading from?

6 people very nicely. No knee knocking.

I had 7 once, 3 on the rear bench. Needs to be small people.

My useful load full fuel is 1220 lbs, so 6 plus bags is quite doable in most cases, or requires only a very minor reduction in fuel load.

Quote:
Hasn't this MU2 versus TC, little wing with lift flaps and spoilers versus big wing debate has been very well really, really well articulated multiple times in the last couple years and I'm getting a serious, possibly terminal case of the deja vu....

MU2 bashing is an addiction that some can't break, so the cycle starts over.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 22:12 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6713
Post Likes: +7244
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
Mike,

You are lucky I like you and that I am thick skinned.

I share my opinions about an inanimate object and you attack me personally.

That doesn't make me a troll, that makes you rude.

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


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 22:14 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
But it does beg the question that has been asked here many times before - does every f-ing thread have to become a MU-2 thread? Guy wants a Turbo Commander, let's talk Turbo Commanders.

First sentence of this thread:

"I love my MU2."

It was always going to be about comparing an MU2 to a Commander.

So suck it up and deal with it.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Last edited on 13 Mar 2017, 22:17, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 22:17 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/21/08
Posts: 5428
Post Likes: +6112
Location: Decatur, TX (XA99)
Aircraft: 1979 Bonanza A36
Username Protected wrote:
But it does beg the question that has been asked here many times before - does every f-ing thread have to become a MU-2 thread? Guy wants a Turbo Commander, let's talk Turbo Commanders.

First sentence of this thread:

"I love my MU2."

I was always going to be about comparing an MU2 to a Commander.

So suck it up and deal with it.

Mike C.

Everybody doesnt pray at the MU2 alter.
So suck it up and deal with it.
_________________
I'm just here for the free snacks


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 22:18 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/16/10
Posts: 2031
Post Likes: +886
Location: Wisconsin
Aircraft: CJ4, AmphibBeaver
Username Protected wrote:
But it does beg the question that has been asked here many times before - does every f-ing thread have to become a MU-2 thread? Guy wants a Turbo Commander, let's talk Turbo Commanders.

First sentence of this thread:

"I love my MU2."

I was always going to be about comparing an MU2 to a Commander.

So suck it up and deal with it.

Mike C.


Hard to ague this one.........just saying

Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 22:20 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Everybody doesnt pray at the MU2 alter.

Don't want or need them to, just hoping they would stop vandalizing the altar for a while.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 22:29 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7090
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Username Protected wrote:
But it does beg the question that has been asked here many times before - does every f-ing thread have to become a MU-2 thread? Guy wants a Turbo Commander, let's talk Turbo Commanders.


Nah, he wants a PC12 so he can beat on the bulkhead and get warp speed bro!!!!

_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 22:55 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6713
Post Likes: +7244
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
Username Protected wrote:
But it does beg the question that has been asked here many times before - does every f-ing thread have to become a MU-2 thread? Guy wants a Turbo Commander, let's talk Turbo Commanders.


There's three MU2 threads going just on the first page of Brand X Talk... for such a small fleet they sure have a big footprint on forums.

Someone should create an MU2 forum... they'd get rich! :cross:

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


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 23:00 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/08/12
Posts: 1458
Post Likes: +937
Seriously folks. The MU2 has been getting a bad rap for decades, mostly from those that don't know the airplane.
It is a high utility machine that is fast and efficient as well as having a high safety rating. After having to go through
re-certification 4 times and given a clean bill of health each time is evidence of this. I don't think any production airplane
has gone through the extreme ice testing as the MU2 airframe.

I had a long body Marquise. It road the bumps extremely well, the cabin was comfortable with a large potty area.
The potty is much more usable in the Marquise than my Beechjet. It is no slouch either. On a warm, slow day, I would
see 285-290 kts. On a cool day, I would see 295-305 kts. If you have a good airplane, dispatch reliability is superb. The
mechanics that work on them love them. Product support is 2nd to none.

It flies a little different and has a few different procedures as compared to piston twins and the cookie cutter turbo-props.

You will hear all kinds of things contrary to the truth from people that talked to a guy. THAT is why MU2 owners
get their feathers ruffled. Just trying to set the record straight.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 23:09 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6713
Post Likes: +7244
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
Tom,

I agree. I would point out that that is true of current and former MU2 owners who like them... there is such a thing as former MU2 owners that do not like them. I know people personally who have owned them and don't like them... or like the Commander better, etc.

I also know Beechjet owners / pilots that don't like Beechjets... or fly Beechjets because they hate Slowtations.

Lear pilots hate all other airplanes. All tall pilots hate Lears.

It's a machine. I do understand the unfair rap and that one could get defensive, but at some point if a guy doesn't like your Ford pickup... tell him to get a Dodge.

I'm actually fascinated by the loyalty. A marketing firm should set up a brand study!

I had never actually met any rabid MU2 fans until I joined Beechtalk. Ron and I had a couple of short bodies back in the day, they were fun and I think he (an actual bonified MU2 and Turbo Commander owner / pilot) like the Mits... but he preferred the Commander. I'll call him up and ask... maybe I missed something and he was a rabid fan.

I have to add that I have flown in more airplanes than I can count. In fact the only turbine aircraft I haven't flown in would be obscure models. So I probably have a wider level of exposure and therefor less affection for particular models.

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


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 218 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 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

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