banner
banner

19 Jun 2021, 13:33 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Greenwich AeroGroup (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Twin Commanders
PostPosted: 11 May 2021, 10:22 
Offline


 WWW  Profile

Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 13363
Post Likes: +16329
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEVV
Aircraft: MU-2B-26, C560V
Username Protected wrote:
The Citation will have to stop for fuel on a 1000 NM flight, so the Commander will beat it to it's final destination...

Not if you get the right Citation.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Twin Commanders
PostPosted: 11 May 2021, 11:00 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 11/30/17
Posts: 6
Post Likes: +5
Location: KPTK
Aircraft: AC90
Howard,

We have an 840 and love it. I'd be happy to share any data with you but my first suggestion would be to call Bruce. He knows everything about them.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Twin Commanders
PostPosted: 11 May 2021, 22:03 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 03/01/15
Posts: 12
Location: Ft Worth
Jonathan Thanks for the real world share. Been trying to talk myself out of the Commander but keep coming back to same conclusion, that it built like a tank and the efficiency is hard to come by.
Would you mind sharing what you budget annually? How many unplanned mx events do you experience in a given year?
Seeing hsi are way less than pt6, 60k for a pair?
The recurrent stuff seems manageable at the gear and props every 5 years. What's a rough ball park on these items? 25k for each or 10k/annual reserve?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Twin Commanders
PostPosted: 12 May 2021, 15:46 
Online


User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 4958
Post Likes: +3888
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
Howard, I'm not sure the HSI's are cheaper than on PT6's as the engines have to come off. Everything else on engine cheaper, though.

_________________
Slumming it in the antique turboprop world - so you don't have to!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Twin Commanders
PostPosted: 12 May 2021, 18:33 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 11/06/13
Posts: 338
Post Likes: +172
Aircraft: C208B, AL18-115
Howard,

I am based out of Fort Worth as well. I have spent a fair amount of time thinking about Commanders. One negative is that there is not a local pilot pool-particularly compared to King Air or Citation pilots. Another negative is that you have to travel to a service center for the 150 hour inspections.

My insurance broker said underwriters hate old twin turbines for owner pilots and to expect low limits and high hull deductibles. Now I know many people on BT have different experience with insurance, so I may be wrong.

I still lust after Commanders, but I couldn’t make one work for me.

Ed


Top

 Post subject: Re: Twin Commanders
PostPosted: 12 May 2021, 18:55 
Offline


 WWW  Profile

Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 13363
Post Likes: +16329
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEVV
Aircraft: MU-2B-26, C560V
The big negatives for me on Twin Commanders were:

1. High airframe maintenance. Always seemed to be some issue related to corrosion, cracking, and it is just big.

2. Hangar size.

3. Not good in turbulence, wing loading too light.

The MU2 is at the extreme other end of those factors.

The Twin Commander does handle nicely on one engine, the MU2 less so, but far better than I expected, which is why I got one.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Twin Commanders
PostPosted: 12 May 2021, 21:30 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 10774
Post Likes: +6625
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
and then there is the PC12 :D

_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: Twin Commanders
PostPosted: 12 May 2021, 21:42 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 08/09/11
Posts: 1068
Post Likes: +974
Company: Naples Jet Center
Location: KAPF KPIA
Aircraft: EMB500 AC95 AEST
Username Protected wrote:
and then there is the PC12 :D


Penman! I mean it’s bad enough that someone has to turn every thread into one about how their own plane is superior while bad mouthing the other subject plane (which they’ve never owned of course) which seems to happen with a certain model regularly, but you don’t need to prop up the PC12 values here - those things are strong. Imagine the world domination if they had a Garmin G3000 ... :bud: :thumbup:


Top

 Post subject: Re: Twin Commanders
PostPosted: 12 May 2021, 22:34 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 10774
Post Likes: +6625
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Username Protected wrote:
and then there is the PC12 :D


Penman! I mean it’s bad enough that someone has to turn every thread into one about how their own plane is superior while bad mouthing the other subject plane (which they’ve never owned of course) which seems to happen with a certain model regularly, but you don’t need to prop up the PC12 values here - those things are strong. Imagine the world domination if they had a Garmin G3000 ... :bud: :thumbup:



Bruce. what I'm saying is that I shoulda listened to you and bought a 1000, I'm an idiot......commander is the real deal. Great airplane!!!
_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: Twin Commanders
PostPosted: 12 May 2021, 23:19 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 08/09/11
Posts: 1068
Post Likes: +974
Company: Naples Jet Center
Location: KAPF KPIA
Aircraft: EMB500 AC95 AEST
Username Protected wrote:

Bruce. what I'm saying is that I shoulda listened to you and bought a 1000, I'm an idiot......commander is the real deal. Great airplane!!!


Ha - i appreciate that Michael but I think you’ve done quite well and there’s a tool for every mission! Your mission requires a school bus! The market is pretty damn efficient and there’s a great case study in value as you know and, I suspect, have enjoyed with Pilatus. :peace:

Top

 Post subject: Re: Twin Commanders
PostPosted: 15 May 2021, 11:18 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 03/01/15
Posts: 12
Location: Ft Worth
Hi Mike - fair points, although it has to be less than a beech turbine for airframe mx no? I get the lighter wing loading but recalled ride quality being superior than B200 in similar rough air. I think VA is slower than some though. What is the MU2 Va? I get the Mu2 appeal, similar buyer I would think to a Commander guy. Off the beaten path find a better way type personality Id say for the typical owner operator.

Username Protected wrote:
The big negatives for me on Twin Commanders were:

1. High airframe maintenance. Always seemed to be some issue related to corrosion, cracking, and it is just big.

2. Hangar size.

3. Not good in turbulence, wing loading too light.

The MU2 is at the extreme other end of those factors.

The Twin Commander does handle nicely on one engine, the MU2 less so, but far better than I expected, which is why I got one.

Mike C.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Twin Commanders
PostPosted: 15 May 2021, 11:27 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 03/01/15
Posts: 12
Location: Ft Worth
Good info and would agree on the pilot pool. Probably not a big pilot pool nationwide compared to those more 'standard' types. For owner operator wouldnt be a huge deal but could see wanting to have a guy on standby for SIC or sending the plane on a mission type trips.

I was concerned about insurance as well but my broker told me 5MM smooth seems to be doable for around 20% more than king air prices (same hull value). Other turbine multi time is almost a requirement though.

Username Protected wrote:
Howard,

I am based out of Fort Worth as well. I have spent a fair amount of time thinking about Commanders. One negative is that there is not a local pilot pool-particularly compared to King Air or Citation pilots. Another negative is that you have to travel to a service center for the 150 hour inspections.

My insurance broker said underwriters hate old twin turbines for owner pilots and to expect low limits and high hull deductibles. Now I know many people on BT have different experience with insurance, so I may be wrong.

I still lust after Commanders, but I couldn’t make one work for me.

Ed


Top

 Post subject: Re: Twin Commandersn
PostPosted: 15 May 2021, 20:42 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 03/22/14
Posts: 47
Post Likes: +37
Aircraft: AC90, BE36, C210
Howard,
I ended up with a turbine commander (690B) after looking at lot of options.
Absolutely no regrets.
My motivation was speed: 300kt plus TAS true year round, with the ability to carry 900 lbs of payload 900 Knm.
The 501SP looked like a good fit but I did too may short trips mixed in with the longer trips, and it didn’t make sense due to the fuel burn.
We looked at Cheyenne’s and MU2s but ended up liking the commander better.
1. Dash 10 331s have a lot of pluses over the PT6, both power, and costs. 5k to 7k tbo.
2. Twin Commander still supports the airframe. Not an Orpan.
3. Nice cabin, easy to load, low to the ground, huge baggage hold. 6 feet, 600 lbs for stuff.
4. Low Vmc 83 ias, never takeoff with flaps, rotate at 90kts. Single engine climb is superb.
5. Great flying qualities. Very well balanced. A joy to fly.
6. Maintenance is reasonable. Other than the gear inspection at 5 years, not much to worry about.
7. Irrelevant History and provenance not super important. I was working on a TBM acquisition that my agent rejected. Some of the logbooks were in French. Big deal? In the TBM world, yes. On TBM’s Everything must be perfect from day 1 or the agents shun the airframe. In the Commander World, history and provenance is more common sense based. So resale won’t suffer if you have a maintenance event outside the 8 service centers.
8. Avionics easily upgradable. Garmin 600txi and Stec3100 can bring an old panel up to date. Not stuck with old stuff.
9. Dirt, gravel, grass, or paved. All surfaces well tolerated. The high wing tpe331 seems to handle it well. Handles shorter fields great.

I would presume you would be looking at 441’s, Cheyenne IIIa’s and MU2’s for a similar mission. The 690/695 is a great choice.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Twin Commandersn
PostPosted: 16 May 2021, 09:13 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 03/01/15
Posts: 12
Location: Ft Worth
Glad to hear from an operator awesome info!

Any issues in turbulence? Or is the lighter wing loading only a concern in the longer wingspan models? I may be reading this wrong but it seems like the 695 Va is lower than the 690.

Username Protected wrote:
Howard,
I ended up with a turbine commander (690B) after looking at lot of options.
Absolutely no regrets.
My motivation was speed: 300kt plus TAS true year round, with the ability to carry 900 lbs of payload 900 Knm.
The 501SP looked like a good fit but I did too may short trips mixed in with the longer trips, and it didn’t make sense due to the fuel burn.
We looked at Cheyenne’s and MU2s but ended up liking the commander better.
1. Dash 10 331s have a lot of pluses over the PT6, both power, and costs. 5k to 7k tbo.
2. Twin Commander still supports the airframe. Not an Orpan.
3. Nice cabin, easy to load, low to the ground, huge baggage hold. 6 feet, 600 lbs for stuff.
4. Low Vmc 83 ias, never takeoff with flaps, rotate at 90kts. Single engine climb is superb.
5. Great flying qualities. Very well balanced. A joy to fly.
6. Maintenance is reasonable. Other than the gear inspection at 5 years, not much to worry about.
7. Irrelevant History and provenance not super important. I was working on a TBM acquisition that my agent rejected. Some of the logbooks were in French. Big deal? In the TBM world, yes. On TBM’s Everything must be perfect from day 1 or the agents shun the airframe. In the Commander World, history and provenance is more common sense based. So resale won’t suffer if you have a maintenance event outside the 8 service centers.
8. Avionics easily upgradable. Garmin 600txi and Stec3100 can bring an old panel up to date. Not stuck with old stuff.
9. Dirt, gravel, grass, or paved. All surfaces well tolerated. The high wing tpe331 seems to handle it well. Handles shorter fields great.

I would presume you would be looking at 441’s, Cheyenne IIIa’s and MU2’s for a similar mission. The 690/695 is a great choice.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Twin Commandersn
PostPosted: 16 May 2021, 11:44 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 03/22/14
Posts: 47
Post Likes: +37
Aircraft: AC90, BE36, C210
[quote="Howard Weinstein"]Glad to hear from an operator awesome info!

Any issues in turbulence? Or is the lighter wing loading only a concern in the longer wingspan models? I may be reading this wrong but it seems like the 695 Va is lower than the 690.

The 690/695 handles turbulence much like the others in its peer group, exception being the MU2. My previous operation experience in the flight levels were in PA46’s and ride alongs in a few other turbines. Ride quality is average to good lMO. 180 kias is the limit for moderate turbulence, Va at greater turbulence. As Byerly would say, this topic is not very high on the decision tree when looking at AC90’s


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  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 2007-2021

.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.bkool-85x50-2014-08-04.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.dshannon.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.rtc-85x200.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.McPeck_85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.SierraTrax_85x50.jpeg.
.concorde.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.Flaremeter_85x50_v2.png.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.avionicssource-85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.instar.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.southseas-85x50-2021.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.Davis_Aviation_85x50.jpg.
.truecourse.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.garmin-85x200-2021-05-24.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.avidyne-85x50-2017-11-22.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.ps_engineering.gif.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.STLAir_85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.EagleFuelCellsTriple.jpg.
.echelon-85x50.png.
.jaair-85x100.jpg.
.heartlandsm.jpg.
.greenwich-85x50-2020-08-10.jpg.
.dynon-85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.aspen-85x100.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.kingairdom.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.westsky.jpg.
.Expert_Aircraft_Solution_85x50.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.airpower-85x50.jpg.
.Microkit_85x50.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.methodseven-85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.