28 Mar 2024, 07:57 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2 Posted: 28 Feb 2022, 17:32 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/23/08 Posts: 6908 Post Likes: +3552 Company: AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx. Location: KDVT, 46U
Aircraft: IAR823, LrJet, 240Z
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Here's my 2 cents:
We bought a Commander 980 last summer after flying a Piper Meridian for a year. If I'd looked into out of production turbines during my initial search, I'd probably be flying a -10 MU-2. But we went with the Meridian and quickly moved up to a Commander 980 to solve a lot of the well known shortcomings of the Meridian. Here are the pros:
- Predictable MX schedule. If you fly 150 hours a year, you have one inspection (a 150 hour and an annual). Pricier than an MU-2, but cheaper than a King Air is the rough guide.
- Range. This plane will go very far which means lots of flexibility and the ability to tanker fuel.
- The cabin. The bench seat is fantastic for passenger comfort and sleeping, and the picture windows are one-of-a-kind. We like have a standalone potty and since it's friends and family flying in the plane, it's private enough.
- The luggage space is massive. Every time I load baggage, I'm blown away by how big the cargo hold is.
- The entry door. Low entry is great for mobility impaired passengers, and I LOVE not having to climb over pax to open the door. It allows for very efficient loading and unloading and lends some real plane feel to it.
- The plane has very docile handling techniques and is a good "STOL" turbine platform. Landings can be a bit stiff, but that's likely an operator issue.
- I like the Commander eco system. High quality service centers across the country that are passionate about the platform (2 are <1 hour flight from my new home), easily accessible training, and a responsive factory support service. When I looked at MU-2s, there were a lot of graybeard instructors, out of date websites, etc. Having said that, I recognize that they have excellent factory support.
- I think the major brokers for Commanders do a great job of managing the resale market. The planes tend to hold their value, and I rarely see examples sitting on the market for a long time.
Negatives
- It's a big plane which makes hangar space difficult to find. I'm moving cities and that's my current headache.
- The big wing also means a stiff ride in turbulence. Way better than the Meridian, but not as a good as the MU-2, or so I've heard.
- It's a bit of a pig in crosswinds, and I haven't really nailed down the rudder to NWS transition on landings. Neither of these should be disqualifiers.
Either plane is going to be great, and will likely be an insurance headache until the market adjusts. The short body MU-2s are definitely economical rocket ships, but I wouldn't want to give up the standalone potty or mid-cabin entry. Regardless of which plane you get, I highly recommend the MT 5-blades. Absolute game changer, and worth the TAS penalty. Also my training was ~7k, so not far off from the MU-2 SFAR required training. FWIW, I also wouldn't put stock in the OWTs regarding MU-2 safety.
EDIT:
Forgot the performance stuff. Shorter flights I go FL200-220 ~280-285KTAS at about 85GPH. Longer flights I go FL260-280 at 280KTAS at about 65GPH. My plane is a bit slower than the brochure, but that may be a result of my newness at flying the aircraft coupled with 5-bladed propellers. Best 6th post on BT ever, if you ask me. "Stand (-) alone (and) Potty"... I had to do that once in the Mu2. Kept my headset on and it felt really strange.
_________________ Tom Johnson-Az/Wy AssuredPartners Aerospace Insurance Tj.Johnson@AssuredPartners.com C: 602-628-2701
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2 Posted: 28 Feb 2022, 19:02 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/09/13 Posts: 235 Post Likes: +164 Company: EPIC Imaging Consultants LLC Location: Indiana
Aircraft: Commander 840
|
|
[quote="Grant Parks"]Here's my 2 cents:.
- The luggage space is massive. Every time I load baggage, I'm blown away by how big the cargo hold is.
The 840/980 have HUGE baggage compartments. All this fit and there was room for more.
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2 Posted: 28 Feb 2022, 19:57 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/18/11 Posts: 320 Post Likes: +288 Company: American Aviation, Inc. Location: Hayden Lake, ID
Aircraft: C90,340,PA31T,PC-12
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Some areas improving. The power is shifting back to us as brokers just a teency little bit and I've been able to move some larger jet accounts to other underwriters to get what clients need (and maybe send a lil message to "harder" markets")
But the off-brand stuff like Mu2, Commander, Aerostar, etc will always be a painful market. Especially with a whole new breed of younger underwriters moving up recently. They aren't willing to risk their "book" with things that will get them fired in an audit.
That won't change I'm sorry to say. There is some merit to the 4th post above. Tj According to my agent there are only two carriers willing to write for Mu2 and Commander but five or more carriers will write for the Aerostar, making the Aerostar way easier (2.5 times easier) to get insurance.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2 Posted: 28 Feb 2022, 21:53 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/23/08 Posts: 6908 Post Likes: +3552 Company: AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx. Location: KDVT, 46U
Aircraft: IAR823, LrJet, 240Z
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Some areas improving. The power is shifting back to us as brokers just a teency little bit and I've been able to move some larger jet accounts to other underwriters to get what clients need (and maybe send a lil message to "harder" markets")
But the off-brand stuff like Mu2, Commander, Aerostar, etc will always be a painful market. Especially with a whole new breed of younger underwriters moving up recently. They aren't willing to risk their "book" with things that will get them fired in an audit.
That won't change I'm sorry to say. There is some merit to the 4th post above. Tj According to my agent there are only two carriers willing to write for Mu2 and Commander but five or more carriers will write for the Aerostar, making the Aerostar way easier (2.5 times easier) to get insurance. Hmm, well I've got Mu2s placed with USSIC, Great American, Hallmark and W. Brown. It is certainly a lot easier to place a 421, Baron etc than some of the "off-brand" brands.
And I prefer off-brand airplanes myself!
_________________ Tom Johnson-Az/Wy AssuredPartners Aerospace Insurance Tj.Johnson@AssuredPartners.com C: 602-628-2701
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2 Posted: 01 Mar 2022, 11:38 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/08/12 Posts: 12797 Post Likes: +5224 Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It is certainly a lot easier to place a 421, Baron etc than some of the "off-brand" brands.
Is there any economic logic to this or is it a consequence of carriers wanting to have X examples of a specific type so that the Fiesler Storch book can stand independently?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2 Posted: 01 Mar 2022, 15:47 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/23/08 Posts: 6908 Post Likes: +3552 Company: AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx. Location: KDVT, 46U
Aircraft: IAR823, LrJet, 240Z
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It is certainly a lot easier to place a 421, Baron etc than some of the "off-brand" brands.
Is there any economic logic to this or is it a consequence of carriers wanting to have X examples of a specific type so that the Fiesler Storch book can stand independently? Probably some of it is “safety in numbers”. Parts and repair support experience also.
There is a lot of accrued OWT in underwriters, generally they are not pilots. I am one of very few active pilots in my industry.
And that is a fantastic amount of cargo in that Commander. Short body Mu is pretty good also, but not THAT much.
_________________ Tom Johnson-Az/Wy AssuredPartners Aerospace Insurance Tj.Johnson@AssuredPartners.com C: 602-628-2701
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2 Posted: 02 Mar 2022, 14:17 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/17/21 Posts: 87 Post Likes: +42
Aircraft: C550
|
|
+1 with Tarver. Had an MU2 great plane , but Citation is better.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2 Posted: 02 Mar 2022, 16:58 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13 Posts: 6322 Post Likes: +5519 Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Question for commander drivers...
What is maneuvering speed? What is IAS in normal cruise?
Does this differ for 6xx,8xx and 1000 versions? Va is pretty low - it got lowered a few decades back after an accident. Think it's 145kts for the 690 series. The 800, 900 and 1000 series has a new wing, so I think it's 180kts in those, but don't quote me on that. You'll prob see 200-220kts IAS.
_________________ Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2 Posted: 02 Mar 2022, 17:38 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/31/11 Posts: 982 Post Likes: +631 Company: B777, 767, 757, 727, MD11, S80 Location: Colorado Springs
Aircraft: Thrush S2R, AC500B,
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The second segment climb on the Subi makes me nervous. Subi? Of all the ways part 91 owners come to grief in twins ... it's rarely CFIT due to inadequate second segment climb gradient. How often do you need to fly hot, high, or heavy around major obstacles?
Have you not seen my wife?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2 Posted: 10 Mar 2022, 18:00 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/20/15 Posts: 555 Post Likes: +311 Location: KFAT
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Ironically, I am hearing that there are 3 or 4 companies writing policies today on the MU2, and as stated above I only am seeing 1 for the Commander.
I had no issue getting insurance on our MU2s. 11k for a 650k hull and 1m/100k liability. 25k deductible I think. Low liability, but the highest I could get and I'm new to MU2s. I will say the cabin is big and spacious in the long body. Easy to get in and out (watch the step or you'll lose a chunk out of your shin), lots of baggage space. Bought it during the height of these used plane market prices and it's still a great value.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2 Posted: 10 Mar 2022, 21:50 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/16/12 Posts: 77 Post Likes: +65 Location: KHEF & KCPS
Aircraft: C501SP
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Question for commander drivers...
What is maneuvering speed? What is IAS in normal cruise?
Does this differ for 6xx,8xx and 1000 versions? Commander 980: Va is ~134 if memory serves. There is placard for at or below 180 KIAS in moderate turbulence. That is roughly coincident with cruise KIAS at FL280. Generally speaking I slow below 180 KIAS passing 10k in the event that I hit rough air on approach.
|
|
Top |
|
|
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
|
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
|
|
|
|