Hard to beat the A-Star. Throttle it back to what a Colemill B55 will do at 12k ft and you can do the same at 22k ft burning the same fuel and riding above the weather. I would keep the A-Star along with it's proven reliability.

Craig.

The low turbulence penetration speed you fault the Commander for was a mandated SB in 1995. The plane wasn't designed with this low a Va originally - it was an AD from the FAA that reduced it because of two accidents in high speed descents they couldn't explain.

The accidents you talk about were mainly in the 60's in Australia with the 500 models. The Australian CAA really went to town on it, and a lot of improvements were made. Since then, there have been no more or no less structural failures of Commanders than any other aircraft type, so it's just a reputation that can't be shaken.

John Towner in Kansas owns Central Air Southwest. They have about 30 Commanders they run night freight and charter with. Many of his 500B's have over 20000hrs on the airframe. You don't get to those hours with an airframe that's weak.

"...an AD from the FAA that reduced it [the Va] because of two accidents in high speed descents they couldn't explain...it's just a reputation that can't be shaken."

15-Oct.-2006
Narrative:
Approximately 37 minutes after departing on a 928-nautical mile cross-country flight under instrument flight rules, the twin-engine turboprop airplane experienced an in-flight break-up after encountering moderate turbulence while in cruise flight at the assigned altitude of FL230. In the moments preceding the break-up, the airplane had been flying approximately 15 to 20 knots above the placarded maximum airspeed for operations in moderate turbulence. The airplane was found to be approximately 1,038 pounds over the maximum takeoff weight listed in the airplane's type certificate data sheet (TCDS). The last radar returns indicated that the airplane performed a 180-degree left turn while descending at a rate of approximately 13,500 feet per minute. There were no reported eyewitnesses to the accident. The wreckage was located the next day in densely wooded terrain. The wreckage was scattered over an area approximately three miles long by one mile wide. An examination of the airframe revealed that the airplane's design limits had been exceeded, and that the examined fractures were due to overload failure. CAUSE: The pilot's failure to reduce airspeed while operating in an area of moderate turbulence, resulting in an in-flight break up. Contributing factors were the pilot's decision to exceed the maximum takeoff weight, and the prevailing turbulence.

Um...pass. Not this white boy. Look man, lots of people like Malibus and Jetprops too. Plenty of people fly them safely. Just not me. Commanders command more money than MU2s or A*s, so clearly your opinion of Commanders is more widely held. Still, the FAA put that speed restriction on the Commander for a reason. That accident above is not uncommon. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the heavier the airplane, the higher the Va; the overweight Commander should have been able to handle more turbulence, not less.

To each their own.

err sorry, wrong bird, but still a commander. Gotta stop reading on my phone and start using a big screen.....like a computer

I have flown a Commander 685.

Looked seriously at them before I ended up in the 421. I wanted a plane that could carry 8 people and a 685 does it better than any other piston.

66 were made, as noted they are underpowered. 8500 MGW as I recall. I looked hard, and there are 3-4 still flying actively and about 5 others that have been for sale forever. For whatever reason, they are/were good planes for low level aerial imaging and a number of them were used for that.

The Spar AD applies and unless the fix has been done (which some have) it's
1) expensive and invasive
2) potentially scraps the airplane

The mandatory gear overhauls do not apply and some of the other big AD's don't apply because the 685 did not have the 690 picture window.

The GTSIO engines have a number of unique parts that are not shared with the 421 engines and are basically made of unobtanium. The fuel system in particular. Overhauls are not only expensive but difficult.

Pressurization is a weak point and most of the examples I looked at supposedly only held 2-3 PSI.

There's a guy named Gary Gadberry outside of Chattanooga who as of last year had 3 airframes sitting in his hangar for sale. I flew one of them. On takeoff, the CHTs pushed 500 - I think the fuel flow was low.

It is a quiet plane. It is also big, but not - to me - meaningfully bigger than a 421.

John - if you really are interested, Putt Martin did a big refurb project on one a few years back and there's a guy name Milt Concannon (retired Cardiologist in McComb) who owned 414C before it's current owner. That plane has been sitting for at least 4 years at Eagle Creek.

Seriously guys, I'm not interested in buying one. I was just always attracted to the airplane for its obvious strengths; room, payload, and cool. Like so many other subjects, just "wonder" on BT and knowledge pours forth. I'm enjoying every bit of knowledge shared here.

Thanks

You do know that Va is a linear function of stall speed for normal category non-transport aircraft, right? Va = 1.949* Vs. It's that simple.

I have a Malibu and don't push the issues Craig mentions. I watch decent speeds closely and monitor for turbulence. It's the weak point on the airplane. If I watch and respect it closely the other benefits should pay the dividends I'm looking for.

Hey Jim, welcome to Beechtalk. As I believe it's cowardly to publicly criticize other people's comments without telling them why or who criticized, I'm the one who just "disliked" your post, although you probably don't give a flip.

The reason I dislike your post is because it doesn't make a point; rather, it appears that you've just trolled back to a post from 1/3 of a year ago to spit out a factoid you found on the internet.

Did you have a point?

Craig,

Though I was surprised at the post on this old thread, started by me BTW, I can see nothing in Jim's post to offend anyone unless, of course, you are looking for offense. His post was simple and to the point that Va can be calculated directly from stall speed.

Truth is, I have never seen, read, or heard this before and will have to do some study before I can agree. On the face, it does not seem correct in all applications.

Rest assured, I will research.

I would encourage Jim, to start a thread with that formula and theory posted and let's all see if there can be additional understanding shared.

Jgreen

Craig,

Not jumping your case either. Just think we all should assume "no foul" until it becomes pretty clear there was one. Makes for better relations, you know?

Jgreen

Craig,

I agree with John, thought your comment was a bit agressive. Jims new, let him get a lay of the land.

That being said, I still can't make sense out of the formula.

Jgreen

One, I didn't mean to criticize, just to comment. What I thought was obvious (I have an aero engineering background) probably isn't and I can see how offense was taken to my abrupt comment. Two, I signed my real name. Three, my point is that comparing Va is not a good way to compare structural integrity of two normal category aircraft.

Also, as a BT noob, I didn't realize that posting a reply didn't automatically sign me up for subscription notifications; thus the 10-day delay in replying. I assumed my comment was ignored - just the opposite.

In any case, the long-version discussion about Va is, as suggested, in this post:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=105248

Hey Jim, I think I misread your intention. FWIW, I took back my "dislike" of your comment and have enjoyed your comments on the subject since. Just thought I'd set the record straight.

I think I'm becoming a little jaded reading too many internet chat boards, lol. I see you've made your point on another thread. Mea culpa.