It looks like 2014 will be the year that I finally make the move to a Turbo Prop. I currently fly a 2010 G36 that I bought new and flew home from Witchita. I added the D'Shannon Genesis conversion, and with the tips and 4000 GW. it is a seriously capable aircraft.

Having said that, my missions are farther with the need to carry more people, in weather.

I've been doing my due diligence on Twin Turbo Props, and have looked at all the usual suspects in detail. One aircraft that is rarely mentioned is the Twin Commander. There are actually (2) of them at the field where I'm based. I initially discounted these planes because of age first, then appearance (I know this is shallow, but they're kind of ugly, and everyone wants that ramps appeal...)

Anyway, the more research I did on Twin Commanders, the more I liked them, and then their appearance even started looking good to me. After talking to dozens of owner operators, and spending a full day at Eagle Creek, a Twin Commander Service Center, I'm impressed with this aircraft, its ongoing support, and the people in the Twin Commander community.

Based upon my research this is a hard aircraft to beat because of:

- Low acquisition costs - 800K for an excellent aircraft (690A or 690B)
- Low operating costs - 75 Gal/hr at 300 kts, with -10 Engines
- Lower insurance costs, and annual taxes
- 5000 hr Engine TBO
- Great Range and Useful load
- Great reliability
- Great ergonomics, easy to get into and out of (No "Air Stair" to climb for my older passengers)


Glass cockpit is also important to me after 800 hours with the Bonanza's G1000. THere are many Commanders out there with G600's and GTN's , so this will ease the transition (I realize a G600 is not a G1000, and I will miss my GFC700)

I'm also fully aware of all of the S/B's, A/D's Wing Spar Inspections, Aft Pressure Bulkhead Modifications (SB241) etc. etc. etc. These are manageable, and have been taken into consideration.

So,,,,, before I pull the trigger I'm interested in your opinions. Am I missing something here?. Have I had too much Commander Cool Aid?

Thanks Jim





So,

Great Airplane! Especially the wet wing 1000. The D windows often don't pass and pulling the bladders is a job in the older models.

Check out EAM in Scottsdale. They are the west coast hub for TC operators.

The TC 1000 is on my short list. Please keep us posted with your experience.

I'm curious where the MU2 sits for you in this consideration. They can be had for quite a bit less than $800 AMUs, have great performance and beautiful cabin.

I flew in a grand renaissance 840 commander from Sedona to Telluride on a wild winter weather day. It was a great experience I would do again if I had the chance.

The commander I flew in was a seriously capable aircraft. The speed and efficiency is incredible compared to our C90. Looking back, I kind of wished we would have looked a little harder at the twin commanders.

My perceived C90 advantages over a 690 commander:

Better/Bigger cabin
More cargo room ( I have wing lockers)
More maintenance options available
More passenger familiarity/comfort with my aircraft
Easier resale market

Disadvantages:
Speed (35+ knots)
Fuel Efficiency

Bottom Line: I think you should go for a commander! Just get the best plane and best training you can. Consider hiring an experienced propilot for the first year if you can.

Hi Don, - I Think the MU2 is an excellent aircraft as well. It has the same engines as the Commander, so speed an economy would be similar. The reasons I chose to focus on the Commander over the MU-2 is as follows:

- I believe the MU-2 can be more unforgiving if not flown exactly by the numbers. I'm basically a chicken, so I like to stack the deck in my favor

- There aren't as many MU-2's out there with G600's. This seems to be a pretty common upgrade in Commanders, and there's even an STC that should be out this summer for a G1000 option.

- Additional annual training requirements, and inability for others to fly the aircraft without what almost amounts to a type rating.

Beyond that I dont know about Service Center Support, ongoing S/B's etc. for the MU-2. I would assume that the MU-2 community is a close knit bunch and already have this worked out.

I think there's huge bang for the buck in either plane.

MU2 has many fewer airframe/support issues than the Commander. It is also supported very well by Mitsubishi as a matter of corporate pride rather than by a standalone support organization that must live entirely off the revenue of the commander fleet. You don't have the mandatory gear overhauls, prop overhauls, spar inspections, etc.

If you are interested, you should attend PROP, it's a biennial MU2 operator conference put on by Mitsubishi. http://turbineair.com/prop-registration/

MU2 training is not substantially different than what insurance would require on a 690. Of note, you do need 100 Multi PIC before solo by FAR. The few people can fly the plane to maintenance issue is real, but the specialist shops have people who can do it.

If you like the -10 garrets, also take a look at a B100 King Air or Cessna 441. B100 is a really nice plane. More like 260 kts, but all the KA perks.

Congratulations on your search. Fun times indeed!

I strongly considered a 690b before I bought the KA. I even made an offer on one. Depending on finances, I may enter into a partnership in an 840 based out of TEX. I've become friends with the 840 owner and he's taken me on one of his trips.

Have you flown the Commander? It takes some work to learn to taxi (TO roll is a bit challenging too). Starts are a bit more involved than a PT6 but easy enough. I'm 6'5" and the cockpit is tight- so much so that I can not consider one if it doesn't have articulated seats. Once in the air, it is simple.

Here's what I consider the major points of each plane:
B200 is more money and less speed, but easier to fly, simpler systems and much bigger cabin. Both planes require a really big hangar (expensive!). PT6's cost twice the engine reserve as Garrett's and use 10% more fuel for the same power. In general, the KA has more curb appeal.

Mark Hangen (popular BT'r) was very generous with his time, answering all my questions about the plane and model differences. He convinced me that if I buy a commander, I really should buy a C (840) rather than a B. Turned out that Mark and I had some aspects of our business in common.

I also seriously considered the Eagle Creek Dash10 refits of Commanders...especially and only those that had addressed the dissimilar metals issues aft of the engines... and ended up with the Blackhawk 90. I agree that the right Commander could be a great aircraft at your price level.

I love the commander, and am blessed to have about 150 hours in them... including a trip to Alaska Last year that was amazing.
I've got two Commanders that are for sale now, that I've been asked to help with. Both are awesome, both are Dash-10T's both are beautiful.
One is sitting with new engines, SB241, fresh paint, and new interior, but you'd want to do panel work to it.
You could put the G1000 in it at it's asking price, and still be just about at your $800k number.
I would consider doing the G600 instead of the G1000.... Lots of reasons why, but one is that the G1000 requires the panels to be tilted to work. Also the G1000 has a big key pad, and it's hard to find a place for it, with out the lower console... which I much prefer t have removed. I feel the G600 + either 530Ws or GTN 650/750s is the better choice.
You can't beat the Performance speed or efficiency of the Commanders.
The Second one is all around very nice, and has a much better panel to start with. both of these planes have been wonderfully maintained, and are ready to fly.
PM if you are interested.

Yes, keep us informed as you do this transition. I also fly a G36 TAT currently but always thinking about my next plane since I typically trade every 5-6 years. Your comment about missing the GFC 700 caught my eye, I feel the same way about it.

My single biggest problem with the Commander was that it is so darn big, I couldn't hangar it on my home airport. My Solitaire is the same footprint as my previous Cessna 340 (but 100 kts faster).

Commanders are supposed to fly really nicely.

Mits is built like a tank, has relatively few ongoing maintenance issues (especially compared to the Commanders). Great support from Mitsubishi, they own the primary factory authorized service center (Intercontinental Jet Service Corp in Tulsa), as well as provide non-maintenance support through Turbine Air Services in Dallas. Very good support.

But I have been told the Commanders have somewhat sweeter flight characteristics. I think you can also get RVSM approval if you are so inclined, though in these airplanes you need to have a long range mission where the last few thousand feet of altitude matters to justify the initial+ongoing costs of RVSM approval.

It sounds like you've done your research so you know what you're getting into. Commanders are nice airplanes. I think the later ones (840, 1000) have somewhat less mx issues, but that is based mostly on rumor and I have no direct knowledge.

Looked at commanders myself back before settling on a Cheyenne II. Too complex such as 4 fuel cells compared w something like 22, ongoing matenance issues and dissimilar metals. There was one at airport near where I'm based always leaked fuel was told the only way to fix one of the leaking cells was to basically split the fuselage in half ( don't know if the guy was embellishing or not).Cheyenne has been great airframe with major advantage being its simplicity esp. as these aircraft age ( basically a navaho w turbine engines). Trues abt 260 @ fl270 easy to hand fly ( actually didn't have a working autopilot for abt 6 mos.) and doesn't have any major reoccurring inspections. The stability issues really are a paper tiger more related to political issues at time of certification. Lot less to maintain then ka or commander.

The Commander has it's roots in North American and North American built good flying airplanes! I think they look GREAT! I know they fly GREAT!

Been a big thread on another site recently about having an MEL for turbine aircraft and that you can't legally fly when anything is inop. Would be interested to hear from some enlightened folks here what the regs say on that. This post made me think of that. I have one for my current plane, but I know a lot of guys flying single engine turbines do not. I wonder what applies to the turbine bonanza. It's not as simple as in an piston where you can placard something "inop" and still fly.... something as silly as an ice light could ground you without an MEL (at least that is my limited understanding)

I know it is thread creep, so if someone has any insight, perhaps opening up a new thread would be good.

All true. I have a close pal here who transitioned from a Columbia 400 single to a MU2. I told him that I was deeply concerned, because he asked me. Got his new multi rating then went straight into the Mits. That is a huge transition. He struggled for a while (his words to me), but he really worked at it and got typed in the twin and now feels quite comfortable. I do believe he has hired a permanent copilot. Probably a good move and an expensive commitment that speaks well of his good sense. Great aircraft, but requires total professionalism. The other pal who flies them (including dirt strips in jungles) has 10,000 hours in it and absolutely loves the aircraft.