BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Oct 2016, 02:27

Username Protected wrote:

For the TC pilots (focusing on the 690):

Could/would you fly into 2,600 foot dirt strip at 1,900 agl with enough fuel to fly 400 nm with a full cabin?

Can you comfortably squeeze 7 people in (including pilot and co-pilot) and luggage? How about 8 people?

Last question for now: how are TC's in ice?

Yes, you could. Yes, I would depending on OAT and how much gravel goes with that dirt. 7 is easy 8-10 gets really cozy.

In my experience, I'm unaware of better propeller driven planes in ice. You can see the leading edge and the bottom of the wing and inlets at a glance. And the ice slings off the props behind you with a satisfying "thwack" so you know they are working

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Oct 2016, 06:12

Username Protected wrote:

For the TC pilots (focusing on the 690):

Could/would you fly into 2,600 foot dirt strip at 1,900 agl with enough fuel to fly 400 nm with a full cabin?

Can you comfortably squeeze 7 people in (including pilot and co-pilot) and luggage? How about 8 people?

Last question for now: how are TC's in ice?

I'm pretty sure the plane will do it no probs... but that's too short for me today, still learning the bird.
I've heard a pretty interesting story, second hand, from a pilot I did my initial training with in the TC, about a pilot who contributes here, with the initials MH, who ended up basing a TC on an even shorter runway, if I recall correctly. Believe it was his first turboprop.

I'd figure it would be relatively good on ice, you don't need to use brakes: rudder, beta, reverse, differential power give you plenty of stopping power and non-wheel related control, will do everything you need.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Oct 2016, 12:05

Username Protected wrote:

Just realized I was responding to a contaminated runway question, when the question actually related to airframe icing... whoops

I didn't want to say anything about your gaffe since you drive a Commander...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Oct 2016, 20:44

Username Protected wrote:

I have put 7 pax in a "short cabin". Bench seat has three belts, they were all adult female and very cozy by the time they were belted in. The comfortable limit is 6 adult pax. Children can easily fit 3 across in the back.

Looking at the 690 (not 690A or 690B) charts you have a temp limit of 100F at max gross in a -5 straight 690. That puts you using 2600ft of dirt. Your landing charts put you at 2400ft with no reverse under those same max gross, 100F conditions. No reverse is important to consider on a dirt/gravel strip.

Something to consider; I have departed in a -10T B model using your parameters off of turf. I used about 2350. All of my pax are experienced commander flyers and they didn't like it, even after I warned them (maybe I shouldn't have warned them).

My experience with ice varies from scared to bored. At altitude and on speed the plane is easy with a load of ice; I think most planes probably are. Down low with configuration changes in preparation to land can be a different story; again, I think most planes are. I personally wouldn't characterize the commander as good or bad in ice because just like the retirement home, it all depends. I know a pilot that probably found the aerodynamic limit of a commander with a load of ice. None of that knowledge survived the crash. To say a commander can "haul a lot of ice" is subjective and at best a moving target. That's my 2 pennies worth.

Hey Barry, I flew your 840 yesterday ... what a nice machine. Someone is going to get a gem.

And good point on ice, it certainly does depend. I almost learned the hard way in a 58 Baron that, well, the tail boots might not always work like they should. The boots inflated but the tube on that relatively sharp leading edge had a hole or two which made it ineffective. I stalled the tail and scared myself silly. The damage was hard or even impossible to determine pre-flight.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Oct 2016, 14:48

Thanks Bruce, I will be out there next week in the 900, she is flying well too. I will probably get the other 840 back next week as well. Looks like the hangar will be stacked and packed again. :ahhh:

Say what you will about short wings but I do enjoy the fact my A model is easier to pile in the hangar.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Dec 2016, 18:19

Landed at Cannes a few nights ago with a new camera running [youtube]https://youtu.be/MFoOdBd0Cz0[/youtube]

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Dec 2016, 18:25

Nice one, Patrick!

But tell me, who does your recessed lighting for the engine instruments? I've never seen that - it's always post lights. Any ideas?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Dec 2016, 18:39

Username Protected wrote:

Nice one, Patrick!

But tell me, who does your recessed lighting for the engine instruments? I've never seen that - it's always post lights. Any ideas?

Sorry Adam, no idea. I also have post lights.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Dec 2016, 23:10

Username Protected wrote:

Nice one, Patrick!

But tell me, who does your recessed lighting for the engine instruments? I've never seen that - it's always post lights. Any ideas?

Sorry Adam, no idea. I also have post lights.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Dec 2016, 05:33

Bruce, I'm trying out using a Sony HDR-AS50 recently. The image quality is good, the menus are intuitive, battery life is very good and it is nice and compact. The price point is good. From inside the cockpit the images are never going to be breathtaking and my videos are mostly a training tool for myself to review flights after I've flown them. I find filming keeps me honest in assessing where I need to polish my skills, e.g., lately some of the IFR procedures in Europe and automation management. It helps me avoid selective memory and has lately allowed me to capture a few good landings, which seem to be the hardest bit of Commander flying (other than taxiing).
I've had numerous GoPros and they are quite annoying- battery life is poor, the menus are counterintuitive, and the batteries need to have been charged the night before or they are dead when you try to use them. They take good photos and videos when they are working but I'm fed up with them. They seem overpriced today, as well. I did like my Sessions for surfing videos but it is less waterproof than advertised, I've gone through a couple of them.
For in cockpit filming I really liked my Garmin Virb but it recently died. It was a bit big and clunky but very tough and had great battery life.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Dec 2016, 18:03

Nice viss
Watching "StratoBee" on YouTube right now. :popcorn:

Happy New Years Adam
I'll fly down for tour sometime,
Mark
Happy New Years to short annuals and cheap fuel :cheers:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Feb 2017, 12:12

Bump a little: someone mentioned the -10's in the 690's as somewhat limited by cabin pressurization. Anybody care to elaborate?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Feb 2017, 12:27

Username Protected wrote:

Bump a little: someone mentioned the -10's in the 690's as somewhat limited by cabin pressurization. Anybody care to elaborate?

Think what they're referring to is that cabin diff is a little on the lower side. It's 5.2psi, so at FL280 have about a 11000ft cabin. The engines are not a problem. In fact, on the later 6.7psi models the same Dash 10 goes to FL350, no problem.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Feb 2017, 17:02

Username Protected wrote:

Bump a little: someone mentioned the -10's in the 690's as somewhat limited by cabin pressurization. Anybody care to elaborate?

Think what they're referring to is that cabin diff is a little on the lower side. It's 5.2psi, so at FL280 have about a 11000ft cabin. The engines are not a problem. In fact, on the later 6.7psi models the same Dash 10 goes to FL350, no problem.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Feb 2017, 17:43

Am I correct to assume that only the Commander 1000 models have a flushing lav?

Turbo Commander