Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Commander 700

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Dilligaff

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Posts
160
I'm looking for some info on a Commander 700. A friend is considering buying one - she likes the cabin layout - but neither of us know any more about this type of plane.

I'm looking for info on the following:

Maintenance reliability/costs
Useful load
Fuel burn
Range
Insurance
Any other info you might think is useful

Thanks,

Dilligaff
 
Not too many of them out there, I dont think I have ever seen one. I would definitely look into parts availability.
 
Dilligaff said:
I'm looking for some info on a Commander 700. A friend is considering buying one - she likes the cabin layout - but neither of us know any more about this type of plane.

I'm looking for info on the following:

Maintenance reliability/costs
Useful load
Fuel burn
Range
Insurance
Any other info you might think is useful

Thanks,

Dilligaff

Don't walk but run from this aircraft! First there were only about 26-28 ever built. I flew N9911S and N9922S back in the 80s and the plane is a PIG from the word go. For example, the tower would place bets if we'd clear the trees on takeoff.

Now I'll try and be positive. The cabin is huge, nearly the same size as a BE90 and from what I remember, relatively quiet. Pressurization was good for a piston twin. Control wasn't too bad when light...got a little "mushy" when heavy.

The aircraft was a joint venture of sorts with Rockwell in the U.S. and I believe Fuji Industries in Japan. After the run of piston engines, there was at one point, plans to hang PT6's on it. If they had done that they would have had a fantastic airplane.

It's been nearly 20 years since I flew one so I don't have any recollection on fuel flows or the like. I just prayed I'd get a trip in the Seneca rather than the 700.

Seriously, with so few being built, I doubt there is any training provider out there to get you up to speed. The aircraft is complex enough and a handful when heavy that I don't recommend "reading the book and going flying." Find someone current to help you for a while. Also, airframe parts might also be hard to come by. Again, I've been out of the plane a considerable time but with such a small number being built and the fact it's been out of production for so long, you'll probably have problems with parts for most everything except the engines.

Other than that, I'd recommend a good C414 before I'd recommend the 700.

I apologize for coming off so negative. I was never that impressed with the performance. Granted, we were almost always near MTOW so that does bias my opinion.

2000Flyer
 
Last edited:
Never, never, never buy a commander 700. BTW-I'm a huge commander fan with tons of 500 time. If you must have the pressurized compartment, buy a 340 or 414.
 
Thanks for the responses. I told her that there was probably a reason that there aren't many of these planes out there. Too bad, it's a cool looking plane. I already talked her out of a Cessna 303 - she liked that cabin, too.

Thanks again,

Dilligaff
 
Is that the one with the geared 520s? I heard continental built a 435hp geared turbo 520 for a Commander at some point.
 
Go back and read the first sentence of 2000flyers post. He is right on. Though I thought the total number of planes ever built was 34, that's not important. It's a pig and there is NO support for the aircraft.

There was one at an airport I frequent, and remember the owner saying that for one particular repair, they had to have parts fabricated from scratch.

Friends don't let friends buy 700"s.
 
Not the best safety record, either, considering how few were made and how few hours the fleet has probably flown. 3 of them were in fatal accidents (that I could find) and it sounds like another one was destroyed in an off-airport landing.

The fatals ran the gamut-- takeoff over gross in icing, feathered the wrong engine, straight down from cruise.
 
Could someone please translate for me? I don't speak lame white-boy hip-hop.

EMB Skillz said:
No joke, dawg, pilots with no SKILLZ tend to have accidents.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top