The skinny on a Renaissance Commander?

[H.Agenda]

All true. Not apples to apples. I was basing my answer on Ultraman's comparison.

I never flew the KA-200 but boy they sold a lot of them ... probably for a reason. I think that the last Commander was built in mid-80's ....
Apples to Apples however I would at least look at an aircraft in production. Or at least a manufacturer that is still in business.

They did sell alot. I love new planes. We have a 2 yr old PC12. On occasion I moonlight as a 40 yr old twin otter driver...

I understand your point of view with a buying an aircraft from a manufacturer that is still in business likely better customer service...

out of business = not successful = bad airplane, I believe is what your deducing. In any other industry, longevity = constistent excellent product.

Any Dehaviland plane, DHC-3, 6, McDonald Douglas 80s, DC-3, Grumman goose, Grumman F-14, are a few planes that I think prove this contrary..

Of course if you think of dangerous planes that arent in production there is a large amount of those... the one that continues to operate that comes to mind is the MU-2.

I know people who swear this plane is safe, I've never flown it. But I think its obvious that it has dangerous characteristics.

 

[bman]

I believe the 200 also will beat the commander in the payload/range comparison.The 200 is like a station wagon. You can pile a whole buncha stuff people crap into it and it will go. Also in my experience (lots in 200's very little in a commander) the beech is just fit and finish nicer.

Have you considered a used avanti? The Catfish is an awsome A/C and will smoke the comander in every aspect and the 200 in most. The operating cost are low you can go high (FL410 ) if you need to and it is fast quiet and roooooommy!!! The service has gotten better since Enzo and the boys took over and it is certainly an attention grabber!

Just my .02 ur milage will vary

 

[Ultraman]

I wasn't necessarily comparing the King Air 300 to the Commander. I have never flown a 200 and therefore can't comment on it. However, I have flown the 300 and 350, and I think the Commander is more of a pilot's airplane.

Sure, the steering is kind of quirky, but you get accustomed to it pretty quickly. You don't have to climb over the passengers to get to the cockpit, you don't have to throw the baggage up the stairs, the visibility from the cockpit is tremendous (no nacelle to block the view), you don't have to be a pipe organ player to get all the switches where they need to be for takeoff and landing (autofeather, ice vanes, ignition, ice protection).

The 300 King Air has the same dimensions and basically the same systems as the 200. The 300 has more powerful engines.

The dimensions of the King Air and the Commander are virtually the same:

King Air: fuselage 43' 10"
wingspan 54' 6"

Commander: fuselage 42' 11"
wingspan 52' 2"

I don't have the cabin dimensions handy but I'm sure the King Air cabin is longer.

As I stated originally, from a pilot's perspective, I don't think there's any comparison. However, corporate aircraft aren't normally chosen because the pilot likes to fly it----it's all about the guys in the back, and from their perspective the King Air would probably win for passenger comfort.


Ultraman