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

Turbo Commander Operators, Please Step Inside

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
Register   Log in
T

TAG2

Goldmember
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Posts
69
I am looking for a good personal airplane. I am typed in several jets from Citation to G550 when I flew for a living. Looking at operating costs of the jets, I am not sure I want to jump in that deep. I have flown enough piston twins, that I know I don't want to go that route. I have never flown any Commanders, but from looking around the internet, I am starting to think either a 690B with -10's or even the newer 840/900/980/1000 models. It seems some of the bugs and SB's have been worked out with the later models. The performance and fuel economy seem to be unrivaled. MX with the 5400 TBO may also equate to lower costs.

I am looking for any input from pilots that have operated these airplanes. What are your thoughts on them and are they really the mx hogs that they are rumored to be. The 300 kts @ 500 lbs/hr is really great, but if it is in the shop every other week, I will look elsewhere. It also seems parts and support are better today than it was a few years ago. What's the real world deal with these?

Thank you in advance.
 
I cant help much with the Turbo commander as I've only rode in a couple. I remember they climb like a Otis elevator. Have you checked out MU-2's? I fly a -10 "K" model occasionally and I really like it. Seems to be a lot of bang for the buck.
 
They break a lot. A Turbo for a personal airplane? Yikes. If you really want one, I believe Aero Air in Portland, OR sells some with updated glass panels.
 
A few thoughts

If I were looking for a personal A/C as you are, I think I wold gravitate to the MU line of thinking. The Turbo Commander was the choice of the drug lords and the DEA back in the day.

You sound like the type of person that gets the proper training in the equipment he flies. If you do so in the MU, you should be fine. I would also consider a bird that can be flown single pilot. That increases your flexibility. I would also consider a single pilot Citation. Available parts and maintenance are propable better than either of the Turbo props.

It all comes down to cost-benefit choices and the majority of the missions you plan on flying, distance, runways, payload, etc.

Wish I had such hard decisions to make!

Good luck,

Jeff
 
I flew a brand new 980 for a corporate operator many years ago and have several hundred hours in type.

Avg TAS was 280-290 k with good fuel flows. We had cabin noise/vibration problems because of that big picture window in the 840/980. The 1000 model was quieter due to the smaller individual cabin windows.

We did not have continual maint problems with the airframe/engine.

I hear the plane has several maint shops across the country that specialize in Turbo Commanders. Do some research and inquire about spare parts availibility.
 
I flew a 690 for a couple years, real pilot's airplane. Easy to fly single pilot. TAS about 250 at FL250. Burned about 60 gal/hr. had a lot of MEL right ups on a continuing basis. If you don't have a local mechanic who knows the bird, you cna spend a lot of money while the guy learns your airplane. The one I flew had a freon A/C system without it you will melt in the cockpit if the outside temp is above 70F. We also had the Q tips on the props very quite inside. Owners decided to get a King Air 200, they were very disappointed in the increase in cost for more room in the cabin. If I win the lotto it would be on my list as a personal A/C if I can not afford a DA-20.
 
Do yourself (and your pocketbook) a favor and get a C90 Kingair.

They may not be as pretty or as fast, but they are much more reliable than a 690. I used to work at a place that had a couple of 690's- they were always broke. TPE331's are throw away engines. Commanders are the Volvo of the skies- pretty cool until you gotta get it fixed.
 
http://http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/03/qotd-x2-who-here-has-the-most-miles-on-a-car-whats-the-most-you-ever-attained/
propsarebest said:
Do yourself (and your pocketbook) a favor and get a C90 Kingair.

They may not be as pretty or as fast, but they are much more reliable than a 690. I used to work at a place that had a couple of 690's- they were always broke. TPE331's are throw away engines. Commanders are the Volvo of the skies- pretty cool until you gotta get it fixed.
Click to expand...
 
seriously, Commanders ARE GREAT AIRPLANES!!!!! But you need to look at a cessna 441 conquest II
 
+1 on the Conquest II. It is one bad-ass machine with the Dash-10s. 2k ft/min all the way up. 290kts on 500/hr. Lower if you are RVSM'd.
 
twinbeech said:
+1 on the Conquest II. It is one bad-ass machine with the Dash-10s. 2k ft/min all the way up. 290kts on 500/hr. Lower if you are RVSM'd.
Click to expand...

Yeah but will it easily take off and land on 2500' ? Not being a smart aleck, asking because I haven't flown a Conquest.
 
G100driver said:
I dunno ... I would not get an airplane that has a habbit of shedding its tail and or wings
Click to expand...
didn't know that was a problem with the TC.
 
Been more than one fatality ... mostly on older 690's. There is an STC out for both the tail and wing, however.

690 was a great airplane in 70's.
 
Let me broaden this topic a little. What would you say is the most reliable, economical cabin class piston twin or turbo-prop?

Of the airplanes I flew, the Gulfstreams had the absolute best dispatch rate. As long as they are flown regularly, very few mx problems. Even the old GII I flew with it's millions of relays, as long as it was exercised regularly, it just ran. But, that is about a million miles out of my financial category.

Beechjets weren't real bad, but they had their issues, mostly avionics or computers. C500 and 550 had several pre-takeoff failures.

I flew an older C-414 that usually ran well. Even though I put that in my question, piston twins can get very expensive to operate (Continentals) and not very good single engine performance.

The Turbo-Commanders are sexy looking airplanes and pilots seem to love them, but they are loaded with AD's and SB's. A few inflight break-ups.

The MU-2 is a tank, but if you search NTSB records, too many of them have met their demise. Even two pilot operations. But again, MU-2 pilots seem to love them.

I want something that I am comfortable loading my family or employees into.

King Airs seem to be just friendly airplanes that won't break any speed records, but the acquisition prices push on jet prices.
 
TAG2 said:
Let me broaden this topic a little. What would you say is the most reliable, economical cabin class piston twin or turbo-prop?

...................

I want something that I am comfortable loading my family or employees into.

......................

King Airs seem to be just friendly airplanes that won't break any speed records, but the acquisition prices push on jet prices.
Click to expand...


You've answered that one already. King Air has to top that list, not the sexiest or fastest on the block, but, there's a reason they still sell lots of King Airs. Reliability, comfort, relative economy.
 
I could not advise more strongly to not buy a Merlin. Worst flying POS I have ever been in. I have flown both -3 and -10 powered. -3 is scary under powered and -10 is still marginal. It will do 300 knots, but hates to climb. In one of these I also had the center windshield decide it no longer wanted to stay present for duty.

Big fan of King Air's. If you just have to have garrets, look at a B-100. F-90 is a hoot to fly. Other SN B-38 King Air 100, I have never had a King Air I did not enjoy.
 
I did contract work in a Commander 690B with -5 engines for several years. They are a wonderful airplane, and we had 100% dispatch reliability with this particular airframe. The wing and tail ADs were completed before I started flying it.

Maintenance wasn't cheap, and the 150 hour inspection interval instead of an annual can be a little funny depending on how often the aircraft is flown.
 
The 690 is a fantastic airplane. It's simple, it's easy to fly, it's got decent engines, it's efficient, it's fast, and it's a rock-solid IFR plane. I know of a few 135 outfits that use them for USFS fire fighting contracts. A lot of the work is down low over the mountains (turbulent) from high DA fields. If I could add one thing to the plane, it would be a larger door to allow loading of cargo.

Breakups will happen if you try to punch through turbulence at too high an airspeed in any plane. There is an AD out to beef up the tail and a placarded speed of 180 through rough air.

http://www.aviationweek.com/articles/BC4055.pdf

Good luck!
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom