Turbo Commander

[Swass]

Looking to purchase a Turbo Commander. I looked at a TBM but just could not justify the purchase price. Could you give me advice as to what to look for, I have owned 421's in the past so that is all I really have to compare anything with. My company has also had an MU-2, but that was before my time here. They liked the plane alot but got scared when there were several accidents involving them in a short period of time. Seems to me the Commander has a better safety record and can be had very cheap right now. I would also entertain other options as well depending on the feedback from you guys. What's the good, the bad, and the ugly?

My trips are are anywhere from 200-600 NM, some short strips. I obviously don't fly into un-improved areas often, but the capability would be nice. Time is money, so speed is king.

Thanks for the help.

 

[pilotyip]

AC-690

I have over a 1000 hrs in the AC 690B, TPE731 -5 engines, I loved the airplane. If I was rich enough to buy a turbine airplane, I would buy a AC-690, it is fast 260-280 KTS, doesn't burn much gas, if I remember around 60-75 gallons an hour same as the BE-90 at 50 KTS less speed. Flies like a sports car drives. Will go into just about any strip you to want, and get out. Good inst bird, stable, good power response, no bad flying characteristics that I know of. I think I used a 3,000-3500' strip on occasion with lots of extra room, it does not mind grass either. On the down side it is noisy, has a lot of minor maint problems that you need to be working on it a lot. But better than a BE-90 of the same age. I have almost 3,000 hrs in King Airs, and they are alright. But if I never flew a King Air again it would be no big deal, but I loved that AC-690 and hope to fly in again someday. I like direct geared Turbo Props. Would loved to have flown the AC-1000.

 

[crash-proof]

There used to be a guy from my hometown who'd bring the company's 690 back home to visit family and friends. It was a 3000ft dirt strip, and asides from nicking the prop a little (rocks & pebbles), it performed just fine, with plenty runway left over. Climbed like a bat outta hel! too.

The guy, by the way, was a cowboy. Did high speed passes at 50ft. over the town (to the delight of the local kids).

 

[Loafman]

The Dash-10 conversion is also a worthwhile consideration. Even better fuel burn - performance numbers. If you look at early 70's airframes with the -10 engines, the purchase prices are reasonable. Check for recurring spar inspections, LE inspections, Spar cap AD's and Cleveland vs. goodyear brakes. Go for the Clevelands, I've owned Aero Commanders with Goodyears and three brake jobs on GY's will just about pay for a set of Clevelands. Clevelands are much cheaper to maintain. As a general rule of thumb, the airframes with the long picture window under the wing have most of the spar problems, if I remember right. It's a great airplane. Vmc is usually near Vso the rudder is so overpowering. Large tires and high mouned engines make it a great plane for unimproved strips. I took mine into 3000' grass fields in the mountains of Idaho. The tailcone is accessible from the baggage compartment, and mine had racks for skis/fishing poles, etc. Look out for older, heavier avionics, I removed several hundred pounds of old radios and replaced them with newer, lighter remote Collins equipment. Some older aircraft used 3000# Skydrol systems which proved to be a pain. Stay away from hydraulic powered air cycle machines. And NEVER EVER do business with a guy in California named Wes Brenton. He's the biggest crook in the Twin Commander world. Fly Safe.

 

[Flying Illini]

And NEVER EVER do business with a guy in California named Wes Brenton. He's the biggest crook in the Twin Commander world.

Didn't we just go over stuff like this in that Libel/Slander thread?!
Wish I had something constructive to contribute to the thread, but I don't. Sorry!

 

[Loafman]

It ain't slander when it's TRUE. Too many people to count have been burned by that guy. All the way down to theft of entire aircraft and pillaging of parts. Don't get me started.

 

[Flying Illini]

The guy sounds like a grade A a@@hole. Sounds like he hasn't been stopped yet, either.

 

[nascarpilot]

We ended our lease on a 690B this past Monday (6/2/03). Great airplane. Ours was a dash 5 airplane, so we typically saw 255 KTAS at 240. 250 was a struggle if fully loaded with fuel (2500#). Easy to fly, good power, no vices. There is a new mandatory service bulletin out on the rudder to inspect for cracking around the rudder cap. So far almost 75% of the airplanes are affected to some degree. Most just require replacing the fiberglass rudder cap with an aluminum one.

Dash 10 airplane is an honest 300 KTAS at 290. Both airplanes will burn about 400 PPH at cruise. I used 550 PPH for the first hour, 450 PPH thereafter.

There are a number of models that can get confusing. Here's some poop on them:

680V: Original turbine Commander. Underpowered

690A/B: The 690B has a 75# useful load increase over the A model. Also slightly different innards in the fuel sump. Came from the factory with TPE331-5 engines. Seats 7 plus pilot (three place couch in the rear, two rear facing club seats, side facing seat at the door, copilot seat).

840: Has the same fuselage as the 690A/B, with 6 feet more wing and wet wings instead of the 20 fuel cells in the 690. Came from the factory with TPE331-5 engines. Same seating as 690.

980: Same as the 840, but with TPE331-10 engines from the factory. Sames seating as 690.

900: Long fuselage (4 feet longer than the 690), 6.3 psi differential vs. 5.2 in the 690/840/980. The short airplanes are limited because of the big picture window in the back. The 900 and 1000 have 4 regular rectangular windows on each side. The 900 came with -5 engines. The airplane has a "cove" in the rear with either 2 extra seats or a potty seat.

1000: Long body with -10 engines from the factory. Later models had EFIS and FMS options.

We were about to re-lease a 1000, but a guy made us an offer we couldn't refuse on a Citation I/SP.

 

[avbug]

If only it wasn't for that pesky tail-falling-off problem.

 

[DC9stick]

Hey AVBUG,

There's been a couple of cases of wing failure, one doing unauthorized aerobatics back in the late 70's or early 80's and one recently that was decending at RED line and hit turbulence but I've never heard of the tail having a problem. There are some AD's on the wing spar that deserve a close look. A good prepurchase inspection by someone who knows Commanders in and out is absolutely necessary though.

 

[DC9stick]

900: Long fuselage (4 feet longer than the 690),

The fuselage is the same on all of the 690 series, the aft pressure bulkhead was moved three feet on the 900 and 1000 A/C

Some models were left out of the lineage

680 T, V, W TPE331- 43 43A 575/600 HP

681 TPE331-43BL 600HP

Some of these A/C were upgraded to "Century" status with -100 series engines 665 HP

690 TPE331-5-252K 717.5 HP Low pressure differential, opening in left side cockpit window

685, 690 with piston engines Continental GTSIO 520 K 435 HP

All Twin Commanders have fuel cells in the fuselage and inboard wing the 840 thru 1000 have wet wings outboard of the nacelles

From a maintenance standpoint I would stay away from any pre 690A A/C All Commanders can get VERY expensive if not properly maintained.

 

[hagen]

Hey Swass send me a pm with your email. I have a pdf that has all the models to compare against

 

[avbug]

The spar issues I'm very familiar with...I've done five of the mods myself (and don't care to see another commander wing for the remainder of my natural life).

Several TC's have shed their empennages in flight.

 

[DAS at 10/250]

Avbug,

I just looked though 37 pages of NTSB documents and couldn't find any reports of a 690 or larger TC shedding a tail.

Do you have any links or more information concerning the tail problem?

Not trying to bust your chops, it's just that we are looking at the 690 and I'm trying to get all the information.

Thanks.

DAS

Edit: Spar problem information would be appreciated too. Thanks.

 

[propsarebest]

And NEVER EVER do business with a guy in California named Wes Brenton. He's the biggest crook in the Twin Commander world. Fly Safe.

Is that the guy at Cameron Park???


I saw SOMEONE torch an engine- burned all the paint off the shroud after the guy I'm thinking of sold him the airplane. never flew once.

 

[Yellow Snow]

Might want to look at a dash ten merlin too. Big cabin, very fast, quiet, and a great range. Don't think you'd want to fly it on grass though.

 

[jergar999]

The absolute best place to get work done on the Commanders is Eagle Creek, IN. Don't hate them the first time you taxi one, it does get better.

 

[Corona]

Looking to purchase a Turbo Commander. I looked at a TBM but just could not justify the purchase price. Could you give me advice as to what to look for, I have owned 421's in the past so that is all I really have to compare anything with. My company has also had an MU-2, but that was before my time here. They liked the plane alot but got scared when there were several accidents involving them in a short period of time. Seems to me the Commander has a better safety record and can be had very cheap right now. I would also entertain other options as well depending on the feedback from you guys. What's the good, the bad, and the ugly?

My trips are are anywhere from 200-600 NM, some short strips. I obviously don't fly into un-improved areas often, but the capability would be nice. Time is money, so speed is king.

Thanks for the help.

First, you need to be aware that the TC has been out of production for 20 years, so parts are getting scarce. Engine instruments have problems getting good overhauls; there is a sales program w/Meggit to put in a mostly glass cockpit which is cool once/if you get it working right, and much more reliable than the steam gages.

I've flown the 690 A, B and C, some with -10 engines, some with -5s and the 695A&B (1000s). The latter are definitely the better incarnations. Commander finally got the airplane right when they went out of business, IMHO . The 1000s have both a nice, long cabin (8 seats total) and a generous baggage compartment, and they ride much better in turbulence. Also, better short-field t/o performance. It would be almost impossible to overload the airplane for the sort of missions you are describing. They also have about a 5.5 hr endurance, IFR reserves ( far longer than my butt wants to sit in those seats!). The long-wing Commanders (690C and later) can true over 300 KTS.

I also flew a couple of the last 1000s that had the factory EFIS conversions. I liked those best of all, but you can imagine how bad the parts support is for a manufacturing group of less than 20. The cockpit layout looks as if it were carefully laid out with a shot from a blunderbuss, but you quickly get used to it.

I believe that Garrett (nee AlliedSignal, or whoever these days) does not support the -5 engines anymore. They want everyone to upgrade to -10s; a good move. I would suggest buying one that has factory -10s (the previously mentioned 1000s), or getting one already converted. Also look for the wide-chord Q-tip props. They make either engine more efficient, and are quieter.

Someone mentioned the tail falling off; just make sure the airplane has the vert. spar reinforcement kit installed. It's rare to find one without it these days, but they are out there.

There are other things, like the upper rudder fairing, which need to be modified. (the fairing needs to be made of metal, not composite.) The Twin Commander Organization is the best source of info on these birds; you can call them for info.

I would guess most of the airframes average 30 years old. I've seen some real beautys over recent years, and a lot of dogs. Start your search with 690A's and go up. Don't even look at a straight 690 or earlier model. As with any old airframe, maintenance is key. I wouldn't buy any airframe that has spent a lot of time out-of-country and/or has not been maintained by a reputable facility.

It's a pretty decent airplane once you get used to the hydraulic steering. The handling sucks on the ground, IMO, but flies real nice. The huge rudder is awesome; I once did a trip with a dude who landed in gusting x-winds and we probably touched down just when it gusted to 40KT! He just ran out of rudder travel when the mains touched down. Comfort and noise aren't high marks, but you get what you pay for.

I'd recommend a good mid-time 1000 (695A) model. There are plenty of them out there, and you could pick one up for 500K-1.5M, depending on condition.

Someone mentioned the Merlin. I have no experience there, but know some pilots who have, and they love the airplane. It's fast, has a large cabin + potty, and has 2200NM range! That's West Coast to East Coast nonstop, with good winds! But again, it's another "orphan" in the industry...

Good luck,
C

 

[some_dude]

I am presently flying a couple of 690As and 1000s... Corona is right on in most respects, and especially in regard to the 1000. The 1000 is a very nice airplane.

I have also flown the Merlin IIIB quite a bit, although most of my experience is over 10 years old. My opinion of the two is that if you are riding in the back and use decent size airports, the Merlin is better hands down. It is as fast (if not faster), better pressurization, much better cabin, lots of baggage space... you get the idea.

The Commander (either 690 or 1000) is a much nicer airplane to fly. It also has far better short field performance than the Merlin. Other than that, my choice would be the Merlin.

Someone mentioned the Merlin. I have no experience there, but know some pilots who have, and they love the airplane. It's fast, has a large cabin + potty, and has 2200NM range! That's West Coast to East Coast nonstop, with good winds! But again, it's another "orphan" in the industry...