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

What a waste...

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
that has been there for at least 20, years. willow pond apt.
 
got the same type plane at Clover Field, S of Houston, in about the same shape. Overhauling the engines and props & catching up on AD's - probably costs more than the plane is worth.
 
Only in Georgia? I have seen stuff like that in all 50 states. It's a shame they didn't sell it while it was still worth something. Bet it makes an awesome fort for some kids.
 
bart said:
Only in Georgia? I have seen stuff like that in all 50 states.
I know, but being from Tennessee, I'm obliged to say mean things about Georgia. :D
 
Why? Because we embarrassed your football team 2 years running?
 
Man, you must spend a lot of time looking at airplane pictures.

Is that model of Aerocommander subject to the wing spar AD that affected TurboCommanders about ten years ago? If so, that would pretty well explain its deriliction.

regards,
enigma
 
enigma said:
Man, you must spend a lot of time looking at airplane pictures.
I'm not in this industry because of all the money I'm making! :D

It's actually not that much time...just what I can grab between diaper changes.

(And I know what you're thinking: my son's diapers, smarty-pants.)
 
That TC is affected by the wing spar AD. It's not as bad as it may seem; certainly not enough to warrant grounding the airplane. I did five of them when the AD first came out. A pain in the butt, but liveable.

At least they mowed around it.

The twin commander flies nicely, but it's more of a wind machine than an airplane. The spinny things make lots of sound, but the airplane doesn't go anywhere. Still, it's very comfortable while hovers there, nearly motionless, going nowhere...
 
Flight plan for one hundred seventy in the airplane; it's roughly the same as a 310 I imagine...or most other light twins. But it doesn't feel very fast, and never seemed all that fast as I can recall. Most of my piston TC time was in the Shrike conversion, and I believe it's just a little faster than the short nosed version...but not noticably. The cockpit feels like a bigger, faster airplane, but it still suffers multiple bird strikes in the trailing edge, on a regular basis.

It's the only airplane of it's class I can recall, in which one washed the trailing edges of the airplane after flight, instead of the leading edges. If that tells you anything.

As for fuel burned, I believe we were in IO-540's in that, and it would have been in the 12-15 gallon per hour per engine range. Say thirty gallons an hour or so.

Comfortable, but not really a stellar performer, and when the power came off with flaps out, one might as well have been riding a parachute down. Except that the parachute glides a little farther, and a lot faster...
 
the aircraft in this photo is a 680. Hence the tail number 680MM.

The engines are GSO-480's.
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top