Anyone have experience operating either Merlin's or twin commanders? Some help with some operating figures - Loads, fuel burn, planned Tas, direct operating costs etc would be greatly appreciated. Also interested to hear about maintenance issues with either machine. Thanks in advance. Also has anyone used the Conklin de decker manuals for operating costs?
I think only DCA operated both Merlins and Turbine Commanders. In general commercial operators steered clear of both aircraft types and early versions of the Garrett engine.
Some of the Conklin & de Decker variable (or direct) operating costs appear to be higher than actual aircraft operating costs. To the direct costs one must add the fixed (or indirect) operating costs, resulting in an extremely high total operating cost in some cases. However, the costs they give are a good guide.
__________________
Tail Wheel
Australia, New Zealand & Pacific Forum Moderator
Look around, and you will see that this sector in Australia is dominated by the Conquest II. A great machine, especially with the Dash 10 engine upgrade.
I can't speak for the Merlin but I like the Commander. Its lovely to fly and very simple. Usually will tas around 270 ish (depending on config), 3450 useful load, 2550 gas with an average burn of 500 an hour but obviously varies. I've only flown the original -5 version but the dash 10 are very popular and depending on configuration will give an honest 300+ tas on a similar burn. Goes like a shower of shit apparently.
The commander 1000 is the real mother ship. Major problem with them all is there is bugger all room inside...
Thanks Guys, Tailwheel you seem to be right about the Conklin figures they do seem high although you need to read there section on what they include in that figure. I have figures available already for B200 and C441, just though I would look at what else is there.
Given this mission as an example what would people recommend. Time is money Efficiency is key Low initial outlay is a bonus.
750nm Sector preference for single leg, no fuel stop.
4-5 Pax @ 100KG + 10KG bag. + Pilot.
Can be anything SE Turbo prop, Piston, no restrictions.
The 690-800 to 1000 series are real long range travellers. Over 2000nm range. The dash 10 engines are rock solid and more fuel efficient than PT6's, plus have much higher TBO.
MCKES, Talk to Winrye Aviation at Bankstown, Brian Chadwick, about Merlin operating costs. They have rebuilt the two DCA Merlins, and put then back into service, (well, one and one about to go) plus have a lot of experience with them. Both aircraft have very long legs. The Merlin is a bit more roomy, but does not have anything like the field performance of the Commander. Do a very thorough inspection around the nose wheel area of a Merlin, repairs to serious damage in the area is common, leaking fuel from the centre section is also a good indication of heavy landings. Don't even think about either, unless they have been upgraded to at least -10 engines. In my opinion, a Grand Renaissance Commander (effectively re-manufactured) is the best way to go, look up the US web sites for Twin Commander Corp., that will give you leads to the major sources. Twin Commander Aircraft LLC GAM are the Australian experts on Commanders. Tootle pip!!
Given this mission as an example what would people recommend. Time is money Efficiency is key Low initial outlay is a bonus.
750nm Sector preference for single leg, no fuel stop.
4-5 Pax @ 100KG + 10KG bag. + Pilot.
Some might laugh and scoff at it but the C550 might suit......if want single driver S2 or 2SP.
Flew a C550 for a while with the nosewheel spin up kit. Good performance and comfortable. Was a great introduction to jets for me - simple and honest machine.
Imagine devil is in the detail - access to good maintenance, utilisation rate, owners "emotional" wishes, etc.
If it was me - I would be crunching numbers on all the ones you have mentioned as well as this. Numbers may or may not stack up.
750nm C208 vs AC690 = 4h 45 vs 2h 45 plus pressurisation
Different tools for different jobs. On a 750 nm sector the 690 really excels and having experience with both types the 690 would have better economics per nm on any sector over 250nm.
Both great aircraft, but very different capabilities. Although the 690s are getting on a bit they are still a great aircraft if they have been properly maintained... also like the Merlin look out for fuel leaks because they have a dozen or more tanks and the outboard ones tend to perish as a lot of short sector operators only fill the centre tank.
And the 690 is absolutely beautiful to fly even if the cockpit is a bit cramped!
Thanks guys for your input, all valid. I will be talking to some operators and maintenance organisations soon, just wanted the general pilots opinion first. C208 is a great machine, way too slow for this mission though. PC12 is another good one, but out of the price range, may be an option but would prefer a lower initial investment. The AC690 seems to meet the profile, fast with the legs, good load, just maintenance I am worried about. Short field is not a concern all large sealed strips.
Also AN-3 I know where you are coming from with regards to the jet, it would be a consideration though I think unlikely due to utilisation of the aircraft on shorter sectors as little as 150nm as well. RVSM would also come into it.
The AC690 seems to meet the profile, fast with the legs, good load, just maintenance I am worried about.
Just a touch of an accountant in the pilot!
If the turbine commander is such a wonderful performer and money maker, why did only a handful come to this part of the world, many to DCA, very few in charter, none in RPT?
It is a 1944 Ted Smith design. There was fifteen (15) different turbine Commander models (and 16 different piston engine models), the "youngest" must be at least 30 years old! Most of the manufacturers are out of business.
From 1961 to 1993, 24 aircraft crashed when spar failures caused the loss of the wing in flight (including a few in Australia). 35 more spars were found cracked during inspections. The expensive spar inspection program continues.....
There is no such thing as a cheap aircraft. If you must buy an aircraft, at least buy something that has proven service and productivity in Australia, has a manufacturer that is still in the aircraft business, has local parts availability and hopefully is younger than the pilots flying it!!
You will have two days of great joy when owning 30 plus year old, old technology, tired GA aircraft: The day you buy it, and the day you finally get rid of it!
You should also look into the MU-2. You can not get more bang for the buck. The Marquise has great range, fast, cheap, built like a tank and are still fully supported.
I know little about the 690 or the MU2 (though both look like interesting types) but the one that continues to be a big winner in charter is the Conquest. It's cheaper than the King Air, damn near as fast as a C550 and able to operate from short strips. They also tick all the insurance boxes for your bigger clients.
There is no such thing as a cheap aircraft. If you must buy an aircraft, at least buy something that has proven service and productivity in Australia, has a manufacturer that is still in the aircraft business, has local parts availability and hopefully is younger than the pilots flying it!!
Seriously, if you cannot afford to buy and operate a PC12, you will not afford the purchase and operation of any of the listed antiques. The initial price is the least of your worries.
