Match the plane to the pilot & mission

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by Jim C

The AeroCommander pistons are interesting. I hadn't given them much serious thought. If pressurization ends up falling off the list (it's the only criterion listed above that's optional) then I'll look closer.

Adam has not mentioned the 680FLP with the Mr RPM conversion. This adds bullet proof (and wonderfully smooth) 8 cylinder direct drive Lycoming TIO 720's. Most of the conversions included a total refurb of the airframe.

Downsides are that not many where made so it may take awhile to find a nice one, you are still dealing with a mids 60s airframe and they guzzle gas. But the huge wing, rugged gear, and power brakes will handle almost any strip.

[AdamFrisch]

The 680FLP is essentially the same airframe as the later 685 and Turbine models. However, there is a big difference in the way the 680FL/FLP achieves pressurisation compared to the later 685. In the 685 the pressurisation is taken from the bleed air from the turbos, just like on a turbine, essentially. On the 680FL/FLP they're driven by a 3000psi hydraulic cabin pump/supercharger made by New York Air Brake. It's almost impossible to find replacement parts for this pump should it break. Not only that, it doesn't use red hydraulic fluid, but a nasty and expensive compound called Skydrol. This stuff will strip the paint off your plane and is a general nightmare to deal with.

Also, the 680FLP only carries 225gal of fuel as compared to the 322gals of the 685, which makes it a relative short legged long range tourer.

Unfortunately, many of the Commanders from the 50-70's era suffered from what in hindsight has become dead ends. It is unfortunate as the airframe is a marvel of simplicity and sturdy. Almost all the higher end piston Commanders either had some kind of "orphaned" geared engine or some weird pressurisation system/hydraulic system that was shared with no other maker. They finally got it right with the turbine models and they've proven their value. This makes the pistons from this era a little harder to maintain and is also reflected in the pricing. The 500 series is the exception - straightforward with no funny stuff - either IO470's or IO540's, both bulletproof. That's also why the 500A/B/U retain their price on the market whereas the "funny" stuff like the 520, 560, 680-series, don't. An opportunity for the right owner....

I've myself toyed many times with the idea of an 685 as a future update. Insane range, 25K ceiling and a great travel machine. Probably the quietest twin ever to fly in. But that comes with a price - high strung geared engines, crappy short field performance and a bit of a guzzler. Also, I travel by myself most of the time - do I really need to lug 8 empty seats around? As much as I love Commanders, that's probably not the best fit for me.

I wish someone would make a 2-seat twin with 2000nm range, pressurised, high wing, yokes, great short fielder and run by diesels. That would be my plane.

[Larscho]

Epic LT Dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.controller.com/listingsde...x?OHID=1254409

This airplane seems to fit your specifications. It is not a twin but a single turbo prop is pretty reliable as well.

I have no clue about the price for one of these but I guess you can find out in your research.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by AdamFrisch

The 680FLP is essentially the same airframe as the later 685 and Turbine models. However, there is a big difference in the way the 680FL/FLP achieves pressurisation compared to the later 685. In the 685 the pressurisation is taken from the bleed air from the turbos, just like on a turbine, essentially. On the 680FL/FLP they're driven by a 3000psi hydraulic cabin pump/supercharger made by New York Air Brake. It's almost impossible to find replacement parts for this pump should it break. Not only that, it doesn't use red hydraulic fluid, but a nasty and expensive compound called Skydrol. This stuff will strip the paint off your plane and is a general nightmare to deal with.

Also, the 680FLP only carries 225gal of fuel as compared to the 322gals of the 685, which makes it a relative short legged long range tourer.
.

I believe that most Mr RPM conversions removed the pressurization pump and replaced it with a turbocharger bleed air pressurization source like the one in the Aero Commander 685 and all Cessna pressurized piston aircraft. You are right about the fuel though.

[It flies]

The Lancair Propjet seems to fit your criteria. There's one for sale here:

2005 LANCAIR PROPJET Experimental/Homebuilt Aircraft For Sale At Controller.com

[Jim C]

I have about 350 hrs flying a 310hp 340A with VG's. The published rotate speed is 91 kts for the short field takeoff. The distance required numbers for takeoff in the POH are IMO a sick joke. There is no way the aircraft can accelerate to that speed in the distance given in my experience.

The Robertson STOL machines get the great numbers by hauling it off the ground at silly low airspeeds. A bit of windsheer or one engine hiccuping and you are a smoking hole at the end of the runway.

The constraint of the short field greatly reduces your choices IMO. You are almost at the point where you need two airplanes. Something like a nice Cessna 340 for the long trips and a Cessna 206 for the short and unimproved strips, if you want it all.

Just to be clear - many seem to think the short fields are rough fields. They're all paved. The actual distance of the shortest target field is just under 2300 ft (w/ clear approaches and less than 50ft MSL), but 2000 is a round number with safety margins. Anything under 3000 ft for this plane will be paved.

The Roberston conversion says it lowers liftoff speed by 10kts, Vmc by 8kts and accelerate-stop is reduced by 1140 ft. A reduction in liftoff speed by 11% to 81kts (as claimed) results in more than a 30% reduction in ground roll. Your experience is in a plane with just VGs, not the Robertson conversion, correct?

I have no interest in monkeying around with <Vmc rotation in a twin. The goal is to find a plane that will actually do the job with only a reasonable amount of skill required to do it safely.

Anyone with experience using a 340 R/STOL with VGs out of a short field, please chime in! The published numbers say it does the job - but does it really?

PS - I will have two aircraft. I'm not planning on selling the 206 (good call!) I have now. It does a fine job of handling the short *and* rough strips. But it's not deiced or turbo'ed and it sits on the ground in the winter more than I'd like.

This airplane seems to fit your specifications. It is not a twin but a single turbo prop is pretty reliable as well.

I have no clue about the price for one of these but I guess you can find out in your research.

I have no problem with a used single turbine, but this is a new airframe with a new turbine. I don't have to do any research to know it's out of my budget.

The Lancair Propjet seems to fit your criteria

Acquisition cost is over $400K.
It only has 4 seats.
Not deiced.

This seller ($435K) might come down to my budget, or I might go up, but 4 seats in a non-deiced plane is a non-starter.

[172driver]

How about a de-iced 210P ? These ones should fit both your budget and mission profile. Not sure if your acquisition budget stretches far enough, but a 210 Silver Eagle (i.e. turbine) should tick all your boxes. You could then also sell the 206 and free up some capital.

[Jim C]

Re: choices, choices, choices in the Aero Commanders.

This is all great info - you guys have definitely brought up a lot of options I didn't know about before. Aviation Consumer's one online article about the AC twins doesn't cover all the variations- not surprisingly, as it seems like there are at least 20 airframe variations, and then several aftermarket conversions on top of that.

Is there a place I can go to do some research into all of these on my own? The Merlyn conversions page has almost no data, and I can't find any page at all with info on the Mr RPM (who was that marketing genius?) conversions.

Although a description of a 225 gallon plane as "short legged" hurts my wallet, I'm still interested in looking a lot further into the Aero Commander options.

How about a de-iced 210P ? These ones should fit both your budget and mission profile. Not sure if your acquisition budget stretches far enough, but a 210 Silver Eagle (i.e. turbine) should tick all your boxes. You could then also sell the 206 and free up some capital.

The de-iced 210P has been on the short list, although a piston single over water is a no-go for me. Since nobody has suggested a plane that fits all the requirements neatly (not surprising) some of the requirements will have to yield. Caribbean trips might be what gets left behind.

The 210 Silver Eagle is out of my price range. The cheapest one on controller.com is currently $525K, and if you buy the cheapest airframe out of a fleet, you're buying problems. If I stretched to buy it, I'd get eaten alive in ownership. If anyone with experience owning a Silver Eagle wants to correct me, please do!

The 206 will stay. I have several other mission profiles (rough fields, bulky loads) that are met well by the 206 that I didn't bother listing here because they aren't even close to compatible with the other requirements I listed. It's cheap to keep and won't free up enough capital or operating costs to be worth losing.

If somebody makes a pressurized Kodiak Quest or Caravan clone for under $500K, then I can sell the 206.

[AdamFrisch]

Hi Jim.

Glad you're intrigued by AC's. If you want to inform yourself about them, the Twin Commander Flight Group has a brand new website with (correct) info and specifications for all models.

Twin Commander Flight Group

I would suggest a 500A/B/U/S model if you can live with lack of pressurisation. They normally come with booths, but if you want you can get a weeping wing with titanium leading edges as an STC. There's an outfit called Central Air that has developed their own STC and they operate over 30 (!) 500's for freight in the midwest, many of them with excess of 15000hrs on the airframe.

Here are all the Merlyn conversions, if you want more speed.

Merlyn Products, Inc.

If you need pressurisation, then you're best bet would be a 685. If you don't load them up to max gross, they perform pretty well. I would not recommend the 680FP/FLP unless its had the Mr Rpm conversion. Here's Milt Colcannon's article debunking many of the myths about the 685:

N414C Milt Concannon's 685 | Facebook

Hope you get one.

[Jim C]

Thanks, Adam.

That site is exactly what I was looking for - great detail! It must be new; it doesn't show up on google searches yet.

The pressurized Commanders look nice, but they seem to be out of my range in either takoff & landing distance, operating costs, or both. If I do end up unpressurized, the 500 series (as you suggested) look like nice alternatives. A 500 w/ deice might be a nice fit.

As far as the Merlyns go, you may have noticed that speed wasn't listed anywhere in my criteria. The turbo is really nice for helping to climb through icing layers and get above weather, however.

Also, I looked at this year's rough expenditures on the 206, and decided that budgeting $40K/yr for what might be a pressurized twin isn't even close to realistic. I'd go up to $60K/yr for pressurization, but wouldn't spend that much if I didn't get it.

[gordon field]

I have been following this thread with much interest as I have owned or flown most of the aircraft mentioned except the Piper, Aerostars and MU2 Turboprops. This includes all of the Cessnas SE and ME with and without STOL, tip tanks or wet wings off grass and paved with only a few exceptions.

An important reservation is the on field service support for the older out of production aircraft. If you buy Commander or MU2 then make sure that there is full service support at your home base, if an Aerostar make sure service at both ends.

The Commander range have fine cabins, good handling but the cost of the engines in the 685 is now $$$$$$+ to overhaul?.

Is you intend to fly overwater in a single piston with family and friends then make sure it is low wing preferably with 2 doors.

Check the useful load on the fully equipped aircraft as later models like pilots gain weight.

The Skymasters should be considered as being suitable for 4 adults + maybe a couple of kids or the dog. The seat base on 5 & 6 is only about 5 inches off the floor and very uncomfortable.

Keep the debate going as there are some good words of wisdom from established posters but lots of crxp from bloggers who obviously have never owned, flown or importantly had to pay for the maintenance on the aircraft upon which they pontificate.

For me a well maintained deiced STOL T337H with upgraded autopilot, avionics and an understanding engineer,wife,bank manager.

[Jim C]

Gordon,

Thanks for the reply. Before I posted here, a deiced STOL T337G or H was at the top of my list. You're the first one to make that specific suggestion.

The catch is that doesn't carry 6, even with the seats in. Real-world figures for useful load on some of the fatter ones start at 400-450lbs with full tanks. You'd have to leave a lot of fuel (and all of your baggage) behind to carry 6 adults in a 337. It's also not FIKI certified. On the other hand, I could buy a nice one twice on the given budget.

It also has the safety advantage of very low kinetic energy on arrival. It has about 40% of the kinetic energy of an Aerostar when landing, for example. All that energy has to go somewhere in the event you need to stop suddenly.

More than a few minutes of overwater flight in a single engine piston is a non-starter for me, even in a low wing with two doors, an inflated life raft tied to each wing, and a C130 following me in formation.


Adam,

Here's a pic of a 500 for sale. Where do the passengers' legs fit?




Airplane for Sale - 1962 Aero Commander 500A*-*Wild Blue - Used Airplane Sales and Acquisitions, Piston and Jet Aircraft Broker and Dealer.

[AdamFrisch]

The seat behind the co-pilots seat has been moved fully back probably to make room for pilots bag. They have much more room than this. Also, forward facing seats (they can be slid on both ways) will give more legroom overall, but the club seating is a bit more social. Most owners remove the 6th seat behind the pilot and keep the floor space empty for storage and bags.

Also, if you're looking into the minutae of 500's, then I'd suggest a B, U or S model. The S model was the last one made and is also certified in the Utility Category, so it's a little beefier. This is the one Bob Hoover used to do aerobatics in. The 500 and the 500A both have the O-470 and IO-470 respectively and only come with 2-blade props (unless they've had a Colemill conversion). They are the cheapest in the 500 series and have a little less performance, but are solid aircraft for the money.

With your budget you could easily get into a fully tricked out 500S with the eyebrow windows modification, the pilot door modification and all the mod cons. Like this one:

[Please resize to 800 x 600 max]

Agree with Gordon that the 685's engines will be at least $50K to overhaul, so they're not cheap. They also have a low TBO and will probably not even make that without some top end attention. 435hp is a lot to pull from 520 cubic inches. However, I do fly geared engines myself, and the myths about them are not true. The gearboxes themselves almost never give trouble, it's the fact that you're running them at higher rpms to get more power out of them that shortens their lives. So if you're willing to pull back a bit, geared engines will last as almost as long as anything else. Another advantage of the geared engines is that they get up to speed much quicker than a direct drive and therefore the takeoff roll is almost always shorter.


Here's one of Central Air's freighters with the TKS de-ice system and pilot door mod.

I'll shut up now - sick of myself talking so much.

[Dan the weegie]

Might not do the short fields you are looking for and may not be quite within budget but consider the Piper Meridian? It's a lovely machine, fits the number of people you're transporting and is pressurised.

Still I think I'd prefer a twin given the kind of flying you're doing and the places you're going.

[Pace]

JimC

With your budget all the aircraft you are looking at are ancient out of production and spares???

The Seneca Five will meet all your goals apart from pressurisations and still in production as well as being a well tried and tested aircraft.

It is all well and good going for a pressurized aircraft like the 340 but something like the Seneca Five will get you up to levels where you need oxygen twice as fast as the 340 or the Aztec.

Why do you need to be high other than crossing mountain ranges? What is the single engine service ceiling of these older aircraft? Pretty pointless if its low!
The Seneca Five will fly engine out and maintain 16500 feet.
If its just to clear mountains persuading "her"to use oxygen (built in in the Seneca) might be your best option for the 30 minutes or so you need to be up there.

Pace

[Jim C]

Another advantage of the geared engines is that they get up to speed much quicker than a direct drive and therefore the takeoff roll is almost always shorter.

Actually it's the increased torque, and therefore increased static thrust that does that for you. The 685 is out of the question. The page you sent me to that 'debunked' the 685 'myths' says "This does limit you to 5000' runways east of Denver if you want to operate safely" so that pretty much rules out more than 1/2 my airports.

Might not do the short fields you are looking for and may not be quite within budget but consider the Piper Meridian?

You're right - it won't do the short fields and it's out of my budget. Next!

With your budget all the aircraft you are looking at are ancient out of production and spares???

The Seneca Five will meet all your goals apart from pressurisations and still in production as well as being a well tried and tested aircraft.

Why do you need to be high other than crossing mountain ranges? What is the single engine service ceiling of these older aircraft? Pretty pointless if its low!

I'm used to flying old, out of production aircraft. I've been doing it since my first flight.

The Seneca V is definitely on the short list. What makes you say it's so much better than the IV? My neighbor had a III until just recently and sold it for something pressurized. I don't know the difference between the models.

The reason to get high is to avoid summer weather and winter ice. SE service ceiling can be low - if I lose an engine on 95% of my trips, I'll head for the nearest airport and make it easily even with a 6,000ft SE service ceiling. This far north, you don't have to get very high (18K or less) to clear most of the weather - but the 7000MSL optimum altitude of the 206 is right in the middle of the junk.

[gordon field]

Seneca V, last one I sat in had very restricted foot room for seats 5+ 6 and checkout the payload remaining for pax once you have loaded the fuel required for your intended flight.

Most comfortable ones for the pax had forward facing seats but I don't think that you can change the club seating around.

Jim C just how far do you need / want to fly with 6 people and what are the weights and sizes of the folks you want to take along and how much baggage apart from the kitchen sink?

Any Seneca owner willing to state relevant weights of a fully equipped V?

Surprised nobody has mentioned the Pressurised Baron which is marketed as a 6 seater, but like the Duke it needs long runways.

Turbine Duke, look sexy, 6 seats, built in commode for use by really close friends!

[jecuk]

How about a PA-46?

[Jim C]

Seneca V, last one I sat in had very restricted foot room for seats 5+ 6 and checkout the payload remaining for pax once you have loaded the fuel required for your intended flight.

Jim C just how far do you need / want to fly with 6 people and what are the weights and sizes of the folks you want to take along and how much baggage apart from the kitchen sink?

Surprised nobody has mentioned the Pressurised Baron which is marketed as a 6 seater, but like the Duke it needs long runways.

Turbine Duke, look sexy, 6 seats, built in commode for use by really close friends!

The Seneca V's payload w/ 800nm fuel isn't much worse than some other planes that have been mentioned.

My 6 seat useage surprised me when I looked at my logs. Before I owned the 206, I would have said 4 seats do just fine - but I've averaged almost 1 flight/month with 5 or more since I got the 206. Sometimes it's 6 adults & day carryons, sometimes 4 adults & two kids & bags for a long weekend, once it was 2 adults, 4 kids and a week's worth of bags. Basically, it seems like if I have the capacity, I use it. The "six adult" flights tend to be shorter, but that's mostly because nobody wants to spend much time in the last row of a 206. If I had 6 real seats, I'd use them.

P-Baron...hmmm...it seems like 2300ft is right at the edge. I'd prefer a little more of a comfort zone, but they're cheaper than I expected.

How about a PA-46?

The very low maneuvering speed of this airframe bothers me. The ridiculously long glide range helps compensate for the single piston engine up front, but long overwater legs are still out. The cheaper ones do fit the profile.

[Pace]

JimC

The Seneca five will initially climb at 1400 to 1500 fpm. Even at 18000 feet you will still see 800 fpm ie better than the 340 will do at sea level.
I tested the Seneca against a Malibu Mirage in the climb stakes the prospective purchaser bought a Seneca after that flight from the then Anglo American at Bournemouth.
You have a modern Kitted aircraft with turbocharged Intercooled engines which as twins go sips fuel and parts wise unlike the Baron is cheap.
They handle ice well are stable and Easy to fly and will go into short strips! Tarmac, gravel or grass.
Above all you will get a 2000 plus aircraft within your budget why bother with a 30 year plus aircraft chasing expensive and elusive parts?
As for weight carrying? for ferrying they will happily go way overweight.
For ops within Europe they can be certificated at 1999 KG with no airways charges.
I love the things but with over 2500 hrs in them in all weather and conditions maybe I am biased
A real trusted servant!

Pace