Commander-Archive.digest.vol-al

February 13, 2002 - March 11, 2002



      > > > > Most crashes of this magnitude present fatalities in other
      airframes.
      > > > > As a SAR, CAP Pilot, I've been involved with too many body bags...As
      > > many
      > > > of
      > > > > you can attest, it's not a good experience.
      > > > > I'll try to keep everyone updated with accurate information as I
      > receive
      > > > it.
      > > > > The Prayers are still needed, for our friend and his family.  Gary
      > > > Gadberry
      > > > >
      > > > > Gary Tillman
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2002
From: John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: Updates and Photos...Commander Crash in Tennessee
/ Gary Gadberry Yes Randy, you DO burn more fuel, but you're probably doing a good 30ktas better than me......and THAT'S what counts!!!! > By the way John...I wish I could only burn 31 gallons from PAO to SBP. My > 680F burns about 60 gallons for that flight. > > Randy Dettmer, AIA > 680F/6253X > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2002
From: Mark Woodley <woodlema(at)intrex.net>
Subject: Re: Updates and Photos...Commander Crash in Tennessee
/ Gary Gadberry Having spent way too much time flying Cessna 172's I guess I don;t trust any gas gauges. Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com> To: ; ; ; Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 8:01 PM Subject: Re: Updates and Photos...Commander Crash in Tennessee / Gary Gadberry > Tom, suddenly I recall that part of your story! > > I wonder if this is bringing a service issue to light? I'm dropping my > airplane off at Morris' tomorrow for maintenance, and the #1 project during > this visit is my gas gauge. I noticed last Saturday on the short flight from > PAO to SLO that there's a short in my system; as soon as the wheels left the > ground, the FULL tank indication of 156 gallons (I topped off before > takeoff) immediately dropped to the 40-gallon mark....and stayed there for > the duration of the flight. Upon landing SLO, I topped off again and had > used 31 gal., exactly what I expected....but it scares me that my gauge > isn't reading as it should be, in flight. > > /J > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> > To: ; ; > > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 3:47 PM > Subject: Re: Updates and Photos...Commander Crash in Tennessee / Gary > Gadberry > > > > I think that this is exactly what happened to me!!!!!!! > > My fuel gauge indicated 40 USG and I was sure it should have been 25 USG > but > > calculations of tail winds, power settings convinced me that I must have > > consumed less fuel than flight planned. > > > > Tom... > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com> > > To: ; > > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 14:05 > > Subject: Re: Updates and Photos...Commander Crash in Tennessee / Gary > > Gadberry > > > > > > > I got one update this morning; someone I know talked to Gary's chief > > pilot. > > > Evidently there was a gauge problem with the fuel gauge and the tanks > ran > > > dry...I understand it was only about 30 mi. from Chattanooga. I'm just > > glad > > > he'll be flying again! > > > > > > Again, this is second-hand information, so I can't vouch for its > > > reliability. > > > > > > /J > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: <TILLMAN333(at)aol.com> > > > To: > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 1:39 PM > > > Subject: Updates and Photos...Commander Crash in Tennessee / Gary > Gadberry > > > > > > > > > > Good Afternoon: > > > > Gary Gadberry is at Erlanger Medical Center, Chattanooga, TN; in the > > ICU. > > > > I spoke via phone with his neighbor and she confirmed that Gary had > > indeed > > > > broken several bones in his legs and he had a collapsed lung. He will > > FLY > > > > AGAIN ! > > > > I have no details as to the cause. > > > > Indications are that the flight originated from Murphy, NC and the > > > > destination > > > > was Lafayette, GA. > > > > I've located photos on the web. > > > > www.LZONTHEWEB.COM go to the photo section, and the photos will be > on > > > page > > > > four. > > > > I'm amazed how intact the fuselage looks in the photos. > > > > Most crashes of this magnitude present fatalities in other airframes. > > > > As a SAR, CAP Pilot, I've been involved with too many body bags...As > > many > > > of > > > > you can attest, it's not a good experience. > > > > I'll try to keep everyone updated with accurate information as I > receive > > > it. > > > > The Prayers are still needed, for our friend and his family. Gary > > > Gadberry > > > > > > > > Gary Tillman > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: fuel, instruments, and expensive booze
Commanders (at least the earlier ones I'm familiar with) use a resistive sender for fuel level. It's basicly just a coil resistor with a wiper attached to a float. There are two units - one reading the wing quantities and the second reading the center tank level. Over time, they can become corroded and can simply wear out. I don't know if the wire coil is available any longer, but the sender itself is a pretty simple device. If the coil can be found, it would be pretty simple to just clean up a sender and repace the worn coil and wiper. On another topic, I understand that Milt is causing Crunk some major problems. Apparently he introduced Crunk to some fancy "sipp'n whisky" (guess that means you use those little coffee stirring straws rather then the big MacDonalds straws to drink it) - "Blantons Single Barrel???" According to my calculations (being the engineer guy that I am, I couldn't help myself), this stuff costs about $90,000 to tank up a 685 Commander.... Don't know what the octane rating is, but I bet even the Reno racers don't use anything THAT expensive! chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: FUEL GAUGES
HI KIDS... Well, it has been quite a week. First the 520 it WA and now Gary. I want o join all of you in prayer for Gary's quick and full recovery. Here is a trivia question. When the cannon plug falls out of the fuel gauge, what does the gauge read?? The answer is, full. this little bit of trivia should be placed in the back of you mind. If the wire breaks, it will still read lotsa fuel. The truth of the matter is that we really cant "stick" the fuel in our airplane's tanks, so we have little choice but to use, at least to some extent, the gauge. I recommend that every other annual inspection, we should defuel the airplane and calibrate our gauges. I did mine last year. Short of that, fill it up each time you fly. God speed Gary, we will be praying for you............jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Re: FUEL GAUGES
YOURTCFG(at)aol.com wrote: >I recommend that every other annual inspection, we should > defuel the airplane and calibrate our gauges. I did mine last year. Short > of that, fill it up each time you fly. Very good point Jb. Defueling the airplane can also demonstrate that you just might not even be holding as much fuel as you thought. Remember that there are a number of "tanks" in a commander. It is possible that one has collapsed or is deformed and doesn't hold the proper amount. I'd also suggest filling up _after_ each time you fly. Keeping the bladders full not only minimizes condensation, it also is very benificial to the material the tanks are made of. If they are left "dry", they can develope cracks and leaks. Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2002
From: Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Updates and Photos...Commander Crash in Tennessee
/ Gary Gadberry This is what I was telling the NTSB. I felt that if I put a fuel gauge and the sender on the bench and cycled the sender from full to empty dollars to donuts when the sender gets near empty the resistance in the circuit will send the gauge to 40 USG indicated as it did in mine and maybe Gary's. Tom... ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com> To: ; ; ; Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 17:01 Subject: Re: Updates and Photos...Commander Crash in Tennessee / Gary Gadberry > Tom, suddenly I recall that part of your story! > > I wonder if this is bringing a service issue to light? I'm dropping my > airplane off at Morris' tomorrow for maintenance, and the #1 project during > this visit is my gas gauge. I noticed last Saturday on the short flight from > PAO to SLO that there's a short in my system; as soon as the wheels left the > ground, the FULL tank indication of 156 gallons (I topped off before > takeoff) immediately dropped to the 40-gallon mark....and stayed there for > the duration of the flight. Upon landing SLO, I topped off again and had > used 31 gal., exactly what I expected....but it scares me that my gauge > isn't reading as it should be, in flight. > > /J > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> > To: ; ; > > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 3:47 PM > Subject: Re: Updates and Photos...Commander Crash in Tennessee / Gary > Gadberry > > > > I think that this is exactly what happened to me!!!!!!! > > My fuel gauge indicated 40 USG and I was sure it should have been 25 USG > but > > calculations of tail winds, power settings convinced me that I must have > > consumed less fuel than flight planned. > > > > Tom... > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com> > > To: ; > > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 14:05 > > Subject: Re: Updates and Photos...Commander Crash in Tennessee / Gary > > Gadberry > > > > > > > I got one update this morning; someone I know talked to Gary's chief > > pilot. > > > Evidently there was a gauge problem with the fuel gauge and the tanks > ran > > > dry...I understand it was only about 30 mi. from Chattanooga. I'm just > > glad > > > he'll be flying again! > > > > > > Again, this is second-hand information, so I can't vouch for its > > > reliability. > > > > > > /J > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: <TILLMAN333(at)aol.com> > > > To: > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 1:39 PM > > > Subject: Updates and Photos...Commander Crash in Tennessee / Gary > Gadberry > > > > > > > > > > Good Afternoon: > > > > Gary Gadberry is at Erlanger Medical Center, Chattanooga, TN; in the > > ICU. > > > > I spoke via phone with his neighbor and she confirmed that Gary had > > indeed > > > > broken several bones in his legs and he had a collapsed lung. He will > > FLY > > > > AGAIN ! > > > > I have no details as to the cause. > > > > Indications are that the flight originated from Murphy, NC and the > > > > destination > > > > was Lafayette, GA. > > > > I've located photos on the web. > > > > www.LZONTHEWEB.COM go to the photo section, and the photos will be > on > > > page > > > > four. > > > > I'm amazed how intact the fuselage looks in the photos. > > > > Most crashes of this magnitude present fatalities in other airframes. > > > > As a SAR, CAP Pilot, I've been involved with too many body bags...As > > many > > > of > > > > you can attest, it's not a good experience. > > > > I'll try to keep everyone updated with accurate information as I > receive > > > it. > > > > The Prayers are still needed, for our friend and his family. Gary > > > Gadberry > > > > > > > > Gary Tillman > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2002
From: Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Updates and Photos...Commander Crash in Tennessee
/ Gary Gadberry Randy, I've been flying for almost 35 years, 70% of my time is on helicopters but I always used the fuel gauge to indicate electrical power, that's what I taught all my students as well. When I was about to take off I noticed the fuel gauge at 40 USG, it was not supposed to be there. I expected it to be at 25 USG. I recalculated 3 times, I used 35 USG/hour (500B) for flight planning. I did not use the heater, I flew 3.2 hours at about 55% power (I'm cheap). The one thing that may have led me astray was that I had a 50 knot tailwind for about 30 minutes of the flight. Visual verification of fuel levels is the only way to go but you can't do that in a Commander when the tanks are below ~50 USG. My solution for my next Commander is to calibrate and graduate a hose then clamp it to the center tank drain, open the drain valve and see where the level is. Someone suggested that I graduate the side of the fuselage but that would not take into account the fuel in the wings. To summarize, I always have and will use time to calculate fuel. Tom... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Dettmer" <rcdettmer(at)charter.net> To: "John Vormbaum" ; ; ; ; Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 17:23 Subject: Re: Updates and Photos...Commander Crash in Tennessee / Gary Gadberry > Just a comment regarding fuel guages... > > I was taught way back when I learned to fly some 26 years ago, by a very > wise instructor, that fuel guages are handy, but NEVER to be trusted. > Always always always know how much fuel is in the tanks by visual > inspection, topping off, or log entries before departing for a flight. > AND...then calculate your fuel consumption based on fuel burn vs time. If > the guages agree with your calculations, that's great, but don't count on > them completely...they are only advisory. > > By the way John...I wish I could only burn 31 gallons from PAO to SBP. My > 680F burns about 60 gallons for that flight. > > Randy Dettmer, AIA > 680F/6253X > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com> > To: ; > ; ; > > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 5:01 PM > Subject: Re: Updates and Photos...Commander Crash in Tennessee / Gary > Gadberry > > > > Tom, suddenly I recall that part of your story! > > > > I wonder if this is bringing a service issue to light? I'm dropping my > > airplane off at Morris' tomorrow for maintenance, and the #1 project > during > > this visit is my gas gauge. I noticed last Saturday on the short flight > from > > PAO to SLO that there's a short in my system; as soon as the wheels left > the > > ground, the FULL tank indication of 156 gallons (I topped off before > > takeoff) immediately dropped to the 40-gallon mark....and stayed there for > > the duration of the flight. Upon landing SLO, I topped off again and had > > used 31 gal., exactly what I expected....but it scares me that my gauge > > isn't reading as it should be, in flight. > > > > /J > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> > > To: ; ; > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 3:47 PM > > Subject: Re: Updates and Photos...Commander Crash in Tennessee / Gary > > Gadberry > > > > > > > I think that this is exactly what happened to me!!!!!!! > > > My fuel gauge indicated 40 USG and I was sure it should have been 25 USG > > but > > > calculations of tail winds, power settings convinced me that I must have > > > consumed less fuel than flight planned. > > > > > > Tom... > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com> > > > To: ; > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 14:05 > > > Subject: Re: Updates and Photos...Commander Crash in Tennessee / Gary > > > Gadberry > > > > > > > > > > I got one update this morning; someone I know talked to Gary's chief > > > pilot. > > > > Evidently there was a gauge problem with the fuel gauge and the tanks > > ran > > > > dry...I understand it was only about 30 mi. from Chattanooga. I'm just > > > glad > > > > he'll be flying again! > > > > > > > > Again, this is second-hand information, so I can't vouch for its > > > > reliability. > > > > > > > > /J > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: <TILLMAN333(at)aol.com> > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 1:39 PM > > > > Subject: Updates and Photos...Commander Crash in Tennessee / Gary > > Gadberry > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good Afternoon: > > > > > Gary Gadberry is at Erlanger Medical Center, Chattanooga, TN; in the > > > ICU. > > > > > I spoke via phone with his neighbor and she confirmed that Gary had > > > indeed > > > > > broken several bones in his legs and he had a collapsed lung. He > will > > > FLY > > > > > AGAIN ! > > > > > I have no details as to the cause. > > > > > Indications are that the flight originated from Murphy, NC and the > > > > > destination > > > > > was Lafayette, GA. > > > > > I've located photos on the web. > > > > > www.LZONTHEWEB.COM go to the photo section, and the photos will be > > on > > > > page > > > > > four. > > > > > I'm amazed how intact the fuselage looks in the photos. > > > > > Most crashes of this magnitude present fatalities in other > airframes. > > > > > As a SAR, CAP Pilot, I've been involved with too many body bags...As > > > many > > > > of > > > > > you can attest, it's not a good experience. > > > > > I'll try to keep everyone updated with accurate information as I > > receive > > > > it. > > > > > The Prayers are still needed, for our friend and his family. Gary > > > > Gadberry > > > > > > > > > > Gary Tillman > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2002
From: Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: FUEL GAUGES
The other choice is the calibrated graduated hose connected to the center tank drain and attached to the side of the fuselage, (removed before flight of course). Good grief even Volkswagens and motorcycles have a reserve lever that can be used when the taller pipe runs into air. Tom... ----- Original Message ----- From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> To: Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 18:21 Subject: FUEL GAUGES > HI KIDS... > > Well, it has been quite a week. First the 520 it WA and now > Gary. I want o join all of you in prayer for Gary's quick and full recovery. > Here is a trivia question. When the cannon plug falls out of the fuel > gauge, what does the gauge read?? > The answer is, full. this little bit of trivia should be placed in > the back of you mind. If the wire breaks, it will still read lotsa fuel. > The truth of the matter is that we really cant "stick" the fuel in our > airplane's tanks, so we have little choice but to use, at least to some > extent, the gauge. I recommend that every other annual inspection, we should > defuel the airplane and calibrate our gauges. I did mine last year. Short > of that, fill it up each time you fly. > God speed Gary, we will be praying for you............jb > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2002
From: Bow <w.bow(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: FUEL GAUGES
Begging your pardon Captain JB, I had thought about this as a trivia question, when the trivia questions started. Now it seems VERY appropriate. What happens if your cannon plug falls off, mine did(I helped). When mine fell off it read 75 gallons, 1/2 tank. I think the best thing to do might be to take it off and see what it reads. It might give a clue if something extraordinary happens later. bilbo ----- Original Message ----- From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> To: Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 9:21 PM Subject: FUEL GAUGES > HI KIDS... > > Well, it has been quite a week. First the 520 it WA and now > Gary. I want o join all of you in prayer for Gary's quick and full recovery. > Here is a trivia question. When the cannon plug falls out of the fuel > gauge, what does the gauge read?? > The answer is, full. this little bit of trivia should be placed in > the back of you mind. If the wire breaks, it will still read lotsa fuel. > The truth of the matter is that we really cant "stick" the fuel in our > airplane's tanks, so we have little choice but to use, at least to some > extent, the gauge. I recommend that every other annual inspection, we should > defuel the airplane and calibrate our gauges. I did mine last year. Short > of that, fill it up each time you fly. > God speed Gary, we will be praying for you............jb > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2002
From: Allen Reed <allen_reed2(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Fuel
Maybe I'm just to knew at this,but even before going up for a couple of hours practice,and damn sure before heading out anywhere,Lucille gets topped off-done in a three fase rotation-then visually checked.sits awhile them is sumped again,then flown.I've been stuck on the side of an inter-pike in the snow because of a faulty fuel guage,and you can bet your butt it ain't going to happen to me in the air.Best wishes to Gary and family from BIG AL. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2002
From: Brian Von Herzen <brianvon(at)fpga.com>
Subject: Re: Commander Crash in Tennessee / Gadberry
Tom: Thank you for the pointer to the account of C-FBCR. Did the shoulder harnesses in this aircraft permit your head to hit the windshield post? I really like your suggestion of visually checking the fuel using the central drain and a clear hose. I have always had a nagging feeling about how and when the FULL capacity of the fuel tanks are tested. With no fuel selector, there's no running the tank dry and verifying its endurance. On our trip to Europe last summer, we had a 5 hour 15 minute leg from Greenland to Iceland. Fuel capacity was 6 hours. But I realized I hadn't personally tested that last hour of fuel capacity. Even if we were to drain the tanks and see how much fuel there was at annual, there is still the nagging question of how much of that fuel is really usable. The engine and the fuel drain may have differing opinions about what constitutes an empty tank, especially on base turn to final that wasn't perfectly coordinated and allowed a little slosh. Short of burning up that last hour of fuel on the tarmac, has anyone come up with a good strategy for verifying endurance? Brian >It's on the TCFG web site. >There are two downloadable files under "Temporary upload". >The file names are; >HISTFLTTC30.zip >HISTFLTTCFG.doc > >To answer your specific question I plowed into the backside of a wave at >about 75 knots. >My 500B did not have a scratch on it after everything came to a stop. >If I were in some Cessna type of aircraft the nose would have folded in on >me. > >As far as I am concerned the airframe and my helmet saved my life and the >life of the passenger, the passenger did not have a helmet and was knocked >unconscious. > >Tom... > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Brian Von Herzen" <brianvon(at)fpga.com> >To: >Cc: >Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 10:44 >Subject: Re: Commander Crash in Tennessee / Gadberry > > > > >I second the comment on the strong airframe..... it saved me in the >Pacific! > > > > Tom, can you describe what happened in the Pacific and how the commander > > airframe helped? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Brian Von Herzen > > potential Commander buyer > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2002
From: Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: FUEL GAUGES
Necessary information to help diagnose in flight abnormalities. Tom... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bow" <w.bow(at)att.net> To: Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 20:17 Subject: Re: FUEL GAUGES > Begging your pardon Captain JB, > > I had thought about this as a trivia question, when the trivia questions > started. Now it seems VERY appropriate. What happens if your cannon plug > falls off, mine did(I helped). When mine fell off it read 75 gallons, 1/2 > tank. > > I think the best thing to do might be to take it off and see what it reads. > It might give a clue if something extraordinary happens later. > > bilbo > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 9:21 PM > Subject: FUEL GAUGES > > > > HI KIDS... > > > > Well, it has been quite a week. First the 520 it WA and now > > Gary. I want o join all of you in prayer for Gary's quick and full > recovery. > > Here is a trivia question. When the cannon plug falls out of the > fuel > > gauge, what does the gauge read?? > > The answer is, full. this little bit of trivia should be placed in > > the back of you mind. If the wire breaks, it will still read lotsa fuel. > > The truth of the matter is that we really cant "stick" the fuel in our > > airplane's tanks, so we have little choice but to use, at least to some > > extent, the gauge. I recommend that every other annual inspection, we > should > > defuel the airplane and calibrate our gauges. I did mine last year. > Short > > of that, fill it up each time you fly. > > God speed Gary, we will be praying for you............jb > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2002
From: Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Fuel
I wish I had that luxury. Normally it's how much do I have to carry and I'll then take on fuel up to gross weight (plus taxi) then I'll tell know how long and how far I can go. Tom... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen Reed" <allen_reed2(at)hotmail.com> To: Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 20:34 Subject: Fuel > Maybe I'm just to knew at this,but even before going up for a couple of > hours practice,and damn sure before heading out anywhere,Lucille gets topped > off-done in a three fase rotation-then visually checked.sits awhile them is > sumped again,then flown.I've been stuck on the side of an inter-pike in the > snow because of a faulty fuel guage,and you can bet your butt it ain't going > to happen to me in the air.Best wishes to Gary and family from BIG AL. > > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2002
From: Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Commander Crash in Tennessee / Gadberry
I had a three point harness and must have slipped out of it because my helmet was smashed on the left side (I think I hit the window post, the front passenger did as well), the microphone was driven into the underside of my chin. Four point harness is what I'm going to shoot for in the 680FL, I usually had them in helicopters no matter what size of machine. Your comment of verifying the usable fuel is a point that I'm sure is never checked. Your Greenland to Iceland leg is not one I would want to do with out aux. tanks inside but I'm a little gun (fuel) shy now. Tom... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Von Herzen" <brianvon(at)FPGA.com> To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 21:05 Subject: Re: Commander Crash in Tennessee / Gadberry > Tom: > > Thank you for the pointer to the account of C-FBCR. Did the shoulder > harnesses in this aircraft permit your head to hit the windshield post? I > really like your suggestion of visually checking the fuel using the central > drain and a clear hose. > > I have always had a nagging feeling about how and when the FULL capacity of > the fuel tanks are tested. With no fuel selector, there's no running the > tank dry and verifying its endurance. On our trip to Europe last summer, > we had a 5 hour 15 minute leg from Greenland to Iceland. Fuel capacity was > 6 hours. But I realized I hadn't personally tested that last hour of fuel > capacity. Even if we were to drain the tanks and see how much fuel there > was at annual, there is still the nagging question of how much of that fuel > is really usable. The engine and the fuel drain may have differing > opinions about what constitutes an empty tank, especially on base turn to > final that wasn't perfectly coordinated and allowed a little slosh. > > Short of burning up that last hour of fuel on the tarmac, has anyone come > up with a good strategy for verifying endurance? > > Brian > > >It's on the TCFG web site. > >There are two downloadable files under "Temporary upload". > >The file names are; > >HISTFLTTC30.zip > >HISTFLTTCFG.doc > > > >To answer your specific question I plowed into the backside of a wave at > >about 75 knots. > >My 500B did not have a scratch on it after everything came to a stop. > >If I were in some Cessna type of aircraft the nose would have folded in on > >me. > > > >As far as I am concerned the airframe and my helmet saved my life and the > >life of the passenger, the passenger did not have a helmet and was knocked > >unconscious. > > > >Tom... > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Brian Von Herzen" <brianvon(at)fpga.com> > >To: > >Cc: > >Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 10:44 > >Subject: Re: Commander Crash in Tennessee / Gadberry > > > > > > > >I second the comment on the strong airframe..... it saved me in the > >Pacific! > > > > > > Tom, can you describe what happened in the Pacific and how the commander > > > airframe helped? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Brian Von Herzen > > > potential Commander buyer > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2002
From: garyloff <n27kb(at)erols.com>
Subject: Re: COMMANDER DOWN - N441WW
Gary had surgery this morning and is doing fine. He is alert and orietated. His wife Nadine "Dean" is an incredible women wiith exceptional strength. When she called me after the accident I was amazed at how well she was doing. She has her family, faith and friends to sustain her and appreciates all of your prayers and good wishes. She is being swamped with calls and it would do her alot of good if she could take a breather so please give her break for the next few days. Gary's children, Shannon and Adam are from the same strong stock as their parents and are doing well also. As for the cause at this point NO ONE KNOWS! So lets' get the speculation a break. I will be talking to Gary tomorrow if he's up to it and will pass along his comments. Be well all. Gary L ----- Original Message ----- From: <Barry.Collman(at)airclaims.co.uk> To: Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 8:59 AM Subject: COMMANDER DOWN - N441WW > It would appear from the FAA's Preliminary Accident Data, that N441WW, a > 500U Shrike, serial 1641-4 crashed in a remote area in the Cherokee > National Forest under unknown circumstances, approximately 35 miles East of > Chattanooga, Tennessee yesterday, 12th February. > > This one is registered to Aircenter Inc., and the pilot is reported to be > seriously injured. Nobody else was on board. > > Does any know who was flying it, as of course it is one of Gary Gadberry's. > Robert Audier is one of his pilots. > > This year is not starting off too well, unlike the last few. > > Barry C. > > > THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY > > If you are not the intended recipient or employee or agent responsible for > return. Any distribution or copying of this document by anyone other than > the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. Airclaims cannot be held > responsible for any alterations made to this document, intentionally or > > Airclaims Limited, Registered Office: Cardinal Point, Newall Road, Heathrow > Airport, Hounslow, Middlesex, TW6 2AS. Company Registration No. 710284 > England and Wales. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2002
From: Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: COMMANDER DOWN - N441WW
Yes give Gary's wife a break. I don't think that we are speculating in as much as we are discussing the draw backs and work arounds for the Commanders that have single source fuel with no selector. The excellent point was made that we probably never run the tank dry to verify unusable fuel, with a fuel selector you can do one tank at a time in the air. Another good point made was 'do you know what your gauge will do if one or both senders went offline or shorted?'. There is still the suspicion (in my mind) that the gauge might indicate 40 USG if in fact the sender is bottomed out. It is true that this thread was started with a single (third hand) comment about a fuel gauge, let us all benefit from a possible condition that might affect someone in the future including Gary. Tom... ----- Original Message ----- From: "garyloff" <n27kb(at)erols.com> To: ; Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 22:14 Subject: Re: COMMANDER DOWN - N441WW > Gary had surgery this morning and is doing fine. He is alert and orietated. > > His wife Nadine "Dean" is an incredible women wiith exceptional strength. > When she called me after the accident I was amazed at how well she was > doing. She has her family, faith and friends to sustain her and appreciates > all of your prayers and good wishes. > > She is being swamped with calls and it would do her alot of good if she > could take a breather so please give her break for the next few days. > > Gary's children, Shannon and Adam are from the same strong stock as their > parents and are doing well also. > > As for the cause at this point NO ONE KNOWS! So lets' get the speculation a > break. > > I will be talking to Gary tomorrow if he's up to it and will pass along his > comments. > > Be well all. > > Gary L > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <Barry.Collman(at)airclaims.co.uk> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 8:59 AM > Subject: COMMANDER DOWN - N441WW > > > > It would appear from the FAA's Preliminary Accident Data, that N441WW, a > > 500U Shrike, serial 1641-4 crashed in a remote area in the Cherokee > > National Forest under unknown circumstances, approximately 35 miles East > of > > Chattanooga, Tennessee yesterday, 12th February. > > > > This one is registered to Aircenter Inc., and the pilot is reported to be > > seriously injured. Nobody else was on board. > > > > Does any know who was flying it, as of course it is one of Gary > Gadberry's. > > Robert Audier is one of his pilots. > > > > This year is not starting off too well, unlike the last few. > > > > Barry C. > > > > > > > THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY > > > > If you are not the intended recipient or employee or agent responsible for > > delivering the transmission to the intended recipient, please notify us by > > return. Any distribution or copying of this document by anyone other than > > the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. Airclaims cannot be held > > responsible for any alterations made to this document, intentionally or > > > > Airclaims Limited, Registered Office: Cardinal Point, Newall Road, > Heathrow > > Airport, Hounslow, Middlesex, TW6 2AS. Company Registration No. 710284 > > England and Wales. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2002
From: Barry.Collman(at)airclaims.co.uk <Barry.Collman(at)airclaims.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Updates and Photos...Commander Crash in Tennessee
/ Gary Gadberry Hi Gary, Is that really Gary's 'plane, the bottom two pictures on page 4? It's amazing he's OK. Will anyone who's going to visit him, please pass on my Very Best Wishes for a full and speedy recovery. Barry C. TILLMAN333(at)aol.co m To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com cc: 13/02/2002 21:39 Subject: Updates and Photos...Commander Crash in Tennessee / Gary Gadberry Good Afternoon: Gary Gadberry is at Erlanger Medical Center, Chattanooga, TN; in the ICU. I spoke via phone with his neighbor and she confirmed that Gary had indeed broken several bones in his legs and he had a collapsed lung. He will FLY AGAIN ! I have no details as to the cause. Indications are that the flight originated from Murphy, NC and the destination was Lafayette, GA. I've located photos on the web. www.LZONTHEWEB.COM go to the photo section, and the photos will be on page four. I'm amazed how intact the fuselage looks in the photos. Most crashes of this magnitude present fatalities in other airframes. As a SAR, CAP Pilot, I've been involved with too many body bags...As many of you can attest, it's not a good experience. I'll try to keep everyone updated with accurate information as I receive it. The Prayers are still needed, for our friend and his family. Gary Gadberry Gary Tillman ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2002
From: Barry.Collman(at)airclaims.co.uk <Barry.Collman(at)airclaims.co.uk>
Subject: Re: FUEL GAUGES
...................."Short of that, fill it up each time you fly." Hey guys, surely, surely, surely, that's the BEST thing to do. "a few minutes spent at the pumps....... will save those breaks, cuts and bumps!" I seem to recall so many accidents which are attributed to "I though I had more fuel", or "the gauge must have been faulty". PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, I'd hate to see anyone else I know hurt, or God forbid, killed, through a fuel problem. I want to see you all at future Fly-Ins! Sincere Best Regards, Barry C. YOURTCFG(at)aol.com To: COMMANDERTECH(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com 14/02/2002 02:21 cc: Subject: FUEL GAUGES HI KIDS... Well, it has been quite a week. First the 520 it WA and now Gary. I want o join all of you in prayer for Gary's quick and full recovery. Here is a trivia question. When the cannon plug falls out of the fuel gauge, what does the gauge read?? The answer is, full. this little bit of trivia should be placed in the back of you mind. If the wire breaks, it will still read lotsa fuel. The truth of the matter is that we really cant "stick" the fuel in our airplane's tanks, so we have little choice but to use, at least to some extent, the gauge. I recommend that every other annual inspection, we should defuel the airplane and calibrate our gauges. I did mine last year. Short of that, fill it up each time you fly. God speed Gary, we will be praying for you............jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2002
From: garyloff <n27kb(at)erols.com>
Subject: Re: COMMANDER DOWN - N441WW
Gary is resting but still in great pain. He is still in the trauma ICU. Between his leg, ankle, sternum, ribs and back injuries you can imagine there is no way to get comfortable. I plan on going to TN very soon and will pass along all your kind and generous thoughts. One thing that while on its face is not a defect but the single filler port makes it impossible to check the fuel quantity visually. I trashed the original fuel gauge for one from EI and have also installed a fuel totalizer. The only real way to make sure you don't run dry is to top off. My bird has Gary's Long Ranger Fuel bladders so i can carry 223 gals. As my bladder will never last as long as my fuel when ever I land I "drain" my tanks and top off the airplanes. I'd prefer to always refuel at my home base were fuel is $1.55 gal but I'd rather know I have gas than save money as the alternative is not a good one. Remember while this discussion is useful we still don't know if fuel exhaustion was the cause of GG's accident. Gary PS Barry is the Enlish postal system still holding the package hostage? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2002
From: Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: COMMANDER DOWN - N441WW
Just curious, what is your remaining useful load with full tanks? Tom... ----- Original Message ----- From: "garyloff" <n27kb(at)erols.com> To: ; ; ; Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 22:35 Subject: Re: COMMANDER DOWN - N441WW > Gary is resting but still in great pain. He is still in the trauma ICU. > Between his leg, ankle, sternum, ribs and back injuries you can imagine > there is no way to get comfortable. > > I plan on going to TN very soon and will pass along all your kind and > generous thoughts. > > One thing that while on its face is not a defect but the single filler port > makes it impossible to check the fuel quantity visually. > > I trashed the original fuel gauge for one from EI and have also installed a > fuel totalizer. > > The only real way to make sure you don't run dry is to top off. > > My bird has Gary's Long Ranger Fuel bladders so i can carry 223 gals. As my > bladder will never last as long as my fuel when ever I land I "drain" my > tanks and top off the airplanes. I'd prefer to always refuel at my home base > were fuel is $1.55 gal but I'd rather know I have gas than save money as the > alternative is not a good one. > > Remember while this discussion is useful we still don't know if fuel > exhaustion was the cause of GG's accident. > > Gary > > PS Barry is the Enlish postal system still holding the package hostage? > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2002
From: Intrex <woodlema(at)intrex.net>
Subject: Re: COMMANDER DOWN - N441WW
I currently have 2100 lbs. useful load. Subtract 150 gal x 6lb per gal, of 900 lbs, and I have a usable load left of 1200 lbs. with full fuel. That will drop by about 100 - 150 lbs when I finish the interior. so I should have 1050, - 1100 lbs usable with full fuel. Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> To: ; ; ; Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 12:45 AM Subject: Re: COMMANDER DOWN - N441WW > Just curious, what is your remaining useful load with full tanks? > > Tom... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "garyloff" <n27kb(at)erols.com> > To: ; > ; > ; > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 22:35 > Subject: Re: COMMANDER DOWN - N441WW > > > > Gary is resting but still in great pain. He is still in the trauma ICU. > > Between his leg, ankle, sternum, ribs and back injuries you can imagine > > there is no way to get comfortable. > > > > I plan on going to TN very soon and will pass along all your kind and > > generous thoughts. > > > > One thing that while on its face is not a defect but the single filler > port > > makes it impossible to check the fuel quantity visually. > > > > I trashed the original fuel gauge for one from EI and have also installed > a > > fuel totalizer. > > > > The only real way to make sure you don't run dry is to top off. > > > > My bird has Gary's Long Ranger Fuel bladders so i can carry 223 gals. As > my > > bladder will never last as long as my fuel when ever I land I "drain" my > > tanks and top off the airplanes. I'd prefer to always refuel at my home > base > > were fuel is $1.55 gal but I'd rather know I have gas than save money as > the > > alternative is not a good one. > > > > Remember while this discussion is useful we still don't know if fuel > > exhaustion was the cause of GG's accident. > > > > Gary > > > > PS Barry is the Enlish postal system still holding the package hostage? > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2002
From: JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com>
Subject: Long necks and T/P.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2002
From: JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Hydraulic failure
Hey Nico!! Great story!!! and the ending is exactly what I was getting ready for. I too would have featherd both engines. With the rudder so big, I was hoping for steering down to about 40 kts. I did not want any thrust, and had decided to stay on the upwind side of the runway to be able to drift accross at the end of the rollout after loosing directional control. (If it felt like it was pulling one way or the other that is!) The gear is held up by uplocks. They are held in place by hyd. pressure that is overriding a big metal spring. If the pressure is removed the big metal spring that has been compressed by the hyd. pressure will move the uplocks to UN-locked. Then it free falls. Take a look in the gear well. You can see this arangement easily. JetPaul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2002
From: JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: plumbing STC
Hey Bill!! The problem of your heater should be fixed now. The 500A that I flew had such great heat that you could only run it about 5 mins. at a time with the temp set to the lowest setting. Then you would be so hot you could turn it off for about 15 mins, and repeat the process. That was also at 10,000 feet and O.A.T. of about zero F. JetPaul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2002
From: JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Hydraulic failure
Hey Nico!! Great story!!! and the ending is exactly what I was getting ready for. I too would have featherd both engines. With the rudder so big, I was hoping for steering down to about 40 kts. I did not want any thrust, and had decided to stay on the upwind side of the runway to be able to drift accross at the end of the rollout after loosing directional control. (If it felt like it was pulling one way or the other that is!) The gear is held up by uplocks. They are held in place by hyd. pressure that is overriding a big metal spring. If the pressure is removed the big metal spring that has been compressed by the hyd. pressure will move the uplocks to UN-locked. Then it free falls. Take a look in the gear well. You can see this arangement easily. JetPaul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2002
From: JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Hydraulic failure
You guys are correct, the uplocks I refer to are on the speedline boys. I know the 500A and B's have them, and the 560F. I cant say for sure after that. JetPaul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2002
From: JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Commander Crash in Tennessee / Gadberry
This is really scarry, but I think I heard Gary's E.L.T. on the 12th. I was work and heard a Delta Pilot report an E.L.T. on 121.5, so I flipped over on the No.2 as well. He was coming in on the Rome Arrival which is Nashville and Chattanooga. I was coming in on the LaGrange Arrival which further south near Birmingham, and Montgomery. But From FL 330, I could hear a faint E.L.T. if I turned off the squelch. God Speed and Care on your recovery Mr Gadberry!!! I tried to do part to help, triangulating your position. JetPaul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: [Parts to sell]
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2002
From: TILLMAN333(at)aol.com <TILLMAN333(at)aol.com>
Subject: CO-PILOT YOKE
Good Morning: I need a new style copilot yoke for my 500A, before the avionics shop completes the work. The pilot yoke was updated with the PTT switch and the electric trim, several years ago. Please advise. Thanks. Gary Tillman ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Re: CO-PILOT YOKE
TILLMAN333(at)aol.com wrote: > > Good Morning: > I need a new style copilot yoke for my 500A Gary, I have a pair of late style yokes. They are the "beefy" ones, not the earlier light design. Was going to put them in my 520, but they are splined shaft and the 520 had a keyway. I started stripping them to have them refinished, but never completed the task. chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2002
From: Fran Myers <fmyers(at)mn.mediaone.net>
Subject: New Email address
Sorry for the confusion but AT&T has changed my address. Please use: fmyers(at)attbi.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2002
From: JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Coronas and T/P
Well, it seems that my theory about the unloader has been discounted by Crunk Sr and Cliff. And that's good news!!!! One less problem is always good. I was on the right track though it seems. I thought the gear coming down had put pressure on the back side of it and unstuck it. The consensus is that it was never a factor. More like the gear free falling pulled enough fluid out of the reservoir and hand pump to create a suction on the pressure (supply) side. So the first few minutes of frantic pumping thought to be useless by me were in fact spent usefully to negate the negative and build up the pressure again. Cool. It all worked like it was supposed to. JetPaul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2002
From: Jjleon(at)att.net <Jjleon(at)att.net>
Subject: Two tips
This may be old hat to some of you. If so, please accept my apologies. But I just discovered two things that may be of interest and better yet, save you a few bucks. www.airnav.com has a listing of fuel prices for most US airports. As most of you have experienced, the little airport on the other side of town may have $2 avgas whereas the "BIG-IRON" FBO chain will charge you +$3 and treat you like dirt at no extra charge since you didn't pull up in your "other airplane," the corporate jet. If you have to top off your 156 gallon tanks, you can do your own math..... The service is free and it depends on users like you and me to update prices and provide comments on specific facilities and service. A specific example taken from this website is South Florida Aviation Investments at OPF (the Opa-Locka airport in the northern part of Miami). Self service fuel is available 24 hours per day for $1.59 per gallon. Yes, I did say $1.59, as opposed to paying $3 at the main two FBO's at OPF. I just fueled up there yesterday in my "brand P". (I know I should get a Commander - I'm looking.) I smiled all the way back to Atlanta. However, I did get a tie-down at one of the bigger FBO's - bought ten gallons to avoid the ramp charge, got my rental car and then spent an extra 15 minutes at these pumps to save more than a $100 bucks. South Florida Aviation Investments is by the Coast Guard base at OPF with a good-sized red awning that says "fuel sales". The tower will give you "progressives" if you ask to go to the t-hangars. Hopefully some of you southern friends can profit from this information. As for the finder's fee, it's payable in Corona's or other suitable consumables. Juan Leon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2002
From: John D Williams <keyscrusing(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Sun-n-Fun airshow
Morning, Is anyone planning on going to the Sun-n-Fun airshow in Lakeland this April? I think I'll be there for at least three days. I don't know if I'm going to take the commander or the RV. Either way I'll be camping. John ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2002
From: Larry R. <hardcase62(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: 520 for sale
hey guys, this 520 is for sale, it needs and a lot of work, and hasnt flown for a couple of years,(has a prop a.d) if any of you are interested let me know. its based in roanoke va, i am not shure but i think the price is under 30000. thanks Larry __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2002
From: John Folting <amcuprcc(at)home.com>
Subject: New e-mail
Please change my e-mail address to amcuprcc(at)cox.net. Thank You John Folting ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2002
From: Larry R. <hardcase62(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 520 for sale
--- Nico van Niekerk wrote: > Do the feathered props reflect on anything that > might be wrong with the > engines? > Nico > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Larry R." <hardcase62(at)yahoo.com> > To: > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 9:10 AM > Subject: 520 for sale > > > >nico there is a problem with the prop hubs i think, its an a.d. but i think the engins are ok.. Larry > > > > hey guys, this 520 is for sale, it needs and a > lot > > of work, and hasnt flown for a couple of > years,(has a > > prop a.d) if any of you are interested let me > know. > > its based in roanoke va, i am not shure but i > think > > the price is under 30000. > > > > thanks > > Larry > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games > > http://sports.yahoo.com > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2002
From: Robert C. Bullock <rcbullock(at)home.com>
Subject: Re: Two tips
***IMPORTANT*** NOTE *** My email address is changing to rcbullock@ cox.net because @Home is going broke *** It's been a fine 3 years... > > As for the finder's fee, it's payable in Corona's or > other suitable consumables. No no, advice is free remember? It's the legwork and labor that's....well, that's free too apparently. Hey, Gary, can I get some free insurance? You don't have to do anything but a little paperwork, and we know you don't mind doing it. And it's not like insurance actually costs anything, since no goods are delivered. I promise I won't crash so there's no liability either. You know, just to satisfy the bank and all. >:) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2002
From: Bow <w.bow(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Sun-n-Fun airshow
I'm in!! I will be there it is about 40 minutes by car. bilbo ----- Original Message ----- From: John D Williams To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 11:32 AM Subject: Sun-n-Fun airshow Morning, Is anyone planning on going to the Sun-n-Fun airshow in Lakeland this April? I think I'll be there for at least three days. I don't know if I'm going to take the commander or the RV. Either way I'll be camping. John ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2002
From: Bow <w.bow(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Two tips
Maybe I should bring up the "sump" (OOPS) word again. bilbo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert C. Bullock" <rcbullock(at)home.com> To: Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 4:15 PM Subject: Re: Two tips > > ***IMPORTANT*** NOTE *** My email address is changing to rcbullock@ cox.net > because @Home is going broke *** It's been a fine 3 years... > > > > As for the finder's fee, it's payable in Corona's or > > other suitable consumables. > > > No no, advice is free remember? It's the legwork and labor that's....well, > that's free too apparently. Hey, Gary, can I get some free insurance? You > don't have to do anything but a little paperwork, and we know you don't mind > doing it. And it's not like insurance actually costs anything, since no > goods are delivered. I promise I won't crash so there's no liability either. > You know, just to satisfy the bank and all. > > >:) > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2002
From: N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Fuel tanks and guages
The 685 has 10 (ten) fuel bladders. They are interconnected and filled through 3 filler caps. One in the center wing section and one in each outer wing. Combined they hold 322 gallons. The manual says that when the center Tank ( I presume that means center filler cap) is full that the aircraft is holding 264 gallons. Does this mean when it is filled to the neck or when the center 6 bladders are full? TCAC could not answer the question. The problem is that on level ground if you fill the center filler cap there will also be fuel in the lateral bladders. This problem is compounded when there is a slope to the ramp when filling. With only a barely perceptible slope I can fill the center section and the downhill wing bladder from the center and have the other wing empty. I did indeed empty the tanks and level the plane before filling it again. It appears that indeed it holds approximately 260 gallons in the center (section) when filled to the cap. I did this 3 times (what a pain) and the results were 261 gal, 273 gal, and 268 gal. On other occasions when the plane was not level I have filled the center section which should mean I would be able to put about 28 gallons in each outer wing bladder. It always ends up significantly less than that mainly because when off level one of the wing tanks gets more than usual. From a safety standpoint this should be great in that by filling the center I will always have 264 or more gallons. The problems is when bumping Max gross I really cant determine weight accurately. Of course the fuel gauge is no where near accurate so I just cover it up and consider at 50 GPH and center tanks full I have 4hrs plus reserve. Actual burn is closer to 45GPH for most trips. With 10 fuel bladders that vary in height left to right and front to back does anybody think you can realistically build a fuel gauge that works. I guess all of us just end up toting around a helluva lot more fuel than we hope well need. Even with a Hoskins can you ever be sure. Milt ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel tanks and guages
> N414C wrote: > With 10 fuel bladders that vary in height left to right and front to > back does anybody think you can realistically build a fuel gauge that > works. How about designing a strain-gauge mount block for the gear which displays actual aircraft weight. Wouldn't that be nifty? Always know _exactly_ what your weight was plus know how much fuel you had... Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2002
From: Bow <w.bow(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel tanks and guages
I'm not sure about this weight thing. That was called a STANS(sounded like) system on the L-188 and the B-707. I'm sure you could be built to work today, It didn't work back then. bilbo > > N414C wrote: > > With 10 fuel bladders that vary in height left to right and front to > > back does anybody think you can realistically build a fuel gauge that > > works. > > > > How about designing a strain-gauge mount block for the gear which > displays actual aircraft weight. Wouldn't that be nifty? Always > know _exactly_ what your weight was plus know how much fuel you > had... > > Chris > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2002
From: Bow <w.bow(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel tanks and guages
What about cutting holes in each fuel cell and mounting a cork on a piece of welding rod(coat hanger,Big Al) then on the nose of the airplane mount a remote controlled mirror off of a Ford 3500 P/U truck. Then inflight you could periodically move the mirror around and see the fuel level in each cell. Cost---$100 for the mirror(used) and $50. fuel caps(1950 Chevy P/U truck style) and welding rod, R&D one, maybe two Killians Red's Problem solved, bilbo Subject: Re: Fuel tanks and guages The 685 has 10 (ten) fuel bladders. They are interconnected and filled through 3 filler caps. One in the center wing section and one in each outer wing. Combined they hold 322 gallons. The manual says that when the center Tank ( I presume that means center filler cap) is full that the aircraft is holding 264 gallons. Does this mean when it is filled to the neck or when the center 6 bladders are full? TCAC could not answer the question. The problem is that on level ground if you fill the center filler cap there will also be fuel in the lateral bladders. This problem is compounded when there is a slope to the ramp when filling. With only a barely perceptible slope I can fill the center section and the downhill wing bladder from the center and have the other wing empty. I did indeed empty the tanks and level the plane before filling it again. It appears that indeed it holds approximately 260 gallons in the center (section) when filled to the cap. I did this 3 times (what a pain) and the results were 261 gal, 273 gal, and 268 gal. On other occasions when the plane was not level I have filled the center section which should mean I would be able to put about 28 gallons in each outer wing bladder. It always ends up significantly less than that mainly because when off level one of the wing tanks gets more than usual. From a safety standpoint this should be great in that by filling the center I will always have 264 or more gallons. The problems is when bumping Max gross I really cant determine weight accurately. Of course the fuel gauge is no where near accurate so I just cover it up and consider at 50 GPH and center tanks full I have 4hrs plus reserve. Actual burn is closer to 45GPH for most trips. With 10 fuel bladders that vary in height left to right and front to back does anybody think you can realistically build a fuel gauge that works. There might be some way to take 4 fuel level measurements on the front and back of each wing, type them into a spreadsheet and get a calculated fuel level. But it would take a substantial amount of calibration to get the model to be accurate. And how much does one aircraft differ from another? By the way, how many cases are in the history books that show collapsed fuel cells? Brian Von Herzen, Ph.D. I guess all of us just end up toting around a helluva lot more fuel than we hope well need. Even with a Hoskins can you ever be sure. Milt ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: Fuel tanks and guages
That is the best idea yet....jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2002
From: Barry.Collman(at)airclaims.co.uk <Barry.Collman(at)airclaims.co.uk>
Subject: ANOTHER COMMANDER DOWN
I hate being the bearer of more bad news, but indications are that a Shrike, N999N, serial 3277, is reported to have crashed over the weekend, near Exeter, Rhode Island. Evidently, no distress call was made and the pilot received fatal injuries. I have been waiting to obtain confirmation from the FAA's Preliminary Accident & Incident website, but as I'm leaving for home, to-day's postings have not yet been made. Let's hope the reports are wrong, but I fear not. Barry C. THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY If you are not the intended recipient or employee or agent responsible for return. Any distribution or copying of this document by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. Airclaims cannot be held responsible for any alterations made to this document, intentionally or Airclaims Limited, Registered Office: Cardinal Point, Newall Road, Heathrow Airport, Hounslow, Middlesex, TW6 2AS. Company Registration No. 710284 England and Wales. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Garry Gadberry progress
I just got off the phone w/ Gary Gadberry's wife who is with him at the hospital. Gary is recovering quickly and is now cruising about in a wheel chair a little. Hopes are that he'll be released next week to an extended care facility until he's strong enough to maneuver around the house. He's still in quite a bit of pain but OK other than the broken bones. I think there's quite a story in how he was found and rescued. The men who found him were just coming to visit him when I was on the phone, so I got the Reader's Digest version. Evidently, nobody knew Gary had gone down. These two men were out for a drive and when they came to a fork in the road, decided to take the other fork -- totally unplanned -- and came upon wreckage in the trees. They stopped to look, heard Gary calling to them and followed his voice to the fuselage. They had a cell phone and got the rescue going. It had been about an hour since the crash. Sometimes there's something larger than luck operating in our lives. Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2002
From: Furlong5(at)aol.com <Furlong5(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel tanks and guages
I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING SAID ABOUT GARY GADBERRY'S CRASH. DOES EVERYONE KNOW ABOUT IT? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel tanks and guages
Furlong5(at)aol.com wrote: > > I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING SAID ABOUT GARY GADBERRY'S CRASH. DOES > EVERYONE KNOW ABOUT IT? There's been extensive discussion on the "chat" list. Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2002
From: George J. Yundt III <yundt(at)speakeasy.net>
Subject: Fuel tanks and guages
My Commander 685 (sn 12061) confirms Dr. Milt's findings. Specifically, that fueling only the center tank (meaning right inboard filler cap) results in a total load between 260-280 gals on my aircraft. Likewise, at last annual, (in conjunction with the wing spar inspection), I had them re-fuel the A/C from empty, stopping at each 20 gallons added, to generate a "truth table" against what my fuel gauge reads. At no time throughout the exercise did the fuel gauge differ more than 15 gal off the actual amount loaded. The offshoot is that (UNLIKE Dr. Milt) I have a relatively good level of comfort with partial fuel loads and the gauge accuracy. But as prudence suggests, I always carry a healthy reserve anyway. Also, since I don't have an electronic FF totalizer, I do a little math exercise to tell me if something is amiss.....I record what my gauge reads when parked after landing, write down in my trip log what I ordered from the lineman and derive a total to expect the next time out. Confirming this total is part of my engine start checklist. If my written estimate differs more than 10-15 gallons from the start-up gauge reading....I want to know why (fuel leak, inaccuracy creeping into the gauging system, fuel bladder collapse, or simply getting cheated by the lineman). So far, this procedure has been flawless, and I have had no surprises. One word of mild caution.....if the lineman is VERY patient, he will be able to get between 10-20 gallons more into the center tank than a lineman that fuels quickly and stops as soon as the top is initially reached. I can only explain this as there seems to be some seepage from the center to the outboards...perhaps one or more of my check valves aren't sealing perfectly? (does it even have checkvalves??) About 280 gallons is all you can put in it my center tank before it reaches its ultimate (spill-over) level, no matter how long the lineman takes. I fuel at a fixed ground fuel pump pit, parking in the same spot, pointing the same direction consistently...so leveling should not be a variable to my findings. Hope that this input helps George Yundt The 685 has 10 (ten) fuel bladders. They are interconnected and filled through 3 filler caps. One in the center wing section and one in each outer wing. Combined they hold 322 gallons. The manual says that when the center Tank ( I presume that means center filler cap) is full that the aircraft is holding 264 gallons. Does this mean when it is filled to the neck or when the center 6 bladders are full? TCAC could not answer the question. The problem is that on level ground if you fill the center filler cap there will also be fuel in the lateral bladders. This problem is compounded when there is a slope to the ramp when filling. With only a barely perceptible slope I can fill the center section and the downhill wing bladder from the center and have the other wing empty. I did indeed empty the tanks and level the plane before filling it again. It appears that indeed it holds approximately 260 gallons in the center (section) when filled to the cap. I did this 3 times (what a pain) and the results were 261 gal, 273 gal, and 268 gal. On other occasions when the plane was not level I have filled the center section which should mean I would be able to put about 28 gallons in each outer wing bladder. It always ends up significantly less than that mainly because when off level one of the wing tanks gets more than usual. From a safety standpoint this should be great in that by filling the center I will always have 264 or more gallons. The problems is when bumping Max gross I really cant determine weight accurately. Of course the fuel gauge is no where near accurate so I just cover it up and consider at 50 GPH and center tanks full I have 4hrs plus reserve. Actual burn is closer to 45GPH for most trips. With 10 fuel bladders that vary in height left to right and front to back does anybody think you can realistically build a fuel gauge that works. There might be some way to take 4 fuel level measurements on the front and back of each wing, type them into a spreadsheet and get a calculated fuel level. But it would take a substantial amount of calibration to get the model to be accurate. And how much does one aircraft differ from another? By the way, how many cases are in the history books that show collapsed fuel cells? Brian Von Herzen, Ph.D. I guess all of us just end up toting around a helluva lot more fuel than we hope well need. Even with a Hoskins can you ever be sure. Milt ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 19, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Aerocommander and orenda
WOW, Cool!!.....jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 19, 2002
From: Barry.Collman(at)airclaims.co.uk <Barry.Collman(at)airclaims.co.uk>
Subject: N999N - Update
The FAA's Preliminary Accident & Incident website now confirms that 500S-3277, N999N, crashed on February 17th at 22:52GMT (17:52 local?) and sadly, the pilot was fatally injured. Although currently listed with Madeira Helicopters Inc., in Naples, Florida, this Commander was originally registered to them in Wakefield, Rhode Island. The accident brief says that radar & radio contact was lost while the Commander was on an ILS final to North Kingston, Rhode Island. Last radio contact was 8 miles SW of PVD (Providence, RI), although the last ATC clearance was "climb and maintain 3000". A news report can be found at: http://www.projo.com/report/html/news/07075741.htm This says that the pilot, 58 year-old Lewis N Madeira Jr., had told ATC that he was "all over the place" and thought his plane was iced-up, just minutes before the crash. He had filed a flight plan from Wilmington, NC to Newport State airport, but after the told controllers he was having trouble, he was cleared to land at T F Green Airport, in Warwick. Barry C. THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY If you are not the intended recipient or employee or agent responsible for return. Any distribution or copying of this document by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. Airclaims cannot be held responsible for any alterations made to this document, intentionally or Airclaims Limited, Registered Office: Cardinal Point, Newall Road, Heathrow Airport, Hounslow, Middlesex, TW6 2AS. Company Registration No. 710284 England and Wales. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 19, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: NEW MEMBERS
HI KIDS... Please welcome a couple of new TCFG members. Gary Wroan lives in Bloomington, IL and is looking for his first Commander. I think he is pretty serious, on the application, he wrote "soon to be" in the owner block Next is William, (Bill) Laxson from the frozen north of Anchorage, AK. Bill is also looking for his first commander. He wants a "High & Fast" airplane to go with his "Low & Slow" Helio Courier, Now that wouls be a geat pair of airplane to own, dont you think!! Welcome aboard guys, let us help you find the Commander of your dreams.......jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 22, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: Garry Gadberry progress
In a message dated 2/18/02 1:58:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, CloudCraft(at)aol.com writes: > Sometimes there's something larger than luck operating in our lives. > INDEED THERE IS! It is called Divine intervention, God. Thanks for the update......jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 22, 2002
From: John Folting <amcuprcc(at)cox.net>
Subject: new address again
It seems I used an extra dot on my address that I previously sent. Please use amcuprcc(at)cox.net Thank You John Folting (member) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 22, 2002
From: JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com>
Subject: Osama
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 22, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: quiet
Anyone still alive around here? Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 22, 2002
From: Brian Von Herzen <brianvon(at)fpga.com>
Subject: Re: quiet
>Anyone still alive around here? Well, I'd love to ask about what to look for in buying my first Twin Commander, but I thought I'd remain quiet until the period of silence was deemed over. Brian >Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 22, 2002
From: Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: quiet
I think we are waiting for Miss January. Oh yes, and my divorce. Tom... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Schuermann" <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> To: Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 14:46 Subject: quiet > Anyone still alive around here? > > Chris > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 22, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Re: quiet
Tom Fisher wrote: > > I think we are waiting for Miss January. Thanks for the reminder. I have been doing a poor job of keeping up on that topic. My only defense is exhaustion - been working 15+ hour days X 7 for the last few months. (see what happens when you don't own a Commander!?!?) I think I have a submission waiting. Sure could use a few more - where are they? There's over 100 Commander owners on this list but I've only received a half-dozen entries so far. FYI, my spouse is getting her belated X-mas present tomorrow. ...A ride in a B-25! You wouldn't believe how excited she is about it! (definitly a keeper that one). I'll certainly be taking some pix and will drop a few on the web site in case anyone just wants to be jealous :-) Also, on May 2 - May 12, the North American Top Gun guys are going to be in Tulsa. They offer flights in T6's from mild to wild. I gave an hour of T6 acro to Kim for a birthday present two years ago and she thought it was the best ever. Also gave one to my father who had an ear-to-ear grin for quite some time afterwards. Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 22, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Re: quiet
Brian Von Herzen wrote: > Well, I'd love to ask about what to look for in buying my first Twin > Commander, but I thought I'd remain quiet until the period of silence was > deemed over. That's what the list is here for buddy - ask anything you care to. Real short answers: - Airframe condition - corrosion! - Prop AD status - Engine condition - Good pre-buy inspection so you know how big a bucket of money you need chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 22, 2002
From: Brian Von Herzen <brianvon(at)fpga.com>
Subject: Re: turbines and pistons
>Brian Von Herzen wrote: > > Well, I'd love to ask about what to look for in buying my first Twin > > Commander, but I thought I'd remain quiet until the period of silence was > > deemed over. > >That's what the list is here for buddy - ask anything you care to. >Real short answers: >- Airframe condition - corrosion! >- Prop AD status >- Engine condition Any opinions out there on piston vs. turbine? Does anyone have experience taking off from airport altitudes of 4000 to 9000 feet in turbine twin commanders lightly loaded? Thanks, Brian >- Good pre-buy inspection so you know how big a bucket of money you need > >chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 22, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: ONE OF THOSE DAYS!
HI KIDS.... Well, I had one today. You all heard about the starter fiasco a couple of weeks ago. I finally (two weeks and about a grand later) got the starters back. I couldn't wait! I ahd already installed new solinoids so I was ready to go. We had a great day here, 60 deg, so I went right out and installed them, then planed to give her a bath and FLY! Nope. I got it all together, hit the Left starter, nothing! The starter would turn over but not engage, just like when I sent it in!!!! I called the shop (in Texas) and got the "gee, it worked in the shop" routine. The starter is now back on it's way to TX and I am still grounded! I have fixed a couple of other small items, like new "O" rings in the LH retract cyl, and will do a few more things as I watch the BEAUTIFUL Weather go by. BAH, HUMBUG!! jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 22, 2002
From: John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: turbines and pistons
No, Brian, no experience with lightly loaded turbines, but I have a bit of experience leaving a 6,400-ft. airport in July in a max gross weight piston commander (turbocharged) and it's a non-issue. I have heard from a friend with a 690B turbine, that it's nice to leave that same airport and have a 3,200 fpm initial climb rate, regardless of loading... HTH, /John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Von Herzen" <brianvon(at)fpga.com> To: "Chris Schuermann" Cc: Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 7:34 PM Subject: Re: turbines and pistons > >Brian Von Herzen wrote: > > > Well, I'd love to ask about what to look for in buying my first Twin > > > Commander, but I thought I'd remain quiet until the period of silence was > > > deemed over. > > > >That's what the list is here for buddy - ask anything you care to. > >Real short answers: > >- Airframe condition - corrosion! > >- Prop AD status > >- Engine condition > > Any opinions out there on piston vs. turbine? > > Does anyone have experience taking off from airport altitudes of 4000 to > 9000 feet in turbine twin commanders lightly loaded? > > Thanks, > > Brian > > >- Good pre-buy inspection so you know how big a bucket of money you need > > > >chris > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: COTM
New Commander of the month up (finally) - Urs Frey's 500A. Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Re: quiet
Nico van Niekerk wrote: >FYI in case you are interested. > Nico Thanks for the tip Nico. Might have to check in on that. Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: COTM
THANKS CHRIS..... Another great "Aero Babe".......jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2002
From: David Maytag <dmaytag(at)commspeed.net>
Subject: Re: turbines and pistons
Brian, My opinion on piston vs. turbine is pretty basic: If you can afford the turbine, I mean really afford it*, there is just no reason to go piston. (*I say that because I know from personal experience that owning an airplane beyond your means really takes the fun out of it.) The reliability, safety, and performance just eclipse any piston airplane. I know you guys with turbocharged engines are going to quote critical altitudes and horsepower vs. altitude charts to demonstrate how your engines are making closer to take-off power (if not full rated power) at the high density altitudes than some turbine engines. And you're right, especially in the case of the real early turboprops, but when the argument of reliability comes up, you can't compare the two. For me, I would trade a few horsepower at the higher altitudes for the huge gain in reliability of the turbine. Maintenance is another issue. High output turbo or supercharged piston engines demand the utmost in care if you want any reasonable reliability and safety from them. I do most of my own maintenance on airplanes and piston engines need constant attention to keep them top notch. The never ending oil and filter changes, spark plug cleaning and rotations, chasing little oil leaks, etc., etc. also take the fun out of it. I'm not implying that the turbines are trouble free but, generally they go 100hr to 100hr without ever taking the cowling off. The other huge benefit to the turboprop is that they are so much easier to operate from a pilot standpoint. There is no shock cooling, no cowl flaps, no leaning of the mixture, no worry of causing negative torque on the gearbox, etc. Just pay VERY CLOSE attention to the temp gauge and it is really pretty hard to hurt the turbine engine. Of course there are other things to look out for, but it's really pretty simple to manage a turbine engine once you get used to it - which doesn't take long at all. All of my flying is in the western US and the Rocky Mountains. I operate out of Prescott, AZ which is 5000' and quite warm in the summer. We routinely get well over 8000' density altitudes here in the summer and I usually leave at gross or close to it because I tanker fuel. Most of my experience is in 690A's & B's but I have flown a century 681 around the Rockies quite a bit too. Both airplanes do real well. The main thing I notice when its high, hot, and heavy, is that the airplane seems to take much longer from rotation at 100kts to accelerate to 120 or better. When its cold out or at low elevation the airplanes just zip right on through that zone. But, once the speed is up and gear is up they both climb like monkeys, even at the high density altitudes. If you keep the weight down just 800 pounds or more it makes a big difference. For what it's worth, I was at Simuflight last month and we had some extra time so I had the instructor program the sim for Aspen, 85 degrees F, and gross weight. I wanted him to fail an engine right after rotation but he got sidetracked on something and I was at 300' agl before one quit. I wanted to see if it (I) could fly the departure procedure and back in to a circle to land approach (there is no straight in procedure at Aspen anyway). Well, the airplane (sim) did it despite my sloppiness. I only climbed to 14000' but it would have kept going to 16000 I think. It was averaging about 400 fpm but the main thing I noticed was sloppy speed control would quickly wipe out any climb and it took a while (10 seconds or so after getting back on speed) to get climbing again. Now, granted, that was a simulator and I sure don't want to try it in the real thing with real mountains but, if the engineer's did their homework right, that's a pretty good indication of the airplane's capabilities. Anyway, I don't know how I got to rambling on so much but I hope it is helpful to you. If you have any specific questions about the 690's, I'll try to answer them. David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Von Herzen" <brianvon(at)fpga.com> To: "Chris Schuermann" Cc: Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 8:34 PM Subject: Re: turbines and pistons > >Brian Von Herzen wrote: > > > Well, I'd love to ask about what to look for in buying my first Twin > > > Commander, but I thought I'd remain quiet until the period of silence was > > > deemed over. > > > >That's what the list is here for buddy - ask anything you care to. > >Real short answers: > >- Airframe condition - corrosion! > >- Prop AD status > >- Engine condition > > Any opinions out there on piston vs. turbine? > > Does anyone have experience taking off from airport altitudes of 4000 to > 9000 feet in turbine twin commanders lightly loaded? > > Thanks, > > Brian > > >- Good pre-buy inspection so you know how big a bucket of money you need > > > >chris > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Re: turbines and pistons
David Maytag wrote: > My opinion on piston vs. turbine is pretty basic: Great posting David! Would you consider adding a bit more info for turbine-wannabe's like myself? I would like to put this together and have it on the web site. I know little about the TPE-331's. There seems to be a number of different versions and options which apparently greatly differ in operating costs (ie: TBO, fuel specifics, performance, etc). I also understand that turbines get "tired" as they get older and loose performance rather than "breaking". Do they suffer from operating continuously at higher power settings or does it not really matter? What exactly IS a "hot section inspection" ? How is owning a turbine different from a piston? (I think there are various time and calendar "phase inspections" required, but don't know the details. Sorry for all the questions, but thanks again for the great info you've shared! Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2002
From: JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: turbines and pistons
VERY NICE DAVID!!! You hit the nail(s) on the head. If you can REALLY afford go turbine. If you REALLY need the altitude capability and can't afford turbines go turbocharged. JetPaul (I can't afford either, and have a 520.) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2002
From: JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: turbines and pistons
Hey Chris, One difference of Piston VS Turbine is the Mx. Program. Turbines have a different TBO's based on the program under which they are maintained. If you only do 100hr inspections then the TBO is less than an engine that is on an approved continual Mx. Inspection program. I have over 2,000 hrs in TPE-331 powered Jetstreams, and for the life of me I can't remember the TBO. Don't quote me, but I think it's about 3,500 hrs. You would typically need 2 or 3 hot section overhauls to get there. Or it could be 10,000 hrs to TBO, and a hot section every 3,500 or so. Man old age sucks for memory. What am I going to do when I turn 35 this year?? Anyway, you can plan on several 'hot section's" between new and TBO. BUT....you are correct, Turbines don't break, they just stop making T/O Torque. If a turbine is Temping out before it Torques out, then it's time for a hot section inspection. And that's just what it sounds like. Everything that has burning kerosene blowing across it. Of course the really scum bag operators just adjust Screw "X" on the E. G. T. probe compensator control box and get the indicated temp back down within limits. I am not kidding. There is an adjustment on Garretts to do that. And the Mx. Manual diagram shows it labelled screw "X". JetPaul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Turbine vs. Piston
I love spending other people's money so I'll place my vote for turbines. What I've witnessed is that the operating cost of a geared, supercharged and pressurized airframe is the same as a turbine. The acquisition cost is way different. Also, when something fails on a turbine (torque meter, fuel control unit, etc.) the price tag always seems to start at $8000.00. JetPaul was not able to remember the TBO and hot section inteval because air carrier ops get to operate on an FAA approved "on condtion" mx program. Part 91 operators must use the manufacturer's schedule that comes in 1800 hour intervals. First 1800 hours, a hot section. The power turbines, combustion plenum (aka "burner can")and, well, everything associated with fire, is inspected and replaced as necessary. At 3600 hours another hot section is done, along with the "GBI", gear box inspection. It's this GBI that takes the TPE-331 - 5 series to 5400 hours, then overhaul. What causes a turbine engine to lose power over time is erosion of the turbine blades due to grit in the air and the inevitable effect of heat. These blades are airfoils and you know what happens to your wing or props when their original aerodynamic shape is altered. Also, if/when the turbine and compressor blade tips erode (rubbing?) the engine gets "loose" and the efficeincy leaks away. i.e. Not as much air is being pushed through the engine for the combustion event. That is seen as higher temperatures with lower (torque or) Horse Power indications. An anology would be low compression on piston engine cylinders. You're burning the fuel, but not getting the power output. By the way, one of the many advantages of the dash 10 engine is the option of one hot section and GBI at 2500 hours, then o/h at 5000. That lowers the cost alone, not to mention the "hot section" is an upgraded bunch of metal that can take much higher temperatures than it's subjected to when it only produces 717 SHP on the Commander. Why are turbine engines so expensive? Metalurgy. The alloys used in the hot sections have to survive very high temperatures while spinning at extreme speeds and that call for some very exotic -- sometimes strategic -- metals. One more thing for the turbine shopper to beware of: The SB status of a given engine. You may be shown an airplane with "300 hours since hots" but what is hidden in that statement is that since that inspection, an SB or AD may have been issued limiting the CYCLES or hours of other components in the engine. Stators are one recent example. Unlike piston engines, there are cycle life limits as well as time limits on many parts. True, these are non-moving parts, but they're there and they're pricey. OK, this is long enough! More, later, if you want it. Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2002
From: Brian Von Herzen <brianvon(at)fpga.com>
Subject: Re: turbines and pistons
David: Thank you for this overview. A couple questions come to mind. >My opinion on piston vs. turbine is pretty basic: If you can afford the >turbine, I mean really afford it*, there is just no reason to go piston. >(*I say that because I know from personal experience that owning an airplane >beyond your means really takes the fun out of it.) Do you have a rule of thumb on what to budget for maintenance on a 690? How predictable is the operating cost? Thanks, Brian ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2002
From: Brian Von Herzen <brianvon(at)fpga.com>
Subject: Re: turbines and pistons
>Of course the really scum bag operators just adjust Screw "X" on the E. G. T. > probe compensator control box and get the indicated temp back down within >limits. > >I am not kidding. There is an adjustment on Garretts to do that. And the >Mx. Manual diagram shows it labelled screw "X". That is amazing. Under what conditions is the gauge supposed to be calibrated? I imagine it might be a bit hard to turn the screw while the turbine is operating while taking its temperature with a thermometer :-) Brian ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2002
From: David Maytag <dmaytag(at)commspeed.net>
Subject: Re: turbines and pistons
Hey JetPaul, You just made my day. I thought I was the only 35 year old that can't remember shi -- I mean anything anymore! You also bring up a great point about Garretts. Anyone buying a Garret powered airplane needs to be aware of what you just said. You can literally make the guages, temp and torque, read whatever you want. The only way to know for sure how strong the engine is without doing the lebow, is to go as high as you can in the airplane and check the torque, temp, and fuel flows, and airspeed against the performance numbers in the book. Of course, the books are quite often faster than the airplanes but if it is off by more than 8 to 10 knots its worth doing the lebow. (The lebow test is done on the ground with a special "propeller" that reads torque directly and that is how the engines are calibrated to their baseline from the factory.) I think it costs a couple thousand but if there is any doubt, do it. I don't know all the TBO's but on Commanders they are 3600hrs extendable to 5400hrs. The hot sections are done at 1800hrs + or - 100hrs. At 3600hrs. the second hot section inspection is due and a gearbox inspection can be done to extend the TBO to 5400hrs. The -10's can operate on that scheme or you can shorten it to 5000hrs with only one hot section inspection. That's a good deal. HSI's are capped at $50k I think and the overhauls are capped at $150k I think. (Don't bank on those numbers - remember my memory is like JetPaul's.) I think the HSI with a gearbox inspection is around $70k. These are the price caps by Garrett and it might not cost that much if your lucky. David ----- Original Message ----- From: <JETPAUL(at)aol.com> To: ; Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 12:57 PM Subject: Re: turbines and pistons > Hey Chris, > > One difference of Piston VS Turbine is the Mx. Program. > > Turbines have a different TBO's based on the program under which they are > maintained. If you only do 100hr inspections then the TBO is less than an > engine that is on an approved continual Mx. Inspection program. > > I have over 2,000 hrs in TPE-331 powered Jetstreams, and for the life of me I > can't remember the TBO. Don't quote me, but I think it's about 3,500 hrs. > You would typically need 2 or 3 hot section overhauls to get there. Or it > could be 10,000 hrs to TBO, and a hot section every 3,500 or so. Man old age > sucks for memory. What am I going to do when I turn 35 this year?? Anyway, > you can plan on several 'hot section's" between new and TBO. > > BUT....you are correct, Turbines don't break, they just stop making T/O > Torque. If a turbine is Temping out before it Torques out, then it's time > for a hot section inspection. And that's just what it sounds like. > Everything that has burning kerosene blowing across it. > > Of course the really scum bag operators just adjust Screw "X" on the E. G. T. > probe compensator control box and get the indicated temp back down within > limits. > > I am not kidding. There is an adjustment on Garretts to do that. And the > Mx. Manual diagram shows it labelled screw "X". > > JetPaul > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2002
From: JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Turbine vs. Piston
In a message dated 2/23/2002 4:33:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, CloudCraft(at)aol.com writes: > Also, if/when the turbine and compressor blade tips erode (rubbing?) the > engine gets "loose" and the efficeincy leaks away. Turbine Rub is exactly what you are saying Wing Commander. A cardinal rule of the TPE-331 series engine, or any straight shaft centrifugal compressor turbine, is to spin the engine within 30 minutes of shutdown at least 10 revs, as fast as you can by hand. (Count 40 blades if you really want the engine to make recommended hot section intervals.) Heat rises, and the intake of the TPE-331 is very small, from 10 to 2 O'clock (if it's a Dash U, where U= upside-down intake.) As the engine sits there cooling down after a flight a slight breeze through the engine, from either direction will cool the top half of the engine more than the bottom. The result?? An imperceptible warp of the main shaft running the length of the motor. But it's enough to make it out of round to point that on a subsequent quick turn start that it will actually RUB the turbine blades against the stators and the case. Watch a commuter pilot ( CO-PILOT, to be exact) in a Jetstream 31 or 32. After shut down..I bet he won't walk away from the airplane without spinning the props. This redistributes the heat and "parks" the engine at a different angle from the first time it stopped rotating. Thus reducing the results of the uneven cooling and the subsequent rubbing. But yes Grit in the air does a very good job of eroding the leading edges of the blades as well. JetPaul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2002
From: JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: turbines and pistons
In a message dated 2/23/2002 4:33:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, brianvon(at)FPGA.com writes: > I imagine it might be a bit hard to turn the screw while the turbine is > operating while taking its temperature with a thermometer :-) > Yep Brian, can you imagine the first time they hand the rectal thermometer to the new line MX guy and tell him to go get a reading?? Just kidding. If I remember correctley, and this might only apply to -10 / -10U / -10UR engines which have the beefed up internals that the Wing Commander mentioned, you can make only so many such adjustments to the "X" screw. They must all be recorded in the MX logs. And you can only turn it so far per adjustment. That is where the scum bags can start to lie. It's main use is to calibrate the E.G.T. reading. It is showing the average of about 6 probes if I remember. And even that dpends on whether or not the engine has a S.R.L. computer. (Single Red Line) If any body wants them I will go out in the garage and see what is left on the moth eaten shelfs of old airplane manuals. I think I have two jetstream manuals left out there. (1) -31 and (1)-32 model each. JetPaul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: turbines and pistons
>>That is amazing. Under what conditions is the gauge supposed to be calibrated? I imagine it might be a bit hard to turn the screw while the turbine is operating while taking its temperature with a thermometer :-)<< Let's not do the rectal vs. oral thermometer debate again... There are signal conditioners located on the aft side of the aft pressure bulkhead. All the engine paramaters pass through these on the way to the guages in the cockpit. The proper way to measure the performance of a TPE-331 engine is the "Lebow" method, which hooks up a series of sensors -- and a torque meter on the prop shaft with a dummy prop -- and the engine is run. The signal consitioners can be adjusted so that the pilot sees matched engine guages when the engine is running at a given power setting. Since each turbine engine has kind of an individual personality while producing its rated power, these signal conditioners are in line to give the pilot matched indications. This feature IS used to mask short commings in an engine by sleazy-commie-pinko-rat-bastard-deviate-scumbag aircraft brokers. The typical prebuy or demo would be to run the engines to full (indicated in the cockpit) power and show how strong the engines are. A true measure is only done with the Lebow and outside of overhaul and hanging a new engine, this is seldom done because it's a big hassle and expen$isve and it's a rare buyer or seller who will pay for this on speculation. On the other hand, not to do it is gambling. (in my opinion) Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Turbine vs. Piston
>>Watch a commuter pilot ( CO-PILOT, to be exact) in a Jetstream 31 or 32. After shut down..I bet he won't walk away from the airplane without spinning the props.<< Let's not leave out the savvy Turbo Commander owner/pilot. Shaft bow is a major factor in the Garrett (OK, this week they're named GE/Honeywell/AlliedSignal/Garrett) engine. The rub I was referring to is from another phenomenon in turbine engines: blade stretch. Although this seems to have been addressed with alloys and manufacturing techniques, turbine blades to stretch with heat and they rub. You can't do anything about that but you can pull the blades around after shut down to pull cool air through the engine and turn shaft to even out the bow. Good point! Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2002
From: Intrex <woodlema(at)intrex.net>
Subject: Re: turbines and pistons
My opinion on this is from a different tack. If you don't NEED a turbine why bother. As others have written, in the end a Turbine is WAY more expensive than a pistion in many ways. Most of us who own our own airplane for personal use and occasional business use, fly our own aircraft for the sheer joy and fun of it. Basically a flight from KHRJ to KLBE is 298 nautical miles. Given a no wind day, I can make that in shade over 2 hours and then 15 min getting the rental car that is waiting for me at the FBO. It take me 10 hours to drive it, and if I fly commercial I have 1.5 hours getting checked in, waiting for the plane to leave, 1 hour flying time to Pittsburgh, then a 1 to 2 hour layover to catch the commuter then 45 mint to KLBE, then baggage and rental car, I have 5 - 6 hours going commercial. Pro-rating engine ovehauls , Payment, Fuel, Oil, Regualr maintenance, Annual ( with no squaks), basing it on 100 hours flown annually, I have an operating cost of $344.00 one way to Latrobe. Commercial airlines on a no advanced purchase, which is what I usually have to do averaged $650.00 round trip. Now my hourly rate that I figure is based on $800.00 per month payment. That is only due to the loan I took from my parents to pay for the new Props at $20,000.00. My payment was only $461.00 per month prior to that nasty AD from the FAA. So, being the trip costs me $344.00 one way and figuring a 2 hour trip. means about 172.00 per hour wet. Now I don't know of any Turbine that you can operate that cheaply, in fact you will burn more money than that in fuel only. I do agree if you have the money go for it. Hell, if I had the money, I would buy a Cessna Citation X and be done with it. This is only the actual figures from my personal expenses on this 1955 AC560. I only True out at 160 - 170 knots but that is so I can sip fuel at a total rate of about 22 gal per hour while flying at 10,000 to 12,500 ft. Once I have my oxygen system replaced, I plan to fly at around 18,000 to 21,000 feet just to say I did. Being it is non pressurized, I have no maintenance issues there. Sure being able to take a Dash 10 at 300+ knots would be cool, but there is something to be said for a leisurely flight at 160kts. Of course I am severely biased toward my plane as so many are toward their babies. Each persons plane serves its purpose for the reason it was purchased. That initial purchase turned into a passion and love for that airplane that probably rivals the love of a good woman. The one benefit of an Ariplane over any woman, is the plane and the Pilot ALWAYS arrive there at the same time. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Maytag" <dmaytag(at)commspeed.net> Cc: Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 1:17 PM Subject: Re: turbines and pistons > Brian, > > My opinion on piston vs. turbine is pretty basic: If you can afford the > turbine, I mean really afford it*, there is just no reason to go piston. > (*I say that because I know from personal experience that owning an airplane > beyond your means really takes the fun out of it.) > > The reliability, safety, and performance just eclipse any piston airplane. > I know you guys with turbocharged engines are going to quote critical > altitudes and horsepower vs. altitude charts to demonstrate how your engines > are making closer to take-off power (if not full rated power) at the high > density altitudes than some turbine engines. And you're right, especially > in the case of the real early turboprops, but when the argument of > reliability comes up, you can't compare the two. For me, I would trade a > few horsepower at the higher altitudes for the huge gain in reliability of > the turbine. > > Maintenance is another issue. High output turbo or supercharged piston > engines demand the utmost in care if you want any reasonable reliability and > safety from them. I do most of my own maintenance on airplanes and piston > engines need constant attention to keep them top notch. The never ending > oil and filter changes, spark plug cleaning and rotations, chasing little > oil leaks, etc., etc. also take the fun out of it. I'm not implying that > the turbines are trouble free but, generally they go 100hr to 100hr without > ever taking the cowling off. > > The other huge benefit to the turboprop is that they are so much easier to > operate from a pilot standpoint. There is no shock cooling, no cowl flaps, > no leaning of the mixture, no worry of causing negative torque on the > gearbox, etc. Just pay VERY CLOSE attention to the temp gauge and it is > really pretty hard to hurt the turbine engine. Of course there are other > things to look out for, but it's really pretty simple to manage a turbine > engine once you get used to it - which doesn't take long at all. > > All of my flying is in the western US and the Rocky Mountains. I operate > out of Prescott, AZ which is 5000' and quite warm in the summer. We > routinely get well over 8000' density altitudes here in the summer and I > usually leave at gross or close to it because I tanker fuel. Most of my > experience is in 690A's & B's but I have flown a century 681 around the > Rockies quite a bit too. Both airplanes do real well. The main thing I > notice when its high, hot, and heavy, is that the airplane seems to take > much longer from rotation at 100kts to accelerate to 120 or better. When > its cold out or at low elevation the airplanes just zip right on through > that zone. But, once the speed is up and gear is up they both climb like > monkeys, even at the high density altitudes. If you keep the weight down > just 800 pounds or more it makes a big difference. > > For what it's worth, I was at Simuflight last month and we had some extra > time so I had the instructor program the sim for Aspen, 85 degrees F, and > gross weight. I wanted him to fail an engine right after rotation but he > got sidetracked on something and I was at 300' agl before one quit. I > wanted to see if it (I) could fly the departure procedure and back in to a > circle to land approach (there is no straight in procedure at Aspen anyway). > Well, the airplane (sim) did it despite my sloppiness. I only climbed to > 14000' but it would have kept going to 16000 I think. It was averaging > about 400 fpm but the main thing I noticed was sloppy speed control would > quickly wipe out any climb and it took a while (10 seconds or so after > getting back on speed) to get climbing again. Now, granted, that was a > simulator and I sure don't want to try it in the real thing with real > mountains but, if the engineer's did their homework right, that's a pretty > good indication of the airplane's capabilities. > > Anyway, I don't know how I got to rambling on so much but I hope it is > helpful to you. If you have any specific questions about the 690's, I'll > try to answer them. > > David > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brian Von Herzen" <brianvon(at)fpga.com> > To: "Chris Schuermann" > Cc: > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 8:34 PM > Subject: Re: turbines and pistons > > > > >Brian Von Herzen wrote: > > > > Well, I'd love to ask about what to look for in buying my first Twin > > > > Commander, but I thought I'd remain quiet until the period of silence > was > > > > deemed over. > > > > > >That's what the list is here for buddy - ask anything you care to. > > >Real short answers: > > >- Airframe condition - corrosion! > > >- Prop AD status > > >- Engine condition > > > > Any opinions out there on piston vs. turbine? > > > > Does anyone have experience taking off from airport altitudes of 4000 to > > 9000 feet in turbine twin commanders lightly loaded? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Brian > > > > >- Good pre-buy inspection so you know how big a bucket of money you need > > > > > >chris > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Don't build 'em like that any more...
If you're one of those individuals who still has a biological reaction to the sound and feel of an old geared Commander with augmentor tubes, you need to take a ride in a B-25! http://skymaster.c2-tech.com/~chris/B25/mvc-614f.jpg I took my always-willing-and-ready-to-go sidekick/wife Kim for a ride in a B-25 "Old Glory" today. What a hoot! Although a pair of GSO-480's does it for me, a pair of supercharged Wright R-2600's belching and backfiring out their 1700hp is almost unbeatable for sheer acoustic Viagra. The takeoff acceleration was quite surprising to me. That bird is quick and nimble as well....and LOUD! Kim manned the machine guns and managed to take out several Spartan students in their Cessnas during the trip. http://skymaster.c2-tech.com/~chris/B25/mvc-623f.jpg The side view from the gun ports is pretty amazing. http://skymaster.c2-tech.com/~chris/B25/mvc-621f.jpg I've never had the chance to sit in front of an open port hole at 300mph before - that's quite a rush! http://skymaster.c2-tech.com/~chris/B25/mvc-620f.jpg Definitly a fantastic way to spend the afternoon. Just don't think too much about the fuel flow and enjoy the ride.... Chris Schuermann ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2002
From: David Maytag <dmaytag(at)commspeed.net>
Subject: Re: turbines and pistons
Brian, My accounting practices are woefully inept but I figure an average of $10,000 per 100hr. This does NOT include HSI or Overhaul reserves. On a descent airplane, the 100hrs (at good Commander shops, now) will vary from as low as $4,000 to $15,000 but usually right around 7k. I figure 10k to help pick up the unscheduled stuff like fuel pumps, fuel leaks, instrument repairs, etc. There are a long list of items that are required at 100, 200, 400, 500, and 1000 hour intervals as well as some big calendar time limit inspections. The biggies are when you get a bunch of things coming due at the same time. All the Commanders are getting old and most are coming up on at least one of the high time/calendar time inspections. In many cases, that may be the main reason the airplane is for sale. On the 690 series and newer you have to completely overhaul the landing gear and propellers every 3000 hours or 5 years whichever comes first. I don't know who hits the 3000 hour mark first (maybe Wal-Mart) so typically it is a 5 year interval. The gear will be around 7k if you don't have to buy any parts other than the seals and the props are going to be around 12k to 18k or more if you're buying a lot of new blades. I think most all of the hubs have been replaced by now on the Hartzells but that adds about 5k to the overhaul (for both) if you need them. These are just a few examples but you can see how it can add up painfully fast. The timing of each event is definitely worth consideration when you do your prebuy. I certainly wouldn't pass up a good airplane because all these things are due at the same time, but it might be the final straw on a marginal airplane. I always figure on 75 gals./hr for budgeting purposes and it seems to come amazingly close to that in my experience. The 681 was more like 65 or 68 gals./hr. As for speeds I use 260 on warm days and 270 on cold days for the 690's and in the 681 I used 245 to 250. I run the 690's (-5 powered) between 21,000 and 25,000 and I ran the 681 between 18 and 22. I think you asked about the 681 on short runways up at high altitudes. Everywhere I went had long runways and I don't remember ever being remotely concerned about runway length except at "Bullfrog International" at Lake Powell. Bullfrog is 3500' long at 4167' elevation. In July and August it is downright HOT. I remember rotating close to the end (maybe 800' from the end) a few times and I was probably 1000lbs or more below gross but at 100 degrees that's pushing 8000' DA. The main difference, to me, between the 690's and the Century 681 is in climb performance. A heavy 681 on a hot day will give you about 1000 - 1200fpm above 6000' or so density altitude where the -5 powered 690's will give you a good 1800 - 2000fpm well into the teens. And you are carrying more in the 690 gross weight to gross weight. Man, for a guy that never says much, I sure get long winded on some of these answers. Hope it is helpful. David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Von Herzen" <brianvon(at)fpga.com> To: "David Maytag" Cc: Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 2:20 PM Subject: Re: turbines and pistons > > David: > > Thank you for this overview. A couple questions come to mind. > > > >My opinion on piston vs. turbine is pretty basic: If you can afford the > >turbine, I mean really afford it*, there is just no reason to go piston. > >(*I say that because I know from personal experience that owning an airplane > >beyond your means really takes the fun out of it.) > > Do you have a rule of thumb on what to budget for maintenance on a > 690? How predictable is the operating cost? > > Thanks, > > Brian > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2002
From: garyloff <n27kb(at)erols.com>
Subject: Re: turbines and pistons
First, Gary Gadberry is doing quite well. The phone calls are getting to be a bit much so if you are contemplating a call please send him e-mail. Having spent an extended time in hospital under similar conditions I can tell you really appreciate the calls and visits but at the same time you just want people to let you alone so you can sleep. Give him awhile longer. . As for the turbine v recip I think you make an excellent point. While there is an allure to turbine engines I think you should look at the type of flying you do and let the missions decide. The only place I come firmly down on the side of turbines is in helicopters. You also need to look at how much flying you do and realize that flying at FLs is a different type of flying and alot of people have no business up there. I'm now in the position where I can afford both and expect too add them in a year. But I will not get rid of my piston airplanes as much of the flying we do would be very inefficient in a 690-1000. I'm going to be changing engines and props under a 337. I won't reveal the combo yet but I think it's going to be agreat one. I'll let you know. ----- Original Message ----- From: Intrex <woodlema(at)intrex.net> To: David Maytag Cc: Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 5:37 PM Subject: Re: turbines and pistons > My opinion on this is from a different tack. If you don't NEED a turbine > why bother. As others have written, in the end a Turbine is WAY more > expensive than a pistion in many ways. Most of us who own our own airplane > for personal use and occasional business use, fly our own aircraft for the > sheer joy and fun of it. Basically a flight from KHRJ to KLBE is 298 > nautical miles. Given a no wind day, I can make that in shade over 2 hours > and then 15 min getting the rental car that is waiting for me at the FBO. > > It take me 10 hours to drive it, and if I fly commercial I have 1.5 hours > getting checked in, waiting for the plane to leave, 1 hour flying time to > Pittsburgh, then a 1 to 2 hour layover to catch the commuter then 45 mint to > KLBE, then baggage and rental car, I have 5 - 6 hours going commercial. > > Pro-rating engine ovehauls , Payment, Fuel, Oil, Regualr maintenance, Annual > ( with no squaks), basing it on 100 hours flown annually, I have an > operating cost of $344.00 one way to Latrobe. Commercial airlines on a no > advanced purchase, which is what I usually have to do averaged $650.00 round > trip. > > Now my hourly rate that I figure is based on $800.00 per month payment. > That is only due to the loan I took from my parents to pay for the new Props > at $20,000.00. My payment was only $461.00 per month prior to that nasty AD > from the FAA. > > So, being the trip costs me $344.00 one way and figuring a 2 hour trip. > means about 172.00 per hour wet. Now I don't know of any Turbine that you > can operate that cheaply, in fact you will burn more money than that in fuel > only. I do agree if you have the money go for it. Hell, if I had the > money, I would buy a Cessna Citation X and be done with it. > > This is only the actual figures from my personal expenses on this 1955 > AC560. I only True out at 160 - 170 knots but that is so I can sip fuel at > a total rate of about 22 gal per hour while flying at 10,000 to 12,500 ft. > Once I have my oxygen system replaced, I plan to fly at around 18,000 to > 21,000 feet just to say I did. Being it is non pressurized, I have no > maintenance issues there. > > Sure being able to take a Dash 10 at 300+ knots would be cool, but there is > something to be said for a leisurely flight at 160kts. > > Of course I am severely biased toward my plane as so many are toward their > babies. Each persons plane serves its purpose for the reason it was > purchased. That initial purchase turned into a passion and love for that > airplane that probably rivals the love of a good woman. The one benefit of > an Ariplane over any woman, is the plane and the Pilot ALWAYS arrive there > at the same time. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Maytag" <dmaytag(at)commspeed.net> > Cc: > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 1:17 PM > Subject: Re: turbines and pistons > > > > Brian, > > > > My opinion on piston vs. turbine is pretty basic: If you can afford the > > turbine, I mean really afford it*, there is just no reason to go piston. > > (*I say that because I know from personal experience that owning an > airplane > > beyond your means really takes the fun out of it.) > > > > The reliability, safety, and performance just eclipse any piston airplane. > > I know you guys with turbocharged engines are going to quote critical > > altitudes and horsepower vs. altitude charts to demonstrate how your > engines > > are making closer to take-off power (if not full rated power) at the high > > density altitudes than some turbine engines. And you're right, especially > > in the case of the real early turboprops, but when the argument of > > reliability comes up, you can't compare the two. For me, I would trade a > > few horsepower at the higher altitudes for the huge gain in reliability of > > the turbine. > > > > Maintenance is another issue. High output turbo or supercharged piston > > engines demand the utmost in care if you want any reasonable reliability > and > > safety from them. I do most of my own maintenance on airplanes and piston > > engines need constant attention to keep them top notch. The never ending > > oil and filter changes, spark plug cleaning and rotations, chasing little > > oil leaks, etc., etc. also take the fun out of it. I'm not implying that > > the turbines are trouble free but, generally they go 100hr to 100hr > without > > ever taking the cowling off. > > > > The other huge benefit to the turboprop is that they are so much easier to > > operate from a pilot standpoint. There is no shock cooling, no cowl > flaps, > > no leaning of the mixture, no worry of causing negative torque on the > > gearbox, etc. Just pay VERY CLOSE attention to the temp gauge and it is > > really pretty hard to hurt the turbine engine. Of course there are other > > things to look out for, but it's really pretty simple to manage a turbine > > engine once you get used to it - which doesn't take long at all. > > > > All of my flying is in the western US and the Rocky Mountains. I operate > > out of Prescott, AZ which is 5000' and quite warm in the summer. We > > routinely get well over 8000' density altitudes here in the summer and I > > usually leave at gross or close to it because I tanker fuel. Most of my > > experience is in 690A's & B's but I have flown a century 681 around the > > Rockies quite a bit too. Both airplanes do real well. The main thing I > > notice when its high, hot, and heavy, is that the airplane seems to take > > much longer from rotation at 100kts to accelerate to 120 or better. When > > its cold out or at low elevation the airplanes just zip right on through > > that zone. But, once the speed is up and gear is up they both climb like > > monkeys, even at the high density altitudes. If you keep the weight down > > just 800 pounds or more it makes a big difference. > > > > For what it's worth, I was at Simuflight last month and we had some extra > > time so I had the instructor program the sim for Aspen, 85 degrees F, and > > gross weight. I wanted him to fail an engine right after rotation but he > > got sidetracked on something and I was at 300' agl before one quit. I > > wanted to see if it (I) could fly the departure procedure and back in to a > > circle to land approach (there is no straight in procedure at Aspen > anyway). > > Well, the airplane (sim) did it despite my sloppiness. I only climbed to > > 14000' but it would have kept going to 16000 I think. It was averaging > > about 400 fpm but the main thing I noticed was sloppy speed control would > > quickly wipe out any climb and it took a while (10 seconds or so after > > getting back on speed) to get climbing again. Now, granted, that was a > > simulator and I sure don't want to try it in the real thing with real > > mountains but, if the engineer's did their homework right, that's a pretty > > good indication of the airplane's capabilities. > > > > Anyway, I don't know how I got to rambling on so much but I hope it is > > helpful to you. If you have any specific questions about the 690's, I'll > > try to answer them. > > > > David > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Brian Von Herzen" <brianvon(at)fpga.com> > > To: "Chris Schuermann" > > Cc: > > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 8:34 PM > > Subject: Re: turbines and pistons > > > > > > > >Brian Von Herzen wrote: > > > > > Well, I'd love to ask about what to look for in buying my first Twin > > > > > Commander, but I thought I'd remain quiet until the period of > silence > > was > > > > > deemed over. > > > > > > > >That's what the list is here for buddy - ask anything you care to. > > > >Real short answers: > > > >- Airframe condition - corrosion! > > > >- Prop AD status > > > >- Engine condition > > > > > > Any opinions out there on piston vs. turbine? > > > > > > Does anyone have experience taking off from airport altitudes of 4000 to > > > 9000 feet in turbine twin commanders lightly loaded? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > >- Good pre-buy inspection so you know how big a bucket of money you > need > > > > > > > >chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 2002
From: Bow <w.bow(at)att.net>
Subject: COTM
Well, that's two 500A's. We're ahead 2 to 1 now. bilbo ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 2002
From: Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net>
Subject: Heeeere's JOHNNY!!!
> > > The reliability, safety, and performance just eclipse any piston > airplane. > I know you guys with turbocharged engines are going to quote critical > altitudes and horsepower vs. altitude charts to demonstrate how your > engines > are making closer to take-off power (if not full rated power) at the > high > density altitudes than some turbine engines. OK, I'm off list for a couple of months...new house, new email, work, etc. I contact Chris to put me back in the loop and you loosers flood my INBOX with 40 sumpin' emails over the weekend. Most of them wet hangar dreams of flying turbines to boot! Y'all can kiss my a--!! While you're at it, send me a case of no-name, and a few of those ugly shirts, and a s-s-s-s-s-s-s-....sump! And don't forget to throw in a bitter Brit preaching doom and gloom for Old Glory, so I can have a little fun with my spare time! Anybody donated a trike for WCG yet? It's good to be back, Barry ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2002
From: Victor Fernandez Cochon <vfc(at)fernandezgonzalez.com>
Subject: RNCP
You might ba a RNCP if you use the following terms: THE REDNECK DICTIONARY OF MEDICAL TERMS Benign..........................What you be after you be eight. Artery..........................The study of paintings. Bacteria........................Back door to cafeteria. Barium..........................What doctors do when patients die. Cesarean Section................A neighborhood in Rome. CTscan..........................Searching for kitty. Cauterize.......................Made eye contact with her. Colic...........................A sheep dog. Coma............................A punctuation mark. D & C...........................Where Washington is. Dilate..........................To live long. Enema...........................Not a friend. Fester..........................Quicker than someone else. Fibula..........................A small lie. Genital.........................Non-Jewish person. G.I. Series.....................World Series of military baseball. Hangnail........................What you hang your coat on. Impotent........................Distinguished, well known. Labor Pain......................Getting hurt at work. Medical Staff...................A Doctor's cane. Morbid..........................A higher offer than I bid. Nitrates........................Cheaper than day rates. Node............................I knew it. Outpatient......................A person who has fainted. Pap Smear.......................A fatherhood test. Pelvis..........................Second cousin to Elvis. Post Operative..................A letter carrier. Recovery Room...................Place to do upholstery. Rectum..........................Damn near killed him. Secretion.......................Hiding something. Seizure.........................Roman emperor. Tablet..........................A small table. Terminal Illness................Getting sick at the airport. Tumor...........................More than one. Urine...........................Opposite of you're out. Varicose........................Near by/close by. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2002
From: Ricardo A. Otaola <otayca(at)telcel.net.ve>
Subject: Re: turbines and pistons
Hi Gang: I fly both a 680F and a 690 a/b/c. The difference is that while you enjoy flying a piston, the tranquility of flying a turbo is very pleasent. The price differs. Thye cost of turbine is high, and although you do 100 to 100 without opening the cowl, everytime you open it, get ready for a large bill. I use the turbo on long range (2-4 hrs) and bad weather season. ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> To: Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 11:41 AM Subject: Re: turbines and pistons > David Maytag wrote: > > My opinion on piston vs. turbine is pretty basic: > > Great posting David! Would you consider adding a bit more info > for turbine-wannabe's like myself? I would like to put this together > and have it on the web site. > > I know little about the TPE-331's. There seems to be a number of > different versions and options which apparently greatly differ in > operating costs (ie: TBO, fuel specifics, performance, etc). > I also understand that turbines get "tired" as they get older and > loose performance rather than "breaking". Do they suffer from > operating continuously at higher power settings or does it not > really matter? What exactly IS a "hot section inspection" ? > How is owning a turbine different from a piston? (I think there > are various time and calendar "phase inspections" required, but > don't know the details. > > Sorry for all the questions, but thanks again for the great info > you've shared! > > Chris > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2002
From: Brian Von Herzen <brianvon(at)fpga.com>
Subject: Re: turbines and pistons
> >>That is amazing. Under what conditions is the gauge supposed to be >calibrated? >I imagine it might be a bit hard to turn the screw while the turbine is >operating while taking its temperature with a thermometer :-)<< > >Let's not do the rectal vs. oral thermometer debate again... Sorry I missed it. Is there an archive or a short version of how to calibrate temperature? Does the Lebow method provide any calibration of temperature? Brian >There are signal conditioners located on the aft side of the aft pressure >bulkhead. > >All the engine paramaters pass through these on the way to the guages in >the cockpit. > >The proper way to measure the performance of a TPE-331 engine is the >"Lebow" method, which hooks up a series of sensors -- and a torque meter >on the prop shaft with a dummy prop -- and the engine is run. >The signal consitioners can be adjusted so that the pilot sees matched >engine guages when the engine is running at a given power setting. > >Since each turbine engine has kind of an individual personality while >producing its rated power, these signal conditioners are in line to give >the pilot matched indications. > >This feature IS used to mask short commings in an engine by >sleazy-commie-pinko-rat-bastard-deviate-scumbag aircraft brokers. > >The typical prebuy or demo would be to run the engines to full (indicated >in the cockpit) power and show how strong the engines are. > >A true measure is only done with the Lebow and outside of overhaul and >hanging a new engine, this is seldom done because it's a big hassle and >expen$isve and it's a rare buyer or seller who will pay for this on >speculation. > >On the other hand, not to do it is gambling. (in my opinion) > >Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2002
From: Brian Von Herzen <brianvon(at)fpga.com>
Subject: Re: Turbine vs. Piston
In a message dated 2/23/2002 4:33:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, CloudCraft(at)aol.com writes: Also, if/when the turbine and compressor blade tips erode (rubbing?) the engine gets "loose" and the efficeincy leaks away. Turbine Rub is exactly what you are saying Wing Commander. A cardinal rule of the TPE-331 series engine, or any straight shaft centrifugal compressor turbine, is to spin the engine within 30 minutes of shutdown at least 10 revs, as fast as you can by hand. (Count 40 blades if you really want the engine to make recommended hot section intervals.) It sounds like for this to work well, you really need to rotate the turbine 10 1/2 turns, or 9 1/2 turns or 8 1/2 turns. If the engine remained in the same orientation, wouldn't it continue to warp? The heat capacity of the blades must be much higher than the air around it. Does Garrett talk about this practice in any publication? Brian ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Turbine vs. Piston
In a message dated 2/25/02 9:25:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, brianvon(at)FPGA.com writes: << Does Garrett talk about this practice in any publication? >> Yes, they do. Honeywell/AlliedSignal/Garrett/AiReseach puts out a pilot operating tip booklet that covers generic operating practices on the TPE-331 and TFE-731engines, respectively. The reference to the thermometer debate was a joke I made a while back about the difference between a rectal and oral thermometer was the taste. But (No pun intended) the TPE-331-5 engines use an ITT system (Interstage Turbine Temperature) and the -10 engines use an EGT system for measuring the limiting temperatures. The EGT system is much easier to maintain. I'll have to get back to you on the Lebow measuring temperature. I know it measures torque -- which is converted to shaft horsepower -- but I don't know if the raw temperature readings are used during this test. Logic says yes. Anyone know the answer on that? Capt. Maytag? Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Turbine vs. Piston
In a message dated 2/25/02 10:15:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, nico(at)cybersuperstore.com writes: << Or why wouldn't you run the starter motor for a few seconds after shutdown to clear the heat? Doesn't the coupling between the engine and the prop suffer when one swings the prop, or what if one turns the prop the wrong way? >> Nico, Laziness is the mother of invention and you are a genius. However, the starter/generators suffer enough in their life times and draw 800 amps every time you hit the start switch, so all things considered, pulling the blades through is cheap and dissapointingly effective. Never turn the prop the wrong way. It's the de-ice brush block that suffers as well as the starter/generator brushes. The gear box takes so much more torque on initial start that you, as a human being, can't get close to stressing it. If you haven't spun a turbo prop engine, it will make you giddy. First time a piston man grabs a blade and spins it, he understands why these engines are so reliable. They just spin. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2002
From: Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Turbine vs. Piston
I remember in the 70's in most of the helicopters that I fly I engaged the starter/generator after a couple of minutes after shutdown to accomplish this very thing. These days we don't do it anymore. Tom... ----- Original Message ----- From: <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> To: Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 10:29 Subject: Re: Turbine vs. Piston > In a message dated 2/25/02 10:15:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, > nico(at)cybersuperstore.com writes: > > << Or why wouldn't you run the starter motor for a few seconds after shutdown > to clear the heat? Doesn't the coupling between the engine and the prop > suffer when one swings the prop, or what if one turns the prop the wrong way? > >> > > Nico, > > Laziness is the mother of invention and you are a genius. However, the > starter/generators suffer enough in their life times and draw 800 amps every > time you hit the start switch, so all things considered, pulling the blades > through is cheap and dissapointingly effective. > > Never turn the prop the wrong way. It's the de-ice brush block that suffers > as well as the starter/generator brushes. > > The gear box takes so much more torque on initial start that you, as a human > being, can't get close to stressing it. > > If you haven't spun a turbo prop engine, it will make you giddy. First time > a piston man grabs a blade and spins it, he understands why these engines are > so reliable. > > They just spin. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2002
From: Randy Sharp <sharp.r(at)apple.com>
Subject: Re: turbines and pistons
chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com said: >I also understand that turbines get "tired" as they get older and >loose performance rather than "breaking". But when they do break, it's a mess! Look at the NTSB report out of RENO, NV a few years back. (Search on 681 series) T-wheels came apart and punctured multiple holes in the pressure vessel. Aircraft landed Single engine with no further issues but I'm sure the pilot was glad no one was sitting in the center seats. Randy ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Tech tip for piston drivers
I'm doing a favor for Crunk and partners and decided that my findings are probably interesting to many of you. As you recall, Jetpaul lost hydraulics on the 520. They were unable to find a local shop who could even identify, let alone repair the pump and drive so I offered to try out a few of the great resources available in the Tulsa area. My speculations were correct - the "old timers" at Aircraft Accessories Inc knew just what it was when I walked in the door. They had specific info on the 90 degree adaptor which drives both the hydraulic pump as well as the vac pump though. That unit was built by Hartzel (orig as a prop gov adapter). These critters are getting very rare and should be maintained. The unit can easily be overhauled as long as the bearings have not failed. If the bearings go, the housing will be ruined. If you trash the housing, a replacement is going to run over $4000! Hartzel's "official" overhaul requires replacement of the splined shafts, but A-A tells me that they rarely need to. They can't call it "overhauled" unless the manufacturers guidelines are followed, but will "repair" the unit upon request. The repair is exactly what they used to do for an overhaul before the new guidelines were printed - clean, inspect, bearings, seals, checkout,yellow-tag. An "overhaul" runs around $2500, a "repair" is around $650. They HIGHLY recomend a "repair" with new bearings at least every 2000 hours as much longer than that can result in failure and a trashed housing (and a BIG replacement bill). So, there you have it - check out your 90-degree drives and see when they were last gone through. If you have any servicable units around, A-A would love to purchase them as they have run out of rebuildable cores. Chris Schuermann ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: TURBINE TALK
HI KIDS.. Don't you just love all this turbine stuff!! I know all the reasons not to own one, but man, if I had the $$ I would be driving one of those so fast...........jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: 500A advertizment
HI KIDS..... I know we have a few 500A (COM) drivers out there and there is a cool ad on ebay, somebody should bag it.....jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2002
From: Intrex <woodlema(at)intrex.net>
Subject: Re: TURBINE TALK
As much as I love Commanders, if I had the money I would be driving a Cessna Citation X, and a Turbine commander for those nice short runs. I would love to get an STC for my AC560 though, possibly that dynacam engine or even a 600hp Orenda. Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> To: Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 8:58 PM Subject: TURBINE TALK > HI KIDS.. > > Don't you just love all this turbine stuff!! I know all the > reasons not to own one, but man, if I had the $$ I would be driving one of > those so fast...........jb > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2002
From: Johan A Gillgren <gillgrenandgillgren(at)cox.net>
Subject: Operating cost 520/560
I am currently looking for average operating cost for the 520 and for the 560. Preferably an all inclusive. Are there anything to look out for? Any info would be appreciated. Johan A Gillgren Phoenix.AZ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2002
From: Intrex <woodlema(at)intrex.net>
Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560
The long and short for me, the plane costs me about $172.00 per hour to operate. that figure includes, Payment, Insurance, Annual, Prorated engine overhauls, regular maintenance, fuel assuming 100 hours flown annually. I don;t know if that is any help to you. Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johan A Gillgren" <gillgrenandgillgren(at)cox.net> To: Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 3:20 PM Subject: Operating cost 520/560 > I am currently looking for average operating cost for the 520 and for > the 560. Preferably an all inclusive. Are there anything to look out > for? Any info would be appreciated. > > Johan A Gillgren > Phoenix.AZ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560
Nico van Niekerk wrote: > > How would that figure compare with the costs for a 500B or a Shrike, for > Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560 > > The long and short for me, the plane costs me about $172.00 per hour to > > operate. that figure includes, Payment, Insurance, Annual, Prorated > engine overhauls, regular maintenance, fuel assuming 100 hours flown annually. A 500B should be pretty close to the same. For the Shrike, you'll need to add about $8,000 every 36 months for the spar inspection (and probably a bit more for insurance assuming it's valued higher) Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2002
From: Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560
Can anyone through in a number for the 680FL? Tom... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Schuermann" <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> To: Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 03:42 Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560 > Nico van Niekerk wrote: > > > > How would that figure compare with the costs for a 500B or a Shrike, for > > Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560 > > > The long and short for me, the plane costs me about $172.00 per hour to > > > operate. that figure includes, Payment, Insurance, Annual, Prorated > > engine overhauls, regular maintenance, fuel assuming 100 hours flown annually. > > > A 500B should be pretty close to the same. For the Shrike, you'll > need to add about $8,000 every 36 months for the spar inspection > (and probably a bit more for insurance assuming it's valued higher) > > Chris > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2002
From: WILLIAM BOELTE <n55bz(at)prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560
I flew a 500 B for four years. It cost $276.00 per hour. This included hangar, insurance, fuel ,oil, inspections, repairs, charts and publications and subscriptions. No reserves. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nico van Niekerk" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> To: "Intrex" ; "Johan A Gillgren" ; Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 7:37 AM Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560 > How would that figure compare with the costs for a 500B or a Shrike, for > instance? > Nico > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Intrex" <woodlema(at)intrex.net> > To: "Johan A Gillgren" ; > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 3:10 AM > Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560 > > > > The long and short for me, the plane costs me about $172.00 per hour to > > operate. that figure includes, Payment, Insurance, Annual, Prorated > engine > > overhauls, regular maintenance, fuel assuming 100 hours flown annually. > > > > I don;t know if that is any help to you. > > > > Mark > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Johan A Gillgren" <gillgrenandgillgren(at)cox.net> > > To: > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 3:20 PM > > Subject: Operating cost 520/560 > > > > > > > I am currently looking for average operating cost for the 520 and for > > > the 560. Preferably an all inclusive. Are there anything to look out > > > for? Any info would be appreciated. > > > > > > Johan A Gillgren > > > Phoenix.AZ > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2002
From: John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560
I think answers should be qualified based on the number of hours flown per year; variation will have a great effect on the answers. I fly my 500-B about 200 hrs/yr. and estimate the all-inclusive cost at about $170.00/hr. I also live in a place where it's VERY expensive to store an airplane (northern CA) so that figures prominently. /John ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM BOELTE" <n55bz(at)prodigy.net> To: "Nico van Niekerk" ; "Intrex" ; "Johan A Gillgren" ; Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 8:12 AM Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560 > I flew a 500 B for four years. It cost $276.00 per hour. This included > hangar, insurance, fuel ,oil, inspections, repairs, charts and publications > and subscriptions. No reserves. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nico van Niekerk" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> > To: "Intrex" ; "Johan A Gillgren" > ; > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 7:37 AM > Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560 > > > > How would that figure compare with the costs for a 500B or a Shrike, for > > instance? > > Nico > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Intrex" <woodlema(at)intrex.net> > > To: "Johan A Gillgren" ; > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 3:10 AM > > Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560 > > > > > > > The long and short for me, the plane costs me about $172.00 per hour to > > > operate. that figure includes, Payment, Insurance, Annual, Prorated > > engine > > > overhauls, regular maintenance, fuel assuming 100 hours flown annually. > > > > > > I don;t know if that is any help to you. > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Johan A Gillgren" <gillgrenandgillgren(at)cox.net> > > > To: > > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 3:20 PM > > > Subject: Operating cost 520/560 > > > > > > > > > > I am currently looking for average operating cost for the 520 and for > > > > the 560. Preferably an all inclusive. Are there anything to look out > > > > for? Any info would be appreciated. > > > > > > > > Johan A Gillgren > > > > Phoenix.AZ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2002
From: Randy Sharp <sharp.r(at)apple.com>
Subject: Re: Operating cost of 500B
nico(at)cybersuperstore.com said: >How would that figure compare with the costs for a 500B or a Shrike, for >instance? Nico My 500B costs me around $175 an hour based on 100 hours per year usage. I flew 150 hours last year so the hourly rate should go down slightly because of the fixed costs being diluted. (Insurance, tie-down, annual etc). Fortunately I have new engines, props, and avionics so my recurring maintenance costs are real low. For the last 680 hours on my remain-engines I have only changed the oil, spark plugs, and taken oil samples etc. No costly items at all. No spar inspections except the 750 hour one. Hopes this helps with your analysis, Randy ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2002
From: Johan A Gillgren <gillgrenandgillgren(at)cox.net>
Subject: Good Insurance Company?
Thank ya'll for the operating cost info. Now I'm looking for a good Insurance company. Any thoughts? Johan A Gillgren ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: TPE-331 Detective Work
Following on to the TPE-331 discussion ... David Maytag is right -- flying the airplane and comparing it to book values is the quickest way to determine the state of a Turbo Commander's engines. In fact, that's what Honeywell/AlliedSignal/Garret/AiRearch says to do. BUT today I cornered a tech rep and said, "OK, in a perfect world with a perfect airplane, this is a quick test. A flight test won't show a weakening engine, or, the pitot-static system can be blamed for the missed performance numbers, etc. etc." To answer the question about the Lebow: The Lebow is verification of torque only. To find out how much the temperature compensators have been tweaked, look in the engine logs and find the D.S.C. (Data Sheet Customer) where the torque and temperature compensation values are stated at overhaul or Gear Box Inspection. Aha! But what about an unscrupulous aircraft salesman? The answer is the "Foster box." The Foster box simulates an ITT signal upstream of the compensator. Armed with the DSC compensation value and the Foster box signal, your cockpit indication should be the sum of the two. Don't have the DSC compensation value? Here's a trick: Interrupt the 28VDC to the compensator. Now you're reading the direct Foster box simulated ITT signal, right to the cockpit guage. Compare that to the conditioned signal and the last DSC value in the log books. There's where you'll find any hanky-panky, such as the compensator being turned down to mask high ITT. Hope this has been some help to the turbine shoppers. Knowledge is power. In some cases, it can be the difference between full rated power and not. Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2002
From: jdickey(at)mail.smcusa.com <jdickey(at)mail.smcusa.com>
Subject: Re: Good Insurance Company?
Try Gary TIllmann at Aviation Insurance Brokers, 706-291-4077. He was the best deal and I called a few brokers. I am insured through AIG which, according to Gary, is a good company and is familar with Commanders. Scott J Scott Dickey San Jose EP Project National thermo product sales manager SMC Corporation of America Johan A Gillgren on 02/26/2002 10:15:04 AM To: Twin Commander TechChat cc: Subject: Good Insurance Company? Thank ya'll for the operating cost info. Now I'm looking for a good Insurance company. Any thoughts? Johan A Gillgren ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2002
From: Jimmy Rodriguez <jimmyr(at)popsecs.com>
Subject: 500B Performance Figures. Who's right?
AOPA's January magazine had the following performance numbers for T. Alan Hart's 1960 500B: Takeoff over 50' obstacle 1,000 ft Landing over 50' obstacle 1,155 ft The Aero Commander web site has a totally different set of figures for the 500B: Takeoff @ 1,846 ft and Landing @ 2,202 ft. To 500B owners: What's the real short field performance for these planes? Thanks, Jimmy ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2002
From: John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: 500B Performance Figures. Who's right?
Jimmy, If I'm willing to give the landing gear a pounding, I know I can get my 500B down in 1,000 over a 50' obstacle. As far as takeoff, that's pretty maximum performance; I'm not so sure my airplane could do that at max gross, and I'd hate to lose an engine just after rotation while trying to make that number. I can, however, without the obstacle & using soft-field technique, get the mains off the ground in about 400' and have the gear in the wells easily by 1,000'. Compared to any other load carrier, IMO, the Commanders' short field performance is nothing short of spectacular. I routinely land (again, with no obstacle) my Commander to a full stop in 900' or less (of course, I just got brand new Cleveland brakes, and have been jumping on them pretty good to get them broken in) regardless of load. /J ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jimmy Rodriguez" <jimmyr(at)popsecs.com> To: "'commandertech(at)c2-tech.com'" Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 1:57 PM Subject: 500B Performance Figures. Who's right? > AOPA's January magazine had the following performance numbers for T. Alan Hart's 1960 500B: > Takeoff over 50' obstacle 1,000 ft > Landing over 50' obstacle 1,155 ft > > The Aero Commander web site has a totally different set of figures for the 500B: Takeoff @ 1,846 ft and Landing @ 2,202 ft. > > To 500B owners: What's the real short field performance for these planes? > > Thanks, > > Jimmy > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2002
From: jdickey(at)mail.smcusa.com <jdickey(at)mail.smcusa.com>
Subject: Re: 500B Performance Figures. Who's right?
The article also said speed for any flap extension was 126 MPH. Manual says 150 for 1/2 flaps and I've heard 180 for 1/4. Scott J Scott Dickey San Jose EP Project National thermo product sales manager SMC Corporation of America Jimmy Rodriguez on 02/26/2002 01:57:32 PM To: "'commandertech(at)c2-tech.com'" cc: Subject: 500B Performance Figures. Who's right? AOPA's January magazine had the following performance numbers for T. Alan Hart's 1960 500B: Takeoff over 50' obstacle 1,000 ft Landing over 50' obstacle 1,155 ft The Aero Commander web site has a totally different set of figures for the 500B: Takeoff @ 1,846 ft and Landing @ 2,202 ft. To 500B owners: What's the real short field performance for these planes? Thanks, Jimmy ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2002
From: Randy Sharp <sharp.r(at)apple.com>
Subject: Re: 500B Performance Figures. Who's right?
jimmyr(at)popsecs.com said: >AOPA's January magazine had the following performance numbers for T. Alan >Hart's 1960 500B: > Takeoff over 50' obstacle 1,000 ft > Landing over 50' obstacle 1,155 ft These numbers might be a bit aggressive, but it largely depends on your GW, airport DA and winds. These numbers were taken out of the flight manual for low GW and cold Temps at SL. AOPA article also mentioned a climb rate of 2000ft/min. I have seem 1800ft/min with only myself onboard and full fuel. (GW of 5800Lbs out of a max of 6750, temperature at 10c and at SL.) At Tahoe I see 1000 ft/min for a Gross weight of 6200Ibs and a DA of 8000ft. Seeing 2000ft/min might only happen for a few seconds with the nose pointed straight up. The book does show a GW of 5500LBS at SL with 50F temp and you should see 2000ft/min climb rate but I have never departed that light. The normal weight of 6200LBS reveals 1700ft/min at the same temp. (This is more likely a performance figure you will see on a average 500B) >The Aero Commander web site has a totally different set of figures for the >500B: Takeoff @ 1,846 ft and Landing @ 2,202 ft. These numbers are based on a more conservative side for higher GWs and temps. (more realistic for most flights) The landing can be done in less distance with the Cleveland brake conversion. For an aggressive landing I plan on 1200ft at 6200Ibs gross 5 kts headwind and good breaking pavement with full flaps. (not on a grass strip, I landed on a dirt strip using a slow breaking action and stopped in 2500ft). For Take-off I plan for 1500ft at SL with 10c, 1/4 flaps climbing out at 100KIAS. At above pattern altitude I go to a cruise climb of 120KIAS and remove flaps and power adjust to 2450-2500 RPM. Climb rate from a normal sea level airport usually gives me 1500ft/min until about 8K then it decreases from there while indicating 110-120KIAS. (Note: I have remain engines in great condition with new props, I don't have the long aircraft miller nose and de-ice boots. (I have a Slick configuration) I do not have the flap gap seals, which I understand will increase all of these numbers in a positive way. I have over 860 hours in my 500B and these figures are indicative of most conditions I fly at. >To 500B owners: What's the real short field performance for these planes? >Thanks, Jimmy Again it largely depends on your GW, and DA at the airport and pilot technique. Both numbers are correct depending on your environment and configuration. Regards, Randy ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2002
From: Intrex <woodlema(at)intrex.net>
Subject: Re: 500B Performance Figures. Who's right?
On my AC560, if I am willing to come in below Blue line at 80mph, I can easily with my old goodyear brakes stopped within the first 900' of the runway. My personal best was at a small ariport where the runway sloped up and I got it stopped in about 700'. I have been wondering if it would slow down better on a grass strip. either way, I know I can take off and clear that 50' obsticle in 1000' feet with no flaps, but then again i was not at full gross weight. I routinely climb out of the traffic pattern from airports at elevations from 100' to 2100' at 2000fpm till TPA then I cruise climb at 500fpm to my desired altitude. I get the distinct feeling that a lot of magazines or editors either don;t like the aero commander or just want to give false reports for whatever personal reason. Having said that Commanders get a bad rap for no reason other than misinformation, ignorance, or they conspire to make the "standard" piston look better. Anyhow that is my paraniod 2 cents. Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jimmy Rodriguez" <jimmyr(at)popsecs.com> To: "'commandertech(at)c2-tech.com'" Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 4:57 PM Subject: 500B Performance Figures. Who's right? > AOPA's January magazine had the following performance numbers for T. Alan Hart's 1960 500B: > Takeoff over 50' obstacle 1,000 ft > Landing over 50' obstacle 1,155 ft > > The Aero Commander web site has a totally different set of figures for the 500B: Takeoff @ 1,846 ft and Landing @ 2,202 ft. > > To 500B owners: What's the real short field performance for these planes? > > Thanks, > > Jimmy > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2002
From: Allen Reed <allen_reed2(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RNCP
Hanger-$225 Fuel-34gal per hr.@$1.90 Insurance-$2,200 yearly Flying the best Damn plane in the world-PRICELESS!!!!!!! BIG AL ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Re: 500B Performance Figures. Who's right?
Intrex wrote: > > On my AC560, if I am willing to come in below Blue line at 80mph, I can > easily with my old goodyear brakes stopped within the first 900' That matches my experience with my 520. I think that in general, the early geared Commanders have by far the best short-field abilities. The airframes were lighter and the geared engines swinging HUGE props had substantially more static thrust as well as idle-power drag. There is one 520 in the world (that I'm aware of) that's been retrofitted with GO-480s. It's probably the ultimate short-field Commander :-) Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: STARTER
HI KIDS.... Well, the starter came today, no note, just a box. I haven't installed it yet so heres hoping!! I worked on triple 2 all day on my "progressive annual." Did a retract test, lubed the gear packed wheel bearings etc. cant wait to be airborne tomorrow!! Yea!!!!!! (This assumes the stinking starter will actually start the engine). Wish me luck.jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2002
From: garyloff <n27kb(at)erols.com>
Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560
I've found from a series of non-geared airplanes that the operating costs are several dollars less. I assume it's because you don't have the gear boxes to contend with. I'm interested to see what the cost are for my Collmill(?)/Aircenter 500A where everything is new and zero time what the cost will be. I'll have to adjust them for fuel prices as we only pay $1.60 gal G ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> To: Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:42 AM Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560 > Nico van Niekerk wrote: > > > > How would that figure compare with the costs for a 500B or a Shrike, for > > Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560 > > > The long and short for me, the plane costs me about $172.00 per hour to > > > operate. that figure includes, Payment, Insurance, Annual, Prorated > > engine overhauls, regular maintenance, fuel assuming 100 hours flown annually. > > > A 500B should be pretty close to the same. For the Shrike, you'll > need to add about $8,000 every 36 months for the spar inspection > (and probably a bit more for insurance assuming it's valued higher) > > Chris > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2002
From: Intrex <woodlema(at)intrex.net>
Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560
ACtually the costs should be about the same being we are using the overhaul price of both engines, prorated by the TBO time, including prop overhauls and the such, and figuring 100 hours flown annually. So basically zero time, vs. one that is run out should calculate the same. Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "garyloff" <n27kb(at)erols.com> To: "Chris Schuermann" ; Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:27 AM Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560 > I've found from a series of non-geared airplanes that the operating costs > are several dollars less. I assume it's because you don't have the gear > boxes to contend with. > > I'm interested to see what the cost are for my Collmill(?)/Aircenter 500A > where everything is new and zero time what the cost will be. > > I'll have to adjust them for fuel prices as we only pay $1.60 gal > > G > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:42 AM > Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560 > > > > Nico van Niekerk wrote: > > > > > > How would that figure compare with the costs for a 500B or a Shrike, for > > > Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560 > > > > The long and short for me, the plane costs me about $172.00 per hour > to > > > > operate. that figure includes, Payment, Insurance, Annual, Prorated > > > engine overhauls, regular maintenance, fuel assuming 100 hours flown > annually. > > > > > > A 500B should be pretty close to the same. For the Shrike, you'll > > need to add about $8,000 every 36 months for the spar inspection > > (and probably a bit more for insurance assuming it's valued higher) > > > > Chris > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2002
From: N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560
I think Marks numbers were right on the mark. About $172/hour is what it cost to fly my 560 at 200hrs per year. That is total cost. The 685 looks as though it will run about $240/hr at 200hrs a year. I suspect the 680fl and flps will run about the same. I saw the gearbox mentioned as a reason for added cost. Has anyone ever had trouble with a gearbox? Milt ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2002
From: Intrex <woodlema(at)intrex.net>
Subject: Re:
So far my gearbox is tight as can be no unusual sloppyness or anything. I have heard numbers at around $4,000.00 -$5,000.00 to replace it/overhaul it if needed, but no clue since I have not had the pleasure of that task yet. Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "N414C" <N414C(at)cableone.net> To: "Intrex" ; "garyloff" ; "Chris Schuermann" ; Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 8:48 AM > Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560 > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 07:28:59 -0600 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 > Return-Path: N414C(at)cableone.net > X-RCPT-TO: <woodlema@[209.42.192.246]> > X-UIDL: 313528698 > Status: U > > I think Marks numbers were right on the mark. > About $172/hour is what it cost to fly my 560 at 200hrs per year. That is > total cost. > > The 685 looks as though it will run about $240/hr at 200hrs a year. I > suspect the 680fl and flps will run about the same. > > I saw the gearbox mentioned as a reason for added cost. Has anyone ever had > trouble with a gearbox? > > Milt > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2002
From: N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Re: Heeeere's JOHNNY!!!
Thank God, We were going into Barry withdrawl and missed the acidic whit and humor. Hancock county Mississippi survived another hurricane season even without Barry. Milt ----- Original Message ----- From: Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> To: Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 11:05 PM Subject: Heeeere's JOHNNY!!! > > > > > > The reliability, safety, and performance just eclipse any piston > > airplane. > > I know you guys with turbocharged engines are going to quote critical > > altitudes and horsepower vs. altitude charts to demonstrate how your > > engines > > are making closer to take-off power (if not full rated power) at the > > high > > density altitudes than some turbine engines. > > OK, I'm off list for a couple of months...new house, new email, work, > etc. I contact Chris to put me back in the loop and you loosers flood > my INBOX with 40 sumpin' emails over the weekend. Most of them wet > hangar dreams of flying turbines to boot! Y'all can kiss my a--!! > While you're at it, send me a case of no-name, and a few of those ugly > shirts, and a s-s-s-s-s-s-s-....sump! And don't forget to throw in a > bitter Brit preaching doom and gloom for Old Glory, so I can have a > little fun with my spare time! Anybody donated a trike for WCG yet? > > It's good to be back, > > Barry > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2002
From: N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Re: 500B Performance Figures. Who's right?
Id stick with the manual numbers. You can probably get by at higher speeds with 1/4 flaps but for the life of me I cannot see a need to ever do this. Milt ----- Original Message ----- From: <jdickey(at)mail.smcusa.com> To: 'commandertech(at)c2-tech.com' Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 4:19 PM Subject: Re: 500B Performance Figures. Who's right? > > The article also said speed for any flap extension was 126 MPH. Manual > says 150 for 1/2 flaps and I've heard 180 for 1/4. > > Scott > > J Scott Dickey > San Jose > EP Project National thermo product sales manager > SMC Corporation of America > > > Jimmy Rodriguez on 02/26/2002 01:57:32 PM > > To: "'commandertech(at)c2-tech.com'" > cc: > > Subject: 500B Performance Figures. Who's right? > > > AOPA's January magazine had the following performance numbers for T. Alan > Hart's 1960 500B: > Takeoff over 50' obstacle 1,000 ft > Landing over 50' obstacle 1,155 ft > > The Aero Commander web site has a totally different set of figures for the > 500B: Takeoff @ 1,846 ft and Landing @ 2,202 ft. > > To 500B owners: What's the real short field performance for these planes? > > Thanks, > > Jimmy > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560
N414C wrote: > I saw the gearbox mentioned as a reason for added cost. Has anyone ever had > trouble with a gearbox? The planetary gearboxes used by Lycoming are generally trouble-free and should easily make TBO if not abused. Back in the "good old days", most of the gears were replaced during a quality major. Today, they're getting hard to find and expensive so many overhaulers just re-use 'em if they still are within limits. The only catastrophic failure mode that I'm aware of is caused by shearing off the internal studs which retain the planetary cage. This should never happen if the engine is operated properly and assuming that a reasonable job of inspecting is done at overhaul. chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2002
From: Howard Windham <bw_cycon(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560
My 560e has approx 1200 hours since major and no problems to date....Keep the power to the prop's and they last a long, long time -----Original Message----- From: N414C [mailto:N414C(at)cableone.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 8:29 AM To: Intrex; garyloff; Chris Schuermann; commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560 I think Marks numbers were right on the mark. About $172/hour is what it cost to fly my 560 at 200hrs per year. That is total cost. The 685 looks as though it will run about $240/hr at 200hrs a year. I suspect the 680fl and flps will run about the same. I saw the gearbox mentioned as a reason for added cost. Has anyone ever had trouble with a gearbox? Milt _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: Operating cost 520/560
In a message dated 2/27/02 5:46:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, N414C(at)cableone.net writes: > I saw the gearbox mentioned as a reason for added cost. Has anyone ever had > trouble with a gearbox? Nope, never.....jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2002
From: Gary Loff <n27kb(at)erols.com>
Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560
When computing the costs I forgot to mention I've gone from a 1700 to a 2000 hr TBO. Since I've started using pre-oilers the engines have been so pristine at overhaul if I did not have to do the work to comply with the regs I would not have done it. It is a shame that the manufacturers have abandoned the gear boxes. They seem to offer many tangible advantages. GL ----- Original Message ----- From: Intrex <woodlema(at)intrex.net> To: garyloff ; Chris Schuermann ; Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:24 AM Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560 > ACtually the costs should be about the same being we are using the overhaul > price of both engines, prorated by the TBO time, including prop overhauls > and the such, and figuring 100 hours flown annually. So basically zero > time, vs. one that is run out should calculate the same. > > Mark > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "garyloff" <n27kb(at)erols.com> > To: "Chris Schuermann" ; > > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:27 AM > Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560 > > > > I've found from a series of non-geared airplanes that the operating costs > > are several dollars less. I assume it's because you don't have the gear > > boxes to contend with. > > > > I'm interested to see what the cost are for my Collmill(?)/Aircenter 500A > > where everything is new and zero time what the cost will be. > > > > I'll have to adjust them for fuel prices as we only pay $1.60 gal > > > > G > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:42 AM > > Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560 > > > > > > > Nico van Niekerk wrote: > > > > > > > > How would that figure compare with the costs for a 500B or a Shrike, > for > > > > Subject: Re: Operating cost 520/560 > > > > > The long and short for me, the plane costs me about $172.00 per hour > > to > > > > > operate. that figure includes, Payment, Insurance, Annual, Prorated > > > > engine overhauls, regular maintenance, fuel assuming 100 hours flown > > annually. > > > > > > > > > A 500B should be pretty close to the same. For the Shrike, you'll > > > need to add about $8,000 every 36 months for the spar inspection > > > (and probably a bit more for insurance assuming it's valued higher) > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2002
From: Allen Reed <allen_reed2(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RNCP
I know that there are a few of you that do not understand what we(REDNECKS)see as funny,but if ya'll will watch SOUTH PARK tonite(some of you put the kids and WIFE to bed)ya'll will see the effects of RED-Necked humor on a Canadian cartoon.It's about Afganistan and Osamah.Be prepared because the jokes and jabs come quite quickly. BIG AL P.S. It's on the comedy channel at 9:00 Central time. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: IM FLYING AGAIN!!
HI KIDS... Well, the starter started (the engine) and I was off!! It went something like this. Warmed um up a 1700, then did a runup. Mags checked great. Taxied to the runway and dialed in 45 inches, 3400 RPM. Keep it on the centerline, One hundred one, one hundred two, one hundred three, rotate. One hundred four, one hundred five, flight. One hundred six, one hundred seven, positive rate, gear up.......... Yippee, man these things are fun!! Nothing like the sound of them 12 pipes singing their tune a 3400......... Hope you had as good a day as me....jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2002
From: john phillip stubbs <br549phil(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: new
Hi folks, My name is Phil Stubbs of Richmond VA. Been flying 25 years and currently have an old Mooney. Have begun looking for a Commander. Have seen some projects and one 500(55BW) advertised as good but the viewing and log review turned up problems. Am planning a trip to Burbank next week to see a 1962 560F advertised by Barron Thomas. If anyone knows this airplane(Barron doesn't supply N numbers) or has advise regarding my quest please let me know. Thanks, Phil ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: new
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: new
In a message dated 2/27/02 7:35:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, br549phil(at)mindspring.com writes: > Am planning a trip to Burbank next week to see a 1962 560F advertised by > Barron Thomas. If anyone knows this airplane(Barron doesn't supply N > numbers) or has advise regarding my quest please let me know. HI AND WELCOME.......I had heard that, that airplane sold about a week ago?? Maybe I got some bad information... call Morris Kernick 510-783-3028 for a pre-buy inspection on what ever airplane you choose. If you don't, we reserve the right to tell you "we told you so".....good luck...jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Re: new
john phillip stubbs wrote: > Am planning a trip to Burbank next week to see a 1962 560F advertised by > Barron Thomas. Phil, if you've managed to get ANY info out of Barron about that airplane you're doing better than me! I've called a dozen times, emailed and faxed, and each time they promise to answer my questions, but never do. Please let us know what you find. Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2002
From: TILLMAN333(at)aol.com <TILLMAN333(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: new N55BW
Good Morning: If you have questions about N55BW, and the log books, please give me a call. I purchased the plane from the owner, located in Eufalua Alabama after the log books were distroyed in a fire. Dick Wartinger maintained the aircraft for The University of Miami, Ohio. He reconstructed the log books for me free of charge...I will always be indebted to him. In my opinion, for what it's worth, this is the best Commander for the transition-low time twin pilot. Any other questions? Have a great day, and remember Gary Gadberry...He's in Pain. FlySafe, Gary Tillman ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2002
From: Calvin Alston <alsmgt(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: new
I also called and e-mailed Baron Thomas for about three weeks and could not get him to return even one call with any info on this 560F. He has a less than stellar reputation. Be sure to see Morris for a prebuy on anything you are considering buying from Thomas. Dale ----- Original Message ----- From: "Intrex" <woodlema(at)intrex.net> To: "Chris Schuermann" ; Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:47 AM Subject: Re: new > Just from my impressions, and when I was looking for airplanes, I also tried > to get "REAL" information from that guy. I don;t think I would buy a can of > Pepsi from a vending machine in his office. But that is just my impression. > > Mark > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Schuermann" <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> > To: > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 6:20 AM > Subject: Re: new > > > > john phillip stubbs wrote: > > > Am planning a trip to Burbank next week to see a 1962 560F advertised by > > > Barron Thomas. > > > > Phil, > > if you've managed to get ANY info out of Barron about that airplane > > you're doing better than me! I've called a dozen times, emailed and > > faxed, and each time they promise to answer my questions, but never > > do. Please let us know what you find. > > > > Chris > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2002
From: Calvin Alston <alsmgt(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: new
Dear Group, It seems inevitable that those of us looking to buy a Twin Commander will be looking at the some of the same airplanes as there are so few left. It would be extremely helpful and save us all a few bucks and an enormous amount of time if, when we have looked into a plane and decided to pass on the purchase the reasons could be passed on here to the other potential buyers. Maybe some squaks would be acceptable to some and not to others. There is always the possibility that we may uncover a problem that could be missed by others and be one of those "expensive lessons". Here's to keeping each other informed, Dale Alston ----- Original Message ----- From: "john phillip stubbs" <br549phil(at)mindspring.com> To: Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:22 PM Subject: new > Hi folks, > My name is Phil Stubbs of Richmond VA. Been flying 25 years and currently > have an old Mooney. Have begun looking for a Commander. Have seen some > projects and one 500(55BW) advertised as good but the viewing and log > review turned up problems. > Am planning a trip to Burbank next week to see a 1962 560F advertised by > Barron Thomas. If anyone knows this airplane(Barron doesn't supply N > numbers) or has advise regarding my quest please let me know. > Thanks, > Phil > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2002
From: Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: new
We will all benefit by sharing information especially when the seller might be hiding something. If a seller is caught trying to "put one over" a buyer I sure hope that information would be shared. Of course the "revenge" comments should be taken with a grain of salt. Tom... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Calvin Alston" <alsmgt(at)bellsouth.net> To: ; "john phillip stubbs" Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 07:16 Subject: Re: new > Dear Group, > > It seems inevitable that those of us looking to buy a Twin Commander will be > looking at the some of the same airplanes as there are so few left. It would > be extremely helpful and save us all a few bucks and an enormous amount of > time if, when we have looked into a plane and decided to pass on the > purchase the reasons could be passed on here to the other potential buyers. > Maybe some squaks would be acceptable to some and not to others. There is > always the possibility that we may uncover a problem that could be missed by > others and be one of those "expensive lessons". > > Here's to keeping each other informed, > Dale Alston > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "john phillip stubbs" <br549phil(at)mindspring.com> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:22 PM > Subject: new > > > > Hi folks, > > My name is Phil Stubbs of Richmond VA. Been flying 25 years and currently > > have an old Mooney. Have begun looking for a Commander. Have seen some > > projects and one 500(55BW) advertised as good but the viewing and log > > review turned up problems. > > Am planning a trip to Burbank next week to see a 1962 560F advertised by > > Barron Thomas. If anyone knows this airplane(Barron doesn't supply N > > numbers) or has advise regarding my quest please let me know. > > Thanks, > > Phil > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2002
From: john phillip stubbs <br549phil(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: new N55BW
RE55bw. It began at the Houston airport when I called to initiate insurance coverage pending pre-purchase. A ballpark quote of $2700 became $4100. My first thought was 'this is an omen.' The owner was very nice and open. Lots of cracks in the cowlings, many missing screws, interior panels that did not fit well(looked like they were cut for a slightly different model), rt engine needed oil, battery not secured to its tray, ski tube installed with loose bolts and mating surfaces skewed, rudder cables not touching one set of guide pulleys, one prop blade loose on the right engine, LARGE quantity of oil dumped out of right breather after flight, 200rpm drop and rough rt mag on right engine which had a history noted in the log book, etc. Kept seeing things that indicated to me the AC had not had good care and made me very nervous. Thanks for your input, >Good Morning: >If you have questions about N55BW, and the log books, please give me a call. >I purchased the plane from the owner, located in Eufalua Alabama after the >log books were distroyed in a fire. >Dick Wartinger maintained the aircraft for The University of Miami, Ohio. >He reconstructed the log books for me free of charge...I will always be >indebted to him. >In my opinion, for what it's worth, this is the best Commander for the >transition-low time twin pilot. >Any other questions? >Have a great day, and remember Gary Gadberry...He's in Pain. >FlySafe, >Gary Tillman > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2002
From: TILLMAN333(at)aol.com <TILLMAN333(at)aol.com>
Subject: 55BW
I think I was the 3rd owner of N55BW... You may get in touch with the other owners over the last 10 years... The prior owners will give you their recommendations... I first flew N55BW 1/19/00. I paid $13,000....That was a lot of money for a new dad, and a young bride. Not to mention the annual inspection... I sold it for $26,000 10/91....which made the pregnant wife even happier.... I think the current owner is asking $100,000. FlySafe, GT Ps. 12 years and 3 kids later I fly a Twin Commander 500A Colemill....and married to the same wife. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2002
From: Kerry Johnson <kerry(at)kvelectric.com>
Subject: Re: new
Chris, I had the same experience for a month or so. When I finally did talk to Barron, he said I would have to sign a sales agreement and have money in escrow before he would arrange a test flight. I could have a mechanic check it out, but the only flying would be for a final acceptance and delivery flight. I declined. Kerry -----Original Message----- From: chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com [mailto:chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 4:20 AM To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com Subject: Re: new john phillip stubbs wrote: > Am planning a trip to Burbank next week to see a 1962 560F advertised by > Barron Thomas. Phil, if you've managed to get ANY info out of Barron about that airplane you're doing better than me! I've called a dozen times, emailed and faxed, and each time they promise to answer my questions, but never do. Please let us know what you find. Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2002
From: TILLMAN333(at)aol.com <TILLMAN333(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: 55BW
Actually I first flew N55BW may of 1989. GT. not 2000. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: BARRON COMMANDER
HI KIDS. Morris Kernick told me he was hired to do a prebuy for someone on that airplane but when Barron found out who was going to do it (Morris) he just told the guy "the deal is off!" Doesn't sound to good to me?? Be careful out there....jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2002
From: Furlong5(at)aol.com <Furlong5(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: COMMANDER FOR SALE
TO ANYONE INTERESTED MY 500A COLEMILL/SHRIKE CONVERSION IS FOR SALE. THE AIRPLANE IS IN TENN - GARY GADBERRY IS GOING TO HELP GET IT SOLD. I HAD A BIRD STRIKE IN JAN AND THE LEADING EDGE OF THE RIGHT WING IS GOING TO BE REPAIRED. MINOR DAMAGE BUT THEY WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO REPLACE THAT WING BOOT. I'VE ATTACHED THE SPECS FOR THOSE INTERESTED == ASKING $230K --- FOR THOSE WHO SAW THE AOPA ARTICLE ABOUT THE 500B AND WOULD LIKE A COMPARABLE AIRPLANE WITH ALL OF THE WORK DONE - THIS IS IT. JIM FURLONG FURLONG5(at)AOL.COM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2002
From: Kerry Johnson <kerry(at)kvelectric.com>
Subject: Re: BARRON COMMANDER
It kind of makes you wonder if the real owner knows what's going on. -----Original Message----- From: Tom Fisher [mailto:tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 9:58 AM To: commandertech-request(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com; COMMANDERTECH(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com Subject: Re: BARRON COMMANDER Sounds like this might turn into a "black ball" campaign (for the better perhaps). Tom... ----- Original Message ----- From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> To: Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 08:45 Subject: BARRON COMMANDER > HI KIDS. > > Morris Kernick told me he was hired to do a prebuy for someone > on that airplane but when Barron found out who was going to do it (Morris) he > just told the guy "the deal is off!" Doesn't sound to good to me?? Be > careful out there....jb > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2002
From: Brian Von Herzen <brianvon(at)fpga.com>
Subject: soft market?
I am interested in buying a turbo Twin Commander shortly, and am trying to assess today's market. Does anyone have data points on how soft the current market is? Are planes moving at close to wholesale pricing or are they selling below wholesale today? Any recent examples would be helpful, especially since Vref did not alter their Twin Commander prices at all in the last three months. Also, is there a more accurate pricing source than Vref for Twin Commanders? Thank you, Brian ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2002
From: john phillip stubbs <br549phil(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: 55BW
Impressions of 55BW: Owner was very nice and did not try to hide anything. 1. Rt. engine dumped a lot of oil out of the breather.(chrome cylinders) 2. One blade on the Rt. prop was loose. 3. Lots of small cracks, primarily around the cowls, and many crews missing. 4. Rudder cables ran under a small set of pulleys in the belly (about 2 inches under) with a cotter pin between the cable and the pulley. 5. Battery was not tied down. 6. Fit of the interior(new) was poor in several areas. 7. One of the radios turned its squelch off intermittently.(very annoying) 8. No oil sampling program and very few indiacations of oil changing in the logs. 9. One oil temp guage inop. 10. Other minor deatails. Nothing that by itself would keep me away but I kept finding things that indicated this AC had not had really good care for a long time and it made me nervous. Most ADs are up to date. One old lien on the title but bank says it has a letter that should remove it. One lien from current owner. I have title search and 337s if anyone is considering 55BW I appreciate everyones feedback, Phil ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2002
From: Kerry Johnson <kerry(at)kvelectric.com>
Subject: Re: soft market?
Brian, Try Aircraft Blue Book, they give you retail, market and inventory pricing as well as current trends. A yearly subscription is about $300.00 and well worth the money if you plan to buy and sell airplanes. Kerry -----Original Message----- From: Brian Von Herzen [mailto:brianvon(at)fpga.com] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:19 AM To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com Subject: soft market? I am interested in buying a turbo Twin Commander shortly, and am trying to assess today's market. Does anyone have data points on how soft the current market is? Are planes moving at close to wholesale pricing or are they selling below wholesale today? Any recent examples would be helpful, especially since Vref did not alter their Twin Commander prices at all in the last three months. Also, is there a more accurate pricing source than Vref for Twin Commanders? Thank you, Brian ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Re: 55BW
john phillip stubbs wrote: > > Impressions of 55BW: > 2. One blade on the Rt. prop was loose. If those are steel-hub hartzels, that is VERY frightening. A bit of looseness is not uncommon with the macculleys, but a loose blade in a hartzel (steel or compact) is a sign that something isn't right. Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: COMMANDER FOR SALE
THIS IS A REALLY PRETTY AIRPLANE!! ...jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2002
From: junekos <junekos(at)cox.rr.com>
Subject: Hobby
I got this today, sure glad it doesn't apply to any of us! There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." Don dongirod(at)earthlink.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2002
From: JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Turbine vs. Piston
Well Brian that's a good question. You don't stop the blade at exactley 10 blades of rotation. You have the prop spinning well at this point, and then you cease to pull blades after ten and let it windmill to a stop. The chances of hitting the same parking position are pretty rare. JetPaul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Blade Runner
>>You don't stop the blade at exactley 10 blades of rotation. You have the prop spinning well at this point, and then you cease to pull blades after ten and let it windmill to a stop. The chances of hitting the same parking position are pretty rare.<< To add to what JetPaul is saying, if you mover the blade one blade width, due to the gearing, you will have moved the shaft 180 degrees. The reason for pulling the prop around so much and so quickly is to run cool air through the engine, as well as rotate the shaft. Coking of the fuel nozzles is avoided by this exercise. Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2002
From: JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com>
Subject: Mr. Thomas
It's my personal opinnion, but Barron Thomas won't give much info at all. you must ask your self, "Self" why won't he tell me the truth? He would make a good used car salesman though. Come on now, tell me, what's it going to take to get you to buy this 560F TODAY with no prebuy inspection?? JetPaul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2002
From: Gary Wroan <gwroan(at)normal.org>
Subject: Re: 55BW
There is a 500B in Rhode Island. Does anyone have any INFO or Intel on same??? What avionics is on board?? Thanks gary -----Original Message----- From: Chris Schuermann [mailto:chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:59 PM To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com Subject: Re: 55BW john phillip stubbs wrote: > > Impressions of 55BW: > 2. One blade on the Rt. prop was loose. If those are steel-hub hartzels, that is VERY frightening. A bit of looseness is not uncommon with the macculleys, but a loose blade in a hartzel (steel or compact) is a sign that something isn't right. Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: request - Gary Wroan email
All, when you are posting email to the chat lists, please make sure to NOT have "request delivery confirmation" turned on in your email client. Gary's email, for example, did that. It resulted in several hundred "message successfully delivered" messages in my inbox this morning (since the emails "appear" to come from me). thanks, chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2002
From: john phillip stubbs <br549phil(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Mr. Thomas
After hearing the impressions of Mr. Thomas from several of you, and noting my experience I wrote the owner of 560F a nice note stating same. Phil >It's my personal opinnion, but Barron Thomas won't give much info at all. >you must ask your self, "Self" why won't he tell me the truth? > >He would make a good used car salesman though. > >Come on now, tell me, what's it going to take to get you to buy this 560F >TODAY with no prebuy inspection?? > >JetPaul > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2002
From: Gary Wroan <gwroan(at)normal.org>
Subject: Re: request - Gary Wroan email
I am very sorry and I hope same has been corrected!!! Thank you for being understanding!!! gary -----Original Message----- From: Chris Schuermann [mailto:chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 8:56 AM To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com Subject: request - Gary Wroan email All, when you are posting email to the chat lists, please make sure to NOT have "request delivery confirmation" turned on in your email client. Gary's email, for example, did that. It resulted in several hundred "message successfully delivered" messages in my inbox this morning (since the emails "appear" to come from me). thanks, chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2002
From: Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: request - Gary Wroan email
You could also get rid of the "Hi priority" flag as well. Tom... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Wroan" <gwroan(at)normal.org> To: ; Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 10:03 Subject: RE: request - Gary Wroan email I am very sorry and I hope same has been corrected!!! Thank you for being understanding!!! gary -----Original Message----- From: Chris Schuermann [mailto:chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 8:56 AM To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com Subject: request - Gary Wroan email All, when you are posting email to the chat lists, please make sure to NOT have "request delivery confirmation" turned on in your email client. Gary's email, for example, did that. It resulted in several hundred "message successfully delivered" messages in my inbox this morning (since the emails "appear" to come from me). thanks, chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2002
From: Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Trade a plane listing
Does anyone know what happened to the 7 + 1 680FL's listed by Machone? They were listed for over a year and I had my eye one of them. Tom... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2002
From: Tylor Hall <tylorh(at)sound.net>
Subject: Re: Trade a plane listing
Tom, I am trying to sell them overseas with MR. RPM IO-720 conversions. One was sold. There are 7 left. I have been to Omaha and seen them. I know where some others are at as well. Call me. Regards, Tylor Hall tylorh(at)sound.net 913-422-8869 -----Original Message----- From: Tom Fisher [mailto:tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 3:40 PM To: commandertech-request(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com; commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com Subject: Trade a plane listing Does anyone know what happened to the 7 + 1 680FL's listed by Machone? They were listed for over a year and I had my eye one of them. Tom... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: 560f
If anyone ever actually does get to look at that Barron Thomas 560F, please let me (us) know what you found. I tried calling every day for several weeks and was always promised a return call - which never occured. Numerous emails went nowhere. Frankly, if thats how all his customers get treated I can't see how he ever sells anything. FYI, I understand that N89PK (the MRRPM 680FP) is now flyable. Supposedly everything has been completed and it is now back at Gadberrys shop to get some final "tweaking". Since I'm apparently out of that game now, if anyone is interested, I have ALL the docs and everything you'd want to know. She's a beautiful bird and the RH engine was done by my local engine guru. Sure would like to see her get a good home (and me get my LARGE deposit back). Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2002
From: Gary Wroan <gwroan(at)normal.org>
Subject: Re: 500B in Mo.
Has anyone looked a6 the 500B in MO> listed at 179,000 firm??? Thanks gary -----Original Message----- From: Chris Schuermann [mailto:chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 6:47 PM To: commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com Subject: 560f If anyone ever actually does get to look at that Barron Thomas 560F, please let me (us) know what you found. I tried calling every day for several weeks and was always promised a return call - which never occured. Numerous emails went nowhere. Frankly, if thats how all his customers get treated I can't see how he ever sells anything. FYI, I understand that N89PK (the MRRPM 680FP) is now flyable. Supposedly everything has been completed and it is now back at Gadberrys shop to get some final "tweaking". Since I'm apparently out of that game now, if anyone is interested, I have ALL the docs and everything you'd want to know. She's a beautiful bird and the RH engine was done by my local engine guru. Sure would like to see her get a good home (and me get my LARGE deposit back). Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2002
From: Brian Von Herzen <brianvon(at)fpga.com>
Subject: 681's in Norman, OK
Has anyone gone to see the 681's in Norman, OK? Any impressions? Thanks, Brian ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2002
From: Tylor Hall <tylorh(at)sound.net>
Subject: Re: 500B in Mo., N444CB
I know N444CB has been at MKC, Downtown Kansas City airport for a number of years and lives in the hangar at Central Air. They have maintained it and done a lot of work on the plane including the engines and props (new compact hubs). It is worth someone looking at it because it such low total time airframe. That could be good and bad. Bad in that things like fuel lines and fuel bladders need replacement sometime after 40 years. The advertisement did say that the hoses have been replaced. I talked to a mechanic that said that they had done a lot of work on that airplane. Central Air owns 38 500 Twin Commanders. They also have a second in command program if you want to build multi engine time flying freight. I have never met the owner and only hear that this aircraft is run up but never flies. It has lots of the right equipment. Good things like front door, GPS, and low time engines. It needs a good home. This would be a great one to put the Mr. RPM Turbo package on. (Had to get that plug in. Discount is still available.) I will go take some photos if you want, but there will be a cost. You have to take me flying in it if you buy it. Regards, Tylor Hall tylorh(at)sound.net 913-422-8869 -----Original Message----- From: Gary Wroan [mailto:gwroan(at)normal.org] Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 10:09 AM To: commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com Subject: RE: 500B in Mo. Has anyone looked a6 the 500B in MO> listed at 179,000 firm??? Thanks gary -----Original Message----- From: Chris Schuermann [mailto:chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 6:47 PM To: commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com Subject: 560f If anyone ever actually does get to look at that Barron Thomas 560F, please let me (us) know what you found. I tried calling every day for several weeks and was always promised a return call - which never occured. Numerous emails went nowhere. Frankly, if thats how all his customers get treated I can't see how he ever sells anything. FYI, I understand that N89PK (the MRRPM 680FP) is now flyable. Supposedly everything has been completed and it is now back at Gadberrys shop to get some final "tweaking". Since I'm apparently out of that game now, if anyone is interested, I have ALL the docs and everything you'd want to know. She's a beautiful bird and the RH engine was done by my local engine guru. Sure would like to see her get a good home (and me get my LARGE deposit back). Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2002
From: Intrex <woodlema(at)intrex.net>
Subject: Divorce takes its toll yet again
Sadly, I have been moved to an even more annoying state in my divorce. As it turns out, regardless of the prior decision made by the original 'Master" 2 1/2/ yeas ago, my AC560 is indeed marital property and has to be treated as such. I currently have $64,500.00 in outstanding debt on my airplane, and would be willing to sell it for that. I can however be a bit creative due to the nature of that debt. Any items I purchase after I filed for divorce as of 2 1/2 years ago are not considered marital property. So, if anyone is interested in purchasing my aircraft, or trading I may be able to work something out to meet both yours and my needs. I am not opposed to trading WAY down to a single engine airplane, and I don't mind older airplanes either, which is obvious by the fact I own and love my 1955 AC560. The interior is pulled out, but the seats are good and can be put back in as-is condition, then the only thing that is needed is carpet, side panels, and headliner. I did put a brand new AD free heater in it so heating is NO problem even in the coldest of temps. If interested send me an e-mail, or if you know of someone who is interested. Sadly Mark. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2002
From: N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net>
Subject: O2
How do you use O2 with Cannulas? How many liters per minute at what altitude? Milt ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: O2
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Re: O2
> N414C wrote: > > How do you use O2 with Cannulas? > How many liters per minute at what altitude? > Milt Milt, From my notes and talks with aerox and skyox folks, the numbers I have are 1/2 liter per minute for "conserving" cannulas and 4 liters per minute for non-conserving. The Cannulas are not acceptable above 18,000 ft. Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: NICE FLIGHT
HI KIDS........ I have been doing a little "tuning" on the P carbs and decided to take a little X-country to try them out (I should have been working on the AD list, but the dogs were begging for a plane ride) So, We flew to The Oregon coast, to a little strip just north of Pacific City. Great spot. 2400 feet, S/L and it is a 15 minute walk to a gorgeous sand beach. Down wind is over the ocean and the strip literally ends at the edge of the sea!! Pretty cool dragging it in over the bay. Met some nice folks in a Skylane with their dog in tow and solved most of the world problems. From there I flew over the heavily forested coastal range back into the valley ant to a little private strip. Helped stick an 0-200 on the front of an old Champ and had a $100 soda pop! Nice folks, asked for a fly-by VAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM Yippee!! Then back home to a squearly approach, but nice touchdown in a strong east wind. Great day! The airplane is working great, the weather was fantastic (for this early in the spring CAVU & 55) and good company, my wifes dogs!! Oh, well the flight was nice anyway..hope you all had a great day as well.....jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: COTM update
Miss March - Tom Fisher's 500B - is now online. This is our first "post mortum" COTM, but it's good to remember our lost birds fondly. This is the last COTM submission I have. Sure could use some more. Please consider writing up your story. Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Re: Introduction and a request for opinions
Kevin Jones wrote: > I've been lurking here for a while and I'm impressed by the camaraderie > of the Commander community, so I thought it about time for me to say > "Hi". Pretty great group here Kevin. When you get to meet these folks in person you'll be even more impressed! > What would you (collectively) look at? How would it change if your > budget was 100K, 200K or 250K. Morris' suggestion of a 500B is always a safe bet. That model is the simple workhorse of the fleet - good engine match, prop options, and all-around capability. When I began hunting for my "next" airplane, I went through the same evaluation you're going through right now. As I intended to put a lot of hours on the airplane and possibly have more than just me flying the airplane, I decided against a model with geared engines. That said, folk who know me know that I'm a big fan of geared Lycs. I don't care for the IGSO-540 on the 680F series due to the simmonds injection system and the rather poor fuel burn numbers, but love the 435, 480, and bendix injected 540s. A 500A or B will be one of the most economical over the long run. The Continental 470 and 520 engines on the A are pretty good, but you'll want to see if they are a late model case and VAR crank. My personal preference is the Lycoming 540s on the B, but both really are great engines. Like yourself, I desired pressurization and having owned a turbo'd airplane, considered turbos mandatory. In the end, I chose a 680FP which had the MRRPM engine conversion as the ideal fit for my needs. That airplane gave me the best of all worlds - close-to-turbine speed, pressurization, high-altitude capability, good fuel specifics, and a very reliable, 2000hr TBO Lycoming IO-720. The downside to that selection is that there are very few of these birds around and they'll be at the top of your price range. To summarize the answer to your question: 100K range will put you into a good 520/560, or straight 500. These are all good birds, but finding an excellent example will be hard. Many 520/560's havn't had the prop AD done yet which could be and expensive surprise. 200k range will bag you an excellent 500A or B or a 560F and some 680F's (orig engine). Quite a few available - pick the best with good research. Quite a few nice 685s in this range as well. Fine bird, but not for everyone. 250k(+) will get a good Shrike (without an updated spar) or the best 500A/B's on the market. It's in the ballpark for the few rare MRRPM 560F/680F(P)/680FLPs but they may be closer to $300k Hope this is of some use - some is only my opinion and subject to debate. Chris Schuermann ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2002
From: TILLMAN333(at)aol.com <TILLMAN333(at)aol.com>
Subject: new N55BW
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2002
From: Russell Legg <rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au>
Subject: ANSETT RIP
G'day all, A truly sad day in Oz today with the last ever scheduled flights of Ansett Airlines before going bust in the early Tuesday am. Last flight was from Perth to Melbourne on A320 VH-HYQ. Lots of wakes among staff and as it turned out last flight commanded by Geoff McDonald, an old pal from the '70's flying DC-3's! Once a proud lessor of 680E VH-EXY and an almighty icon of Ozzie skies...the end of a 66 year era in Oz aviation is nigh...Ansett is gone! Only flying on one wing tonight! Russell ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2002
From: Russell Legg <rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au>
Subject: 'Turning Avgas Into Noise'!
G'day All, Hope all is well in Commanderland. Just six months down the track since Hillsboro...and as promised a couple of snaps of that 680E cacophony witnessed by Tylor and myself. I guess this is the biggest ad yet for the 2002 Fly-in...get your attendance details to Capt Jimbob! Barry H and Jimbob...go get 'em... Cheers from Oz Russell ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2002
From: Brian Von Herzen <brianvon(at)fpga.com>
Subject: Re: 'Turning Avgas Into Noise'!
At 3/5/2002 09:12 PM +0930, Russell Legg wrote: >G'day All, > >Hope all is well in Commanderland. > >Just six months down the track since Hillsboro...and as promised a couple of >snaps of that 680E cacophony witnessed by Tylor and myself. > >I guess this is the biggest ad yet for the 2002 Fly-in...get your attendance >details to Capt Jimbob! The attachments were unreadable. When is the fly-in? Is it in Hillsboro? Thanks, Brian >Barry H and Jimbob...go get 'em... > >Cheers from Oz > >Russell > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2002
From: Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: 'Turning Avgas Into Noise'!
The problem I have is with the ".dat" files. Tom... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nico van Niekerk" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> To: "Russell Legg" ; "Brian Von Herzen" Cc: "'commandertech(at)c2-tech.com'" Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 05:52 Subject: Re: 'Turning Avgas Into Noise'! > Sometimes it is necessary to change the extension from .jpeg to .jpg to > solve the problem. > Nico > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brian Von Herzen" <brianvon(at)fpga.com> > To: "Russell Legg" > Cc: "'commandertech(at)c2-tech.com'" > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 4:10 AM > Subject: Re: 'Turning Avgas Into Noise'! > > > > At 3/5/2002 09:12 PM +0930, Russell Legg wrote: > > >G'day All, > > > > > >Hope all is well in Commanderland. > > > > > >Just six months down the track since Hillsboro...and as promised a couple > of > > >snaps of that 680E cacophony witnessed by Tylor and myself. > > > > > >I guess this is the biggest ad yet for the 2002 Fly-in...get your > attendance > > >details to Capt Jimbob! > > > > The attachments were unreadable. When is the fly-in? Is it in Hillsboro? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Brian > > > > > > >Barry H and Jimbob...go get 'em... > > > > > >Cheers from Oz > > > > > >Russell > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2002
From: MOEMILLS(at)aol.com <MOEMILLS(at)aol.com>
Subject: HELP NEEDED ON POTENTIOMETER, SELECTOR FOR 680FP
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: web references
Been pretty quiet on the list recently so I thought I'd toss out a few interesting web sites for y'all A favorite of mine is: http://www.avweb.com This is an e-zine which is updated twice a week. Great place to get the latest aviation news as well as many great articles and reviews. Another pretty good aviation news spot is: http://www.aero-news.net If any of you were around the internet 5+ years ago, you may remember the editor Jim (capt Zoom in the old days) Campbell. Regardless of what you (or I) may think of Zoom, it's a pretty good web site. Aero Planner ( http://www.aeroplanner.com ) is an outstanding flight planning system. It was free for quite some time as they brought all the content online, but is now a subscription service. Should I ever become an airplane owner again, I WILL subscribe. I found the features to be very useful while it was free and they've added quite a bit since. http://www.fltplan.com is another similar site pointed out by Bruce Byerly. It's targeted more towards the hard IFR crowd, but look like a lot of nice features. The home page of Ron Wanttaga is at: http://www.wanttaja.com/ I have read the ramblings of this guy and conversed via email as early as '85 (don't recall exactly). The aviation section of his site is fantastic, but be sure to read some of his stories, especially about his "Flybaby". You'll laugh...you'll cry. (oh, and if you ever wanted to know more about Zoom, click the link at the bottom of the first page "RAH15".) Read the following story if you don't read any other! :-) http://www.wanttaja.com/avlinks/sub.htm Well, these should keep y'all busy for a bit anyway. Sorry I don't have any good porn links to submit :) Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2002
From: Randy Sharp <sharp.r(at)apple.com>
Subject: Re: 'Turning Avgas Into Noise'!
Great photos. Had no problems opening them. But of course I own a Apple Macintosh which opens everything. RS rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au said: >G'day All, > >Hope all is well in Commanderland. > >Just six months down the track since Hillsboro...and as promised a couple of >snaps of that 680E cacophony witnessed by Tylor and myself. > >I guess this is the biggest ad yet for the 2002 Fly-in...get your attendance >details to Capt Jimbob! > >Barry H and Jimbob...go get 'em... > >Cheers from Oz > >Russell > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: NEW MEMBERS
HI KIDS......... We have a couple of new TCFG members... First let me introduce James (Jimmy) Rodriguez from Old San Juan, PR (Man would I like to be lining there!!) Jimmy is looking at Commanders and currently flies a Cessna 206. Also, Phil Stubbs is also planing to become a Commander owner. He makes his home in Richmond, VA and makes his living flying for a major airline. Welcome gentlemen!!.......jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2002
From: Barry Collman <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Subject: Re: NEW MEMBERS
I'll second that. Welcome aboard chaps! Barry Collman UK CommanderLand Rep. ----- Original Message ----- From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 11:02 PM Subject: NEW MEMBERS | HI KIDS......... | | We have a couple of new TCFG members... First let me introduce | James (Jimmy) Rodriguez from Old San Juan, PR (Man would I like to be lining | there!!) Jimmy is looking at Commanders and currently flies a Cessna 206. | Also, Phil Stubbs is also planing to become a Commander owner. He | makes his home in Richmond, VA and makes his living flying for a major | airline. | Welcome gentlemen!!.......jb | ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: MY STUGLE
HI KIDS.... Well, where to begin. I have for the last 8 months been locked in a fierce battle with the FAA. Two yeas ago I was busted for banking two steeply during my normal approach for a water landing, in the biplane, and did a 60 day suspension. Last year, the same young man was placed in charge of yet another investigation caused by a complaint from the US Navy that I had flown to low over the Bangor Sub Base. I will spare you the details, but the short story is that they (the FAA) said I had flown below 1000 ft, below 500 feet, flown to low (in a float plane over water)? To land if the engine quite and careless & reckless operation. I was made aware of the charge on August 1 last year. After meeting with them, I was told they would get back to me in a couple of weeks, they had 6 months to take the next steep. 5 months and 20 days later, on Christmas Eve, I received the letter of proposed certificate action, 6 month suspension. Since that time my attorney and I have put on a gallant defense. I had witness statements from EVERY passenger that flew in the airplane on the days in question. All stated the airplane was at least 900 feet high (One was a private pilot) Never mind the evidence, we just want blood. The investigator has a reputation in the area. He has caused at least one FBO to close it's doors and reopen outside this region. Anyway, we did all the stuff and the FAA, reluctantly agreed that The only thing I did wrong was to be below 1000 above the highest obstacle (a crane) within 2000 feet (I was 1300 feet from it). And since I hadn't taken time to determine that I was to close "Careless" operation (they dropped reckless). So, since they dropped 75% of the charges they should drop 75% of the penalty, right?? Nope, they have issued an order suspending my ticket for 120 days, only 2 months less. Why?? Normally this would be a 30 day suspension (It is hardly an egregious act!!) but since I had last years incident, they doubled the time. And since I had done this on more than one occurrence (alleged 3 days), they doubled that! I am really feeling bitter over this. I have a perfect safety record. My paperwork was perfect (both times) yet no matter, we are going to through the book at you, why, because we are untouchable, unaccountable and we fight you with your $$. I am now questioning my future in aviation. I was shut down (the biplane operation) completely by the 9-11 events. I had then been chosen to fly as copilot for the Collings Foundation, in the B-17 and B-24 (In fact, I was scheduled to have been in FL and ground school on the day I had my "informal hearing" with the FAA!) I am uncertin whether to continue to fly. I apologize for the last few weeks of relative silence on this list, I simply haven't felt mush like talking airplanes (still dont) while I waited Thanks for your patients........jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2002
From: Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: MY STUGLE
You might as well take the slap in the face, they have the power, they WILL be unreasonable and unfair. It's not six months, use the 120 days to do something to the aircraft that you put off because you did not want to ground the aircraft to do it in the first place. Recently my lawyer told me "Just because you are right does not mean you are going to win, the system does not work like that". It's a long tunnel........ Hang in, when it comes right down to it you know there is nothing outside of flying! Tom... ----- Original Message ----- From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 15:31 Subject: MY STUGLE > HI KIDS.... > > Well, where to begin. I have for the last 8 months been locked > in a fierce battle with the FAA. Two yeas ago I was busted for banking two > steeply during my normal approach for a water landing, in the biplane, and > did a 60 day suspension. Last year, the same young man was placed in charge > of yet another investigation caused by a complaint from the US Navy that I > had flown to low over the Bangor Sub Base. > I will spare you the details, but the short story is that they (the > FAA) said I had flown below 1000 ft, below 500 feet, flown to low (in a float > plane over water)? To land if the engine quite and careless & reckless > operation. > I was made aware of the charge on August 1 last year. After meeting > with them, I was told they would get back to me in a couple of weeks, they > had 6 months to take the next steep. 5 months and 20 days later, on > Christmas Eve, I received the letter of proposed certificate action, 6 month > suspension. Since that time my attorney and I have put on a gallant defense. > I had witness statements from EVERY passenger that flew in the airplane on > the days in question. All stated the airplane was at least 900 feet high > (One was a private pilot) > Never mind the evidence, we just want blood. The investigator has a > reputation in the area. He has caused at least one FBO to close it's doors > and reopen outside this region. Anyway, we did all the stuff and the FAA, > reluctantly agreed that The only thing I did wrong was to be below 1000 above > the highest obstacle (a crane) within 2000 feet (I was 1300 feet from it). > And since I hadn't taken time to determine that I was to close "Careless" > operation (they dropped reckless). So, since they dropped 75% of the charges > they should drop 75% of the penalty, right?? Nope, they have issued an order > suspending my ticket for 120 days, only 2 months less. Why?? Normally this > would be a 30 day suspension (It is hardly an egregious act!!) but since I > had last years incident, they doubled the time. And since I had done this on > more than one occurrence (alleged 3 days), they doubled that! > I am really feeling bitter over this. I have a perfect safety record. > My paperwork was perfect (both times) yet no matter, we are going to through > the book at you, why, because we are untouchable, unaccountable and we fight > you with your $$. > I am now questioning my future in aviation. I was shut down (the > biplane operation) completely by the 9-11 events. I had then been chosen to > fly as copilot for the Collings Foundation, in the B-17 and B-24 (In fact, I > was scheduled to have been in FL and ground school on the day I had my > "informal hearing" with the FAA!) I am uncertin whether to continue to fly. > I apologize for the last few weeks of relative silence on this list, I > simply haven't felt mush like talking airplanes (still dont) while I waited > Thanks for your patients........jb > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2002
From: Craig Lundborg <dltafolk(at)inreach.com>
Subject: Re: 'Turning Avgas Into Noise'!
Didn't the Apples go out with the two holer not wide enough for Bagels toasters? Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Sharp" <sharp.r(at)apple.com> To: "Russell Legg" ; "'commandertech(at)c2-tech.com'" Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 12:41 PM Subject: Re: 'Turning Avgas Into Noise'! > Great photos. > Had no problems opening them. > But of course I own a Apple Macintosh which opens everything. > RS > > > rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au said: > >G'day All, > > > >Hope all is well in Commanderland. > > > >Just six months down the track since Hillsboro...and as promised a couple of > >snaps of that 680E cacophony witnessed by Tylor and myself. > > > >I guess this is the biggest ad yet for the 2002 Fly-in...get your attendance > >details to Capt Jimbob! > > > >Barry H and Jimbob...go get 'em... > > > >Cheers from Oz > > > >Russell > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2002
From: Furlong5(at)aol.com <Furlong5(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: MY STUGLE
In a message dated 3/6/2002 3:37:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, YOURTCFG(at)aol.com writes: > > I apologize for the last few weeks of relative silence on this list, > I > simply haven't felt mush like talking airplanes (still dont) while I waited > Thanks for your patients........jb > > > JB, DON'T LET THEM WIN BY DRIVING YOU OUT OF AVIATION. 4 MONTHS IS NOT AN ETERNITY. THERE ARE THOSE WHO FOR VARIED REASONS WON'T FLY EVER AGAIN. YOU WILL. JIM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Re: Locating a good commander
Kevin Jones wrote: >> Would anyone like to suggest places to look or people to talk to? Planes > to avoid? Perfect gems? You're going to hit the majority of the available aircraft with the web sites you mentioned. You're correct that sometimes the true gems get sold without ever being advertised though. Fortunatly, you now are in contact with most of the true Commander enthusiasts in the world :-) For my part, I keep a VERY close eye on the Commander market. If you've narrowed down a "must have" list and a price range, drop me a note and I'll pass along anything that meets your criteria. Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2002
From: Intrex <woodlema(at)intrex.net>
Subject: Re: MY STUGLE
Lemme tell you a story as I understand it. Correct it if I am wrong please. Bob Hoover, was doing a flight demonstration. Apparantly an FAA person, examiner, inspector or someone with some power, wanted Hoover to take his nephew for a ride, Hoover agreed. Before the end of the Airshow, Hoover had some type of emergency, no idea what, but he had to tell the FAA guy he could not take his nephew up for the ride. Well the spoiled nephew or something whined and the FAA guy wrote Hoover as incompetant. Hoover spent the next 2+ years fighting this unfair total abuse of nazi type power. I was told it is their playing field, their ball, their bats and their gloves. We have toplay by their rules even if they change them on us in mid-stream. Not fair but that is the way it is. That is the rumor/story I heard as to why Bob Hoover a well respected, aviator had his problems. Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> To: ; Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 6:51 PM Subject: Re: MY STUGLE > You might as well take the slap in the face, they have the power, they WILL > be unreasonable and unfair. > It's not six months, use the 120 days to do something to the aircraft that > you put off because you did not want to ground the aircraft to do it in the > first place. > > Recently my lawyer told me "Just because you are right does not mean you are > going to win, the system does not work like that". It's a long > tunnel........ > > Hang in, when it comes right down to it you know there is nothing outside of > flying! > > Tom... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 15:31 > Subject: MY STUGLE > > > > HI KIDS.... > > > > Well, where to begin. I have for the last 8 months been > locked > > in a fierce battle with the FAA. Two yeas ago I was busted for banking > two > > steeply during my normal approach for a water landing, in the biplane, and > > did a 60 day suspension. Last year, the same young man was placed in > charge > > of yet another investigation caused by a complaint from the US Navy that I > > had flown to low over the Bangor Sub Base. > > I will spare you the details, but the short story is that they (the > > FAA) said I had flown below 1000 ft, below 500 feet, flown to low (in a > float > > plane over water)? To land if the engine quite and careless & reckless > > operation. > > I was made aware of the charge on August 1 last year. After > meeting > > with them, I was told they would get back to me in a couple of weeks, they > > had 6 months to take the next steep. 5 months and 20 days later, on > > Christmas Eve, I received the letter of proposed certificate action, 6 > month > > suspension. Since that time my attorney and I have put on a gallant > defense. > > I had witness statements from EVERY passenger that flew in the airplane > on > > the days in question. All stated the airplane was at least 900 feet high > > (One was a private pilot) > > Never mind the evidence, we just want blood. The investigator has > a > > reputation in the area. He has caused at least one FBO to close it's > doors > > and reopen outside this region. Anyway, we did all the stuff and the FAA, > > reluctantly agreed that The only thing I did wrong was to be below 1000 > above > > the highest obstacle (a crane) within 2000 feet (I was 1300 feet from it). > > And since I hadn't taken time to determine that I was to close "Careless" > > operation (they dropped reckless). So, since they dropped 75% of the > charges > > they should drop 75% of the penalty, right?? Nope, they have issued an > order > > suspending my ticket for 120 days, only 2 months less. Why?? Normally > this > > would be a 30 day suspension (It is hardly an egregious act!!) but since I > > had last years incident, they doubled the time. And since I had done this > on > > more than one occurrence (alleged 3 days), they doubled that! > > I am really feeling bitter over this. I have a perfect safety > record. > > My paperwork was perfect (both times) yet no matter, we are going to > through > > the book at you, why, because we are untouchable, unaccountable and we > fight > > you with your $$. > > I am now questioning my future in aviation. I was shut down (the > > biplane operation) completely by the 9-11 events. I had then been chosen > to > > fly as copilot for the Collings Foundation, in the B-17 and B-24 (In fact, > I > > was scheduled to have been in FL and ground school on the day I had my > > "informal hearing" with the FAA!) I am uncertin whether to continue to > fly. > > I apologize for the last few weeks of relative silence on this > list, I > > simply haven't felt mush like talking airplanes (still dont) while I > waited > > Thanks for your patients........jb > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2002
From: Allen Reed <allen_reed2(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RNCP
Well Gang,IT finally happened,yes,we RED-NECKS have our first terrorist!This guy tried to blow up a tourist bus full of Yankees but was caught while being drug down the road by the bus.Yep,he is now in custody,but has not been released from the hospital where they are treating him for tail-pipe burns on his lips!! Big Al Hang in there J.B. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2002
From: Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net>
Subject: Follow the bouncing.....
.....email! Sorry gang, apparently I'm having server troubles and all incoming email is being bounced. I'll let you know when they get things figer'd out. Barry Hancock 9 Leatherwood Court Coto de Caza, CA 92679 (949) 300-5510 radialpower(at)cox.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2002
From: Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net>
Subject: In the mean time...
...you can send all email to flyingbdog(at)hotmail.com TTFN, Barry ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: MY STUGLE
In a message dated 03/06/02 15:37:51 Pacific Standard Time, YOURTCFG(at)aol.com writes: > I have for the last 8 months been locked in a fierce battle with the FAA. Captain Jimbob, Your stock just went up, as far as I'm concerned. That you went public with this is above and beyond the call of duty. A few of us have similar horror stories in our OK-City files and some of us have been in a state of war with the FAA once or twice before. Although my experience in Pago Pago was priceless in terms of Commander adventure, it almost drove me out of aviation because of the Honolulu FSDO and my Operations Inspector. It got to the point that whatever the FAA guy said, my S.O.P. was to circumvent the local FSDO, skip over Region and immediately get an interpretation on darn near everything from Washington D.C. It was so frustrating and infuriating that I just about left aviation because of it. What I learned from my year as a Director of Operations / Chief Pilot was that 2 out of 3 times the FAA is wrong. It just takes more time than most of us have to correct them. Also, (with a few notable exceptions) FAA Operations Inspectors cannot get and hold jobs in aviation. That's why they work for the FAA. I'm sorry you're having this ordeal. If you lay low, we understand. May I make a suggestion? Stay active on the list and around your airport. You will find that it will keep you sharp and it will amaze you to learn how much you know (we know how much you know, but you may not appreciate how much you know) if you open your heart and mind to your fellow aviators and be of service while you're grounded. When you're allowed to fly again, you'll feel and be more current and confident if you stay connected. As far as getting back in the cockpit ... it will be just like riding a bicycle. Well, I think you'll be better on the rudder pedals than that! Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: Barry.Collman(at)airclaims.co.uk <Barry.Collman(at)airclaims.co.uk>
Subject: Re: MY STRUGGLE
Jim, You are really even more amazing than I had originally thought. Even though you have had this ordeal hanging over you, you have still managed to organise the best Fly-In the Group has ever had, and produced some really great magazines and made the Flight Group what it is to-day. I can only imagine how you feel right now. My blood is even beginning to boil. But you are, thankfully for us all, precluded from leaving the aviation scene. Do not overlook that you are still under Royal Appointment to act as my personal pilot when I'm in the USA. Her Majesty takes a pretty dim view of people who underestimate the importance of such accolades. So, take a deep breath, throw out that proud chest of yours and revisit the good advice (as always) from the Wing Commander and Jim Furlong. There will, I'm sure be similar support from others. I'm willing to bet that you'll be back in the air in what will seem no time at all. Triple Two Juliet Sierra is in excellent shape, I know, but as has already been suggested, those few weeks can be utilised to make her the envy of every Commander owner around. Sincerest Best Wishes, Barry C. YOURTCFG(at)aol.com To: COMMANDERTECH(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com 06/03/2002 23:31 cc: Subject: MY STUGLE HI KIDS.... Well, where to begin. I have for the last 8 months been locked in a fierce battle with the FAA. Two yeas ago I was busted for banking two steeply during my normal approach for a water landing, in the biplane, and did a 60 day suspension. Last year, the same young man was placed in charge of yet another investigation caused by a complaint from the US Navy that I had flown to low over the Bangor Sub Base. I will spare you the details, but the short story is that they (the FAA) said I had flown below 1000 ft, below 500 feet, flown to low (in a float plane over water)? To land if the engine quite and careless & reckless operation. I was made aware of the charge on August 1 last year. After meeting with them, I was told they would get back to me in a couple of weeks, they had 6 months to take the next steep. 5 months and 20 days later, on Christmas Eve, I received the letter of proposed certificate action, 6 month suspension. Since that time my attorney and I have put on a gallant defense. I had witness statements from EVERY passenger that flew in the airplane on the days in question. All stated the airplane was at least 900 feet high (One was a private pilot) Never mind the evidence, we just want blood. The investigator has a reputation in the area. He has caused at least one FBO to close it's doors and reopen outside this region. Anyway, we did all the stuff and the FAA, reluctantly agreed that The only thing I did wrong was to be below 1000 above the highest obstacle (a crane) within 2000 feet (I was 1300 feet from it). And since I hadn't taken time to determine that I was to close "Careless" operation (they dropped reckless). So, since they dropped 75% of the charges they should drop 75% of the penalty, right?? Nope, they have issued an order suspending my ticket for 120 days, only 2 months less. Why?? Normally this would be a 30 day suspension (It is hardly an egregious act!!) but since I had last years incident, they doubled the time. And since I had done this on more than one occurrence (alleged 3 days), they doubled that! I am really feeling bitter over this. I have a perfect safety record. My paperwork was perfect (both times) yet no matter, we are going to through the book at you, why, because we are untouchable, unaccountable and we fight you with your $$. I am now questioning my future in aviation. I was shut down (the biplane operation) completely by the 9-11 events. I had then been chosen to fly as copilot for the Collings Foundation, in the B-17 and B-24 (In fact, I was scheduled to have been in FL and ground school on the day I had my "informal hearing" with the FAA!) I am uncertin whether to continue to fly. I apologize for the last few weeks of relative silence on this list, I simply haven't felt mush like talking airplanes (still dont) while I waited Thanks for your patients........jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: Kerry Johnson <kerry(at)kvelectric.com>
Subject: 520 Commander N2609B
Hi all, Has anyone see this 520? http://www.aircraft.com/listings/forsale/list.asp?guid=u61nnc9k&etid=1&catid =9&man=COMMANDER&mdl=520 It's registered to a company in Detroit, but the company selling it is in Nevada? I'm pretty sure it needs props, but haven't been able to talk to anyone about it yet. Anyone have a set of props for this plane? I have an opportunity to get a contract flying river rafters out of the Colorado river canyon, south of the Grand Canyon. I thought a Twin Commander would do the trick. The contract would pay for this bird in about 6 months, assuming there are no major problems, but I am concerned about the reliability of a 1954 aircraft. Comments? Kerry ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Re: 520 Commander N2609B
Kerry Johnson wrote: > Has anyone see this 520? Kerry, I have some personal knowledge of this bird. Why dont you give me a call at my office this morning and I'll tell you what I know. I think she's a pretty sweet bird but there are a couple of things to check carefully. chris 918-582-3635 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: Barry.Collman(at)airclaims.co.uk <Barry.Collman(at)airclaims.co.uk>
Subject: Re: 520 Commander N2609B
Hi Kerry, N2609B is a most unusual bird. I see that Chris S. knows the 'plane and can tell you more about it. As can be seen from the photos, it's a Model 520 with a swept tail! This was fitted from a Model 680 in November 1983 and the Experimental CofA declared a total airframe time of 4,642 hours. An STC was obtained to do this, number SA5587SW. The next alteration made was to add GO-480-B1A6 engines and these were coupled with Hartzell HC-83X20-2A1/V8433N 3-blade propellers, being accomplished in March 1986. Again an STC, number SA3607SW was obtained to cover this. When the Commander was returned to a Standard-Normal category CofA in May 1986, total time was declared to be 4,819 hours. As far as I'm aware, it's a pretty rare bird, being the only Model 520 with such engines. Let us know whether you decide to proceed! Very Best Regards, Barry Collman UK CommanderLand Rep. Kerry Johnson cc: 07/03/2002 00:12 Subject: 520 Commander N2609B Please respond to kerry Hi all, Has anyone see this 520? http://www.aircraft.com/listings/forsale/list.asp?guid=u61nnc9k&etid=1&catid =9&man=COMMANDER&mdl=520 It's registered to a company in Detroit, but the company selling it is in Nevada? I'm pretty sure it needs props, but haven't been able to talk to anyone about it yet. Anyone have a set of props for this plane? I have an opportunity to get a contract flying river rafters out of the Colorado river canyon, south of the Grand Canyon. I thought a Twin Commander would do the trick. The contract would pay for this bird in about 6 months, assuming there are no major problems, but I am concerned about the reliability of a 1954 aircraft. Comments? Kerry ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: Allen Reed <allen_reed2(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Redneck Joke....
>To: "'Allen_Reed2(at)hotmail.com'" > >Subject: Redneck Joke.... > >Go Git Yo Mamma > > >A redneck family from the hills was visiting the city and they were in a >mall for the first time in their life. The father and son were strolling >around while the wife shopped. They were amazed by almost everything they >saw, but especially by two shiny, silver walls that could move apart and >then slide back together again. > > >The boy asked, "Paw, What's 'at?" > > >The father (never having seen an elevator) responded, "Son, I dunno. I >ain't never seen anything like that in my entire life, I ain't got no >idea'r what it is." > > >While the boy and his father were watching with amazement, a fat old lady >in a wheel chair rolled up to the moving walls and pressed a button. The >walls opened and the lady rolled between them into a small room. The walls >closed and the boy and his father watched the small circular numbers above >the walls light up sequentially. They continued to watch until it reached >the last number and then the numbers began to light in the reverse order. >Then the walls opened up again and a gorgeous, voluptuous 24-year-old >blonde woman stepped out. > > >The father, not taking his eyes off the young woman, said quietly to his >Son, "Boy, go git yo Momma.... " > > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: Allen Reed <allen_reed2(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RNCP
>From: "Luciano Indrio" <umvemve(at)iafrica.com> >To: "Allen Reed" >Subject: Fw: RNCP >Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:42:43 +0200 > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Luciano Indrio <umvemve(at)iafrica.com> >To: Allen Reed >Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 11:40 AM >Subject: Re: RNCP > > > > Hi, > > > > These are the specifications of my aircraft. I will probably place it on >the > > market early in June...........I will consider delivering it to the UK > > inclusive in the asking price of $195.000,00. I have flown it from the >US > > to S.Africa. It's a good ship. The aircraft is undergoing an annual > > inspection now and could be delivered with a fresh lower spar cap >inspection > > if necessary.........Never damaged, always flown with good care and > > airmanship.......I will be buying a S.I.A.I. Marchetti SF260C in > > Italy.......I will regret parting company with this fine lady. The only > > consolation will be that I will fly another worthy thoroughbred born of > > outstanding designer's excellence as Ted Smith's great Aerocommander. If > > anyone would be looking for a good Commander.............. more pictures > > would be available if required................Regards to all > > > > Luciano Indrio > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Allen Reed <allen_reed2(at)hotmail.com> > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 3:46 AM > > Subject: RNCP > > > > > > > Well Gang,IT finally happened,yes,we RED-NECKS have our first > > terrorist!This > > > guy tried to blow up a tourist bus full of Yankees but was caught >while > > > being drug down the road by the bus.Yep,he is now in custody,but has >not > > > been released from the hospital where they are treating him for >tail-pipe > > > burns on his lips!! Big Al Hang in there J.B. > > > > > > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: MY STUGLE
Man J.B. I hate to hear that. It is my worst nightmare as well. All you can do is fight. And that's expensive. A.O.P.A. is the best money ever spent for a subscription to a club (outside of the TCFG of course). Having access to the legal representation in FAA enforcement actions is worth the money alone. This is all probabley water under the bridge for you J.B., but I'm just thinking out loud. 1) Was the crane in question permanent, or temp. 2) If temp. was it found in the current notams for the dates?? 3) Did it have effective times of the day for being up or down? Maybe one of these could help make a loop holefor your escape. But I am sure you have already lost more sleep over this than is possible, and all these things have gone through your mind already. On a lighter note: WOW, GO FLY THE HEAVY WWII IRON!!!!!!!! I had the good fortune to meet one of the Captains of the B-17, and the B-24 for the Collings foundation. When I met him he was only 24 years old, type rated in both airplanes, and could give check rides in either one. What a remarkable young man. He was learning to be a B-727 Flight Engineer when we first met. I then ran across him at Airtran Airways, where he was learning to be a F/O on the new B-717. I am very sorry about your brush with feds. The only solice you can take is that the little prick who raked you over the coals for a few hundred measly feet is only a fed because he can't do what you do. If he could make a living ridding in the pointy end of a jet powered arrow at FL 410 he would. But then again they are all lying pricks, and he will be the first to tell you, "I don't really want to make 3 times what I make, have twice as many days off, and travel all over the world for free. I much prefer to sit at a desk from 9 - 5, 5 days a week, and then take advantage of small obscure regulations so I can ruin other aviators lives." As you can see I have a very high opinnion of the FAA. JetPaul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: Intrex <woodlema(at)intrex.net>
Subject: Re: MY STUGLE
I tend to have a bit of a vindictive nature myself. I, if I were so inclined my want to take some time, and money to hire a PI to investigate this weasel, and see if there is any dirt you can drop a nickle on, like possibiley documented IRS infractions. Would be interesting to see him fight an IRS audit, with documentation that verifies he cheated for a few bucks on his taxes. Or hire a georgous babe. to entrap him, get him on film then let him decide if his infraction would be worthy of revealing to his wife. I could be dangerous if I were a millionair. If I were wealthy, like in filthy rich, I would purchase all his outstanding notes, like mortgage, and if he were so much as a day late forclose immediately, and reapeat the process till he was flat broke. Oh yea, I can think of a lot of ways to get even with people, and the FAA makes me think of more and more when I hear of this kind of abuse of power. Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: <JETPAUL(at)aol.com> To: ; Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 11:24 AM Subject: Re: MY STUGLE > Man J.B. I hate to hear that. > > It is my worst nightmare as well. > > All you can do is fight. And that's expensive. A.O.P.A. is the best money > ever spent for a subscription to a club (outside of the TCFG of course). > > Having access to the legal representation in FAA enforcement actions is worth > the money alone. > > This is all probabley water under the bridge for you J.B., but I'm just > thinking out loud. > > > 1) Was the crane in question permanent, or temp. > > 2) If temp. was it found in the current notams for the dates?? > > 3) Did it have effective times of the day for being up or down? > > Maybe one of these could help make a loop holefor your escape. But I am sure > you have already lost more sleep over this than is possible, and all these > things have gone through your mind already. > > On a lighter note: WOW, GO FLY THE HEAVY WWII IRON!!!!!!!! > > I had the good fortune to meet one of the Captains of the B-17, and the B-24 > for the Collings foundation. When I met him he was only 24 years old, type > rated in both airplanes, and could give check rides in either one. What a > remarkable young man. > > He was learning to be a B-727 Flight Engineer when we first met. I then ran > across him at Airtran Airways, where he was learning to be a F/O on the new > B-717. > > I am very sorry about your brush with feds. The only solice you can take is > that the little prick who raked you over the coals for a few hundred measly > feet is only a fed because he can't do what you do. > > If he could make a living ridding in the pointy end of a jet powered arrow at > FL 410 he would. > > But then again they are all lying pricks, and he will be the first to tell > you, "I don't really want to make 3 times what I make, have twice as many > days off, and travel all over the world for free. I much prefer to sit at a > desk from 9 - 5, 5 days a week, and then take advantage of small obscure > regulations so I can ruin other aviators lives." > > As you can see I have a very high opinnion of the FAA. > > JetPaul > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: 520 Commander N2609B
In a message dated 03/07/02 05:46:32 Pacific Standard Time, kerry(at)kvelectric.com writes: > I have an opportunity to get a contract flying river rafters out of the > Colorado river canyon, south of the Grand Canyon. I thought a Twin > Commander > would do the trick. The contract would pay for this bird in about 6 months, > assuming there are no major problems, but I am concerned about the > reliability of a 1954 aircraft Kerry, We had a similar topic come up a few months ago. Before we get to the airplane, we need to get to you and the operation. What you are proposing is Air Taxi work and you need to look at getting you and the airplane through that process. Does the river running company have an FAR 135 certificate? Do they expect you to have one? Putting an airplane -- especially an older part 91 aircraft on a 135 certificate can be expensive. Better look at the logs and make sure the documentation is in place for each and every component. Anything that does not have a "yellow tag" will have to be removed and overhauled. It's a paper chase. Next, the 520 is a good airframe but has the smaller cabin. You're flying river rats and all their gear. Is this cabin large enough? What airports are you working out of at what temperatures? The AC-520 has surprisingly good One Engine Inoperative climb ability but toss in Grand Canyon temps in the summer and I'd want more power:weight. Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: Kerry Johnson <kerry(at)kvelectric.com>
Subject: Re: 520 Commander N2609B
Hi there Wing Commander, I realize the tasks you mention will take substantial effort, but here's how the deal lays out. The rafting company isn't 135, my partner and I are purchasing an existing 135 opp. The strip is a 3000' dirt elevation about 3000'. Cabin size should be OK, since the prior contractor used a C 206 for the same duty. The River Runner Co wants a twin and has been quoted pricing from another company using a Twin Otter. I have an in because my neighbor is the head guide for the R.R. Company. The max number of people to carry per trip is 5 and the trip length is less than 100 NM. The trip is from Hells Kitchen vicinity to SGU. This isn't anything I have to do, but it sounds like fun, so I'm looking into it. Kerry -----Original Message----- From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com [mailto:CloudCraft(at)aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 9:47 AM To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com Subject: Re: 520 Commander N2609B In a message dated 03/07/02 05:46:32 Pacific Standard Time, kerry(at)kvelectric.com writes: I have an opportunity to get a contract flying river rafters out of the Colorado river canyon, south of the Grand Canyon. I thought a Twin Commander would do the trick. The contract would pay for this bird in about 6 months, assuming there are no major problems, but I am concerned about the reliability of a 1954 aircraft Kerry, We had a similar topic come up a few months ago. Before we get to the airplane, we need to get to you and the operation. What you are proposing is Air Taxi work and you need to look at getting you and the airplane through that process. Does the river running company have an FAR 135 certificate? Do they expect you to have one? Putting an airplane -- especially an older part 91 aircraft on a 135 certificate can be expensive. Better look at the logs and make sure the documentation is in place for each and every component. Anything that does not have a "yellow tag" will have to be removed and overhauled. It's a paper chase. Next, the 520 is a good airframe but has the smaller cabin. You're flying river rats and all their gear. Is this cabin large enough? What airports are you working out of at what temperatures? The AC-520 has surprisingly good One Engine Inoperative climb ability but toss in Grand Canyon temps in the summer and I'd want more power:weight. Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: 520 Commander N2609B
HI KERRY.... As one who has recently had "meaningful contact" with the FAA, I can promise you that you will need to operate under part 135. I know people try different ways around this, like "well, we don't charge for the airplane ride, only the river guide and raft rental" There are other scams but they absolutely will not stand the test. There is a case where a private resort was using a lake amphibian to move guests to the island. The pilot didn't have a commercial ticket. Their argument was the same, We only charge for the guest' stay, not the transportation. The FAA judge found in favor of the FAA (big surprise there) that the cost of the transportation was "hidden" in the cost of the stay and therefore a 135 operation was in order. Another case was a guy in AZ who was trying the "ride share" deal. Dividing the cost by the passengers. He then charged them a "guide fee" to fly them into Mexico. The FAA said that since his only reason for going into Mexico was to "Guide" these people, You guessed it, it is a 135 operation. The feds are paretically hard on these violations as they feel a public trust has been broken. You WILL be considered a 135 operation and if you really don't think so, ask the FAA to provide, in writing, that what you do is somehow exempt. That said, WC Gordon is correct, it is very difficult (read expensive) to bring any old airplane into 135 compliance. Every component that has a TBO, including accessories like vacuum pumps, will need to be within there TBO. This is only the beginning. I strongly recommend you consider purchasing a Commander that is on or has recently been released from part 135. Good luck...don't kid yourself.....There not as stupid as you hope......jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: Kerry Johnson <kerry(at)kvelectric.com>
Subject: Re: 520 Commander N2609B
I have not run a 135 operation before, but I'm hoping it will be more fun than the Electrical business has been for the last few years. I'm scaled down to only 35 employees now, from a high of 120, if a 135 operation is worse than an Electrical Contracting Bus with 120 employees, I may just try and get a job delivering the mail. (on foot) :0) The 135 will have 4 or 5 employees, 2 mechanics, and three pilots (pilots will not be full time to start) and if this deal goes through, we will have 4 aircraft; Aerostar 601P, Beech Serria C-24, Cessna 172, and Commander 520/560. The 601P is 70% booked with 100% utilization of 250 hours per year, the C-24 & C 172 will be used as rental / training. When we started putting this 135 deal together, I didn't know about the river rafter needs, but if it works out, it could be a nice addition to our start up. Kerry -----Original Message----- From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com [mailto:CloudCraft(at)aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 12:25 PM To: kerry(at)kvelectric.com Subject: Re: 520 Commander N2609B In a message dated 03/07/02 10:48:18 Pacific Standard Time, kerry(at)kvelectric.com writes: The River Runner Co wants a twin and has been quoted pricing from another company using a Twin Otter. That's tough competition. That's exactly what I had to go up against in Samoa and Inter Island Air got trounced. Of course, part of it was that avgas was near $3.00/gallon and Jet-A was $0.82 per gallon. Ever run a Part 135 operation before? Keith ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: Kerry Johnson <kerry(at)kvelectric.com>
Subject: Re: 520 Commander N2609B
HI JB, I'm already planning on running this as a 135 and while I don't suppose I fully understand what I'm getting into, I have been around the block a time or two. I've dealt with Government before many times, Corps of Engineers, Army, Air Force, Navy, BLM, Forest Service etc. And, I do know the meaning of "Paper Work". Every year we put about 12 file cabinet size boxes full of "Paper Work" into storage, so I do have some idea what it means to deal with the Feds. Kerry -----Original Message----- From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com [mailto:YOURTCFG(at)aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 12:41 PM To: kerry(at)kvelectric.com; CloudCraft(at)aol.com Cc: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com Subject: Re: 520 Commander N2609B HI KERRY.... As one who has recently had "meaningful contact" with the FAA, I can promise you that you will need to operate under part 135. I know people try different ways around this, like "well, we don't charge for the airplane ride, only the river guide and raft rental" There are other scams but they absolutely will not stand the test. There is a case where a private resort was using a lake amphibian to move guests to the island. The pilot didn't have a commercial ticket. Their argument was the same, We only charge for the guest' stay, not the transportation. The FAA judge found in favor of the FAA (big surprise there) that the cost of the transportation was "hidden" in the cost of the stay and therefore a 135 operation was in order. Another case was a guy in AZ who was trying the "ride share" deal. Dividing the cost by the passengers. He then charged them a "guide fee" to fly them into Mexico. The FAA said that since his only reason for going into Mexico was to "Guide" these people, You guessed it, it is a 135 operation. The feds are paretically hard on these violations as they feel a public trust has been broken. You WILL be considered a 135 operation and if you really don't think so, ask the FAA to provide, in writing, that what you do is somehow exempt. That said, WC Gordon is correct, it is very difficult (read expensive) to bring any old airplane into 135 compliance. Every component that has a TBO, including accessories like vacuum pumps, will need to be within there TBO. This is only the beginning. I strongly recommend you consider purchasing a Commander that is on or has recently been released from part 135. Good luck...don't kid yourself.....There not as stupid as you hope......jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: Kerry Johnson <kerry(at)kvelectric.com>
Subject: Re: 520 Commander N2609B
Keith, I'm not sold on this particular Commander in any regard, it's just that when I put together the dirt strip, and everything else the performance seemed to match quite well. I suppose a Shrike, or 500B would also work well. But, I wouldn't have them paid for in 6 months, it would take two years, which still isn't bad. As to the electrical bus, I doubt I will ever be through with it. I'm really hoping the 135 will be a nice diversion. Kerry -----Original Message----- From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com [mailto:YOURTCFG(at)aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 12:53 PM To: kerry(at)kvelectric.com Subject: Re: 520 Commander N2609B HI KERRY..Yes, it sounds like it could work well for you, but I still recommend that you consider a commander that is already to go. I ahve a great horror story about a very well respected, 50 year old 135 operation who lost a complete flying season in a million $ turbine Otter because the FAA wouldn't approve a minor paper work flaw. It is an amazing story and almost bankrupt the company.....Good luck and keep the electrical CO just in case.jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Fun FAR 135
In a message dated 03/07/02 11:43:12 Pacific Standard Time, kerry(at)kvelectric.com writes: > I have not run a 135 operation before, but I'm hoping it will be more fun > than the Electrical business has been for the last few years. I don't know how much fun the electrical biz was NOT, but a FAR 135 is less about flying and more about paperwork. You are about to become a publishing company. Manuals, revisions, revisions to revisions, records of revisions, and more. That you are buying an operating certificate holder should make this pretty easy, if the current named managers (read: Dir Ops and Chief Pilot) stay in place. Looks like you could have fun with this, but do consider a Commander, as Capt. JimBob said, that is on a Part 135. Not that an airplane on 135 is better than another one. In fact, I often remind guys looking at airplanes that a Commander on 135 was supposed to be making money and could actually suffer from miserly maintenance. But! The advantage is the paperwork trail. A log book notation of "Firewall forward" means nothing, for example, in the FAR 135 world. There has to be o/h history on every component and the time since and TBO of every accessory on the airplane has to be documented, down to the screws, nuts and bolts. As we've said on this email net before, we want you to be a Commander owner: a happy, informed, legal, Commander owner. I know this guy in the Pacific Northwest that could make a great Director of Operations or Chief Pilot for you. He has lots of 135 experience and a great rapport with the FAA, especially for the past 8 months .... ;-) Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: 520 Commander N2609B
In a message dated 03/07/02 11:55:55 Pacific Standard Time, kerry(at)kvelectric.com writes: > I've dealt with Government before many times, Corps of Engineers, > Army, Air Force, Navy, BLM, Forest Service etc KiloVolt, Being based in SGU and with your tollerance for government contracts, buy a Commander 500B, U or S (and 500A Colemill) and bid Forest Service and BLM contracts? The truth be known, many of the USFS and BLM contract specifications are built around an Aero Commander. At least that's what the contract officer told me a long time ago when I flew Air Attack and Utility contracts in Commanders. Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: Kerry Johnson <kerry(at)kvelectric.com>
Subject: Re: 520 Commander N2609B
Hmmm, Thanks Keith, I think I'll look into that, any idea where to start looking? I always thought they had their own fleet of aircraft, except for fighting fires. What sort of flying do they contract? Kerry -----Original Message----- From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com [mailto:CloudCraft(at)aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 1:36 PM To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com Subject: Re: 520 Commander N2609B In a message dated 03/07/02 11:55:55 Pacific Standard Time, kerry(at)kvelectric.com writes: I've dealt with Government before many times, Corps of Engineers, Army, Air Force, Navy, BLM, Forest Service etc KiloVolt, Being based in SGU and with your tollerance for government contracts, buy a Commander 500B, U or S (and 500A Colemill) and bid Forest Service and BLM contracts? The truth be known, many of the USFS and BLM contract specifications are built around an Aero Commander. At least that's what the contract officer told me a long time ago when I flew Air Attack and Utility contracts in Commanders. Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Re: 520 Commander N2609B
WCG Wrote: >a long time ago when I flew Air Attack contracts in Commanders. I just have this feeling that there's a WHOLE lot we don't know about Mr Gordon's past (assuming that is his real name!) :-) So, when ya gonna tell us about dead-sticking a 685? chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Contract Flying
In a message dated 03/07/02 13:24:23 Pacific Standard Time, kerry(at)kvelectric.com writes: > I always thought they had their own fleet of aircraft, except for fighting > fires. What sort of flying do they contract? Kerry and others that are interested, The U.S. Forest Service and BLM do have their own agency aircraft (many are Commanders) but they do contract each season for additional use. Of the two most common uses are "Air Attack," the orbiting command post for fire fighting (although I do see that the USFS is using Turbo Commanders - finally!) and Utility contract, general transport of personnel. These are seasonal contracts and you have to install antennas for their particular radios, so there is some "plumbing" to be done if you win. The utility contracts are often won by Cessna CE-402s and Piper Chieftans. Ahhh, but the Air Attack aircraft are limited to Commanders, Skymasters and Partenavias. High wing twins. Air Attack aircraft will get put on utilty missions at the descretion of the Zone Air Unit. On the up side, you get paid for availability, plus an hourly rate when the aircraft is flown. This is one of the few avenues in the universe to get paid for an airplane sitting on the ground. The aircraft must be on a 135 certificate and the pilot(s) must be BLM / Forest Service qualified and take a separate checkride with the agency. The requirements are above and beyond the normal FAR 135 P.I.C. minimums. Great flying for great people. There are several Commander operators who do this, some participating on this list, I believe. It's a gamble, though. You are in a bid situation -- but you know all about that. Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Pandora's Box
In a message dated 03/07/02 13:34:29 Pacific Standard Time, chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com writes: > So, when ya gonna tell us about dead-sticking a 685? After I do it, if I ever do ... but it's so far down on my list of things to do that I really don't think I'll get around to it. (Please do not send me Round Tuits. I have 3) As far as my past? Better not open that Pandorra's Box; I don't want to steal the FAA spotlight from Capt. Jimbob. Wing Commander Gordon (name changed to protect the guilty) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Re: 520 Commander N2609B
WCG aint the guy who deadsticked the 685 but he did hear the story 1st hand from the guy that did. I only heard it fifth hand. Milt ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 1:35 PM Subject: Re: 520 Commander N2609B > WCG Wrote: > >a long time ago when I flew Air Attack contracts in Commanders. > > I just have this feeling that there's a WHOLE lot we don't > know about Mr Gordon's past (assuming that is his real name!) > :-) > > So, when ya gonna tell us about dead-sticking a 685? > > chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: Tylor Hall <thall5(at)kc.rr.com>
Subject: 690 VS B200
Commander Gang, I was talking to an Air Ambulance company that operates a Cessna 421 moving patients from a small Colorado town to Den and ABQ. They have an opportunity to bid on a new contract using a turbine aircraft. The competition is a Beech 200. We spoke of faster climb and higher cruse speeds. Easier entry and other operating items. The flight times in a 421 are only 1.3 hours each way. A 690 would be under an hour. What would the operating cost be? $450/ hour? How does the PT6 compare to the TPE-331-5? Any ideas? Regards, Tylor Hall tylorh(at)sound.net 913-422-8869 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: Allen Reed <allen_reed2(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: RNCP
Nico,This cat just sent me these specs. out of the clear blue,I think he ment for them to go to the chat site thats why I sent them on. Hell man I can't get farther than Jaws -Acola.BIG AL >From: "Nico van Niekerk" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> >To: "Allen Reed" , > >Subject: Re: Fw: RNCP >Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 08:35:46 -0800 > >Would you share with us the details of your trip to SA? >Nico > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Allen Reed" <allen_reed2(at)hotmail.com> >To: >Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 6:42 AM >Subject: Fwd: Fw: RNCP > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Luciano Indrio" <umvemve(at)iafrica.com> > > >To: "Allen Reed" > > >Subject: Fw: RNCP > > >Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:42:43 +0200 > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: Luciano Indrio <umvemve(at)iafrica.com> > > >To: Allen Reed > > >Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 11:40 AM > > >Subject: Re: RNCP > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > These are the specifications of my aircraft. I will probably place >it >on > > >the > > > > market early in June...........I will consider delivering it to the >UK > > > > inclusive in the asking price of $195.000,00. I have flown it from >the > > >US > > > > to S.Africa. It's a good ship. The aircraft is undergoing an annual > > > > inspection now and could be delivered with a fresh lower spar cap > > >inspection > > > > if necessary.........Never damaged, always flown with good care and > > > > airmanship.......I will be buying a S.I.A.I. Marchetti SF260C in > > > > Italy.......I will regret parting company with this fine lady. The >only > > > > consolation will be that I will fly another worthy thoroughbred born >of > > > > outstanding designer's excellence as Ted Smith's great >Aerocommander. >If > > > > anyone would be looking for a good Commander.............. more >pictures > > > > would be available if required................Regards to all > > > > > > > > Luciano Indrio > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Allen Reed <allen_reed2(at)hotmail.com> > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 3:46 AM > > > > Subject: RNCP > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well Gang,IT finally happened,yes,we RED-NECKS have our first > > > > terrorist!This > > > > > guy tried to blow up a tourist bus full of Yankees but was caught > > >while > > > > > being drug down the road by the bus.Yep,he is now in custody,but >has > > >not > > > > > been released from the hospital where they are treating him for > > >tail-pipe > > > > > burns on his lips!! Big Al Hang in there J.B. > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: >http://mobile.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: MY STUGLE
THANKS NICO..jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: 690 VS B200
In a message dated 03/07/02 19:11:34 Pacific Standard Time, thall5(at)kc.rr.com writes: > They have an opportunity to bid on a new contract using a turbine aircraft. > The competition is a Beech 200. We spoke of faster climb and higher cruse > speeds. Easier entry and other operating items. Tylor, Your operating assumptions are right. As far as the PT-6 vs. TPE-331 debate, each engine has it's loyal cult following and you'll never convert anyone from one to the other. On a more rational note, Med Ex (as they're known) of Scottsdale, AZ, operates Lears and 690s in air ambulance missions. They used to use MU-2s but the insurance got too high and switched to the Turbo Commander and seemed happy to do so. They may be the leader in air ambulance ops and I hear their call sign just about every time I fly, all across the country. They could have chosen King Airs but didn't. Must be a reason. Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2002
From: David Maytag <dmaytag(at)commspeed.net>
Subject: Re: 690 VS B200
Tylor, I used to fly air ambulance in King Airs for Mayo Aviation in Denver (probably your King Air 200 competition). I can tell you that, in terms of using Commanders for air ambulance, there are two things that can bite you: 1. Mechanics, and 2. Nurses Years ago, Air Evac in PHX had two 900's with cargo doors. They hated them and sold them within a couple of years. Who did their maintenance? Sawyer Aviation (a long time Cessna dealer). They switched to Conquest II's. Hmmm. The good news is the more you fly a Commander, the more reliable it tends to be. Just make sure you have a good Commander mechanic near by. Nurses can be a huge thorn in the side of an air ambulance company. Not all companies have trouble but I have heard the horror stories. Anyway, once a nurse tastes the inside of that King Air 200 they seem to hate everything else. You just can't knock the cabin in those things. As for loading, the Commander is definitely easier to load but the Lifeport systems in the Kingairs now make it surprisingly easy to load the KingAir. I forgot #3. Pilots. Pilot training and proficiency is so important with any Garrett powered operation. It is so much easier for a careless pilot torch a Garrett (especially on fast turnarounds) than the PT-6. At least any accredited air ambulance company has minimum requirements of 3000 hours so hopefully most air ambulance pilots can watch a gauge and pull a lever if need be. Of course, we all know that the Commander is the best single pilot mountain airplane you can buy. I'd pick the Commander if it was up to me. But, I may be a little biased. Just tell the nurses to sit down and mind their own business. David ----- Original Message ----- From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 11:08 PM Subject: Re: 690 VS B200 In a message dated 03/07/02 19:11:34 Pacific Standard Time, thall5(at)kc.rr.com writes: They have an opportunity to bid on a new contract using a turbine aircraft. The competition is a Beech 200. We spoke of faster climb and higher cruse speeds. Easier entry and other operating items. Tylor, Your operating assumptions are right. As far as the PT-6 vs. TPE-331 debate, each engine has it's loyal cult following and you'll never convert anyone from one to the other. On a more rational note, Med Ex (as they're known) of Scottsdale, AZ, operates Lears and 690s in air ambulance missions. They used to use MU-2s but the insurance got too high and switched to the Turbo Commander and seemed happy to do so. They may be the leader in air ambulance ops and I hear their call sign just about every time I fly, all across the country. They could have chosen King Airs but didn't. Must be a reason. Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2002
From: N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net>
Subject: 560 vs 685
Been preoccupied with my own stugle for awhile. Someone asked me to compare a 560 to the 685 and I cant remember who it was. You really need to define your mission 1st. These 2 planes are totally different in their capabilities, performance,load carrying ability, and complexity. If one is close to what you need the other certainly is far from what you need. From what I remember of your needs I really think the 680 FP best fits the bill. Neither the 685 nor the straight 560 would make a good mountain plane. Going over the mountains in the 685 is OK even with an occasional pit stop at high altitude but this has to be done in good weather and lightly loaded. Another option might be a 601P. The biggest problem is none of the nonturbo models give adequate climb performance at high DA and you're really in trouble if you lose an engine on takeoff or climbout and are surrounded by mountains. The 685 is an extremely poor performer single engine at high DA. Short of a turbine there probably is no plane that really fits you needs and that will bust the budget. Guess I really haven't been too helpful. Milt ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2002
From: Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net>
Subject: Back up
Hello all. I'm back online and receiving again. Please re-send anything that was bounced back to you in the past couple of days if you did not redirect it to my hotmail account. Have a great weekend! Barry Hancock 9 Leatherwood Court Coto de Caza, CA 92679 (949) 300-5510 radialpower(at)cox.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2002
From: N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net>
Subject: My stugle and the FAA
The first aerocommander I tried to purchase was a 680E N790K. It was being rebuilt by an old commander curmudgeon James Leverenz. Some of you probably know him. He has spent the last 15 years buying derelict 680s and refurbishing them. He does one a year and does a really great job. Given that back then I could barely spell the word commander much less inspect one (I hadnt found the TCFG yet either) I took my good friend and local mechanic (the retired FAA inspector) with me to do a prebuy. He did a thorough inspection and helped me beat the price down. James was so paranoid over what this guy had found he refused top sell the plane to be flown out of fear this retired inspector would come after him for some infraction. Instead he sold it to an A&P school as a maintenance trainer. And so this beautiful and airworthy 680 spends its life being taken apart and put back together. This was my first experience with the paranoia and fear these little pricks can generate with their unlimited and unchecked power. While I doubt my friend would do anything untoward I never took him on another prebuy. Cheer up JB Im usually grounded for maintenance 3-4 months at a time. The time will go quickly and soon again you'll be writing yipeeeee as you zoom through the valleys of the northwest. Milt ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2002
From: Intrex <woodlema(at)intrex.net>
Subject: Re: 560 vs 685
Concerning the Straight 560, I would have to say. That depends on how high that mountain is. Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: N414C To: Commander BSChat Chat Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 8:19 PM Subject: 560 vs 685 Been preoccupied with my own stugle for awhile. Someone asked me to compare a 560 to the 685 and I cant remember who it was. You really need to define your mission 1st. These 2 planes are totally different in their capabilities, performance,load carrying ability, and complexity. If one is close to what you need the other certainly is far from what you need. From what I remember of your needs I really think the 680 FP best fits the bill. Neither the 685 nor the straight 560 would make a good mountain plane. Going over the mountains in the 685 is OK even with an occasional pit stop at high altitude but this has to be done in good weather and lightly loaded. Another option might be a 601P. The biggest problem is none of the nonturbo models give adequate climb performance at high DA and you're really in trouble if you lose an engine on takeoff or climbout and are surrounded by mountains. The 685 is an extremely poor performer single engine at high DA. Short of a turbine there probably is no plane that really fits you needs and that will bust the budget. Guess I really haven't been too helpful. Milt ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2002
From: N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net>
Subject: FLYIN
What are the dates for the flyin? Milt ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2002
From: Intrex <woodlema(at)intrex.net>
Subject: Re: 560 vs 685
Well, being this has happened to me for like the 8th time, I had to let the group know about it. Most of you know I have been "restoring" my Straight AC560 for some time now. Not long ago I got it out of the paint shop. Well, the pain shop did not paint the LARGE tail numbers on N2722B, infact they did not paint any numbers on it at all. So to move it I used the green masking tape and made numbers. When I got to my home base, I used my computer to make the nice neat 3" numbers. After all being an antique aircraft, I can get away with that. I know, if I want to fly to Bermuda or someplace I need the 12" numbers. I do not plan on leaving the borders of the US anytime soon. Anyhow, I had several folks stop me and tell me today while at RDU. Hey, don;t you know you are supposed to have tail numbers on your plane. Infact one person got down right indignant and said he was going to turn me in to the FAA for flying with no registration numbers. FAA regulations for the 3" numbers say they have to be 3" tall with 2/3 inch between letters, and the letters need to be 2/3 as wide as they are tall, with the exception of some letters and numbers. Also they must be plainly visible, and contrast the paint. Ok. I told this person, so you don;t see any tail numbers. That person said that is right. I told him, you wanna make a $500.00 dollar bet they are there and meet FAA regulations? At this point the person stopped a second, and looked puzzled at me. I repeated my bet, now I am sure he was thinking there must be a catch to this, so he replies Ok, where are they. I pointed to the top of the tail 14' 6" above the ground, and asked if he even bothered to look up. I said now don;t sprain your neck, and hurt your eyes now, I certainly would not want to report to the FAA that you are not very observant calling into question your ability to see. This person looks at me, and just walked away. I have had some fun with my tail number. I guess I will continue to have that fun till the FAA requires 12" numbers on ALL aircraft regardless of age, make or type. Just thought I would share that with you all. Mark ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2002
From: Tylor Hall <tylorh(at)sound.net>
Subject: Re: 560 vs 685 VS 680FL
The mountains are very high. The valley floor at St. George is 3000. Salt Lake City is 4200 and places like Carbon County is 5953. It goes up from there. In the summer it can be very HOT. You may want to consider a 680FP or 680FL, or a 680FLP with the Mr. RPM conversions. They have very good climb rates. More Power Club. Regards, Tylor Hall tylorh(at)sound.net 913-422-8869 -----Original Message----- From: Intrex [mailto:woodlema(at)intrex.net] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 7:46 PM To: N414C; Commander BSChat Chat Subject: Re: 560 vs 685 Concerning the Straight 560, I would have to say. That depends on how high that mountain is. Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: N414C <mailto:N414C(at)cableone.net> To: Commander BSChat Chat Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 8:19 PM Subject: 560 vs 685 Been preoccupied with my own stugle for awhile. Someone asked me to compare a 560 to the 685 and I cant remember who it was. You really need to define your mission 1st. These 2 planes are totally different in their capabilities, performance,load carrying ability, and complexity. If one is close to what you need the other certainly is far from what you need. From what I remember of your needs I really think the 680 FP best fits the bill. Neither the 685 nor the straight 560 would make a good mountain plane. Going over the mountains in the 685 is OK even with an occasional pit stop at high altitude but this has to be done in good weather and lightly loaded. Another option might be a 601P. The biggest problem is none of the nonturbo models give adequate climb performance at high DA and you're really in trouble if you lose an engine on takeoff or climbout and are surrounded by mountains. The 685 is an extremely poor performer single engine at high DA. Short of a turbine there probably is no plane that really fits you needs and that will bust the budget. Guess I really haven't been too helpful. Milt ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: N number sizes
> Intrex wrote: > I used my computer to make the nice neat 3" numbers. > After all being an antique aircraft, I can get away with that. Actually Mark, I urge a bit of caution... I had this same discussion with a local fed who explained that I couldn't have 3" marks on my '47 Ercoupe unless it was only used for "exhibition" purposes (after I proved that it was delivered from the factory with 3" numbers) Title 14 Chapt 1 Part 45 section 29 says that existing 3" numbers are okay until the airplane is repainted at which time you must have 12" numbers. 3" Marks may be displayed on an exhibition, antique, or other aircraft in accordance with 45.22. This section is a little vague, but certainly could cause grief if an FAA employee decided to make an issue out of it. 45.22 Exhibition, antique, and other aircraft: Special rules. (a) When display of aircraft nationality and registration marks in accordance with 45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33 would be inconsistent with exhibition of that aircraft, a U.S.-registered aircraft may be operated without displaying those marks anywhere on the aircraft if: (1) It is operated for the purpose of exhibition, including a motion picture or television production, or an airshow; (2) Except for practice and test fights necessary for exhibition purposes, it is operated only at the location of the exhibition, between the exhibition locations, and between those locations and the base of operations of the aircraft; and (3) For each flight in the United States: (i) It is operated with the prior approval of the Flight Standards District Office, in the case of a flight within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for the takeoff airport, or within 4.4 nautical miles of that airport if it is within Class G airspace; or (ii) It is operated under a flight plan filed under either 91.153 or 91.169 of this chapter describing the marks it displays, in the case of any other flight. (b) A small U.S.-registered aircraft built at least 30 years ago or a U.S.-registered aircraft for which an experimental certificate has been issued under 21.191(d) or 21.191(g) for operation as an exhibition aircraft or as an amateur-built aircraft and which has the same external configuration as an aircraft built at least 30 years ago may be operated without displaying marks in accordance with 45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33 if: (1) It displays in accordance with 45.21(c) marks at least 2 inches high on each side of the fuselage or vertical tail surface consisting of the Roman capital letter "N" followed by: (i) The U.S. registration number of the aircraft; or (ii) The symbol appropriate to the airworthiness certificate of the aircraft ("C", standard; "R", restricted; "L", limited; or "X", experimental) followed by the U.S. registration number of the aircraft; and (2) It displays no other mark that begins with the letter "N" anywhere on the aircraft, unless it is the same mark that is displayed under paragraph (b)(1) of this section. (c) No person may operate an aircraft under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section -- (1) In an ADIZ or DEWIZ described in Part 99 of this chapter unless it temporarily bears marks in accordance with 45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33; (2) In a foreign country unless that country consents to that operation; or (3) In any operation conducted under Part 121, 133, 135, or 137 of this chapter. (d) If, due to the configuration of an aircraft, it is impossible for a person to mark it in accordance with 45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33, he may apply to the Administrator for a different marking procedure. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2002
From: Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net>
Subject: I talk about it enough...
Sorry to those of you who still have dinosaur modems...this file is a bit large. Had a photo shoot for my newly painted CJ yesterday. Thought I would share what I fly when not behind the yoke of 680E. Barry Hancock Flying Bdog Enterprises (949) 300-5510 radialpower(at)cox.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2002
From: Russell Legg <rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: My stugle
G'day Jim, Your future must always be with what you enjoy most. That's flying! I know is is easy for me to say sitting right across down under, but I am also sitting in a position which gives me crystal clear vision. Jim... I don't know of your financial status but temporary hiatuses always seem to progress remarkably quickly, at least once you have the opportunity to regroup and think it all through...that's right where you are now. This immediate period is the dangerous bit...have the confidence of your courage and conviction to carry you through this. Don't spend any more money with the legal stuff...this will just drain you away forever, no matter how friendly your attorney is. Rather, it is time for a new challenge... Right now you need a new project...go do what you do best...go buy one of those Commanders that are rotting away on that strip nearby and set about a restoration...your fantastic Commander network has actually prepared you for this moment...plan the first flight to coincide with the completion of the project right at the end of your down time...put every ounce of your feelings into turning it back into something you love most! Your new Commander would bare the name "Spirit of Free Enterprise" right across the nose in Victorian cursive! Jim...don't be down...give yourself some thinking time right now...you are already on track to exit the next tunnel with N333JS right before West Columbia! Big Ozzie hugs Russell ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2002
From: N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Your local FSDO inspector
Your local FSDO inspector is there when you need him. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2002
From: Bow <w.bow(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: MY STUGLE
JB wrote.. I apologize for the last few weeks of relative silence on this list, I simply haven't felt mush like talking airplanes (still dont) while I waited Thanks for your patients........jb Bilbo says... Those who can, DO.(this part is you JB) Those who can't TEACH. Those who can't teach, teach Physical Ed. Those who can't teach P.E go to work at the FAA. I agree with the take the ""120 day to do something good for 222", and be glad you don't make your living with your ticket. It would be very expensive for me to loose my income and my passion for 120 days. Keep the faith JB. That might be what you might suggest to me. I hope. Bilbo ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2002
From: Intrex <woodlema(at)intrex.net>
Subject: Re: MY STUGLE
Does that 120 days mean you cannot "be a passenger" with a friend who owns an airplane and likes to fly from the right seat of his plane. I find myself often just for fun flying from the right seat leaving the left seat wide open for a "passenger" Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: Bow To: COMMANDERTECH(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 9:13 AM Subject: Re: MY STUGLE JB wrote.. I apologize for the last few weeks of relative silence on this list, I simply haven't felt mush like talking airplanes (still dont) while I waited Thanks for your patients........jb Bilbo says... Those who can, DO.(this part is you JB) Those who can't TEACH. Those who can't teach, teach Physical Ed. Those who can't teach P.E go to work at the FAA. I agree with the take the ""120 day to do something good for 222", and be glad you don't make your living with your ticket. It would be very expensive for me to loose my income and my passion for 120 days. Keep the faith JB. That might be what you might suggest to me. I hope. Bilbo ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: 560 vs 685
He looks just like you imagine. Mt attorney calls him a "beady eyed Nimrod" Late 20s, with an ATP, NOT flying for an airline, Hummmmm Thanks for the support....jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: spar suit
In a message dated 03/09/02 09:44:09 Pacific Standard Time, N414C(at)cableone.net writes: > At one time the Twin Commanders owners association was involved in a class > action lawsuit over the wing spar issue. Anyone have any info on this? The Twin Commander Owners' Association was not anything like the Twin Commander Flight Group. It was formed by one man (in particular) who pulled in a few of the affected owners for a class action law suit over the spars that had metallurgical defects. This was a very small group of spars -- a few Turbo Commanders and Shrikes. It is not about the bi-metallic corrosion issue that pushed the spar cap replacement or repetitive inspection that is part of Commander life today. It had to do with the grain structure of the metal itself. The suit was against Alcoa aluminum and Rockwell/Gulfstream/Twin Commander (buy a type certificate and you buy everything that goes with it) alleging that this problem was due to negligence. This suit was dismissed "with prejudice" a few years ago and that's that. Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2002
From: N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Re: spar suit
Is there anything you do not know Keith Steven (Tricycle) Gordon? ----- Original Message ----- From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 12:02 PM Subject: Re: spar suit In a message dated 03/09/02 09:44:09 Pacific Standard Time, N414C(at)cableone.net writes: At one time the Twin Commanders owners association was involved in a class action lawsuit over the wing spar issue. Anyone have any info on this? The Twin Commander Owners' Association was not anything like the Twin Commander Flight Group. It was formed by one man (in particular) who pulled in a few of the affected owners for a class action law suit over the spars that had metallurgical defects. This was a very small group of spars -- a few Turbo Commanders and Shrikes. It is not about the bi-metallic corrosion issue that pushed the spar cap replacement or repetitive inspection that is part of Commander life today. It had to do with the grain structure of the metal itself. The suit was against Alcoa aluminum and Rockwell/Gulfstream/Twin Commander (buy a type certificate and you buy everything that goes with it) alleging that this problem was due to negligence. This suit was dismissed "with prejudice" a few years ago and that's that. Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: spar suit
In a message dated 03/09/02 10:34:50 Pacific Standard Time, N414C(at)cableone.net writes: > > Is there anything you do not know Keith Steven (Tricycle) Gordon? > Yes: Why do women go to the bathroom in groups? Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2002
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: spar suit
In a message dated 3/9/02 10:47:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, N414C(at)cableone.net writes: > Is there anything you do not know Keith Steven (Tricycle) Gordon? THAT ONE WAS EASY, Even I knew about it!! jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: spar suit
In a message dated 03/09/02 11:59:51 Pacific Standard Time, YOURTCFG(at)aol.com writes: > THAT ONE WAS EASY, Even I knew about it!! jb Easy? Or simply old enough to have been around during all of those dog fights? Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2002
From: Jim Crunkleton <crunk12(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: A good day in Commander Land
Hello all. This looks like Capt. Jim is writing to you, however I am actually at his computer. We put N411VV back together today, and she is ready to leave for "Drunk in the Sun" fun at the Southern Most point of the U.S.A. (That's Key West for you Yanks)which is planned for the weekend prior to the T.C.F.G. flying in Columbia, S.C. By the way, everyone is invited. If you are interested drop us an email for details. We (Old Crunk Sr., myself, and Cliff) put in the yellow tagged Hyd. pump, and the yellow tagged accessory drive. We also replaced the Hyd. accumulator with a serviceable unit. Just like Crunk Sr. thought, there was nothing wrong with the unloader valve, nor the rest of the system. We now have a 50 year old airplane that will cycle the flaps from up to down 8 times (YES EIGHT TIMES!!) After building up 1,000 P.S.I. with the hand pump it seems that nothing is impossible under accumulator only pressure. A BIG thanks goes out to our Commander GURU Chris Schuermann for his help in locating a reputable overhaul shop that actually recognized a 50 year old Hyd. pump when it came through the door. JetPaul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2002
From: N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Dates for Flyin?????????
Anyone remember? Milt ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2002
From: Russell Legg <rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Your local FSDO inspector
> Your local FSDO inspector is there when you need him. > Three Cheers for Milt! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2002
From: Russell Legg <rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: spar suit
> In a message dated 03/09/02 10:34:50 Pacific Standard Time, N414C(at)cableone.net > writes: > > > > Is there anything you do not know Keith Steven (Tricycle) Gordon? > > > Yes: Why do women go to the bathroom in groups? > > Wing Commander Gordon Thats easy...WC Gordon...bathrooms are lonely places! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2002
From: N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Intersections
Are intersections defined by 2 dimensions or 3? Is altitude part of an intersections location? In other words can I define a route of flight using intersections depicted on high altitude charts when flying below FL180? Milt ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2002
From: Bow <w.bow(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: spar suit
WCG, How do the tornadoes know where the trailer parks are? for the Doc. Why is an asteroid an asteroid and a hemorrhoid a hemorrhoid? bilbo ----- Original Message ----- From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 1:57 PM Subject: Re: spar suit In a message dated 03/09/02 10:34:50 Pacific Standard Time, N414C(at)cableone.net writes: Is there anything you do not know Keith Steven (Tricycle) Gordon? Yes: Why do women go to the bathroom in groups? Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Intersections
>>Are intersections defined by 2 dimensions or 3? Is altitude part of an intersections location? In other words can I define a route of flight using intersections depicted on high altitude charts when flying below FL180?<< Great question Dr. Milt. An intersection is a radial/DME, two or more radials and now a space-based waypoint. Altitude does not define an intersection except in terms of which en route structure it's part of. Can you file high altitude fixes on a route below FL180? Yes, but your clearance is likely to be read to you as the radial/DME instead of the intersection name. This happens to me in Las Vegas all the time when I fly to Palm Springs. I file a low altitude airway fix but fly the trip at FL240. I never get the named intersection; I get the intersection definition as part of the clearance. It's incredibly stupid, but the ATC computer spits it out that way. Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2002
From: N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Airways
Are Q and G airways high or low altitude airways? Milt ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2002
From: Gary Wroan <gwroan(at)normal.org>
Subject: Re: 560 vs 685
Look at it this way if it wasn't for the "Assholes" how would you pick out the nice guys???? gary -----Original Message----- From: Nico van Niekerk [mailto:nico(at)cybersuperstore.com] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 11:54 PM To: Intrex; Commander BSChat Chat Subject: Re: 560 vs 685 I wish I could see this over-zealous prick wince. You should have sued the sucker for the 500 bucks. This is the time to cuss violently. ----- Original Message ----- From: Intrex <mailto:woodlema(at)intrex.net> To: Commander BSChat Chat Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 6:07 PM Subject: Re: 560 vs 685 Well, being this has happened to me for like the 8th time, I had to let the group know about it. Most of you know I have been "restoring" my Straight AC560 for some time now. Not long ago I got it out of the paint shop. Well, the pain shop did not paint the LARGE tail numbers on N2722B, infact they did not paint any numbers on it at all. So to move it I used the green masking tape and made numbers. When I got to my home base, I used my computer to make the nice neat 3" numbers. After all being an antique aircraft, I can get away with that. I know, if I want to fly to Bermuda or someplace I need the 12" numbers. I do not plan on leaving the borders of the US anytime soon. Anyhow, I had several folks stop me and tell me today while at RDU. Hey, don;t you know you are supposed to have tail numbers on your plane. Infact one person got down right indignant and said he was going to turn me in to the FAA for flying with no registration numbers. FAA regulations for the 3" numbers say they have to be 3" tall with 2/3 inch between letters, and the letters need to be 2/3 as wide as they are tall, with the exception of some letters and numbers. Also they must be plainly visible, and contrast the paint. Ok. I told this person, so you don;t see any tail numbers. That person said that is right. I told him, you wanna make a $500.00 dollar bet they are there and meet FAA regulations? At this point the person stopped a second, and looked puzzled at me. I repeated my bet, now I am sure he was thinking there must be a catch to this, so he replies Ok, where are they. I pointed to the top of the tail 14' 6" above the ground, and asked if he even bothered to look up. I said now don;t sprain your neck, and hurt your eyes now, I certainly would not want to report to the FAA that you are not very observant calling into question your ability to see. This person looks at me, and just walked away. I have had some fun with my tail number. I guess I will continue to have that fun till the FAA requires 12" numbers on ALL aircraft regardless of age, make or type. Just thought I would share that with you all. Mark ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Re: Intersections
CloudCraft(at)aol.com wrote: > Can you file high altitude fixes on a route below FL180? Yes, but your clearance is likely to be read to you as the radial/DME instead of the intersection name. Guess that's kind of annoying for anyone who just spent big bucks for an IFR gps eh? What do you do if you don't have DME? Actually, are GPS fixes horizontally transposed based upon altitude? ie: the DME distance is slant range and would have to get larger with altitude to match a GPS fix right? or am I massivly confused... chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2002
From: Barry Collman <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Dates for Flyin?????????
Hi All, Didn't notice any reply to Milt's question, but earlier this year Capt JimBob (Dad? - well he calls us Kids!!), posted the following message: "HI KIDS............ After much careful thought, I have made arrangements to have the 2002 fly-in at EAGLE AVIATION in West Columbia, SC (CAE) (www.eagle-aviation.com). They are the newest Twin Commander Service Center. David Lipski has agreed to open there facility to us and to help with the logistics of putting the event on 2500 mile from where I live. The date is Sept 27-29. I plan to arrive several days early to complete preparations. Make plans now to attend!! jb" Well, I'm going - anyone else? Best Regards, Barry C UK CommanderLand Rep ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2002
From: JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: spar suit
In a message dated 3/10/2002 2:53:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, CloudCraft(at)aol.com writes: > Having a TV tuned to a channel that is broadcasting The Jerry Springer Show > actually creates a micro low pressure zone. > > Concentrate enough TVs all tuned to the Jerry Springer Show (which is a > natural occurance in a trailer park) and a macro low is formed, which, > under proper condtions, can spawn a tornado or at least alter the track of > an existing one. > > Wing Commander Gordon You Ain't Right Dude!!! But I like it!! JetPaul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2002
From: Intrex <woodlema(at)intrex.net>
Subject: Re: Dates for Flyin?????????
I will, that is close enough for me to make it possible. RDU to CAE. Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: Barry Collman To: Commander BSChat Chat Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 6:50 PM Subject: Re: Dates for Flyin????????? Hi All, Didn't notice any reply to Milt's question, but earlier this year Capt JimBob (Dad? - well he calls us Kids!!), posted the following message: "HI KIDS............ After much careful thought, I have made arrangements to have the 2002 fly-in at EAGLE AVIATION in West Columbia, SC (CAE) (www.eagle-aviation.com). They are the newest Twin Commander Service Center. David Lipski has agreed to open there facility to us and to help with the logistics of putting the event on 2500 mile from where I live. The date is Sept 27-29. I plan to arrive several days early to complete preparations. Make plans now to attend!! jb" Well, I'm going - anyone else? Best Regards, Barry C UK CommanderLand Rep ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: COMMANDER admin
Just an FYI note for everyone... I've noticed that a lot of folks are using various free email services which apparently have VERY limited space available. When the mailbox for such a user gets full, I begin receiving error messages for every post to our list. Sometimes this totals hundreds of messages a day to me. In order to keep from being totally overwhemled, I'm having to remove addresses from the list if I continue to get bounces for several days - I have no idea if an account has been closed, a person is on vacation, or something worse has happened. Anyway, if you're using a limited mailbox service and are going to need to let your mailbox overflow for a while, you might need to contact me when you return to re-subscribe. I'd suggest finding a provider who allows a bit more space as well. No big deal on my end - just list maint. that has to be tended to, but I wanted everyone to know that I do have to drop addresses on occasion. Chris Schuermann ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: Re:
> After much careful thought, I have made arrangements to have the 2002 > fly-in at EAGLE AVIATION I'll be there even if I have to borrow Wing Commander Gordon's tricycle to make the trip! Actually, that just might be a safer ride after "Drunk in the Sun" (I'm not going to refer to him as WCG any more as that's the stock ticker for Williams Communications which has plumeted from $65 to 0.14 causing GREAT personal loss :-( Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Airways
In a message dated 03/10/02 13:29:42 Pacific Standard Time, N414C(at)cableone.net writes: > Are Q and G airways high or low altitude airways? Those would be oceanic or overland routes, originally based on NDBs as opposed to Victor Airways (low altitude enroute) and Jet Route (high alt.) being VOR based airways. The fixes on those shoud be common to both; I'll take a look at some high charts and try to verify. Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Intersections
In a message dated 03/10/02 14:14:51 Pacific Standard Time, chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com writes: > Actually, are GPS fixes horizontally transposed based upon > altitude? ie: the DME distance is slant range and would have to > get larger with altitude to match a GPS fix right? or am I > massivly confused... > You're not confused, you're very sharp and thinking too much. First off, if there is an airway fix in your GPS database and that's where you want to go, but they read you the recipe for the fix, be polite, read back the clearance and go to the named database fix. The truth is, there is lots of slop in airway fixes because they were based on VOR and DME. As pilots, we strive for accuracy. As controllers, they can't see less than a mile resolution (usually more) on their video mapping and radial divergence and DME slant range error is expected. This topic came up on at ATC/User advisory panel I'm on. The new Las Vegas DPs and STARS are all RNAV and each runway has it's own departure fix off the end. The tower will often change parallel runways on us and I told them that required reprogramming the FMS and we couldn't do "immediate take offs" if that was the case. I explained why and they informed me that they can't see the difference on the scopes between the runway fixes at 3 miles and all they cared about was getting aircraft to the mext fix down range. I'm not advocating being sloppy -- but just pointing out that our GPS pinpoint accuracy is lost on en route ATC. Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2002
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: spar suit
In a message dated 03/10/02 16:07:18 Pacific Standard Time, JET PAUL writes: > > You Ain't Right Dude!!! But I like it!! Well come on, Man! What's the answer? I've gots to know ... Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 11, 2002
From: Intrex <woodlema(at)intrex.net>
Subject: Re: liked your pages-http://www.AEROCOMMANDER.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "JennyRogers" <income(at)c4.com> To: Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 3:20 AM Subject: liked your pages-http://www.AEROCOMMANDER.com > Hello. > We have recently visited your site: > http://www.AEROCOMMANDER.com > We thought there was substantial potential for making revenue for you by placing banners or advertising on your site if you have a reasonable flow of traffic. Banners annoy the hell out of people. If I want banners I will go to the lame AOL > We are the largest Internet agency for the placement of Internet advertising. > We are currently sponsoring a high level of payment for two shapes of advertising. > - 1 the standard 46 pixels by 436 pixels or approximately 1/2 inch by 4 1/4 inchs > - 2 the square 136 pixels by 148 pixels or approximately 1 1/4 square. GREAT, now you can suck out the last of my bandwidth with more un-needed graphics, amking an already slow connection worse. > We operate on the pay per click method and checks are issued on the 5th of each month. > Pay per Click means each time a surfer sees the banner ad on your site and clicks though to the advertised site you are paid for the click. > Advertising on your site increases the importance and prestige of your site. > If you are interested in receiving more information about increasing earnings from your web site click here: ARGH, NOT MORE FREEKING ads. I get that stupid annoying IN YOUR Face advertising enough already, take it and place it in an oval oraface where the sun don't shine. IF I want pasted with stupid adds, that show how desperate people are I will sign up for AOL. > and fill out a simple form. > income(at)c4.com(JennyRogers) > World Wide Attractions > Thank you very much. We would like to hear from you. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 11, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: virus
FYI, email from Karl Schiffer contained a virus. Hopefully everyone was smart enough to NOT execute the attached program... chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 11, 2002
From: Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: liked your pages-http://www.AEROCOMMANDER.com
Thank you, I now know who to direct my ill feelings at when I am inundated with pop up advertising obscuring my screen from what I want to look at. If this web site can possibly survive without advertising it will. I do not cruise web sites at all (never), this is primarily due to the "gotcha" type of advertising on web sites. The only sites I go to are for specific aviation information. Some of my friends have software on their browser to specifically kill the advertising before it gets displayed but it still slows down the data stream, to bad it can't also go out and maim the web site that the advertising represents. If the web master needs funding to keep this site going I hope he would turn to the users of this site before he lets the advertising barracudas in with their pixels of garbage. I believe our members would forward additional funds to keep the site free of advertising. "Advertising on your site increases the importance and prestige of your site" Nothing could be further from the truth just like the advertising that is being peddled. You sound like a death insurance sales person. The prestige of this site will be eradicated if any advertising is on the site, there is nothing important about advertising on a web site except for those sites that have to sell their soul to exist. If advertising does sleaze it's way into this site due to financial pressures, and if it's based on "pay per click method" I will gladly click madly on the advertising icon to up the amount of the cheque, that way all we would need is one add and everybody can click on it a few hundred times per month. Jenny Rogers, go away, stay away and don't come back! Tom... ----- Original Message ----- From: "JennyRogers" <income(at)c4.com> To: Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 00:20 Subject: liked your pages-http://www.AEROCOMMANDER.com > Hello. > We have recently visited your site: > http://www.AEROCOMMANDER.com > We thought there was substantial potential for making revenue for you by placing banners or advertising on your site if you have a reasonable flow of traffic. > We are the largest Internet agency for the placement of Internet advertising. > We are currently sponsoring a high level of payment for two shapes of advertising. > - 1 the standard 46 pixels by 436 pixels or approximately 1/2 inch by 4 1/4 inchs > - 2 the square 136 pixels by 148 pixels or approximately 1 1/4 square. > We operate on the pay per click method and checks are issued on the 5th of each month. > Pay per Click means each time a surfer sees the banner ad on your site and clicks though to the advertised site you are paid for the click. > Advertising on your site increases the importance and prestige of your site. > If you are interested in receiving more information about increasing earnings from your web site click here: > and fill out a simple form. > income(at)c4.com(JennyRogers) > World Wide Attractions > Thank you very much. We would like to hear from you. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 11, 2002
From: Gary Wroan <gwroan(at)normal.org>
Subject: Re: liked your pages-http://www.AEROCOMMANDER.com
At my AGE anything that "POPS-up" Can't be all bad!!!!! :o) gary -----Original Message----- From: Tom Fisher [mailto:tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 10:12 AM To: commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com; JennyRogers Subject: Re: liked your pages-http://www.AEROCOMMANDER.com Thank you, I now know who to direct my ill feelings at when I am inundated with pop up advertising obscuring my screen from what I want to look at. If this web site can possibly survive without advertising it will. I do not cruise web sites at all (never), this is primarily due to the "gotcha" type of advertising on web sites. The only sites I go to are for specific aviation information. Some of my friends have software on their browser to specifically kill the advertising before it gets displayed but it still slows down the data stream, to bad it can't also go out and maim the web site that the advertising represents. If the web master needs funding to keep this site going I hope he would turn to the users of this site before he lets the advertising barracudas in with their pixels of garbage. I believe our members would forward additional funds to keep the site free of advertising. "Advertising on your site increases the importance and prestige of your site" Nothing could be further from the truth just like the advertising that is being peddled. You sound like a death insurance sales person. The prestige of this site will be eradicated if any advertising is on the site, there is nothing important about advertising on a web site except for those sites that have to sell their soul to exist. If advertising does sleaze it's way into this site due to financial pressures, and if it's based on "pay per click method" I will gladly click madly on the advertising icon to up the amount of the cheque, that way all we would need is one add and everybody can click on it a few hundred times per month. Jenny Rogers, go away, stay away and don't come back! Tom... ----- Original Message ----- From: "JennyRogers" < <mailto:income(at)c4.com> income(at)c4.com> To: < commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 00:20 Subject: liked your pages-http://www.AEROCOMMANDER.com > Hello. > We have recently visited your site: > <http://www.AEROCOMMANDER.com> http://www.AEROCOMMANDER.com > We thought there was substantial potential for making revenue for you by placing banners or advertising on your site if you have a reasonable flow of traffic. > We are the largest Internet agency for the placement of Internet advertising. > We are currently sponsoring a high level of payment for two shapes of advertising. > - 1 the standard 46 pixels by 436 pixels or approximately 1/2 inch by 4 1/4 inchs > - 2 the square 136 pixels by 148 pixels or approximately 1 1/4 square. > We operate on the pay per click method and checks are issued on the 5th of each month. > Pay per Click means each time a surfer sees the banner ad on your site and clicks though to the advertised site you are paid for the click. > Advertising on your site increases the importance and prestige of your site. > If you are interested in receiving more information about increasing earnings from your web site click here: > and fill out a simple form. > income(at)c4.com(JennyRogers) > World Wide Attractions > Thank you very much. We would like to hear from you. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 11, 2002
From: Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
Subject: STOP!
Guys.... please do NOT respond to the advertising spam. Our list was simply spammed by someone who found the address. I have no intention of putting ads on the site. If you respond, it only trashes the list - the response address for the spammer was bogus. chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 11, 2002
From: Gary Wroan <gwroan(at)normal.org>
Subject: Re: STOP!
sorry!!! -----Original Message----- From: Chris Schuermann [mailto:chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 10:39 AM To: commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com Subject: STOP! Guys.... please do NOT respond to the advertising spam. Our list was simply spammed by someone who found the address. I have no intention of putting ads on the site. If you respond, it only trashes the list - the response address for the spammer was bogus. chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 11, 2002
From: N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Re: liked your pages-http://www.AEROCOMMANDER.com
Gary, If you come to the next flyin I will have some Viagra paraphenalia as door prizes. Crunk has some and he hasn't been able to get it back down since it popped up. milt At my AGE anything that "POPS-up" Can't be all bad!!!!! :o) gary Thank you, I now know who to direct my ill feelings at when I am inundated with pop up advertising obscuring my screen from what I want to look at. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 11, 2002
From: N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Re: STOP!
Ain't you proud of me for not responding in 4inch tall dirty words Milt > Guys.... please do NOT respond to the advertising spam. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 11, 2002
From: john phillip stubbs <br549phil(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: insurance
Does anyone know a CFI with Commander (piston, geared) experience in the southern CA region? Phil Stubbs


February 13, 2002 - March 11, 2002

Commander-Archive.digest.vol-al