Commander-Archive.digest.vol-ao
June 05, 2002 - July 08, 2002
Oooooo...._MAJOR_ social faux-pas! My appologies to the gents
in brown! Since the topic is open, just what the heck kind of
relay is used in those UPS delivery trucks for the flashers?!?!
Sounds like a huge vaccum contactor!
chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | w.bow <w.bow(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WEST COAST COMMANDERS |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Schuermann" <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: WEST COAST COMMANDERS
>
>
> "w.bow" wrote:
> > FED-EX !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FED-EX????????????????????
> > Shame shame shame.
>
>
> Oooooo...._MAJOR_ social faux-pas! My appologies to the gents
> in brown! Since the topic is open, just what the heck kind of
> relay is used in those UPS delivery trucks for the flashers?!?!
> Sounds like a huge vaccum contactor!
>
> chris
>
That is supposed to keep them awake.
They (Fed Ex) invented the business. It's is understandable.
bilbo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net> |
Certainly HE IS NOT TALKING ABOUT MY MORE THAN AMPLE GIRTH.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
| Subject: | didja see in TAP? |
Might be of interest to somebody...
1955 560A, 8500 TTAF, Serial Number 269, no engines or
props or interior. Good for parts. Come and get it. $1000.
NC/(919) 734-7630; (919) 920-0500.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
Ever have one of those days that you just grind your teeth
at a situation? I've run across a nice airplane that I'd REALLY
like to buy (500B), but due to a slimeball running off with all
my money, have no ability to follow through....
Has anyone heard anything about Gadberry lately? I know that
N89PK still isn't fixed since his shop has been calling mine
asking for help with problems. I suppose I shouldn't complain
TOO much...it's only been a little over a YEAR since he told me
that he'd have it to me "next week". Last time I called (back
in Feb if memory serves), it "will be ready next week". I was
promised notification when it was ready to pick up, but that's
been 5 months ago... Since the local engine shop that overhauled
the engine never got paid (even after being told several times
that payment would be there "next week"), I opted to pay them
out of my pocket rather than allow this shop to get screwed.
I now have enough invested in 89PK that I could have paid cash
for a nice B. I have been truely and completely screwed, but
I've never in my life met someone who could look me straight
in the eye and lie to me like has happened.
Anyway, I'll pay a nice "recovery fee" to anyone who can get
my money back - I sure havn't had any luck!
Sorry for the rant...
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Allen Reed <allen_reed2(at)hotmail.com> |
>
>
>Since the Pledge of Allegiance
>
>and
>
>The Lord's Prayer
>
>are not allowed in most
>
>public schools anymore
>
>because the word "God" is mentioned....
>
>a kid in Arizona wrote the attached
>
>NEW
>
>School
>
>prayer.
>
>I liked it....
>
>
>Now I sit me down in school
>
>Where praying is against the rule
>
>For this great nation under God
>
>Finds mention of Him very odd.
>
>
>If Scripture now the class recites,
>
>It violates the Bill of Rights.
>
>And anytime my head I bow
>
>Becomes a Federal matter now.
>
>Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
>
>That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
>
>The law is specific, the law is precise.
>
>Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
>
>
>For praying in a public hall
>
>Might offend someone with no faith at all.
>
>In silence alone we must meditate,
>
>God's name is prohibited by the state.
>
>We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
>
>And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
>
>They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
>
>To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
>
>We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
>
>And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
>
>It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,
>
>We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong.
>
>We can get our condoms and birth controls,
>
>Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
>
>But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
>
>No word of God must reach this crowd.
>
>It's scary here I must confess,
>
>When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
>
>So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
>
>Should I be shot; My soul please take!
>
>Amen
>
>
>If you aren't ashamed to do this,
>
>please pass this on.
>
>
>Jesus said,
>
>" If you are ashamed of me,"
>
>I will be ashamed of you before my Father."
>
>
>Not ashamed. Passing this on . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com> |
Hey Chris. I AM SORRY!!!!
I know very little of your plight, but here is my thought. If you can get
the engine shop to write you up a paper that you LOANED the money to them, so
they would not be out of pocket, and then have them put a lien (lein??) on
the airplane......Well then at least you have some legal basis to start from.
And then I would turn right around and contact the F.A.A. and tell them that
you want to file a DISPUTE OF OWNERSHIP. The F.A.A. does not get invloved
with legal matters. However they will put you on record as the person who is
contesting the next registration change, and it can't be changed from one
person to the next after that without proof from a court that the matter has
been resolved.
All of you english majors please forgive my run on sentences!!!
Chris call me at 404-375-6568 for more info.
JetPAUL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net> |
You own the name www.aerocommander.com
anyone searching for info on same gets your site as #1 choice. Use the top 6
inches to explain your circumstances and his practices to the world.
Also follow up on jet pauls idea.
That's what the creditors on N414C did and I wouldn't"t pay Cadbury until
all the liens and letters were released. It took him 3 months.
Milt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | w.bow <w.bow(at)att.net> |
This is what I had hoped for when I asked for a list of vendors we(Commander
dude and dudets) had done business with and a report on the results. I
guess I am the only one that gave Chris any input. If there was more input
on who SCREWED WHO we could make better decisions. Come o folks contribute.
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: "N414C" <N414C(at)cableone.net>
To: "Chris Schuermann" ;
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: Rant
> You own the name www.aerocommander.com
> anyone searching for info on same gets your site as #1 choice. Use the top
6
> inches to explain your circumstances and his practices to the world.
> Also follow up on jet pauls idea.
> That's what the creditors on N414C did and I wouldn't"t pay Cadbury until
> all the liens and letters were released. It took him 3 months.
>
> Milt
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kerry Johnson <kerry(at)kvelectric.com> |
I don't have any experiences with Gadberry, or anyone else that has to do
with Commanders.
I have been screwed by Bill Bridges in Brigham City UT, on a previous
Aerostar Annual, and by the Raytheon/Beech Dealer in San Antonio TX when I
took my 58P Baron to them to get a pressurization problem fixed. So I can
relate to the feeling.
I did speak to G.G. just before he cracked up, about a 685 he had for sale.
But that is my only contact with him.
I'm wondering why Chris still has "AIRCENTER INC." featured in the "Links to
Commander related sites". If G.G. is screwing people, I would think Chris
would get his link off the site and then post a warning about doing business
with AIRCENTER.
Kerry
-----Original Message-----
From: w.bow [mailto:w.bow(at)att.net]
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:11 PM
To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Subject: Re: Rant
This is what I had hoped for when I asked for a list of vendors we(Commander
dude and dudets) had done business with and a report on the results. I
guess I am the only one that gave Chris any input. If there was more input
on who SCREWED WHO we could make better decisions. Come o folks contribute.
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: "N414C" <N414C(at)cableone.net>
To: "Chris Schuermann" ;
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: Rant
> You own the name www.aerocommander.com
> anyone searching for info on same gets your site as #1 choice. Use the top
6
> inches to explain your circumstances and his practices to the world.
> Also follow up on jet pauls idea.
> That's what the creditors on N414C did and I wouldn't"t pay Cadbury until
> all the liens and letters were released. It took him 3 months.
>
> Milt
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
Kerry Johnson wrote:
> I'm wondering why Chris still has "AIRCENTER INC." featured in the "Links to
> Commander related sites".
Ya know, my goal was to provide information.... That is still a
valid like to a Commander-related site, so I will leave it in
place. However, since I'm trying to provide information, it
might be valuable to provide more details...
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
Thanks for the kind words and support to all who responded!
Nice have some support out there, and I'm surprised to find
that I'm not the only one in this boat. I've kept this all
under my hat (with exception of a few close friends) over the
last year as I'm not one to go publicly bashing people. Since
I apparently have nothing to loose, and I keep getting asked
when I'm going to get my Commander, I might as well share the
whole sortid story so that you may learn from my mistakes
The short version is that I decided to purchase this airplane
in May 2001. It was "getting an annual" at that time and would
be ready for my inspection the following week. By the time
Sept rolled around, I finally decided that the airplane wasn't
going to make it to me for inspection, so I decided to go to it.
This "perfect" airplane turned out to need quite a few things
including a new engine. It wasn't even close to as-represented,
but I decided to proceed if Gary would take care of a list of
items which we both agreed upon. I physically brought the
engine back to Tulsa for overhaul by my shop and returned it.
Months went by, always "next week". Finally, in Jan 2002, my
board of directors (after severely beating me) threw in the
towl and gave up. I reported this to Gary who proclaimed that
I needed to wait till "next week" and the airplane would be
complete. Next week came and went of course and I requested
a refund and to have my shop paid (which also was always going
to occur "next week"). No joy to date.
One of you (who shall remain nameless) called Gadberry today
to get his side of the story. The call confirmed that N89PK
is still non-flyable but is reported ready "next week".
Gary reports that he's been trying to call me but that I won't
return his calls. This is yet another outright lie. I'd
be tickled to hear anything useful (beyond all the threats).
I've also sent very qualified buyers to Gary for the airplane
in hopes of getting a refund after he sold it, but those
buyers have been turned away rudely. (one was even as well-
known Senator with cash in hand who only wanted another shop
to do the pre-buy inspection. Gary wouldn't allow that!)
In full disclosure, Gary is sitting on $70,000 of my money
and also owes my shop an additional $34,422.
It's obvious that I'll never get the airplane now, so the
only thing I can think to do is to request assistance in
putting some pressure on Gadberry to refund my money. I have
acquired legal council and we are preparing to chase this, but
if anyone can assist, I will make it WELL worth your while.
I just want my money back so I can purchase an airplane. I
spent the entire proceeds from selling my Viking on this down-
payment so I'm pretty much locked-out until I get a refund.
I REALLY want to fly a Commander to the TCFG flyin!
'nuf fer now. Hope this answers some of the questions I
have received... Suggestions welcome.
Chris (flightless in Tulsa) Schuermann
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
Nico van Niekerk wrote:
>
> Chris,
> Give Dan Binda a call.
Can you tell me a bit more Nico? What exactly does Mr Binda do?
thanks,
chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rodd Browne <dc8f(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Last time I tried to contribute on this forum by relating a TRUE experience
involving a certain insurance agency, I was roundly berated by a couple of
our own members. But I agree, we need to keep the spotlight on. Let the
rats scurry where they will. This "PC" crap is killing us. Bush has it
right with his "accountability agenda".
rodd
----- Original Message -----
From: "w.bow" <w.bow(at)att.net>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: Rant
> This is what I had hoped for when I asked for a list of vendors
we(Commander
> dude and dudets) had done business with and a report on the results. I
> guess I am the only one that gave Chris any input. If there was more
input
> on who SCREWED WHO we could make better decisions. Come o folks
contribute.
>
> bilbo
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "N414C" <N414C(at)cableone.net>
> To: "Chris Schuermann" ;
>
> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 8:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Rant
>
>
> > You own the name www.aerocommander.com
> > anyone searching for info on same gets your site as #1 choice. Use the
top
> 6
> > inches to explain your circumstances and his practices to the world.
> > Also follow up on jet pauls idea.
> > That's what the creditors on N414C did and I wouldn't"t pay Cadbury
until
> > all the liens and letters were released. It took him 3 months.
> >
> > Milt
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rodd Browne <dc8f(at)worldnet.att.net> |
An individual should have the right to decide for himself about whom he does
business with. But ACCURATE details would sure help. And of course there
is always (at least) two sides to a story. Lets hear it, but keep it
accurate!
rodd
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Schuermann" <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: Rant
> Kerry Johnson wrote:
> > I'm wondering why Chris still has "AIRCENTER INC." featured in the
"Links to
> > Commander related sites".
>
> Ya know, my goal was to provide information.... That is still a
> valid like to a Commander-related site, so I will leave it in
> place. However, since I'm trying to provide information, it
> might be valuable to provide more details...
>
> Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
In a message dated 6/8/02 7:50:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dc8f(at)worldnet.att.net writes:
> Lets hear it, but keep it
> accurate
WELL SAID......jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
Nico van Niekerk wrote:
> I apologize if the tone of my email suggested that
> Dan may use anything but legal means to get the job done.
I was sure you didn't mean anything odd, but I did have to
ask anyway :-)
Thanks for the pointer. If things don't move off-center
shortly, I just may contact him.
chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Campbell <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com> |
As Chris knows, I had a similar (in fact worse, if you can believe that!) experience
for 2 1/2 years involving 86B, with a loss of about $100,000. The mechanic
who perperated it got in trouble with the authorities over a fairly large number
of frauds and is currently being tried for 41 counts. Apparently the FAA
only got around to pulling his tickets (for life) last week.
The fact is that a number of people seemed to know the guy was bad news, but no
one said anything to me about it. I'm not in favour of a sort of Naderist adversary
atmosphere, but I think when people "keep an even strain" and "don't want
to get involved" they are at least complicit in the outcome.
In my case, I was able to get a judgment for damages and fraud. After a year of
"it will be ready next week" I think you're into that kind of territory. In my
case I may never collect, but I may, as a judgment for damages with fraud is
undischargable by bankruptcy. In this case it would be probable that you could
collect, since Aircenter is an ongoing business. At least you'd get the plane
back.
Bruce Campbell
N4186B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ricki Boyle <ricki(at)rjmboyle.com> |
I have only just recently subscribed to the forum as a prospective
Commander owner/pilot.
I have been flying for 16 years and have had an avid admiration for the
Commander ever since seeing Bob Hoover do his thing in a documentary in
the 80's while I was living/flying in New Zealand. ( I am now based in
the Mid West ).
As someone who has experienced legal complications ranging from patent
infringements, unlawful dismissals, breach of contract and recently,
deceptive trade practices (always battling the shysters, rat-bags and
thugs in business) I can sympathize with the predicaments.
I have certainly found the email dialogue very educational and helpful
to better understand the 'dealers' to steer away from and some of the
pitfalls that can occur.
I hope that there is some solace found from this unfortunate situation
in the fact there is real tangible value in the chat forum for those of
us that are new the 'TCFG community'.
Many thanks.
Regards,
Ricki Boyle.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Campbell [mailto:baruch(at)intelligentflight.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 6:24 PM
To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Subject: re:rant
As Chris knows, I had a similar (in fact worse, if you can believe
that!) experience for 2 1/2 years involving 86B, with a loss of about
$100,000. The mechanic who perperated it got in trouble with the
authorities over a fairly large number of frauds and is currently being
tried for 41 counts. Apparently the FAA only got around to pulling his
tickets (for life) last week.
The fact is that a number of people seemed to know the guy was bad news,
but no one said anything to me about it. I'm not in favour of a sort of
Naderist adversary atmosphere, but I think when people "keep an even
strain" and "don't want to get involved" they are at least complicit in
the outcome.
In my case, I was able to get a judgment for damages and fraud. After a
year of "it will be ready next week" I think you're into that kind of
territory. In my case I may never collect, but I may, as a judgment for
damages with fraud is undischargable by bankruptcy. In this case it
would be probable that you could collect, since Aircenter is an ongoing
business. At least you'd get the plane back.
Bruce Campbell
N4186B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nico van Niekerk <nico(at)insdaq.com> |
I created a Primary DNS, 'send' it and received acknowledgment. Now when I
want to edit it, I receive a 'bad password' error. I checked that the
password is the same as in the acknowledgment email. What now?
Nico
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
Al sent some service-related info which he has noted over
the years. Good info!
Chris
0------snip-----0
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Williams <John.Williams(at)flexcar.com> |
| Subject: | Re: City Wheels Website |
Please work with Josh Turgeon, josh_turgeon(at)mindspring.com on making this
happen.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Shandrow [mailto:shandrow(at)earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 1:18 PM
To: John Williams
Cc: Jeff van Niekerk; Mark von Leffern; Chris Buntine
Subject: City Wheels Website
John,
We are now up and running with our website and can take membership
applications over the internet for all levels of City Wheels memberships.
For gold memberships, the City Wheels website collects information about
user, charges their credit card $10, and then fowards them onto Flexcar's
membership page where they have to re-enter all their information again. We
would like to avoid this re-entering of information on behalf of the
applicant to ease the application process.
How can we go about having Flexcar's membership page collect, with a "post"
or "get" command, information that we have already gathered on our site and
place it into Flexcar's form to streamline the process?
Hope this makes sense,
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Derek Monk <britmonk(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | New e-mail address |
Derek Monk has moved to Yuma AZ and become a Yuman.
The new e-mail address is:
britmonk(at)adelphia.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nico van Niekerk <nickbignick(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Delivery Status Notification (Delay) |
>From: postmaster(at)mail.hotmail.com
>To: nickbignick(at)hotmail.com
>Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Delay)
>Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 03:30:10 -0700
>
>This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.
>
>THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY.
>
>YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE.
>
>Delivery to the following recipients has been delayed.
>
> nico(at)americanvelvet.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jimmy Rodriguez <jimmyr(at)popsecs.com> |
Hi Guys,
I'm looking at this 500B out of Texas. It is being offered by Jack Plumly
of Starflite Intl. Do we have any information on this bird? It has two
different series IO540, left is B1A5 and right is E1B5. What's the
difference? Why would somebody do this? Thanks in advance for your help.
Best Regards,
Jimmy Rodriguez
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jimmy Rodriguez <jimmyr(at)popsecs.com> |
-----Original Message-----
From:
Jimmy Rodriguez
Sent:
Tuesday, June 11, 2002 11:23 AM
To:
'commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com'
Subject:
N108RG
Hi Guys,
I'm looking at this 500B out of Texas. It is being offered by Jack Plumly
of Starflite Intl. Do we have any information on this bird? It has two
different series IO540, left is B1A5 and right is E1B5. What's the
difference? Why would somebody do this? Thanks in advance for your help.
Best Regards,
Jimmy Rodriguez
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis Polito W6DEN <cloudhopper(at)attbi.com> |
Jimmy:
The 500 B originally came with B1A5 engines. Later on the E1B5's were
installed. The difference is 1400/1600 hrs. TBO respectively. Internally the
E's have little squirt guns called piston skirt coolers inside of the case.
These little squirt guns direct oil to the base of each piston, the
additional cooling ups the TBO interval. Otherwise the two engines are
identical, the airplane can't read and doesn't know the difference between
the B and the E powerplants and doesn't care which is installed.
In addition the E's have a larger oil cooler and a fuel vapor separator/fuel
sump. If these two items are not present on the E side then it is a non
standard installation and the engine may not qualify for the additional 200
hrs TBO. Check to see that these are both present on the E side, you can
easily compaire the size difference between the oil coolers. The vapor
separator has two #6 fuel return hoses connected to it in addition to the
large fuel line. The vapor separator/ fuel sump is located on the engine
firewall inboard. I know this installation very well, I bought two E engines
from Lycoming in 94 when I replaced my powerplants. There are a couple other
subtle but important differences in the engine installation, namely the
larger oil cooler and cooler baffling. I had to fabricate my cooler
bafflings from raw "0" aluminum stock and then have it quench hardened. I
was unable to obtain baffles at the time.
I hope that this helps you out.
Give me a call at home if you need more details.
regards
Dennis Polito
650-595-3949
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jimmy Rodriguez" <jimmyr(at)popsecs.com>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 7:22 AM
Subject: N108RG
> Hi Guys,
>
> I'm looking at this 500B out of Texas. It is being offered by Jack Plumly
> of Starflite Intl. Do we have any information on this bird? It has two
> different series IO540, left is B1A5 and right is E1B5. What's the
> difference? Why would somebody do this? Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jimmy Rodriguez
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kerry Johnson <kerry(at)kvelectric.com> |
Another Shrike showed up on our ramp last week. I think it's here doing
recon for all the fire fighters. There is also two Helios and Three "BIG"
round single engine crop duster type planes, all of which have that Polish
PZL round motor strapped to the front. Fun to watch them work, but sure is a
shame to see all the pretty timber burning.
Kerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
| Subject: | Letter of understanding |
I thought y'all might be interested to read the "contract"
I have with Gary. The version that we both signed is
essentially as follows but with a few additions that we
agreed upon after further inspection turned up more problems.
I still think it was very reasonable and darn close to what
anyone would expect of a "gentlemans agreement". You can
draw your own conclusions.. I'd love for someone to drop
by and see how many of these tasks have been accomplished
over the last year ...
Chris
-----snip-----
Gary Gadberry,
I wanted to take some time to write down my understanding of what our
intents and agreements are as well as my expectations for the purchase
of Commander 89PK. My goal in doing this is to assure that you
and I consumate a business deal which we are both happy with. By
taking a bit of time now to write down these details, I sincerely hope
to eliminate any possibility of confusion or disagreement such as
that which you told me about during our visit. If, in the following,
I am outside any area of your understanding or if I request anything
you are uncomfortable with, please simply feel free to contact me and
we'll work through any issues.
My expectations:
Commander 89PK is a 40 year old airplane, and as such I do not
expect it to be in "like new" condition. I do, however, require
it to be delivered in fully functional condition with all equipment
working and all basic maintenance issues resolved. I have inspected
the aircraft and state that I find no major structural flaws.
Most of the items which follow are general airworthiness
issues which should be addressed as part of a normal annual
inspection, I will mention some specifics which I noted during
my inspection of the aircraft.
Per our discussion, the following items will be addressed prior to
acceptance and final payment for the airplane:
- Nose landing light lenses will be removed and replacements
installed properly with correct fit, finish, and cosmetics.
- Four poorly installed patches/repairs on the horizontal tail
structure will be repaired/improved in a professional manner
- broken EGT probe on left engine will be replaced
- wheel bearing races will be carefully inspected and bearings
and races will be replaced if any signs of pitting or rust are
found.
- All ADs will be complied with. Although it has obviously been
accomplished, I could find no log book entry for AD98-08-19
compliance. Please verify that I didn't miss this and correct if
needed.
- V-bands on both turbos on the left engine will be removed and
inspected, new gaskets installed, and vbands re-installed (or
replaced if necessary) in correct manner.
- Propellors will be serviced and clamps greased per Hartzel
instructions. (if any water is purged from the clamps, please
tell me immediatly. There should be none if they have been regularly
serviced)
- broken drain tube in fuselage replaced.
- replace R/H pitot tube with correct model
- hydraulic accumulator bottle is empty. Determine cause
and service
- fire bottles serviced
- oxygen filled (check tank for current hydro-static cert)
- repair and refurbish de-ice boots as necessary and test
- repair broken nose bowl bracket (#1 cylinder)
- Per our discussion, the external cosmetics of the aircraft will be
addressed by a "detail" of the paint which I assume will involve
"rubbing out" and waxing of all external surfaces. Assuming that
this effort results in a "good" final finish, a paint shop will
paint the nose, shadowed N-numbers, and accomplish any touchup of
various imperfections externally to the airframe.
If this excercise does not result in a nice finish, you will contact
me and provide various options and costs for alternatives ranging from
"do nothing", to clear coat or repaint.
- A thourough and complete inspection will be accomplished addressing
all mechanical and system deficiencies which will result in a
fresh annual inspection signoff and assurances that all components,
systems, and equipment are fully operational. I understand that
no assurance or warantee is implied about any failures which may
occur after delivery but that both of us will endevor to make sure
that everything works at the time you hand the keys over.
- Since the airplane was inoperable at the time of my visit, we
were not able to take an oil sample for analysis. This still is
required only for the left engine. It is acceptable to me if your
shop takes a sample during the annual and sends it to the analyist
of your choice if you will fax me the report. I will pay the normal
fee for this analysis.
- The airplane will be delivered with a clear title, all paperwork,
logs, documentation, etc. Proof that all parties which could file
any type of lein on the aircraft have been fully paid is required.
Once we have agreed upon the items in this letter, I will send a
deposit on the aircraft. The deposit is refundable to me under the
following circumstances:
- If there is substantial internal damage to the right engine which
would cause the overhaul cost to substantially exceed the estimates
we have been provided AND you and I can't agree on how to address
the situation in a mutually acceptable manner.
- If oil analysis of the left engine shows unexpected distress
- If, for any reason, your shop is unable to perform the maintanence
and repairs needed to get the airplane into agreed upon condition
in a timely manner. (we should probably agree on an acceptable
timeframe for delivery starting from your receipt of the engine)
- If you and I agree that the sale should not be completed for any
reason.
I think that you and I can work through just about any conceivable
problem which we might run into, but I just wanted to spell out
my expectations just to be clear. Should your shop note any
item which is "questionable", or "will need addressed in the
future", but that you feel is beyond your responsibility, please
contact me. Depending on the item, I may want to pay them myself
to correct it.
Gary, I enjoyed getting to visit with you and am very excited
about the acquisition of 89PK! I think you will find me to
be a fair and reasonable customer and quite possibly a valuable
resource in the future.
Drop me a note when you've had a chance to digest this email.
Chris Schuermann
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
Having a rather stressful day? What else to do but pull
out the "really-home-made-ice-cream-maker-that-only-an-
engineer-could-love".
http://www.c2-tech.com/research/gpicm.html
I figure the first batch at about $250/bowl :-)
If anyone just has to have one of these, I am restoring
a John Deere engine and could do a beautiful green version
for about $4000 :-)
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jjleon(at)att.net <Jjleon(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Letter of understanding |
Chris,
Thanks for sharing the details of your "deal gone sour"
with the group. I'm not an attorney but work for a
bizjet manufacturer in sales. Without delving into nit
picking, I looked at your document from the perspective
of the "four W and S":
What has to be done or to happen?
Who will do it or be responsible for getting it done?
When will each step or the overall process be completed?
How will events take place?
And "S" as in who$e dollar$ are involved with each
discrepancy, inspection or obligation.
For the most part your "LOU" covers these points, but
did you get a counter-signature from Gary prior to
sending him funds? If so, you have a much stronger case
than if this was just a one-way communication.
In Spanish we have a saying "el dinero no tiene
amigos..." (money has no friends) and in the aviation
world, like any other commercial transaction, we all
have to be cautious. No matter how much of a gentleman
the other party is, you can't let your guard down.
I hope you can get your grievances at least partially
redressed.
Juan Leon
> I thought y'all might be interested to read the "contract"
> I have with Gary. The version that we both signed is
> essentially as follows but with a few additions that we
> agreed upon after further inspection turned up more problems.
> I still think it was very reasonable and darn close to what
> anyone would expect of a "gentlemans agreement". You can
> draw your own conclusions.. I'd love for someone to drop
> by and see how many of these tasks have been accomplished
> over the last year ...
> Chris
>
>
> -----snip-----
>
> Gary Gadberry,
>
> I wanted to take some time to write down my understanding of what our
> intents and agreements are as well as my expectations for the purchase
> of Commander 89PK. My goal in doing this is to assure that you
> and I consumate a business deal which we are both happy with. By
> taking a bit of time now to write down these details, I sincerely hope
> to eliminate any possibility of confusion or disagreement such as
> that which you told me about during our visit. If, in the following,
> I am outside any area of your understanding or if I request anything
> you are uncomfortable with, please simply feel free to contact me and
> we'll work through any issues.
>
> My expectations:
> Commander 89PK is a 40 year old airplane, and as such I do not
> expect it to be in "like new" condition. I do, however, require
> it to be delivered in fully functional condition with all equipment
> working and all basic maintenance issues resolved. I have inspected
> the aircraft and state that I find no major structural flaws.
>
> Most of the items which follow are general airworthiness
> issues which should be addressed as part of a normal annual
> inspection, I will mention some specifics which I noted during
> my inspection of the aircraft.
>
> Per our discussion, the following items will be addressed prior to
> acceptance and final payment for the airplane:
>
> - Nose landing light lenses will be removed and replacements
> installed properly with correct fit, finish, and cosmetics.
>
> - Four poorly installed patches/repairs on the horizontal tail
> structure will be repaired/improved in a professional manner
>
> - broken EGT probe on left engine will be replaced
>
> - wheel bearing races will be carefully inspected and bearings
> and races will be replaced if any signs of pitting or rust are
> found.
>
> - All ADs will be complied with. Although it has obviously been
> accomplished, I could find no log book entry for AD98-08-19
> compliance. Please verify that I didn't miss this and correct if
> needed.
>
> - V-bands on both turbos on the left engine will be removed and
> inspected, new gaskets installed, and vbands re-installed (or
> replaced if necessary) in correct manner.
>
> - Propellors will be serviced and clamps greased per Hartzel
> instructions. (if any water is purged from the clamps, please
> tell me immediatly. There should be none if they have been regularly
> serviced)
>
> - broken drain tube in fuselage replaced.
>
> - replace R/H pitot tube with correct model
>
> - hydraulic accumulator bottle is empty. Determine cause
> and service
>
> - fire bottles serviced
>
> - oxygen filled (check tank for current hydro-static cert)
>
> - repair and refurbish de-ice boots as necessary and test
>
> - repair broken nose bowl bracket (#1 cylinder)
>
> - Per our discussion, the external cosmetics of the aircraft will be
> addressed by a "detail" of the paint which I assume will involve
> "rubbing out" and waxing of all external surfaces. Assuming that
> this effort results in a "good" final finish, a paint shop will
> paint the nose, shadowed N-numbers, and accomplish any touchup of
> various imperfections externally to the airframe.
> If this excercise does not result in a nice finish, you will contact
> me and provide various options and costs for alternatives ranging from
> "do nothing", to clear coat or repaint.
>
>
> - A thourough and complete inspection will be accomplished addressing
> all mechanical and system deficiencies which will result in a
> fresh annual inspection signoff and assurances that all components,
> systems, and equipment are fully operational. I understand that
> no assurance or warantee is implied about any failures which may
> occur after delivery but that both of us will endevor to make sure
> that everything works at the time you hand the keys over.
>
> - Since the airplane was inoperable at the time of my visit, we
> were not able to take an oil sample for analysis. This still is
> required only for the left engine. It is acceptable to me if your
> shop takes a sample during the annual and sends it to the analyist
> of your choice if you will fax me the report. I will pay the normal
> fee for this analysis.
>
> - The airplane will be delivered with a clear title, all paperwork,
> logs, documentation, etc. Proof that all parties which could file
> any type of lein on the aircraft have been fully paid is required.
>
> Once we have agreed upon the items in this letter, I will send a
> deposit on the aircraft. The deposit is refundable to me under the
> following circumstances:
> - If there is substantial internal damage to the right engine which
> would cause the overhaul cost to substantially exceed the estimates
> we have been provided AND you and I can't agree on how to address
> the situation in a mutually acceptable manner.
> - If oil analysis of the left engine shows unexpected distress
> - If, for any reason, your shop is unable to perform the maintanence
> and repairs needed to get the airplane into agreed upon condition
> in a timely manner. (we should probably agree on an acceptable
> timeframe for delivery starting from your receipt of the engine)
> - If you and I agree that the sale should not be completed for any
> reason.
>
>
> I think that you and I can work through just about any conceivable
> problem which we might run into, but I just wanted to spell out
> my expectations just to be clear. Should your shop note any
> item which is "questionable", or "will need addressed in the
> future", but that you feel is beyond your responsibility, please
> contact me. Depending on the item, I may want to pay them myself
> to correct it.
>
>
> Gary, I enjoyed getting to visit with you and am very excited
> about the acquisition of 89PK! I think you will find me to
> be a fair and reasonable customer and quite possibly a valuable
> resource in the future.
>
> Drop me a note when you've had a chance to digest this email.
>
> Chris Schuermann
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Letter of understanding |
Jjleon(at)att.net wrote:
> did you get a counter-signature from Gary prior to
> sending him funds?
Yup. We made a few minor cleanups. He was concerned that
I'd be picky about the pressurization not meeting book
numbers and requested that I note it. I added wording that
I expected all components of the pressurization system to
be fully functional, but would accept the fact that a
40 year old airplane likely had a few cabin leaks and
that it might not meet full book differential. After
that he signed and returned and I proceeded in good faith.
thanks for the reply!
chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deborah R. Hancock <whiteslave(at)cox.net> |
On Tuesday, June 11, 2002, at 10:08 AM, Kerry Johnson wrote:
>
> Another Shrike showed up on our ramp last week. I think it's here doing
> recon for all the fire fighters. There is also two Helios and Three
> "BIG"
Those are Damadieres (sp?) Same engine and prop that's on the AN-2
Colt....
> round single engine crop duster type planes, all of which have that
> Polish
> PZL round motor strapped to the front. Fun to watch them work, but sure
> is a
> shame to see all the pretty timber burning.
We had another small brushfire here today...CDF was up to the challenge
and no homes were lost. This fire season is going to be ugly, I'm
afraid....
>
> Kerry
>
>
Barry Hancock
9 Leatherwood Court
Coto de Caza, CA 92679
cell: (949) 300-5510
fax: (949) 766-0590
radialpower(at)cox.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Start of the next flame war |
Chris Schuerman is a friend of mine. He has also been a good friend to all of you.
At great expense to himself and a lot of hours spent on his part he has kept
the website going. He has also put up with a lot of crap from a lot of us.
Now he needs our help.
Attached is a letter I sent to Gary Gadberry this morning.
After having dealt with Gary on 2 projects,1 big, and one really big and after
seeing Chris's documentation as well as my knowledge of other members experience
with Gary I believe that Gary owes Chris an airplane, money, or both.
As a group we also owe Chris our support.
As such I would ask that all of you do the following:
1. E-mail Gary and let him know your opinion. Aircntr(at)aol.com
2. Post to this list a summary of any and all bad experiences you have had dealing
with anyone on aerocommanders.
We do not exist to swap jokes and bullshit. We exist to exchange information and
ideas relative to our airplanes. Hopefully to fly safer, better, and cheaper.
An attack on one of us is an attack on all.
Yes that even means you can Bitch about me and my friends at Aeon.
Just bear in mind if you make me mad I will send you pictures of Naked Squaks every
day forever.
LET'S HELP CHRIS OUT
Milt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russell Legg <rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Letter of understanding |
G'day Chris and all,
Many thanks Chris for sharing your dreary and stressful N89PK experiences
with us.
Please permit me to offer the following thoughts from the perspective of
Australian contract law. These are of course my own 'upside down' thoughts
and may be helpful in thinking through some of the issues at hand. I hope
they may be of use...
On the face of it, as we all remember, Chris for many months had pursued
the purchase of an example of his preferred Commander, a 680F, and was
subsequently drawn to the advertisement for sale of one N89PK (I would be
fascinated by the precise wording of the for sale notice or brochure).
In the lead up to securing a 'contract of sale' Chris arranged for an
inspection and no doubt carried out lengthy research on the condition of the
aircraft according to all of the accumulated knowledge that Chris has
amassed in his experience with Commanders and his previous aircraft
ownership.
In firming up this 'contract of sale' Chris' attention was drawn to several
items on N89PK which were of concern. As a result Chris produced the letter
that we have read below which recorded the agreed items of rectification as
a result of a series of discussions (no doubt verbal). We are taught that it
is invaluable to 'put down on paper' a record of a series of verbally
negotiated outcomes particularly in this context, which Chris has indeed
shared with us.
By producing this letter, which was subsequently countersigned by the vendor
(in apparent agreement) Chris in effect produced a contract document with
several clauses. The legal test (depending on the jurisdiction) is of course
whether this letter could solely be interpreted as 'the contract' or whether
it was an appendix to a more formal legal document?
Most of the clauses in Chris' letter would be classified or interpreted as
being terms of a promissory nature. Eg. The vendor undertakes to perform a
particular obligation prior to sale.
The clauses or terms that are listed in Chris' letter would mostly be tested
along the lines..."the mechanism is either replaced or not replaced and the
damage is either fixed or not fixed".
Thus these clauses or terms would be interpreted as either 'conditions' or
'warranties'. It is clear to us that Chris would not have entered into a
contract for the purchase of the aircraft unless it was functioning as
advertised. If there was evidence that the price that Chris agreed upon to
pay indicated that he was prepared to purchase the aircraft 'as is' then the
clauses may only be defined as 'warranties'.
Accordingly, it would seem that Chris would have a strong case to terminate
the 'contract' (albeit a countersigned LOU).
As such he would not need to pay any balance of the purchase price
outstanding. Also, the amount paid as deposit and any subsequent amounts
paid may be recovered where there has been a total failure of the
consideration (eg. In Chris' case the consideration was that in exchange for
the money a functioning N89PK would be delivered, which now will not take
place).
Whatever the express terms of the 'contract of sale' with the vendor, it
would seem that there was an implied warranty that services rendered to
Chris would be rendered with due care and skill. This implied term seems to
have been breached in Chris' case.
Chris is therefore entitled to damages for breach of contract...the object
of the damages for breach of contract is to place Chris in the position he
would have been in had there been no breach of promise...flying a 680F to
the 2002 TCFG Flyin among others.
The definition of damages beyond the actual purchase of the
aircraft...future loss of business, expectation loss etc would depend on the
jurisdiction, but should produce a beneficial gain if pursued. (Time lapsed
is always the big pest and of course the question of the ability of the
defendant to pay!)
Take care all
Still Commanderless here in Oz
Russell
On 12/6/02 9:05 AM, "Chris Schuermann" wrote:
> I thought y'all might be interested to read the "contract"
> I have with Gary. The version that we both signed is
> essentially as follows but with a few additions that we
> agreed upon after further inspection turned up more problems.
> I still think it was very reasonable and darn close to what
> anyone would expect of a "gentlemans agreement". You can
> draw your own conclusions.. I'd love for someone to drop
> by and see how many of these tasks have been accomplished
> over the last year ...
> Chris
>
>
> -----snip-----
>
> Gary Gadberry,
>
> I wanted to take some time to write down my understanding of what our
> intents and agreements are as well as my expectations for the purchase
> of Commander 89PK. My goal in doing this is to assure that you
> and I consumate a business deal which we are both happy with. By
> taking a bit of time now to write down these details, I sincerely hope
> to eliminate any possibility of confusion or disagreement such as
> that which you told me about during our visit. If, in the following,
> I am outside any area of your understanding or if I request anything
> you are uncomfortable with, please simply feel free to contact me and
> we'll work through any issues.
>
> My expectations:
> Commander 89PK is a 40 year old airplane, and as such I do not
> expect it to be in "like new" condition. I do, however, require
> it to be delivered in fully functional condition with all equipment
> working and all basic maintenance issues resolved. I have inspected
> the aircraft and state that I find no major structural flaws.
>
> Most of the items which follow are general airworthiness
> issues which should be addressed as part of a normal annual
> inspection, I will mention some specifics which I noted during
> my inspection of the aircraft.
>
> Per our discussion, the following items will be addressed prior to
> acceptance and final payment for the airplane:
>
> - Nose landing light lenses will be removed and replacements
> installed properly with correct fit, finish, and cosmetics.
>
> - Four poorly installed patches/repairs on the horizontal tail
> structure will be repaired/improved in a professional manner
>
> - broken EGT probe on left engine will be replaced
>
> - wheel bearing races will be carefully inspected and bearings
> and races will be replaced if any signs of pitting or rust are
> found.
>
> - All ADs will be complied with. Although it has obviously been
> accomplished, I could find no log book entry for AD98-08-19
> compliance. Please verify that I didn't miss this and correct if
> needed.
>
> - V-bands on both turbos on the left engine will be removed and
> inspected, new gaskets installed, and vbands re-installed (or
> replaced if necessary) in correct manner.
>
> - Propellors will be serviced and clamps greased per Hartzel
> instructions. (if any water is purged from the clamps, please
> tell me immediatly. There should be none if they have been regularly
> serviced)
>
> - broken drain tube in fuselage replaced.
>
> - replace R/H pitot tube with correct model
>
> - hydraulic accumulator bottle is empty. Determine cause
> and service
>
> - fire bottles serviced
>
> - oxygen filled (check tank for current hydro-static cert)
>
> - repair and refurbish de-ice boots as necessary and test
>
> - repair broken nose bowl bracket (#1 cylinder)
>
> - Per our discussion, the external cosmetics of the aircraft will be
> addressed by a "detail" of the paint which I assume will involve
> "rubbing out" and waxing of all external surfaces. Assuming that
> this effort results in a "good" final finish, a paint shop will
> paint the nose, shadowed N-numbers, and accomplish any touchup of
> various imperfections externally to the airframe.
> If this excercise does not result in a nice finish, you will contact
> me and provide various options and costs for alternatives ranging from
> "do nothing", to clear coat or repaint.
>
>
> - A thourough and complete inspection will be accomplished addressing
> all mechanical and system deficiencies which will result in a
> fresh annual inspection signoff and assurances that all components,
> systems, and equipment are fully operational. I understand that
> no assurance or warantee is implied about any failures which may
> occur after delivery but that both of us will endevor to make sure
> that everything works at the time you hand the keys over.
>
> - Since the airplane was inoperable at the time of my visit, we
> were not able to take an oil sample for analysis. This still is
> required only for the left engine. It is acceptable to me if your
> shop takes a sample during the annual and sends it to the analyist
> of your choice if you will fax me the report. I will pay the normal
> fee for this analysis.
>
> - The airplane will be delivered with a clear title, all paperwork,
> logs, documentation, etc. Proof that all parties which could file
> any type of lein on the aircraft have been fully paid is required.
>
> Once we have agreed upon the items in this letter, I will send a
> deposit on the aircraft. The deposit is refundable to me under the
> following circumstances:
> - If there is substantial internal damage to the right engine which
> would cause the overhaul cost to substantially exceed the estimates
> we have been provided AND you and I can't agree on how to address
> the situation in a mutually acceptable manner.
> - If oil analysis of the left engine shows unexpected distress
> - If, for any reason, your shop is unable to perform the maintanence
> and repairs needed to get the airplane into agreed upon condition
> in a timely manner. (we should probably agree on an acceptable
> timeframe for delivery starting from your receipt of the engine)
> - If you and I agree that the sale should not be completed for any
> reason.
>
>
> I think that you and I can work through just about any conceivable
> problem which we might run into, but I just wanted to spell out
> my expectations just to be clear. Should your shop note any
> item which is "questionable", or "will need addressed in the
> future", but that you feel is beyond your responsibility, please
> contact me. Depending on the item, I may want to pay them myself
> to correct it.
>
>
> Gary, I enjoyed getting to visit with you and am very excited
> about the acquisition of 89PK! I think you will find me to
> be a fair and reasonable customer and quite possibly a valuable
> resource in the future.
>
> Drop me a note when you've had a chance to digest this email.
>
> Chris Schuermann
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Start of the next flame war |
> 1. E-mail Gary and let him know your opinion. Aircntr(at)aol.com
> LET'S HELP CHRIS OUT
>
> Milt
Milt, I just wish to express how appreciative I am to know folks
such as yourself who would stand beside me on this! Who knows, maybe
a strong show of unity in the Commander world just might be
what's needed to break this mess loose and cause Gary to act as a
responsible vendor. I'm still sitting here feeling foolish and
embarassed at having been "taken" to such a degree, but knowing that
I have such good friends in the world does make it better. I'm still
just amazed at how this has occured.
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> |
Gary,
I don't know if you remember me, but we had phone conversations about a
year ago when I was looking for a Commander. Part of the reason I
contacted you is because of your good reputation and experience with
Commanders.
I also know that you were involved in a serious accident recently and I
wish you all the best in your recovery.
Recently, I have been made aware of a disturbing situation concerning
one of the TCFG members. Chris Schuerman has presented the group with
the events regarding his purchase of 89PK. I know Chris to be of high
moral and ethical character, and also extremely knowledgeable concerning
Commanders. I believe his representation of the facts to be accurate
and I also believe he would not have shared his situation with the group
unless he had legitimate concerns. In fact, he is understandably shaken
by his dealings with you.
Gary, the facts speak for themselves. Your continual promises of "next
week" with obviously no intent to deliver call in to question your
honesty and integrity. It is my opinion as an involved Commander owner
(who will buy more in the years to come), that you should do everything
possible to correct the situation with Chris. To not take aggressive
corrective action in this matter will most certainly black ball you with
a large contingent of the tight knit Commander community. I'm sure
this is something neither of us would like to see.
Regards,
Barry Hancock
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Aero Commander Ownership |
Good day Sirs:
This letter is to add my concerns to the growing list of people who feel that
Mr. Chris Schuerman has been mistreated by your company. If you are not
already aware of it, then you should be. There are Commander owners in
Australia, and South America who feel the same way.
You may not be concerned about them for your future business, but you should
fear for mine. I live only 45 flight minutes away. As you are one of
several service centers within a reasonable flight time from my home base, I
will make a conscious decision to go to Columbia, S.C. for all mx needs not
addressable by me. I am a licensed A&P mechanic myself, but do not have the
ability to perform nondestructive testing and the like.
I would hope that you will take the time to contact Mr. Schuerman, and make
some type of final arrangement with him.
Paul Reason
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nico van Niekerk <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
| Subject: | Concerns about your service |
Gentlemen,
It has come to our attention that you have acted in a less than professional manner
with Chris Schuermann and that you have not only failed to perform your duty
regarding his Aero Commander, but you have received payment and Chris even
paid your vendor to remain in good standing with them.
To leave this manner unresolved would only increase the ire of this group, which
should be a very worrisome prospect for you, since this close-knit community
would bind together and choose to avoid your company in any future dealings,
making your access to a major share of this market impossible.
We regularly noticed with pride your advertisements in the aviation magazines as
a member of this community who furthers the cause of these fine aircraft, but
now those advertisements are regrettably tarnished by what we know happens behind
the scenes. You alone are responsible for the situation and you alone are
in a position to fix it. But don't linger, sir.
Sincerely
Nico van Niekerk
California
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Lundborg <dltafolk(at)inreach.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Letter of understanding |
If I have to have a bank of atny's to go shopping...some how I've lost
sight of the type of business I want to handle my purchase!
Craig
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Legg" <rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au>
To: "Chris Schuermann" ;
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: Letter of understanding
> G'day Chris and all,
>
> Many thanks Chris for sharing your dreary and stressful N89PK experiences
> with us.
>
> Please permit me to offer the following thoughts from the perspective of
> Australian contract law. These are of course my own 'upside down' thoughts
> and may be helpful in thinking through some of the issues at hand. I hope
> they may be of use...
>
> On the face of it, as we all remember, Chris for many months had pursued
> the purchase of an example of his preferred Commander, a 680F, and was
> subsequently drawn to the advertisement for sale of one N89PK (I would be
> fascinated by the precise wording of the for sale notice or brochure).
>
> In the lead up to securing a 'contract of sale' Chris arranged for an
> inspection and no doubt carried out lengthy research on the condition of
the
> aircraft according to all of the accumulated knowledge that Chris has
> amassed in his experience with Commanders and his previous aircraft
> ownership.
>
> In firming up this 'contract of sale' Chris' attention was drawn to
several
> items on N89PK which were of concern. As a result Chris produced the
letter
> that we have read below which recorded the agreed items of rectification
as
> a result of a series of discussions (no doubt verbal). We are taught that
it
> is invaluable to 'put down on paper' a record of a series of verbally
> negotiated outcomes particularly in this context, which Chris has indeed
> shared with us.
>
> By producing this letter, which was subsequently countersigned by the
vendor
> (in apparent agreement) Chris in effect produced a contract document with
> several clauses. The legal test (depending on the jurisdiction) is of
course
> whether this letter could solely be interpreted as 'the contract' or
whether
> it was an appendix to a more formal legal document?
>
> Most of the clauses in Chris' letter would be classified or interpreted as
> being terms of a promissory nature. Eg. The vendor undertakes to perform a
> particular obligation prior to sale.
> The clauses or terms that are listed in Chris' letter would mostly be
tested
> along the lines..."the mechanism is either replaced or not replaced and
the
> damage is either fixed or not fixed".
> Thus these clauses or terms would be interpreted as either 'conditions' or
> 'warranties'. It is clear to us that Chris would not have entered into a
> contract for the purchase of the aircraft unless it was functioning as
> advertised. If there was evidence that the price that Chris agreed upon to
> pay indicated that he was prepared to purchase the aircraft 'as is' then
the
> clauses may only be defined as 'warranties'.
>
> Accordingly, it would seem that Chris would have a strong case to
terminate
> the 'contract' (albeit a countersigned LOU).
> As such he would not need to pay any balance of the purchase price
> outstanding. Also, the amount paid as deposit and any subsequent amounts
> paid may be recovered where there has been a total failure of the
> consideration (eg. In Chris' case the consideration was that in exchange
for
> the money a functioning N89PK would be delivered, which now will not take
> place).
>
> Whatever the express terms of the 'contract of sale' with the vendor, it
> would seem that there was an implied warranty that services rendered to
> Chris would be rendered with due care and skill. This implied term seems
to
> have been breached in Chris' case.
> Chris is therefore entitled to damages for breach of contract...the object
> of the damages for breach of contract is to place Chris in the position he
> would have been in had there been no breach of promise...flying a 680F to
> the 2002 TCFG Flyin among others.
>
> The definition of damages beyond the actual purchase of the
> aircraft...future loss of business, expectation loss etc would depend on
the
> jurisdiction, but should produce a beneficial gain if pursued. (Time
lapsed
> is always the big pest and of course the question of the ability of the
> defendant to pay!)
>
> Take care all
> Still Commanderless here in Oz
>
> Russell
>
> On 12/6/02 9:05 AM, "Chris Schuermann"
wrote:
>
> > I thought y'all might be interested to read the "contract"
> > I have with Gary. The version that we both signed is
> > essentially as follows but with a few additions that we
> > agreed upon after further inspection turned up more problems.
> > I still think it was very reasonable and darn close to what
> > anyone would expect of a "gentlemans agreement". You can
> > draw your own conclusions.. I'd love for someone to drop
> > by and see how many of these tasks have been accomplished
> > over the last year ...
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > -----snip-----
> >
> > Gary Gadberry,
> >
> > I wanted to take some time to write down my understanding of what our
> > intents and agreements are as well as my expectations for the purchase
> > of Commander 89PK. My goal in doing this is to assure that you
> > and I consumate a business deal which we are both happy with. By
> > taking a bit of time now to write down these details, I sincerely hope
> > to eliminate any possibility of confusion or disagreement such as
> > that which you told me about during our visit. If, in the following,
> > I am outside any area of your understanding or if I request anything
> > you are uncomfortable with, please simply feel free to contact me and
> > we'll work through any issues.
> >
> > My expectations:
> > Commander 89PK is a 40 year old airplane, and as such I do not
> > expect it to be in "like new" condition. I do, however, require
> > it to be delivered in fully functional condition with all equipment
> > working and all basic maintenance issues resolved. I have inspected
> > the aircraft and state that I find no major structural flaws.
> >
> > Most of the items which follow are general airworthiness
> > issues which should be addressed as part of a normal annual
> > inspection, I will mention some specifics which I noted during
> > my inspection of the aircraft.
> >
> > Per our discussion, the following items will be addressed prior to
> > acceptance and final payment for the airplane:
> >
> > - Nose landing light lenses will be removed and replacements
> > installed properly with correct fit, finish, and cosmetics.
> >
> > - Four poorly installed patches/repairs on the horizontal tail
> > structure will be repaired/improved in a professional manner
> >
> > - broken EGT probe on left engine will be replaced
> >
> > - wheel bearing races will be carefully inspected and bearings
> > and races will be replaced if any signs of pitting or rust are
> > found.
> >
> > - All ADs will be complied with. Although it has obviously been
> > accomplished, I could find no log book entry for AD98-08-19
> > compliance. Please verify that I didn't miss this and correct if
> > needed.
> >
> > - V-bands on both turbos on the left engine will be removed and
> > inspected, new gaskets installed, and vbands re-installed (or
> > replaced if necessary) in correct manner.
> >
> > - Propellors will be serviced and clamps greased per Hartzel
> > instructions. (if any water is purged from the clamps, please
> > tell me immediatly. There should be none if they have been regularly
> > serviced)
> >
> > - broken drain tube in fuselage replaced.
> >
> > - replace R/H pitot tube with correct model
> >
> > - hydraulic accumulator bottle is empty. Determine cause
> > and service
> >
> > - fire bottles serviced
> >
> > - oxygen filled (check tank for current hydro-static cert)
> >
> > - repair and refurbish de-ice boots as necessary and test
> >
> > - repair broken nose bowl bracket (#1 cylinder)
> >
> > - Per our discussion, the external cosmetics of the aircraft will be
> > addressed by a "detail" of the paint which I assume will involve
> > "rubbing out" and waxing of all external surfaces. Assuming that
> > this effort results in a "good" final finish, a paint shop will
> > paint the nose, shadowed N-numbers, and accomplish any touchup of
> > various imperfections externally to the airframe.
> > If this excercise does not result in a nice finish, you will contact
> > me and provide various options and costs for alternatives ranging from
> > "do nothing", to clear coat or repaint.
> >
> >
> > - A thourough and complete inspection will be accomplished addressing
> > all mechanical and system deficiencies which will result in a
> > fresh annual inspection signoff and assurances that all components,
> > systems, and equipment are fully operational. I understand that
> > no assurance or warantee is implied about any failures which may
> > occur after delivery but that both of us will endevor to make sure
> > that everything works at the time you hand the keys over.
> >
> > - Since the airplane was inoperable at the time of my visit, we
> > were not able to take an oil sample for analysis. This still is
> > required only for the left engine. It is acceptable to me if your
> > shop takes a sample during the annual and sends it to the analyist
> > of your choice if you will fax me the report. I will pay the normal
> > fee for this analysis.
> >
> > - The airplane will be delivered with a clear title, all paperwork,
> > logs, documentation, etc. Proof that all parties which could file
> > any type of lein on the aircraft have been fully paid is required.
> >
> > Once we have agreed upon the items in this letter, I will send a
> > deposit on the aircraft. The deposit is refundable to me under the
> > following circumstances:
> > - If there is substantial internal damage to the right engine which
> > would cause the overhaul cost to substantially exceed the estimates
> > we have been provided AND you and I can't agree on how to address
> > the situation in a mutually acceptable manner.
> > - If oil analysis of the left engine shows unexpected distress
> > - If, for any reason, your shop is unable to perform the maintanence
> > and repairs needed to get the airplane into agreed upon condition
> > in a timely manner. (we should probably agree on an acceptable
> > timeframe for delivery starting from your receipt of the engine)
> > - If you and I agree that the sale should not be completed for any
> > reason.
> >
> >
> > I think that you and I can work through just about any conceivable
> > problem which we might run into, but I just wanted to spell out
> > my expectations just to be clear. Should your shop note any
> > item which is "questionable", or "will need addressed in the
> > future", but that you feel is beyond your responsibility, please
> > contact me. Depending on the item, I may want to pay them myself
> > to correct it.
> >
> >
> > Gary, I enjoyed getting to visit with you and am very excited
> > about the acquisition of 89PK! I think you will find me to
> > be a fair and reasonable customer and quite possibly a valuable
> > resource in the future.
> >
> > Drop me a note when you've had a chance to digest this email.
> >
> > Chris Schuermann
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Randy Sharp <sharp.r(at)apple.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Start of the next flame war |
I strongly agree with Milt!
I met Chris many years ago on the web. (well over 11 years)
He supplied me with a lot of information about commanders without any
regard to fees and compensation. He has extensively kept this club going
with his knowledge and web equipment
(with the tremendous help of Jim too of course).
Again this was done without any compensation.
I have talked extensively before with Chris on this matter and even to
the extent of possibly trading my 500B in with cash for N89PK so Chris
could get his money back from the sale.
Unfortunately Gary had his accident which closed that door and soon after
my 500B was sold.
Chris has done everything possible as a gentlemen to finish this deal and
get on with his life.
Unfortunately the other party is not cooperating.
The reputation of this person is not what I would call businesslike nor
honorable, moral,
upright, honest etc...
If Mr. Gadberry was to remedy this unjustified situation I'm sure his
name would shine a little better in the Commander world, otherwise I
suspect we can all send it into the mud where it might belong.
Even though I am no longer a Cmdr owner I still feel an obligation to
help Chris
when and where I can!
Chris is the kind of person who would help anyone of us if we were in the
same predicament.
Just remember Chris, you DO have a lot of friends who care about you.
Hopefully this unjustified event will be resolved in your favor.
A thoughtful reminder, it's not how much money you have in this world but
how many friends you have acquired and helped freely with undue regards
to compensation.
In my mind your one wealthy person.
Your Friend.
Randy Sharp
Start sending those email petitions!
N414C(at)cableone.net said:
>Chris Schuerman is a friend of mine. He has also been a good friend to all
>of you. At great expense to himself and a lot of hours spent on his part
>he has kept the website going. He has also put up with a lot of crap from
>a lot of us.
>
>Now he needs our help.
>Attached is a letter I sent to Gary Gadberry this morning.
>
>After having dealt with Gary on 2 projects,1 big, and one really big and
>after seeing Chris's documentation as well as my knowledge of other
>members experience with Gary I believe that Gary owes Chris an airplane,
>money, or both.
>
>As a group we also owe Chris our support.
>
>As such I would ask that all of you do the following:
>
>1. E-mail Gary and let him know your opinion. Aircntr(at)aol.com
>
>2. Post to this list a summary of any and all bad experiences you have had
>dealing with anyone on aerocommanders.
>
>We do not exist to swap jokes and bullshit. We exist to exchange
>information and ideas relative to our airplanes. Hopefully to fly safer,
>better, and cheaper.
>
>An attack on one of us is an attack on all.
>
>Yes that even means you can Bitch about me and my friends at Aeon.
>
>Just bear in mind if you make me mad I will send you pictures of Naked
>Squaks every day forever.
>
>LET'S HELP CHRIS OUT
>
>Milt
>
>
>From: "N414C" <N414C(at)cableone.net>
>Subject: Good business
>Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 07:07:18 -0500
>
>
>Gary,
>For what seems like a year or more I have been watching the chat across
>our twin commander group about you, 89PK, and Chris Schuerman.
>
>I have come to the conclusion as have many other members that it is past
>due time for you to make yourself right with Chris.
>
>This chatlist represents 177 members and there are an additional 60
>members of the flightgroup not on the internet. We all do, however,
>communicate with them daily.
>
>Chris owns the website www.aerocommander.com . Do a websearch on
>aerocommander and the majority of the first 10 hits lead to Chris's website.
>It is hard to imagine many potential commander buyers that will not visit
>the site or one of it's members.
>
>This running battle has not helped your or Aircenters reputation and I am
>certain it has cost you some aircraft sales.
>
>It is time for you to step up to the plate and deliver that airplane to
>Chris as promised or refund his and the engine rebuilders money.
>
>I do not think you want 90% of the web info, current commander owners, and
>commander experts steering business away from you.
>
>If I were Chris by now the entire 1st page of the website would be about
>you and 89PK.
>
>I realize that the aviation business is down and you have just been
>through a terrible wreck. I also understand the concept of cash flow. You
>must realize that taking care of Chris Schuerman needs to be your 1st cash
>flow priority.
>
>I think doing that would go a long way towards preserving cash flow.
>Milt
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net> |
Just renewed my insurance.
1 year ago I received a quote from Avemco and one from Gary Tillman.
At that time I had zero time in the 685.
Both put similar training requirements on the policy but Avemco was about $1,100
less.
I had heard some horror stories about Avemco not wanting to pay up when there was
a problem so I went with Gary.
Boy did I get lucky.
This year after well over 100 hrs in the 685 Gary's increase was minimal.
Avemco wanted $2,300 more than he did. Sometimes the cheapest ain't the cheapest.
Milt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Start of the next flame war |
Randy Sharp wrote:
> Just remember Chris, you DO have a lot of friends who care about you.
I'm truely humbled...
Randy, that's one of the kindest letters I've ever received. You
are absolutely correct about what matters and what doesn't. I consider
many of the folks on this list some of my best and closest friends.
Thanks again for reminding me just WHY I do this and why Y'ALL are
the best!
sincerely,
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TILLMAN333(at)aol.com <TILLMAN333(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Insurance / REPLY |
Dr. Milt,
go on line to www.flysafeinsurance.com this is our new website...
?discount on your insurance if you can find the twin-commander in the
photos...
Thanks for the kind words.
I've flown my Commander over 25 hours the last two weeks.
WOW, what a great plane...
Over the years, I've tried to educate the underwriting world about the
Commander
series...The age of the Commander Fleet is older than most of the
underwriters that
quote our business...These young bucks consider a 1976 Commander, OLD.
(wrong)
It appears the rates are stabilizing... The reinsurance market is on the
rebound.
The companies that were on the edge last year are now insolvent and out of
business.
Below are several issues that are important.
The non-geared Commanders are the easiest to insure.
A pilot with an Instrument rating will get a lower premium rate than a
non-intrument rated pilot. GO GET YOUR MULTI-ENGINE RATING BEFORE YOU BUY A
COMMANDER...
If you are a transition pilot, be preparred to fly dual with a MEI who is
current and qualified in the Commander. A BFR / IPC will be a
requirement...You should do this anytime you buy a new plane...
Thanks again for all your business.
I'll see you all in South Carolina....Columbia is the Hotest place in the
South East
during the Summer.
Fly Safe,
Capt.Gary Tillman, CAP
Aviation Ins. Brokers of North America
424 Broad Street
Rome, Ga 30161 800-228-4283
Ps...Where's Capt'n Spray.?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lowell Girod <dongirod(at)earthlink.net> |
Gentlemen;
Just had to order some parts for my Commander. It was not a large order, but
it could have been, if it was what I needed to fix the problem.
Due to all the info going around I ordered from OK City, although Chattanooga
is closer, overnight express gets it here the same time. I have always spoken
with my wallet. I too, hope this matter will be resolved quickly.
Don
--- Lowell Girod
--- dongirod(at)earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | w.bow <w.bow(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Chris Schuermann |
I sent this the other day. Just because I felt like it. Maybe if we flood his
e-mail box with a few more something might happen.
Pissed off,
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: w.bow
To: aircntr(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 8:21 AM
Subject: Chris Schuermann
Mr. Cadberry,
You do of course realize that by SCREWING Chris Schuermann you are Screwing everybody
on the Aero Commander web site. You must have a lot of business if you
can screw the higher profile Commander people. I know I would never give you the
opportunity to do me.
Bill Bow
Aero Commander 500A
N78379
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | w.bow <w.bow(at)att.net> |
I guess I had a good idea. My timing was only one day off. GREAT IDEA, MILT.
It doesn't matter where ever it came from.
WHIP ASS.
Bilbo
Aero Commander 500A
N78379
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
TCFG MEMBERS..
I have read with great interest the response to Chris' dilemma.
I had not, until now, made official comment. I have become conspicuous by my
absence and the time to comment is now.
First, Gary Gadberry and the Aircenter have for the past two decades
be a source of great airplanes and a plethora of valuable modifications. By
installing the Aircenter mods, it is possible to create an airplane that will
surpass any piston twin in current production and has breathed many years of
life into all of out airplanes.
The Aircenter Commander is often touted as the high water mark for the
piston Commander and is often seen in advertisements as a barging right.
Aircenter airplanes have always demanded a premium price and by so doing, all
of our airplanes have befitted and the value or our airplanes has been higher
than in might have been.
That said, I have been exposed to a number of business dealings with
the Aircenter in recent months that have all had less that satisfactory
conclusions. I will not elaborate except to say that they have a common
thread of promises broken and airplanes not delivered on time or at all.
Two other TCFG members have had similar outcomes but I had decided not
to face the issue. One has now sold his Commander and with a bitter feeling
has completely left aviation, sad. However, just because a business deal
goes poorly does not an unscrupulous businessman make. Resonable peole can
disagree.
Unforunatly, the shear number of unhappy pilots that have dealt with
the Aircenter has now become impossible to ignore. Chris is just the latest
in a seemingly growing number.
As with any complex business deal, there is always room for dispute
and misunderstanding. I have spoken with both Chris and Gary regarding this
matter and have come to the following conclusions, that are not in dispute.
1 Chris became interested in purchasing 89PK nearly a full year ago.
2 Chris forwarded a large deposit to the Aircenter fully 9 months ago with
the delivery of the airplane emanate
3 Chris sent to Gary a detailed document outlining the condition he expected
the airplane to be in when it was delivered.
4 An engine needed major repair (splitting of the main case) due to an oil
analysis
5 the airplane was promised many times. Several agreed upon delivery dates
came and went.
6 As of a few days ago, in a conversation I had with Gary, the airplane is
still not ready to be delivered but will be ready in "about a week"
7 No refund has been tendered.
A deposit is not generally considered "operating capitol" and should
be available for return on demand. Yes, there are a few issues in dispute
that might effect the amount of the refund (were extra radios requested? Was
it necessary to install all new cylinders? How much "detailing" was
requested from the paint shop? ect). What is clear is that all totaled, the
disputed amount should not exceed about $15,000. That amount may need to be
addressed in the court system. The balance (about $85,000) however, is not
in dispute and should be returned to Chris tomorrow, with interest.
It is never easy to enter these affairs and I have remained in the
shadows as long as I felt I could. Gary, please refund the deposit ASAP. I
have no ax to grind with Gary or the Aircenter and I sincerely hope that this
and other disputes that are ongoing can be settled and the Aircenter retuned
to once proud stature.
A TCFG member called me and was angered at the response on this list
and stated that he wanted "nothing to do with an organization who would sully
the reputation of an honest businessman." I have carefully reviewed the
facts as I know them and my reply is that this IS exactly what a group like
this should do (among many other things of course). I would be remiss if I
didn't make other members aware of situations that might entangle them and
then work to repair any damage done to a member.
Jim Metzger Director, Twin Commander Flight Group
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John D Williams <keyscrusing(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | letter of understanding |
Hi Chris,
I've been reading your latest postings about your plane. I have a few questions
if you have a minute. Does Gary have possession of the aircraft or is it at another
repair facility? Does Gary have "his people" working on your plane or has
it all been contracted out to outside vendors? Do you have any reasonably accurate
information as to the current state of "airworthiness" of your airplane?
Now , I don't necessarily mean the FAA definition of airworthy. I'm speaking
more to the tune of "flyable". When you executed your "gentlemen's agreement"
with Gary did you also execute an "aircraft bill of sale" and FAA "registration
application"? From your telephone conversations with Gary, do you think there
is any dispute as to your ownership of the airplane or that these "repairs"
were his responsibility to accomplish at his cost? Is your current thinking
that this entire deal has been a fraud from the outset with Grays original intent
to abscond with your money and never deliver the aircraft as agreed or is
it possible that he originally intended to complete the aircraft as agreed but
has spent your money and now has no funding with which to complete the aircraft?
I'm sorry for all the questions, but I'm trying to see if there is any way to resolve
this situation with some outside intervention or even if a "recovery" of
the aircraft might be possible.
Thanks
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
YOURTCFG(at)aol.com wrote:
> ... the time to comment is now.
Jim,
Thank you VERY much for this letter. It (and all the outpouring
of support) means more to me than you guys can know.
I very much understand that it's doubly difficult for you to
have written this. First, I know that you are like me in that
you just don't make negative comments about people. That's the
primary reason I've never written a major flaming letter about
how I've been treated or put up a web page trashing Gary.
Secondly, I am sure it's difficult to be in your position of
director of the TCFG to have to take a negative stand against
any commander-related business, especially one that pays to
advertise in the TCFG newsletter. I assume that you probably
sent a copy of this to Gary and I sincerely hope that the
efforts of everyone will have a positive result. It would be
pretty unimaginable to think that any savy businessman wouldn't
see the market forces at work and make appropriate adjustments.
Just one last extra note of appreciation to Milt. It takes
some big brass ones (to be expected of a 685 pilot) to take
the initiative he did to get this movement rolling. Thanks
Milt! If I get my money back, I'm going to bring my geeky
ice cream maker down and chug out a big batch of Blantons
flavored ice cream just for you and Gail!
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: letter of understanding |
> John D Williams wrote:
> I have a few
> questions if you have a minute.
I guess there's no harm in being as open and honest as I can.
Don't seem to have anything to loose by answering questions...
> Does Gary have possession of the
> aircraft or is it at another repair facility? Does Gary have "his
> people" working on your plane or has it all been contracted out to
> outside vendors?
The aircraft is at Andrews-Murphy airport. Gary actually doesn't
have any of "his people". He has no shop, no mechanics, etc.
Apparently all work just goes to whatever shop is handy.
>Do you have any reasonably accurate information as to
> the current state of "airworthiness" of your airplane? Now , I don't
> necessarily mean the FAA definition of airworthy. I'm speaking more to
> the tune of "flyable".
As of a few days ago, the airplane was not flyable. JB confirmed
that fact, and also someone called my engine shop looking for help
resolving several problems. None of the required reports of status
as defined in our agreement have been made, so I don't know of the
status of those repairs either. No oil analysis has been done, and
I am unsure of the AD status at this time.
>When you executed your "gentlemen's agreement"
> with Gary did you also execute an "aircraft bill of sale" and FAA
> "registration application"?
Gary refused to provide that until full payment was made.
> From your telephone conversations with
> Gary, do you think there is any dispute as to your ownership of the
> airplane or that these "repairs" were his responsibility to accomplish
> at his cost?
We were very clear that the negotiated price was "top dollar for a
top airplane" and was to include all repairs including the engine
overhaul. I know that Gary understood clearly as I re-itterated many
times my desire to finance a "perfect, no questions, ready to fly
business aircraft which would need absolutely nothing".
>Is your current thinking that this entire deal has been a
> fraud from the outset with Grays original intent to abscond with your
> money and never deliver the aircraft as agreed or is it possible that
> he originally intended to complete the aircraft as agreed but has
> spent your money and now has no funding with which to complete the
> aircraft?
As hard as it is for me to conceive (and as long as it's taken for
me to come to the conclusion out of pure and simple denial that it
could be so), I now do indeed firmly believe that Gary's actions
went beyond basic incompetance and into the realm of fraud. I've
spent MANY sleepless nights and several very uncomfortable board
meetings coming to this conclusion.
> I'm sorry for all the questions, but I'm trying to see if there is any
> way to resolve this situation with some outside intervention or even
> if a "recovery" of the aircraft might be possible.
I'm certainly open to any suggestions. I've tried to be the
rational gentleman and have done everything I could think of to
work something out. I've made a number of (what I thought were)
exceedingly generous offers to Gary, but all have met with very
abrupt (and in some cases threatening) responses. At one time,
some months ago, out of sheer desperation and embarassment I even
offered to pay for almost all of the engine overhaul out of my
own pocket if he'd just refund my deposit. The response to that
was not something I care to think about...
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fran Myers <fmyers(at)attbi.com> |
I come late to the discussion. I saw the letter of intent, I get it that
Chris has been wronged but I don't know the beginning details.
Chris a few months ago you were having trouble, is this all the same
issue?
Fran
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frits Abbing <fritsabbing(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | to handle the truth |
TCFG
I also think that we as TCFG all have to support
Chris.
I hope that we are also a group if problems arise.
We have to share and help each other in positive and
negative experiences.
I think mr. Gadberry now has problems: serious
financial problems.
Because a GOOD business man:
*wants to work hard for his clients to have them
satisfied, just to get more clients.
*he does what he promises.
I do have the impression that mr Gadberry makes a mess
of it with a too low result.
What can we do in this situation for Chris?
We should give mr Gadbarry a chance to come back to
Chris but within a sharp time limit. Fix a date.
If he passes this time limit, he has had his chance
and we decide as TCFG not to do any business at all
with him. End of story for Aircenter with us.
How do we handle this towards mr Gadbarry?
As TCFG we could offer him like this:
1. Within a week to pay back Chris the whole amount.
If not
2. Deliver the plane(within a week)
If not
3. Explain (within a week)on paper what he did perform
for the money already received.
There has to be a check on what kind of work he
already did (or did not).
If not
4. TCFG decides to put him on the black list and this
person will be eliminated as doing business with.
This man will not be used anymore by us. End of his
work for TCFG.
At this moment Chris is at the end of his story. He is
a victim.
We have to change this situation for Chris.
It has to be mr. Gadberry who should be the victum if
he cannot comply the above mentioned targets and time
limit.
If somebody has another or even better! idea put it in
the chat group, but there has to be done something and
not only by e-mail, because this story lasts already
for a year.
We have to handle the truth!(a few good men)
In the long run everybody gets what he deserves. That
can be positive or negative.
Have confidence in the future and it all will turn out
right.
I hope we can make it together for Chris.
Frits Abbing
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | john williams <keyscrusing(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: letter of understanding |
Nico,
Yes, you are correct. There are ways to make Gary reveal his ability to
discharge a debt. The problem is that in order to get that far a judgment is
going to have to be awarded in Chris's favor. The old adage is "Getting the
judgment is easy---collecting is another story!" The process is just slow
enough that Gary can hide and "transfer" a good portion of his assets prior
to the execution of a judgment. The other problem is that the agency used to
"collect" and "secure" said assets to prevent the aforementioned from taking
place is the local county police department. It's kind of like asking the
wolf to watch the hen house. Never mind the "local good old boy" issue.
There may be some other ways to convince Gary that it would be in his best
interest to resolve this issue with Chris. I'll start this morning as soon
as I get into the office.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nico van Niekerk" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
To: "Chris Schuermann" ;
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 2:22 AM
Subject: Re: letter of understanding
> You guys are right. We don't need laws against someone like this, whether
he
> is a plumber, bricklayer, doctor, or aircraft facility, the market has to
> take care of this. Let him be known as a scoundrel and refuse to do
business
> with him. Let him face the consequences of his own actions. Next year we
> will pick up his assets at a bankruptcy sale if he doesn't change his
ways.
> If any one out there has legal experience: isn't there a law according to
> which a creditor (Chris) can force a debtor (Gary) to reveal his ability
to
> discharge his obligations, otherwise he is declared to be technically
> insolvent? Just asking.
> Chris, have you filed a complaint with the BBB and the FAA?
> Nico
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Schuermann" <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 7:10 PM
> Subject: Re: letter of understanding
>
>
> > > John D Williams wrote:
> > > I have a few
> > > questions if you have a minute.
> >
> > I guess there's no harm in being as open and honest as I can.
> > Don't seem to have anything to loose by answering questions...
> >
> > > Does Gary have possession of the
> > > aircraft or is it at another repair facility? Does Gary have "his
> > > people" working on your plane or has it all been contracted out to
> > > outside vendors?
> >
> > The aircraft is at Andrews-Murphy airport. Gary actually doesn't
> > have any of "his people". He has no shop, no mechanics, etc.
> > Apparently all work just goes to whatever shop is handy.
> >
> > >Do you have any reasonably accurate information as to
> > > the current state of "airworthiness" of your airplane? Now , I don't
> > > necessarily mean the FAA definition of airworthy. I'm speaking more to
> > > the tune of "flyable".
> >
> > As of a few days ago, the airplane was not flyable. JB confirmed
> > that fact, and also someone called my engine shop looking for help
> > resolving several problems. None of the required reports of status
> > as defined in our agreement have been made, so I don't know of the
> > status of those repairs either. No oil analysis has been done, and
> > I am unsure of the AD status at this time.
> >
> > >When you executed your "gentlemen's agreement"
> > > with Gary did you also execute an "aircraft bill of sale" and FAA
> > > "registration application"?
> >
> > Gary refused to provide that until full payment was made.
> >
> > > From your telephone conversations with
> > > Gary, do you think there is any dispute as to your ownership of the
> > > airplane or that these "repairs" were his responsibility to accomplish
> > > at his cost?
> >
> > We were very clear that the negotiated price was "top dollar for a
> > top airplane" and was to include all repairs including the engine
> > overhaul. I know that Gary understood clearly as I re-itterated many
> > times my desire to finance a "perfect, no questions, ready to fly
> > business aircraft which would need absolutely nothing".
> >
> > >Is your current thinking that this entire deal has been a
> > > fraud from the outset with Grays original intent to abscond with your
> > > money and never deliver the aircraft as agreed or is it possible that
> > > he originally intended to complete the aircraft as agreed but has
> > > spent your money and now has no funding with which to complete the
> > > aircraft?
> >
> > As hard as it is for me to conceive (and as long as it's taken for
> > me to come to the conclusion out of pure and simple denial that it
> > could be so), I now do indeed firmly believe that Gary's actions
> > went beyond basic incompetance and into the realm of fraud. I've
> > spent MANY sleepless nights and several very uncomfortable board
> > meetings coming to this conclusion.
> >
> >
> > > I'm sorry for all the questions, but I'm trying to see if there is any
> > > way to resolve this situation with some outside intervention or even
> > > if a "recovery" of the aircraft might be possible.
> >
> > I'm certainly open to any suggestions. I've tried to be the
> > rational gentleman and have done everything I could think of to
> > work something out. I've made a number of (what I thought were)
> > exceedingly generous offers to Gary, but all have met with very
> > abrupt (and in some cases threatening) responses. At one time,
> > some months ago, out of sheer desperation and embarassment I even
> > offered to pay for almost all of the engine overhaul out of my
> > own pocket if he'd just refund my deposit. The response to that
> > was not something I care to think about...
> >
> > Chris
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: letter of understanding |
Nico van Niekerk wrote:
> Chris, have you filed a complaint with the BBB and the FAA?
Actually, no. I sure could do that with the BBB, but didn't
know (if) the FAA had any method (no doubt there's a form :-)
to do that. Good idea - thanks!
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com> |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Performance data for the AC-680 |
Hello All,
My name is Michael Burton I purchased my AC-680 last summer and am looking for
information on cruze performance numbers rpm, MP, fuel burn, air speed. For flight
planning purposes. The aircraft man is quite sparse in this area. I am
including te check list that I created for 6229B.
Michael Burton
Michael Burton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | 680E flies again! |
It had been about 7 months (the 17th of October 2001 to be exact) since
I last flew 680E. Between a difficult partnership, not being able to
get insurance coverage, and about 102 other things on my plate, flying
the old gal was not high on my list.
Nevertheless, with a pre-purchase inspection on Friday, I bought out my
partner and took delivery on Saturday. As I strapped into the left seat
at Camarillo with my partner looking on from his hangar, I fired her up
and gleefully toed the left rudder pedal to pull out of that stable for
the last time. It was a comforting feeling knowing I would no longer
have to deal with the frustrations of a long distance partnership gone
south.
As I rolled in the MP, holding the brakes for all they're worth, I
remembered why I bought this plane in the first
place.....RRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRR-YOU-
CAN'T-HOLD-ME-BACK-IF-YOU-TRY!!! it said as 3500 RPM poured through the
augmenter tubes....and at about 40 inches I could hold her no more. We
(that's me and 680E, of course) made a climbing right turn back over the
airport, as I felt it only proper to let the sound linger there as long
as possible as a last hurrah.
The trip down the coast line to SNA was wonderul. 4500' purring along
with the power pulled back to 29inches/2600rpm, yet we were still making
165 kts. Flying over the top of LAX, I thought what a privilege it was
to fly GA - no idiot security guards screening 80 year old grandmas, no
delays because the weather in Atlanta is a mess, and best of all, no
too-big-for-the-seat inconsiderate person sitting next to you coughing
up a lung while popping his gum and humming along to Jennifer Lopez. As
ATC brought me out of that nightmare with "Commander 6-8-0-Echo, your
cleared own nav to John Wayne, descent at your discretion," it was time
to duck under the marine layer and head into SNA.
Seeing as how I had not flown her in 7 months (mind you I had about 150
hrs. in the CJ-6 in that time, see
http://www.yakpilots.org/sun/673.jpg. Photo courtesy of TCFG member
Bilbo!) and would be flying into a 2300 ft. strip the following day, it
was time to ask for the short runway and knock some of the rust off.
Much to my suprise, it was like riding a bike - more a testament to the
680E than my flying skills - as she squeeked down on the numbers. I
wish someone was there to wipe the smile off my face, because I imagine
I looked a tad silly when I was still wearing it as I pulled up at the
FBO. Ending as any good flight should, I was greeted by my loving wife
with a hug and a smooch. Even though the next day was to be a bit
somber, I was already looking forward to being back at the controls.
Eariler in the week, my wife's aunt had passed away, so we were headed
to Cameron Park, just outside of Sacramento, for the memorial service.
It was comforting knowing that we'd be there when we planned because we
didn't have to rely on commercial travel, and also knowing the trip
would take about 3 hours less and cost about the same. As luck would
have it, this day was the only rainy day here in several weeks. With a
3000' ceiling, however, it was the perfect scenario for my first actual
IMC in the Commander.
With 40 inches of manifold pressure, 30 on the R's, and the VSI showing
about 1200 fpm, we blasted into the grey abyss right at 3000'.
"Commander 680E, climb to 7000, report reaching on top conditions."
Knowing that the tops were right about 5500 I knew my total actual time
was limited - just how a guy fresh off his instrument ticket wants it.
True to form, at 5500 we were climbing away from the powdered sugar-like
cloud layer on our way up to 10.5 for the 2 hour trip to O61.
For those of you whom have not been up the east side of California's
Central Valley, it is quite a pleasant trip. With the snow capped
Sierras off in the distance, the foothills are full of beautiful lakes
and rolling terrain. Somehow flying relatively low over the countryside
never gets old. As we approached Cameron Park, the winds were getting a
bit gusty and I knew the landing was going to keep my hands and feet
busy until we exited the runway. With an upwind entry to check the
windsock, 680E paraded overhead before turning downwind for 21. The
approach at O61 is a bit steep, with a bluff about 1/4 mi. off the
numbers. Combine that with tricky winds and less than 2500 feet will
moisten the palms in most airplanes, but the Commander handled it like a
champ, and the pilot even kicked it straight for the second
touchdown! :)
Though we had planned to leave at 4 pm, it was closer to 7 by the time
we left. Again, thank goodness for my instrument ticket. I would have
never attempted the flight over high mountainous terrain from O61 to
Sedona, AZ without the knowledge of the airways and approach procedures
I had recently learned. Another first for me in 680E was about to
commence.
As we blasted out of Cameron Park, the sun was about 45 minutes from
setting behind our tail. Our route took us right over the southern
Sierras and Mammoth with all their beautiful rocky, snow-capped ridge
lines and lakes shimmering in the late afternoon sun. At 13,500' we
were only about 2000 AGL, and at times much less. There still is
unblemished splendor in this great country of ours, and fortunately for
us our Aero Commanders afford us a better view than just about anything
flying.
After Bishop, CA, we stuck to the airways Vegas as the Nevada high
desert turned from orange, to red, to deep red, to black on a moonless
night. You could see the glow of the Las area from over 100 miles away,
and as we passed over the state line at I-15 (last spot to loose your
wallet for the earthbound) the dazzling lights of Vegas were almost
surpassed by the combination of a busy night in the sky along with the
innumerable stars. A GPS approach to Rwy 03 ended our trip at just
after 10 p.m. local time. I must say flying into Sedona for the first
time, at night, is a way to keep your blood pressure up. Not knowing
exactly where those big red airplane catchers are is a little unnerving.
With two beautifully relaxing days under our belts (humming and being
one with the spirits, etc.) we completed the journey with a 2 hour
flight home to 680E's new home in Chino, California. In all, it was a
little over 8 hours of flying, a perfect way to get reacquainted with
the old gal.
I love Commanders.
Barry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
Friends,
First, I'd like to say again how touched I am at the
spontaneous outpouring of support y'all have shown me
recently. It's meant a lot.
I have been told today, however, that some of the enthusiasm
and intent to show support may have degraded some. Although
I havn't personally confirmed this, I have been told that
there have been some threats sent to Gadberry. No matter
how bad I think this situation has become, I would like to
request that no degrading or threatening contact occur with
him. Although I truely appreciate the fact that people are
sending notes encouraging Gary to do the morally "right
thing", I do not want ANYONE treated in a way that I wouldn't
want treated. This has always been my personal mantra and I
would ask that everyone respect that. I still only wish to
take the "high ground" here and work out something acceptable.
I have asked a friend to act as a "mediator" of sorts to
attempt to architect and acceptable agreement. I have
great hopes that this will occur, and that I can put all of
this behind me once and for all.
Thank you,
Chris
cc: Gary Gadberry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | w.bow <w.bow(at)att.net> |
Subject: Fw: lol ;-)
A young and foolish pilot wanted to sound cool and show who was boss on the aviation
frequencies. So, this was his first time approaching a field during the
nighttime. Instead of making any official requests to the tower, he said, "Guess
who?"
The controller switched the field lights off and replied, "Guess where!"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> |
There has been a fair amount of interest in my 680E (N680E, oddly
enough). Therefore, I'm going to post the ad from TAP here...
1960 680E, TTAF 7311, SMOH R/L 384. AD free Hartzell's. New inst. panel,
Garmin 300XL, KNS80, KX-155, Scott ox. sys., all AD's and SB's complied
with. $135,000. CA(949) 300-5510. radialpower(at)cox.net
The plane is IFR GPS Approach certified. Interior is recently new (4
years) grey with black accents, exterior is white with blue stripes.
The plane runs like a top, engines very dry, and has had much of the
work that comes with a 40+ yr. old bird done in the last 18
months....retract cylinders redone, new Janitrol heater core, new
ignition harnesses, exhaust seats reground and new exhaust studs
installed, etc., etc.
I'm working on photos and will have some by next week.
The plane is based at Chino, CA. If you buy the plane I'll give you a
free tour of the museum! :)
Cheers,
Barry Hancock
cell: (949) 300-5510
fax: (949) 766-0590
radialpower(at)cox.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: W32.Elkern removal tools |
I did not send this!!!! I guess I've got a damned virus on my computer
now!!!
Sorry!!
JetPaul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: W32.Elkern removal tools |
Hell not only did I not send this, I wasn't even home on the date it was
sent. I have been gone since friday morning.
Maybe that guy with the red corvette who frequents my house when I'm not home
did it.
JetPaul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: W32.Elkern removal tools |
Thank god for late night west coast people....I was just about to steal a
DC-8 freighter and fly home to figure out what was going on!!!
JetPaul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> |
In a message dated 06/16/02 11:03:24 Pacific Daylight Time,
kerryvjohnson(at)yahoo.com writes:
> I don't
> understand why this is always the case, but it has
> been so every trip I've made into the LA basin. Why
> can't the controllers settle on a routing?
Kerry,
The best way I've heard ATC's job described: "Controllers put airplanes
where airplanes aren't."
You know how saturated the SoCal airspace is. ATC really does a remarkable
job of getting as many airplanes into the air as they can ... and there is
nothing that says they have to.
Quite the opposite. The could ground stop half of the traffic and still be
busy. So, the reroutes are annoying to us, but it's how we share the air:
My reroute is your IFR acceptance into the same area.
HHR is a very noise sensitive airport. I once gave a Turbo Commander
initial and we used that airport as a stop because it fit my client's biz
trip.
On departure, being new to the airplane, it took a bit long to get the second
engine started and taxi out (reviewing the NTS check procedure and other
system checks monitored during engine starts).
Two weeks later he got a letter from the City of Hawthorne admonishing him
for creating so much noise and "lingering" at the tie down area.
He said he was going to frame it.
I wonder if the 680-F will get a similar letter ... of course we could send
Barry Hancock there with his 680-E to raise the bar on noise standards. Or
close the airport all together!
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance data for the AC-680 |
In a message dated 06/14/02 10:04:24 Pacific Daylight Time,
michael@digital-photography.com writes:
> My name is Michael Burton I purchased my AC-680 last summer and am looking
> for information on cruze performance numbers rpm, MP, fuel burn, air speed.
>
Michael,
Welcome!
I get in Big Trouble every time I enter the Check List arena, so why miss
another opportunity?
The power settings I use for the 680E are (fuel flow is per engine):
AC680-E / GSO-480
65% 33" @ 2600 RPM 17.5 GPH
35" @ 2400 RPM 17.0 GPH
60% 31.5" @ 2600 RPM 15 GPH
33.O" @ 2400 RPM 15 GPH
Take off is full power (or top of the green MAP) and first reduction / climb
is 40" and 3000 RPM, top of climb is 36" and 2800 RPM, if memory serves me
well. There's more current 680E operators here than I ...
Check lists are very very personal and whatever works for you works.
I do have a few comments and/or free advice, which is worth every penny.
You have essentially taken the factory check list and replicated it with some
enhancements.
Rather than reinvent a square wheel, I'd encourage you to sit in your cockpit
and develop a cockpit flow and rewrite your checklist to reflect that flow,
breaking it down to phases of flight.
Pre flight
Engine start
Taxi
Take off
Cruise
Decent
Approach
Landing
Shut down
Also consider the words of an examiner I used to work with, "A check list
with more than 8 items on it is worthless." Meaning, it ceases to be a check
list and a "How to fly novel."
My opinion is that an overly detailed checklist is worthless in flight
because *as a single pilot* you cannot both read and fly well. You can do
one or the other, not both.
Looks like your current check list is oriented toward training / initial
operating experience. Lots of obvious stuff on it. That's good for now, if
you're flying dual pilot. Makes the pee run cold in me to think of you
trying to fly an unfamiliar airplane and working with a cumbersome check
list, all alone.
After some time, you'll trim it down.
That being said, a few more comments.
On your pre-start checks, cycle each of your fuel selectors from OFF to
Center to AUX and back to Center. This is one of the "quiet checks" that has
to be done before engine start so you can hear the electric gate valves
operate. Also assures your fuel is on, in the case of turning switches
while the electrical master is still off. (Yes, I've seen this done more than
once!)
Your reference to mixture settings belies the fact that your pressure carbs /
automatic mixture control is not set up correctly.
On the 680E, your mixtures should really only be used for shutting down the
engines (idle cut off) and then PLACED BACK IN FULL RICH while the airplane
is parked.
As a matter of Lycoming GSO and IGSO operating technique, I advocate leaving
the props at cruise setting all the way from top of descent to touch down.
3000 RPM is better than full RPM, but your gear boxes prefer 26-2800 RPM to
assure the props do not turn the engine.
Not that I would ever challenge a factory check list written by engineers and
attorneys, but ...
On your engine fire check list, contemplate the fact that your fuel shut off
is not at the engine fire wall.
What would happen if you shut the fuel selector OFF first, ran the fuel lines
and carburetor dry at full power and RPM (maybe blowing the fire out as
well), and then shut down the engine, followed by the rest of securing items?
Just a philosophical exercise in true systems analysis.
There's more, much of which is my opinion, but I think you get the idea. I
am lovingly suggesting you develop an ergonomically and systems correct
checklist for the way you fly.
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance data for the AC-680 |
Keith wrote:
>What would happen if you shut the fuel selector OFF first
>, ran the fuel lines and carburetor dry at full
>power and RPM (maybe blowing the fire out as well),
>and then shut down the engine
I've always wondered why that wasn't the "normal" proceedure.
Sure makes sense to get rid of the flamable liquid as quickly
as possible in event of a fire. All of the emergency lists
I've ever seen don't consider that....
chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance data for the AC-680 |
Michael,
I fully agree with Keith. My 685 manual has 45 pages of checklists.
Long ones are OK when learning your bird but you really have to streamline it for
operational purposes.
No more than 10 points for each phase of flight then commit them to memory.
I usually do each phase without the checklist then review the list when appropriate.
ie;
I will go all the way through runup then review my checklists up to and thru takeoff
just before I take the runway. This is where I pickup the things I forgot
that might kill me like "boost pumps low"
Then after I level off at altitude or when in a stable climb I will review the
appropriate checklist. This is where I usually get reminded to put the flaps up.
Memorizing the salient points of the emergency checklist is absolutely essential.
I can tell you from experience when the plane decides to bite you , you have
to be doing and not reading.
After awhile you will be able to develop a checklist that works for you and your
plane. As Chris alluded the factory lists aren"t so correct as not to be improved
upon with common sense and experience.
Also call and talk to the other 680 owners about their opinions and experiences.
Milt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Campbell <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com> |
So..
Once upon a time, it was mentioned that the ozzie CASA has government-generated
operating manuals for various aircraft, including,presumably the 520.
Gosh! it would be nice to know where to find/how to get those, cause I'm still
using the 9 page manual Twin Commander prints and, well it's a masterpeice of
understatement....
Any ideas?
Bruce Campbell
AC52 N4186B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Commander Pilot |
Where are you based, Nico? 680E was at CMA when I had a partner, now
it's at Chino....
Barry
On Sunday, June 16, 2002, at 04:31 PM, Nico van Niekerk wrote:
> Folks,
> My family treated me to a Father's day meal at Camarillo airport's
> Waypoint restaurant. We had feast outside and the wheather was
> beautiful. I saw a turbine AC on the ramp with a guy and his family
> giving it a wash. Now that looked like a fantastic father's day family
> activity!
> I couldn't resist the temptation walking over there andtaking a few
> pictures of him and his family working on this love-chore.
> After introducing myself and asking if I could take some pictures, I
> smartly took the photographer's pose just to find out my digital
> camera's battery was run down!
> So, I apologized, gave him my card, and asked for his name and email
> address in case he would be interested joining TCFG. His plane is based
> at Camarillo soperhaps I will get pics later.
> His name is Mike Liska flying N375AA and his email address is
> airlessco1(at)aol.com
> Thanks for your kindess, Mike, letting me intrude out of the blue like
> that.
> You have a lovely family!
> Chat with the folks here at TCFG, Mike, and see if you find our group
> of interest to you.
> Our chief will give you a quick rundown on the group.
> Thanks
> Nico
>
>
>
>
Barry Hancock
9 Leatherwood Court
Coto de Caza, CA 92679
cell: (949) 300-5510
fax: (949) 766-0590
radialpower(at)cox.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance data for the AC-680 |
>
>
> I get in Big Trouble every time I enter the Check List arena, so why
> miss another opportunity?
You do tend to capitalize well! :)
>
> The power settings I use for the 680E are (fuel flow is per engine):
>
> AC680-E / GSO-480
> 65% 33" @ 2600 RPM 17.5 GPH
> 35" @ 2400 RPM 17.0 GPH
>
> 60% 31.5" @ 2600 RPM 15 GPH
> 33.O" @ 2400 RPM 15 GPH
I guess each airplane is gonna run a little differently and have
different "sweet spots." I've found the following settings to my
liking...
High cruise:
31" @ 2700 RPM
17 GPH and 183 KTAS
29" @ 2500 RPM
15 GPH and 175 KTAS
>
> Take off is full power (or top of the green MAP) and first reduction /
> climb is 40" and 3000 RPM, top of climb is 36" and 2800 RPM, if memory
> serves me well. There's more current 680E operators here than I ...
But few better...
> I do have a few comments and/or free advice, which is worth every penny.
But I'm living proof he does take donations! :)
>
> My opinion is that an overly detailed checklist is worthless in flight
> because *as a single pilot* you cannot both read and fly well. You can
> do one or the other, not both.
Amen. I had not been introduced to WCG's philosophy before flying with
him, but I'm sold on this now. Coming down the pipe at 185 kts (sure
you can go slower, but where's the fun in that?!) you don't have a ton
of time to be rifling through a lengthy check list.
> Looks like your current check list is oriented toward training /
> initial operating experience. Lots of obvious stuff on it. That's
> good for now, if you're flying dual pilot. Makes the pee run cold in
> me to think of you trying to fly an unfamiliar airplane and working
> with a cumbersome check list, all alone.
I have a standard check list I use when I have someone in the copilot's
seat (wife, buddy, etc.). When alone, I use the "flow".
>
> On your pre-start checks, cycle each of your fuel selectors from OFF to
> Center to AUX and back to Center. This is one of the "quiet checks"
> that has to be done before engine start so you can hear the electric
> gate valves operate. Also assures your fuel is on, in the case of
> turning switches while the electrical master is still off. (Yes, I've
> seen this done more than once!)
>
> Your reference to mixture settings belies the fact that your pressure
> carbs / automatic mixture control is not set up correctly.
>
> On the 680E, your mixtures should really only be used for shutting down
> the engines (idle cut off) and then PLACED BACK IN FULL RICH while the
> airplane is parked.
>
> As a matter of Lycoming GSO and IGSO operating technique, I advocate
> leaving the props at cruise setting all the way from top of descent to
> touch down.
Yeah. I'm currently working on pushing the prop levers full forward on
short final, when it will not affect blade angle.
>
> There's more, much of which is my opinion, but I think you get the
> idea. I am lovingly suggesting you develop an ergonomically and
> systems correct checklist for the way you fly.
>
FWIW, WCG has more time at the controls of, and instructing in, this
(and virtually every other model) aircraft than most anyone else on the
planet. Doesn't mean what he says is gospel, but it doesn't me it
isn't, either.
Cheers,
Barry Hancock
Flying Bdog Enterprises
(949) 300-5510
radialpower(at)cox.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | The Commander Ladder Dance |
In a message dated 06/16/02 17:27:51 Pacific Daylight Time,
radialpower(at)cox.net writes:
> > I get in Big Trouble every time I enter the Check List arena, so why
> > miss another opportunity?
>
> You do tend to capitalize well! :)
>
Yeah, so why do I feel so under capitalized?
Thanks for your input, Barry. I, and the 680E owners / shoppers appreciate
your perspective.
Anything more to add?
-------------
By the way, Michael, I left the exterior preflight critique out because of
time/space ... but what you have copied from the factory checklist is a
disaster. (Again, this is not leveled at you, but at the "box" of the 40+
year old check list)
Not that you're doing anything wrong, but it's not organized for the real
world.
The preflight begins at the baggage compartment where you have your box of
Commander goodies: ladder, fuel sampler/screw driver, bottle of 5606 and
rags, etc. GET SOME HYDRAULIC FLUID ON A RAG FOR WIPING DOWN THE HYDRAULIC
STRUTS you're on your way to visit.
First thing I do is set the ladder up aft of the left nacelle.
From there, I go to the inboard wing fuel sump, then down to the left main
landing gear, work up into the left wheel well: sumps, cables, hoses, uplock,
etc.
and from that point, ascend to the top of the left nacelle / wing for
hydraulic level and oil cap checks.
(The oil levels were checked on POST FLIGHT of course, weren't they?!!)
That done, slide the ladder to the mid leading edge or at least under wing.
You'll meet up with it in a second ...
check the left trailing edge, aileron, static wick (if there), wing tip / nav
light,
leading edge: deice boot, fuel vent, up on the ladder, aux tank fuel level
and/or cap security,
back on the ground, wing sump drains, front of the engine and prop (pull the
prop through, direction of rotation only, if you're check for hydrostatic
lock). You already checked free play in the gear box on post flight.
drag the ladder with you ...
along the forward fuselage, windshield, static ports (if forward) / pitot
tube, nose wheel and steering actuator, wheel well checks, down the right
side checking same,
ladder set to the right inboard fuel tank for cap and fuel check (if topped
off) and forward top mounted antennas.
engine front and prop look,
under wing fuel sumps
drag the ladder with you toward right mid wing leading edge, check stall
vane, mid leading edge ...
climb up for the aux fuel cap /tank level check, hop down, leave the ladder
there or kick it under wing, right leading edge, fuel vent, tip, aft of wing
checks,
drag the ladder over to you at the aft right nacelle for oil cap check
(The oil levels were checked on POST FLIGHT of course, weren't they?!!)
hop down
right wheel well checks, right main landing gear checks, up to the
inboard wing fuel sump, then fuselage center sump,
grab the ladder, drag it with you (or place at the tail and go back to right
fuselage) static port,
hop up, remove exterior gust lock, check tail feathers, hop down drag the
ladder with you ...
left fuselage, static port, hop up and check the aft antenna farm,
home stretch ...
stow all your preflight gear and clean up.
Flying is dirty business. I suggest a box of surgical gloves with the rest
of your kit and wear them for preflight so you don't track that dirt into the
cockpit.
Besides, it will scare your passengers when you tell them that due to
increased security, you have to search them as you put them on ...
Pre flighting a Commander is all about the Ladder Dance.
This is my version and there have to be 7,493 permutations of it. I wrote
this just off the top of my head, so we're not playing, "nya nya nya he
forgot to mention _____ ," and there will be differences for other models.
I'm just tying to illustrate the real world methodology of Commandering to
get you thinking in fluid, efficient flows around the airplane and on the
flight deck.
As Dr. Milt pointed out, there are things you just need to know, as a pilot.
Being consistent with a cockpit flow and knowing what to do at each phase of
flight is SAFER and more accurate than using a check list as a "what to do"
list.
Believe me, I've trained enough pilots in Commanders (and other types) to
know the truth: People reading check lists often don't do what they're
reading; their minds are not with their hands.
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
HI KIDS..
Had a great day today. Barry Collman and his good friend Chris
Haag have been at the Commander factory all last week looking into the
commander history. They are preparing to write a book and I can tell you
that there are some amazing historical events that non of us knew about,
great projects that never happened (Like a 690B gunship, "Magic Dragon") with
mini guns!! Anyway, they have been studying Commanders for days without a
single commander to look at.
So, they drove down from Arlington yesterday and we drove to Aero Air
for a "Commander fix" The Collings Foundation was there with the B-17 and
B-24.
Then today, we flew the 680E to Mcminville to the new home of the
spruce goose. I had seen it when it was in CA years ago, but you forget how
big it really is!! They have a very impressive museum built around it
including a b-17, ME-109. The tail span of the goose is larger than the
wingspan of the B-17! Lots of fun. Left there and flew to Independence Or
for lunch but the restaurant was closed so on to Albany for Chinese food.
Then a quick 78 mile trip home. I was a great day and my corporate
pilot had a great time as well. Old triple 2 is running great and a blast to
fly. We all had fun...
Hope all is well in Commanderland....jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Commander Pilot |
On Sunday, June 16, 2002, at 08:26 PM, Nico van Niekerk wrote:
> Hi Barry,
> I don't have a AC right now, but that should be fixed soon, I hope. I
> had a straight 500 on which I put about 1,500 hours, so I am currently
> flying a mahogany bomber in Woodland Hills CA. I first saw 680E when it
> belonged to Paul Odum and I followed the emails when he took on a
> partner and then got out of the deal completely. (That's what happened
> if my memory serves me correctly.) When I went to see Paul at Camarillo
> about a year ago, he was fitting some skin to the trailing edge of the
> inboard left wing.
> Were you the partner and what happened to Paul?
Yes, I was the partner, just bought him out last week. IT WAS A
DISASTER!!!! He rang up $20K in MX bills on an airplane that, as Paul
put it, "all there is left to do is fly the thing!" I guess I paid my
master's tuition in airplane partnerships.....
Barry
> Thanks
> Nico
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Barry W. Hancock
> To: Nico van Niekerk
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 5:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Commander Pilot
>
> Where are you based, Nico? 680E was at CMA when I had a partner, now
> it's at Chino....
>
> Barry
> On Sunday, June 16, 2002, at 04:31 PM, Nico van Niekerk wrote:
>
> Folks,
> My family treated me to a Father's day meal at Camarillo airport's
> Waypoint restaurant. We had feast outside and the wheather was
> beautiful. I saw a turbine AC on the ramp with a guy and his family
> giving it a wash. Now that looked like a fantastic father's day family
> activity!
> I couldn't resist the temptation walking over there andtaking a few
> pictures of him and his family working on this love-chore.
> After introducing myself and asking if I could take some pictures, I
> smartly took the photographer's pose just to find out my digital
> camera's battery was run down!
> So, I apologized, gave him my card, and asked for his name and email
> address in case he would be interested joining TCFG. His plane is based
> at Camarillo soperhaps I will get pics later.
> His name is Mike Liska flying N375AA and his email address is
> airlessco1(at)aol.com
> Thanks for your kindess, Mike, letting me intrude out of the blue like
> that.
> You have a lovely family!
> Chat with the folks here at TCFG, Mike, and see if you find our group
> of interest to you.
> Our chief will give you a quick rundown on the group.
> Thanks
> Nico
>
>
>
>
> Barry Hancock
> 9 Leatherwood Court
> Coto de Caza, CA 92679
> cell: (949) 300-5510
> fax: (949) 766-0590
> radialpower(at)cox.net
>
>
Barry Hancock
9 Leatherwood Court
Coto de Caza, CA 92679
cell: (949) 300-5510
fax: (949) 766-0590
radialpower(at)cox.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The Commander Ladder Dance |
On Sunday, June 16, 2002, at 06:34 PM, CloudCraft(at)aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 06/16/02 17:27:51 Pacific Daylight Time,
> radialpower(at)cox.net writes:
>
>
> > I get in Big Trouble every time I enter the Check List arena, so why
> > miss another opportunity?
>
> You do tend to capitalize well! :)
>
>
> Yeah, so why do I feel so under capitalized?
Now *that* is a matter of perspective!
>
> Thanks for your input, Barry. I, and the 680E owners / shoppers
> appreciate your perspective.
>
> Anything more to add?
I suspect that there are a few things you showed me that are not widely
followed, i.e. the fluid leak checks in the baggage comparment, etc..
Yes, any competent Commander owner should know this, but I owned my
Commander for 30 hrs. before I knew of this stuff....
Also, on the aircraft with dual hydraulic pumps (mine) make sure you
alternate engine starts between L and R, and check to make sure both are
operating properly.
Thanks for the post on the preflight.
BTW, can you stand on the tops of the wings on a 680E? I'm gonna wash
the beast tomorrow.... I suspect yes, but....
Barry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Randy Sharp <sharp.r(at)apple.com> |
On 6/16/02 8:22 PM, "YOURTCFG(at)aol.com" wrote:
> HI KIDS..
>
> Had a great day today. Barry Collman and his good friend Chris
> Haag have been at the Commander factory all last week looking into the
> commander history. They are preparing to write a book and I can tell you that
> there are some amazing historical events that non of us knew about, great
> projects that never happened (Like a 690B gunship, "Magic Dragon") with mini
> guns!! Anyway, they have been studying Commanders for days without a single
> commander to look at.
> So, they drove down from Arlington yesterday and we drove to Aero Air
> for a "Commander fix" The Collings Foundation was there with the B-17 and
> B-24.
> Then today, we flew the 680E to Mcminville to the new home of the
> spruce goose. I had seen it when it was in CA years ago, but you forget how
> big it really is!! They have a very impressive museum built around it
> including a b-17, ME-109. The tail span of the goose is larger than the
> wingspan of the B-17! Lots of fun. Left there and flew to Independence Or
> for lunch but the restaurant was closed so on to Albany for Chinese food.
> Then a quick 78 mile trip home. I was a great day and my corporate
> pilot had a great time as well. Old triple 2 is running great and a blast to
> fly. We all had fun...
> Hope all is well in Commanderland....jb
Now that would be a sight, we have 2 mini-guns on the Pave Hawk, No room!
(we used to have enough space for ten guys in the back)
I can imaging a little 690B cabin with over 8000 rounds of cans for the
mini-guns.
They would have about 5-10 bursts and then theyd be empty.
Not to mention the smoke, noise, jams that will occur.
But it sure would have been a sight to see a 690B strafing a target with
forward mounted minis!
Major RL Sharp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The Commander Ladder Dance |
In a message dated 06/16/02 20:43:03 Pacific Daylight Time,
radialpower(at)cox.net writes:
>
> BTW, can you stand on the tops of the wings on a 680E? I'm gonna wash
> the beast tomorrow.... I suspect yes, but....
The wings, yes. Stay on the rivet lines.
The tail, no.
I've seen many a squashed corrugated tail surface from people standing on
them.
Besides, your weight on the tail may tip the scale, fatso.
Wing Commander Gordon
also know by my Indian name, Dances with Ladders
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> |
On Sunday, June 16, 2002, at 09:13 PM, CloudCraft(at)aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 06/16/02 20:43:03 Pacific Daylight Time,
> radialpower(at)cox.net writes:
>
>
> BTW, can you stand on the tops of the wings on a 680E? I'm gonna wash
> the beast tomorrow.... I suspect yes, but....
>
>
> The wings, yes. Stay on the rivet lines.
>
> The tail, no.
Thanks.
>
> I've seen many a squashed corrugated tail surface from people standing
> on them.
Yeah, I might be stupid, but I'm not an idiot....most of the time.
>
> Besides, your weight on the tail may tip the scale, fatso.
Hence the Subject line...kiss my a**!! :) Funny you should mention it,
but tomorrow I'm starting with a personal trainer to get back down to my
"playing weight." To think I used to be 5% body fat, and ate nails 3
times a day...scary that this is the same body.
>
> Wing Commander Gordon
> also know by my Indian name, Dances with Ladders
>
Barry (will soon laugh at 8 G's) Hancock
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Calling SOCAL Aero Commander drivers |
Is there anyone in the SoCal area with a 500 B, S, or U that would be
willing to take me for a ride? When I sell 680E, I'll be in the market
for one as soon as the toddler (due in Dec.) is old enough to wear ear
plugs... :) I'd like a ride in one of these types as that's probably
the way I'm headed. I'll trade stick time in the 680E for it...you've
never experienced a max. performance T/O until you've done it in the
680E!
Cheers,
Barry Hancock
cell: (949) 300-5510
fax: (949) 766-0590
radialpower(at)cox.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Allen Reed <allen_reed2(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The Commander Ladder Dance |
Barry,The easiest way I found to wash Lucille is to pull the tail down until
it bottoms out,then put the step ladder under the nose wheel for safety.Once
this is done,just get a light mop or a scrub brush with a long handle and
srub away while being able to reach all of the surfaces. AL
>From: "Barry W. Hancock" <radialpower(at)cox.net>
>To: Commander Chat
>Subject: Re: The Commander Ladder Dance
>Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 20:31:03 -0700
>
>
>On Sunday, June 16, 2002, at 06:34 PM, CloudCraft(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>>In a message dated 06/16/02 17:27:51 Pacific Daylight Time,
>>radialpower(at)cox.net writes:
>>
>>
>> > I get in Big Trouble every time I enter the Check List arena, so why
>> > miss another opportunity?
>>
>>You do tend to capitalize well! :)
>>
>>
>>
>>Yeah, so why do I feel so under capitalized?
>
>Now *that* is a matter of perspective!
>
>>
>>Thanks for your input, Barry. I, and the 680E owners / shoppers
>>appreciate your perspective.
>>
>>Anything more to add?
>
>I suspect that there are a few things you showed me that are not widely
>followed, i.e. the fluid leak checks in the baggage comparment, etc.. Yes,
>any competent Commander owner should know this, but I owned my Commander
>for 30 hrs. before I knew of this stuff....
>
>Also, on the aircraft with dual hydraulic pumps (mine) make sure you
>alternate engine starts between L and R, and check to make sure both are
>operating properly.
>
>Thanks for the post on the preflight.
>
>BTW, can you stand on the tops of the wings on a 680E? I'm gonna wash the
>beast tomorrow.... I suspect yes, but....
>
>
>Barry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com> |
| Subject: | A Red & Gooey Flight |
So here's my latest adventure...
N353CC is down for annual, and I had to fly to Lake Tahoe for a friend's bachelor
party. So, I borrowed an airplane from Morris, a new arrival (had just been
delivered to his possession) 1973 Shrike, N634CT. He hadn't had time to look
it over, but according to the ferry pilot, flew just fine.
I picked up 4CT at about 5:30PM on a beautiful Thursday evening, and did a thorough
pre-flight. Nothing wrong. No leaks, no oil stains, everything looked A-OK.
Kicked the tires, lit the fires and jumped the short 15-minute hop to Byron
(C83) to pick up my friend Patrick. We left Byron and proceeded to 11,500' for
a serene cruise to TVL.....but it was not to be.
Shortly after leveling off, closing the cowl flaps, and setting up for cruise,
I heard a peculiar wind noise. "Aha" I said to myself, and as trained, peered
into the left prop spinner to see the reflection of the nosegear drooping down.
And again, as trained, I immediately looked at the hydraulic pressure gauge.
It read 200 lbs. Before I knew what I was even doing, I had yanked the aux pump
breaker. At this point, my mouth was moving much faster than my brain. I said,
"Wow, check it out...we've had a complete hydraulic failure!"
Patrick asked, "is that bad?"
"Well," I said, "it's not ideal."
At this point I'm glancing around for a clue as to what might have happened. It
was then I noticed that the main gear doors were open and the mains were hangin'
out of their wells about 8 inches (OK, maybe it was the howling wind noise
that alerted me to that as well). The right nacelle was bathed in red. From all
appearances, a hose had let go and pumped my meager 5 or 6 quarts of 5606 overboard,
probably into some Sacramentoan's swimming pool.
As I pondered pressing on to Tahoe (hey, Doolittle or Lindbergh wouldn't have quit),
the GPS fritzed. And the VOR's. And the HSI. And evidently the right alternator.
"Ah," I thought to myself, "the Flying Gods are sending me a message.....I
am Homer Bound." And turn we did, back to Byron.
I had ample time on my approach to wonder whether I was quick enough when pulling
the aux pump breaker....would there be enough fluid for brakes & steering?
For that matter, can I get the gear down? Gee, how is that (unproven lately) nitrogen
system, really? So, slow to 100kias or so, down with the gear lever......CHUNK
CHUNK............CHUN....K. Wow! 3 down & green! Gotta love those redundant
systems....aux pump breaker in on short final, no flaps, here we go....
After landing without event (well, as far as Patrick knew...I'll never tell him
that the first press of the brakes went all the way to the floor) we traded the
broken airplane for a very nice motorhome and experienced a 4.5-hr. drive to
Tahoe and a weekend of fun.
On Sunday, I returned to the wounded beast and filled the hydraulic reservoir.
I then flew another 15-min. hop to HWD with the gear down & locked the whole time.
No leaks, no problems, so we know the failure is somewhere in the "up" portion
of the gear system.
What did I learn?
1) Aero Commanders are VERY well-thought-out aircraft.
2) As claimed, emergencies pretty much seem to be non-events in these aircraft.
3) Before speaking, engage filter between brain & mouth. Set passenger(s) at ease.
4) Hydraulic fluid, even in small amounts, will ruin any article of clothing. Even
underwear.
5) Hydraulic fluid dries stronger than Super Glue.
Honestly, this is only my third or so honest-to-goodness emergency, and all have
had the same outcome (normal landing) due in very large part to a brilliantly
designed aircraft. I never stop marveling at these wonderful and underestimated
airplanes.
Of course, a little love from Lady Luck and the conspicuous absence of Mr. Murphy
never hurts.
Cheers & happy skies,
/John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russell Legg <rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Manuals from OZ |
Gday Bruce,
Tis true...CASA published some great manuals for Commanders, much motivated
by their own purchase of two 560E models (the first Commanders to arrive in
Oz) in 1960, subsequently followed by two 680E models. Commercial operators
later followed with the straight 680, 680F, 680FL, 680FLP and 685 as well
as the 500A/B/U/S models.
Our good mate Richard Thompson spent many hours coaxing copies out of the
modern bureaucracy last year!
Unfortunately there have been no examples of the 520 model make their way to
Oz over all this time and thus no manuals produced for this model. Same goes
for 560, 560A and 560F models.
The New Zealand airways people also did some good work in this area, but the
closest they got was the straight 500 model (also never operated in Oz); a
single example ZK-CWP still flying out of Auckland.
Sorry we cant be of any help around the 520.
Cheers
Russell
On 17/6/02 8:12 AM, "Bruce Campbell" wrote:
> So..
>
> Once upon a time, it was mentioned that the ozzie CASA has
> government-generated operating manuals for various aircraft,
> including,presumably the 520.
>
> Gosh! it would be nice to know where to find/how to get those, cause I'm still
> using the 9 page manual Twin Commander prints and, well it's a masterpeice of
> understatement....
>
> Any ideas?
>
>
> Bruce Campbell
> AC52 N4186B
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russell Legg <rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: 680E flies again! |
G'day Capt Baz!
Thanks for sharing your 8hrs in 680E with us! Great story!
Sorry to hear that you have to quit the old gal...
Cheers and beers
Russell
On 15/6/02 4:21 AM, "Barry W. Hancock" wrote:
> It had been about 7 months (the 17th of October 2001 to be exact) since
> I last flew 680E. Between a difficult partnership, not being able to
> get insurance coverage, and about 102 other things on my plate, flying
> the old gal was not high on my list.
>
> Nevertheless, with a pre-purchase inspection on Friday, I bought out my
> partner and took delivery on Saturday. As I strapped into the left seat
> at Camarillo with my partner looking on from his hangar, I fired her up
> and gleefully toed the left rudder pedal to pull out of that stable for
> the last time. It was a comforting feeling knowing I would no longer
> have to deal with the frustrations of a long distance partnership gone
> south.
>
> As I rolled in the MP, holding the brakes for all they're worth, I
> remembered why I bought this plane in the first
> place.....RRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRR-YOU-
> CAN'T-HOLD-ME-BACK-IF-YOU-TRY!!! it said as 3500 RPM poured through the
> augmenter tubes....and at about 40 inches I could hold her no more. We
> (that's me and 680E, of course) made a climbing right turn back over the
> airport, as I felt it only proper to let the sound linger there as long
> as possible as a last hurrah.
>
> The trip down the coast line to SNA was wonderul. 4500' purring along
> with the power pulled back to 29inches/2600rpm, yet we were still making
> 165 kts. Flying over the top of LAX, I thought what a privilege it was
> to fly GA - no idiot security guards screening 80 year old grandmas, no
> delays because the weather in Atlanta is a mess, and best of all, no
> too-big-for-the-seat inconsiderate person sitting next to you coughing
> up a lung while popping his gum and humming along to Jennifer Lopez. As
> ATC brought me out of that nightmare with "Commander 6-8-0-Echo, your
> cleared own nav to John Wayne, descent at your discretion," it was time
> to duck under the marine layer and head into SNA.
>
> Seeing as how I had not flown her in 7 months (mind you I had about 150
> hrs. in the CJ-6 in that time, see
> http://www.yakpilots.org/sun/673.jpg. Photo courtesy of TCFG member
> Bilbo!) and would be flying into a 2300 ft. strip the following day, it
> was time to ask for the short runway and knock some of the rust off.
> Much to my suprise, it was like riding a bike - more a testament to the
> 680E than my flying skills - as she squeeked down on the numbers. I
> wish someone was there to wipe the smile off my face, because I imagine
> I looked a tad silly when I was still wearing it as I pulled up at the
> FBO. Ending as any good flight should, I was greeted by my loving wife
> with a hug and a smooch. Even though the next day was to be a bit
> somber, I was already looking forward to being back at the controls.
>
> Eariler in the week, my wife's aunt had passed away, so we were headed
> to Cameron Park, just outside of Sacramento, for the memorial service.
> It was comforting knowing that we'd be there when we planned because we
> didn't have to rely on commercial travel, and also knowing the trip
> would take about 3 hours less and cost about the same. As luck would
> have it, this day was the only rainy day here in several weeks. With a
> 3000' ceiling, however, it was the perfect scenario for my first actual
> IMC in the Commander.
>
> With 40 inches of manifold pressure, 30 on the R's, and the VSI showing
> about 1200 fpm, we blasted into the grey abyss right at 3000'.
> "Commander 680E, climb to 7000, report reaching on top conditions."
> Knowing that the tops were right about 5500 I knew my total actual time
> was limited - just how a guy fresh off his instrument ticket wants it.
> True to form, at 5500 we were climbing away from the powdered sugar-like
> cloud layer on our way up to 10.5 for the 2 hour trip to O61.
>
> For those of you whom have not been up the east side of California's
> Central Valley, it is quite a pleasant trip. With the snow capped
> Sierras off in the distance, the foothills are full of beautiful lakes
> and rolling terrain. Somehow flying relatively low over the countryside
> never gets old. As we approached Cameron Park, the winds were getting a
> bit gusty and I knew the landing was going to keep my hands and feet
> busy until we exited the runway. With an upwind entry to check the
> windsock, 680E paraded overhead before turning downwind for 21. The
> approach at O61 is a bit steep, with a bluff about 1/4 mi. off the
> numbers. Combine that with tricky winds and less than 2500 feet will
> moisten the palms in most airplanes, but the Commander handled it like a
> champ, and the pilot even kicked it straight for the second
> touchdown! :)
>
> Though we had planned to leave at 4 pm, it was closer to 7 by the time
> we left. Again, thank goodness for my instrument ticket. I would have
> never attempted the flight over high mountainous terrain from O61 to
> Sedona, AZ without the knowledge of the airways and approach procedures
> I had recently learned. Another first for me in 680E was about to
> commence.
>
> As we blasted out of Cameron Park, the sun was about 45 minutes from
> setting behind our tail. Our route took us right over the southern
> Sierras and Mammoth with all their beautiful rocky, snow-capped ridge
> lines and lakes shimmering in the late afternoon sun. At 13,500' we
> were only about 2000 AGL, and at times much less. There still is
> unblemished splendor in this great country of ours, and fortunately for
> us our Aero Commanders afford us a better view than just about anything
> flying.
>
> After Bishop, CA, we stuck to the airways Vegas as the Nevada high
> desert turned from orange, to red, to deep red, to black on a moonless
> night. You could see the glow of the Las area from over 100 miles away,
> and as we passed over the state line at I-15 (last spot to loose your
> wallet for the earthbound) the dazzling lights of Vegas were almost
> surpassed by the combination of a busy night in the sky along with the
> innumerable stars. A GPS approach to Rwy 03 ended our trip at just
> after 10 p.m. local time. I must say flying into Sedona for the first
> time, at night, is a way to keep your blood pressure up. Not knowing
> exactly where those big red airplane catchers are is a little unnerving.
>
> With two beautifully relaxing days under our belts (humming and being
> one with the spirits, etc.) we completed the journey with a 2 hour
> flight home to 680E's new home in Chino, California. In all, it was a
> little over 8 hours of flying, a perfect way to get reacquainted with
> the old gal.
>
> I love Commanders.
>
> Barry
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Hamilton <fighterf(at)ozemail.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Manuals from OZ |
Bruce,
I would take a slightly different line, the Australia "Approved Operations
Manuals" contained a large measure of Australian unique restrictions and
limitations, a polite way of saying bulldust.
The New Zealanders did likewise, and I have a NZ 500A manual, because I
also have the last 500A operated for many years by NZ Department of Civil
Aviation, hence the DC registration,in this case ZK-DCF. This was about the
third last 500A built, in 1962.
The aeroplane is very original, including a boat load of Collins radio, all
weighs a ton, but still all works.
In both countries, the required operations manual now is the FAA Airplane
Flight Manual, as the aircraft was originally certified, no more all the
home grown restrictions.
You may know that we have one operator here who is very definitely an AC
fan, he has 28 --- mostly 500S and T, and he does some of the best
restorations I have seen, all his aircraft come out of the hangar as
potential show winners. And then go to work.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton.
At 09:04 PM 17/06/02 +0930, you wrote:
>G day Bruce,
>
>T is true...CASA published some great manuals for Commanders, much
>motivated by their own purchase of two 560E models (the first Commanders
>to arrive in Oz) in 1960, subsequently followed by two 680E models.
>Commercial operators later followed with the straight 680, 680F, 680FL,
>680FLP and 685 as well as the 500A/B/U/S models.
>Our good mate Richard Thompson spent many hours coaxing copies out of the
>modern bureaucracy last year!
>
>Unfortunately there have been no examples of the 520 model make their way
>to Oz over all this time and thus no manuals produced for this model. Same
>goes for 560, 560A and 560F models.
>
>The New Zealand airways people also did some good work in this area, but
>the closest they got was the straight 500 model (also never operated in
>Oz); a single example ZK-CWP still flying out of Auckland.
>
>Sorry we can t be of any help around the 520.
>
>Cheers
>
>Russell
>
>On 17/6/02 8:12 AM, "Bruce Campbell" wrote:
>So..
>Once upon a time, it was mentioned that the ozzie CASA has
>government-generated operating manuals for various aircraft,
>including,presumably the 520.
>Gosh! it would be nice to know where to find/how to get those, cause I'm
>still using the 9 page manual Twin Commander prints and, well it's a
>masterpeice of understatement....
>Any ideas?
>
> Bruce Campbell
> AC52 N4186B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | cjpilot710(at)aol.com <cjpilot710(at)aol.com> |
Fellow Aviators,
As you know Im down in Brazil visiting our 7 mo old #2 grandson. Great!
I am able get a few short minutes on my daughter-in-laws computer at her lab here
at Unversidade Federal De Minas Gerais in Belo Horizonte (Beautiful Horizons).
Day before yesterday my daughter-in-law took me out to the local airport to meet
the folks there.
I was invited to stay for the ienation of two newly soloed pilots. After witnessing
this `right of passage`, Ive come to the belief that these folks down here
are either nuts or have bass balls!!!!!!!!
1. First the newly soloed student is required to strip down to their shorts.
2. They are than tied down in the wreckage of a burned out plane (In this case
a J-3 Cub)
3. On their bare backs are painted their solo aircrafts letters.
4. After remarks by their instructors (which of course I could not understand)they
were completely covered with gallons of used engine oil!!!!!! Friends I mean
from head to tail TOTAL!
The next thing I notice was that every one was running. Why? Well as soon as
the students could get them selves free of their tie downs, they could hug anyone
they wanted!!!!!!!!!!!
Nope, I didnt get caught but a few did.
Afterward the club had a little get together`that lasted until 2am (I was told)
Every time I turn around someone was refilling my glass with SKOL.
If anyone wants to start this right of passage in the US, we need to check with
EPA for a permit, because the ground down here was well soaked.
Will be home on the 20th.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Commander Pilot |
On Sunday, June 16, 2002, at 11:39 PM, Nico van Niekerk wrote:
> I am sorry to hear that. Some wise old hanger dude told me long ago:
> the worst ship that ever sailed was a partnership. Stuck to it ever
> since.
> Nico
Yep, I didn't have the benefit of that wisdom....now I do! :)
Barry
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Barry W. Hancock
> To: Nico van Niekerk
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 8:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Commander Pilot
>
> On Sunday, June 16, 2002, at 08:26 PM, Nico van Niekerk wrote:
>
> Hi Barry,
> I don't have a AC right now, but that should be fixed soon, I hope. I
> had a straight 500 on which I put about 1,500 hours, so I am currently
> flying a mahogany bomber in Woodland Hills CA. I first saw 680E when it
> belonged to Paul Odum and I followed the emails when he took on a
> partner and then got out of the deal completely. (That's what happened
> if my memory serves me correctly.) When I went to see Paul at Camarillo
> about a year ago, he was fitting some skin to the trailing edge of the
> inboard left wing.
> Were you the partner and what happened to Paul?
>
>
> Yes, I was the partner, just bought him out last week. IT WAS A
> DISASTER!!!! He rang up $20K in MX bills on an airplane that, as Paul
> put it, "all there is left to do is fly the thing!" I guess I paid my
> master's tuition in airplane partnerships.....
>
> Barry
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Nico
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Barry W. Hancock
> To: Nico van Niekerk
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 5:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Commander Pilot
>
> Where are you based, Nico? 680E was at CMA when I had a partner, now
> it's at Chino....
>
> Barry
> On Sunday, June 16, 2002, at 04:31 PM, Nico van Niekerk wrote:
>
> Folks,
> My family treated me to a Father's day meal at Camarillo airport's
> Waypoint restaurant. We had feast outside and the wheather was
> beautiful. I saw a turbine AC on the ramp with a guy and his family
> giving it a wash. Now that looked like a fantastic father's day family
> activity!
> I couldn't resist the temptation walking over there andtaking a few
> pictures of him and his family working on this love-chore.
> After introducing myself and asking if I could take some pictures, I
> smartly took the photographer's pose just to find out my digital
> camera's battery was run down!
> So, I apologized, gave him my card, and asked for his name and email
> address in case he would be interested joining TCFG. His plane is based
> at Camarillo soperhaps I will get pics later.
> His name is Mike Liska flying N375AA and his email address is
> airlessco1(at)aol.com
> Thanks for your kindess, Mike, letting me intrude out of the blue like
> that.
> You have a lovely family!
> Chat with the folks here at TCFG, Mike, and see if you find our group
> of interest to you.
> Our chief will give you a quick rundown on the group.
> Thanks
> Nico
>
>
>
>
> Barry Hancock
> 9 Leatherwood Court
> Coto de Caza, CA 92679
> cell: (949) 300-5510
> fax: (949) 766-0590
> radialpower(at)cox.net
>
>
> Barry Hancock
> 9 Leatherwood Court
> Coto de Caza, CA 92679
> cell: (949) 300-5510
> fax: (949) 766-0590
> radialpower(at)cox.net
>
>
Barry Hancock
9 Leatherwood Court
Coto de Caza, CA 92679
cell: (949) 300-5510
fax: (949) 766-0590
radialpower(at)cox.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A Red & Gooey Flight |
Great job John!! jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A Red & Gooey Flight |
In a message dated 6/16/02 11:19:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
john(at)vormbaum.com writes:
> What did I learn?
>
> 1) Aero Commanders are VERY well-thought-out aircraft.
> 2) As claimed, emergencies pretty much seem to be non-events in these
> aircraft.
> 3) Before speaking, engage filter between brain & mouth. Set passenger(s)
> at ease.
> 4) Hydraulic fluid, even in small amounts, will ruin any article of
> clothing. Even underwear.
> 5) Hydraulic fluid dries stronger than Super Glue.
>
6) As an s.o.p.always pull the aux hydraulic c/b after gear retraction and
only reengage upon extention after verifying hydraulic pressure is stable.
Any problems w/ the motor home, or was it only the airplane that was jinxed?
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MOEMILLS(at)aol.com <MOEMILLS(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | M 4 Autopilot run away trim |
Dear Commander Folks:
What is the most common cause of elevator run away trim with an M4 autopilot?
The trim adjusts its self even when altitude hold is not engaged. Some
times it adjusts trim up and some times it adjusts trim down. About the only
thing that the trim won't do is stay adjusted. The only way that I have found
to stop this is to disconnect the cannon plug on the trim servo. With this
plug disconnected, all other functions seem to work just fine.
We have the complete M4 manual, however, we are having a hard time in
determining what part we should attack first. Any help will be gratefully
appreciated.
ALSO, this may be chat (I don't do the chat line) but who all is going to
OSH? Maybe we could get together?
Thanks,
Moe Mills
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis Polito <cloudhopper(at)attbi.com> |
Moe et al:
I plan to attend Oshkosh again this year, if anyone is interested drop me an e
mail and maybe we can coordinate a group arrival. The plan is to spend the night
somewhere within 200-300 miles from KOSH and then fly in on the 22nd of July.
Early arrival will insure a spot on the North 40, otherwise arriving on the
show start date may be risky due to airport saturation.
Dennis Polito N6273X
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: M 4 Autopilot run away trim |
In a message dated 6/17/02 12:59:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
MOEMILLS(at)aol.com writes:
> What is the most common cause of elevator run away trim with an M4
> autopilot?
Moe,
In my experience taking M-4s to the autopilot shop, it's almost always a
$0.39 capacitor on the circuit board.
This $0.39 capacitor costs way more than 39 cents, of course, and some shops
will replace the whole pitch control logic board instead of trying to find
which capacitor is bad.
This was the case with what is now Milt's AC-685 which had a pitch
oscillation that could not be trimmed out.
Where are you located?
You can take the autopilot to Autopilot Central in Tulsa, or, you can pay for
someone else's education.
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | 500 A, B, S, U info |
Gang,
Well, there doesn't appear to be anyone in the group with a 500 series
in the SoCal area. I would like accounts of these aircraft from anyone
in the group that has one.
The basic areas I'm looking for are
-performance (climb, cruise, single engine performane, etc.)
-economy (gph, annual maintainence, cost of an oil change, etc.)
-insurance costs
-general experience with airplane
I'm not looking for book numbers, rather what *your* plane does on
*your* mission. Also, if there is anyone in the group (WCG, you can
step in here) that can differentiate the subtle nuances between the
models, that will be helpful.
Finally, what precautions (with the exception of a shot of No Name) /
suggestions do you have for flying with little ones. I don't plan to
stick Baby Hancock in the back at 3 months, but I do want input on when
it is safe for them and how to properly protect their hearing, etc.
After all, this is the sole reason I'm getting out of the 680E....
Thanks!
Barry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CapnSpray(at)aol.com <CapnSpray(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Manuals from OZ |
Gentelman: I have all the performance manuals for the 680 F(P) with the 380
HP IGSO Engines,If that would be of any help I would be glad to make some
copy' s or maybe scan them and send on the web.
capnspray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
Well, I spent much of my childhood (with my brother) in
the back of various airplanes and y'all can see what
horrible things happened to me. Beware!
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Manuals from OZ |
A good idea.
I'll vote for the scan/web option, those interested would be able to download the
necessary pages or complete file/manual.
Although a 680FL would be more to my point.
Tom...
----- Original Message -----
From: CapnSpray(at)aol.com
To: baruch(at)intelligentflight.com ; commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 14:55
Subject: Re: Manuals from OZ
Gentelman: I have all the performance manuals for the 680 F(P) with the 380
HP IGSO Engines,If that would be of any help I would be glad to make some copy'
s or maybe scan them and send on the web.
capnspray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Manuals from OZ |
In a message dated 06/17/02 15:40:51 Pacific Daylight Time,
tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca writes:
> A good idea.
> I'll vote for the scan/web option, those interested would be able to
> download the necessary pages or complete file/manual.
>
I know TCAC is monitoring.
Any objections to posting manuals on the web?
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Campbell <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com> |
Airplane willing, I'm planning to head to OSH this year. I've got >6
formation arrivals with bonanzas if that's any help.
Bruce Campbell
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis Polito
To: commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 1:12 PM
Subject: Fw: Oshkosh
Moe et al:
I plan to attend Oshkosh again this year, if anyone is interested drop me an
e mail and maybe we can coordinate a group arrival. The plan is to spend the night
somewhere within 200-300 miles from KOSH and then fly in on the 22nd of July.
Early arrival will insure a spot on the North 40, otherwise arriving on the
show start date may be risky due to airport saturation.
Dennis Polito N6273X
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Campbell <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Manuals from OZ |
Won't go me any good becuase of the "Very" big differences in performance/size,
etc.
But I appreciate the offer. It sounds like it will work for some others, though.
Bruce Campbell
AC52 N4186B
----- Original Message -----
From: CapnSpray(at)aol.com
To: baruch(at)www.IntelligentFlight.com ; commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Manuals from OZ
Gentelman: I have all the performance manuals for the 680 F(P) with the 380
HP IGSO Engines,If that would be of any help I would be glad to make some copy'
s or maybe scan them and send on the web.
capnspray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CapnSpray(at)aol.com <CapnSpray(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Manuals from OZ |
In a message dated 6/17/02 7:05:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
CloudCraft(at)aol.com writes:
>
> I know TCAC is monitoring.
>
> Any objections to posting manuals on the web?
>
> Wing Commander Gordon
>
Thanks Kieth, You are always thinking ahead of us all.
capnspray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
In a message dated 6/17/02 6:00:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Rewmb writes:
> Now I am looking for a part-time pilot for the Company to fly the 685 when I
> cannot. The 685 will be based out of theSan Francisco Bay Area. Have any
> ideas?
>
> Matt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A Red & Gooey Flight |
Well, the fridge in the motorhome was acting up, and the beer wouldn't chill until
the second day of the trip...
It's not part of my SOP to pull the breaker after t/o. I was trained to pull it
if I recognized a problem with the hyd. system (i.e. nosegear dropping out).
It seems I found one of the failure modes where that practice, if not fast enough,
might leave you SOL. I say, at 1,000psi, those dual pumps can eject 5 qts.
of fluid FAST, if a larger hose/fitting lets go!!!!
I'll remember that for future flights.
Thanks a ton!
/J
----- Original Message -----
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com
To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: A Red & Gooey Flight
In a message dated 6/16/02 11:19:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time, john(at)vormbaum.com
writes:
What did I learn?
1) Aero Commanders are VERY well-thought-out aircraft.
2) As claimed, emergencies pretty much seem to be non-events in these aircraft.
3) Before speaking, engage filter between brain & mouth. Set passenger(s) at
ease.
4) Hydraulic fluid, even in small amounts, will ruin any article of clothing.
Even underwear.
5) Hydraulic fluid dries stronger than Super Glue.
6) As an s.o.p.always pull the aux hydraulic c/b after gear retraction and only
reengage upon extention after verifying hydraulic pressure is stable.
Any problems w/ the motor home, or was it only the airplane that was jinxed?
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: M 4 Autopilot run away trim |
Hey Moe! (always wanted to say that),
I have a Century III in my airplane, and the trim would also run away, especially
when altitude hold was engaged. Turns out my pitch servo was toast. Could it
be something that simple?
/J
----- Original Message -----
From: MOEMILLS(at)aol.com
To: commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 12:43 PM
Subject: M 4 Autopilot run away trim
Dear Commander Folks:
What is the most common cause of elevator run away trim with an M4 autopilot?
The trim adjusts its self even when altitude hold is not engaged. Some times
it adjusts trim up and some times it adjusts trim down. About the only thing
that the trim won't do is stay adjusted. The only way that I have found to stop
this is to disconnect the cannon plug on the trim servo. With this plug disconnected,
all other functions seem to work just fine.
We have the complete M4 manual, however, we are having a hard time in determining
what part we should attack first. Any help will be gratefully appreciated.
ALSO, this may be chat (I don't do the chat line) but who all is going to OSH?
Maybe we could get together?
Thanks,
Moe Mills
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A Red & Gooey Flight |
In a message dated 06/17/02 22:03:19 Pacific Daylight Time, john(at)vormbaum.com
writes:
> It's not part of my SOP to pull the breaker after t/o. I was trained to pull
> it if I recognized a problem with the hyd. system (i.e. nosegear dropping
> out).
John,
Don't know who you trained with, but now you know that waiting to pull the
c/b in the event of an in-flight hydraulic failure is way too late in the
event to be of any help.
From a systems perspecitve, once an engine driven pump is operating, the
electric aux pump has no function ... unless the hydraulic pressure drops
below the trigger point for the aux pump to come on again.
In flight, with both engines running, the only likely cause for hydraulic
pressure drop is ... yes ... a leak!
At that point, the aux pump will perform its god given task: pumping the rest
of the fluid out the leak.
And ... only the aux pump can access the .8 quart of fluid below the engine
pump supply stand pipe, so you've blown your reserve.
Thanks for surviving this incident with such style and grace so we can point
out this important survival trick to the new commers to the Commanders.
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A Red & Gooey Flight |
>
>
> And ... only the aux pump can access the .8 quart of fluid below the
> engine pump supply stand pipe, so you've blown your reserve.
>
Just one more reason to buy a 680E! If you're gonna pump your reserve
overboard, you're gonna do it the old fashion way.
You can tell the 680 Commander pilots...there the ones with the big
right arms. :)
Barry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A Red & Gooey Flight |
Looks like my SOP has changed! I think maybe I'll put a little red tag on the aux
pump breaker to remind me...."pull here!"
/J
----- Original Message -----
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com
To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: A Red & Gooey Flight
In a message dated 06/17/02 22:03:19 Pacific Daylight Time, john(at)vormbaum.com
writes:
It's not part of my SOP to pull the breaker after t/o. I was trained to pull
it if I recognized a problem with the hyd. system (i.e. nosegear dropping out).
John,
Don't know who you trained with, but now you know that waiting to pull the c/b
in the event of an in-flight hydraulic failure is way too late in the event
to be of any help.
>From a systems perspecitve, once an engine driven pump is operating, the electric
aux pump has no function ... unless the hydraulic pressure drops below the
trigger point for the aux pump to come on again.
In flight, with both engines running, the only likely cause for hydraulic pressure
drop is ... yes ... a leak!
At that point, the aux pump will perform its god given task: pumping the rest
of the fluid out the leak.
And ... only the aux pump can access the .8 quart of fluid below the engine pump
supply stand pipe, so you've blown your reserve.
Thanks for surviving this incident with such style and grace so we can point
out this important survival trick to the new commers to the Commanders.
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MOEMILLS(at)aol.com <MOEMILLS(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | USE OF CB SWITCH FOR HYD. SAFETY |
Dear Fellow Commanderlanders:
With all due respect to Randy Sharp I wish to offer a different opinion on
the use of the CB switch for the aux Hydraulic system.
When I purchased my 680F(P) I was told to never fly the airplane with the
circuit breaker switch in, and that the only time that the switch should be
in was when the engines were to be started and the aux. (low pressure gage)
showed below 500 psi. This 1963 680F(P) has the dual purpose over head
switches which shut off the fuel and hyd. fluid AT THE SAME TIME.
One night while flying (with the circuit breaker pulled as usual) I observed
that the high pressure AND low pressure gages were both showing 0 PSI. I
made a no flaps approach and the gear came down just fine. I decided not to
push in the circuit breaker until I landed, as I had no idea how bad the leak
was or where it was. Upon touch down I pushed the switch, used moderate
braking, and exited the taxi way. By cycling the circuit breaker switch only
when brakes or steering was needed, taxiing (very slowly) to the tarmac was
not a problem.
Upon inspection, the problem was that the hydraulic hose going to the low
pressure hyd. gage (aux.) had 'blown up' and all of the fluid pumped out in a
very short time. Please note, that if the circuit breaker switch had been
pushed in (circuit closed) the landing would have been made with no brakes
and no steering. If you leave the CB switch in (circuit closed) you should
incorporate the high pressure gage into your instrument scan, otherwise, you
will not know when the pressure is going down, and when to pull out the
circuit breaker, which very well could result in a no flaps, no brakes, no
steering landing. Given the location of the high pressure gage, and the
complexity of the aircraft, I choose not to include this gage in my normal
scan.
Thank you for reading my differing opinion.
Best regards,
Moe Mills
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> |
What incident are you referring to?
Pictures as well?
Tom...
----- Original Message -----
From: Nico van Niekerk
To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 12:22
Subject: Phoenix
Did you guys see that C130 fold its wings? For a moment it looked like a phoenix
trying to fly out of there. What a tragedy! I am not a guru on physics, but
I do know that the object of drag can never overtake the object of thrust. What
amazes me is that those wings broke off going up, first, and then back. The
fuselage, of course, continued on its own plummeting away from the wings. If
a structural failure was the cause, what are the chances that both wings would
separate from the fuselage at the same moment?
Did someone inadvertantly pull reverse thrust and pulled the wings off? They
were climbing out after a drop, if I understand the situation correctly, so the
engines would have produced a lot of power.
Is it even possible to engage reverse thrust in flight? Anybody out there know
C130's?
Nico
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Hyd procedures |
Hello all,
Just 2 cents of "rotary-wing" procedures.
I all the helicopters I have flown it is common practice to use the "pull
type" circuit breakers as switches, it's even in the operators manual in
many places.
True, they will wear out slightly faster but they are cheap to replace at
twice the price.
Tom...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Sharp" <sharp.r(at)apple.com>
To: "Twin Commander Chat" ; "Twin
Commander"
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 10:56
Subject: Re: Hyd procedures
> I would have to disagree with using the CB as a switch on every takeoff.
> (This email only refers to the 500B system, I do not have the diagrams
> nor specific knowledge on the other models)
>
> 1. My policy is to never use a CB as a switch.
> (The system was not designed to do this on a casual basis, premature CB
> contact failure, non standard use of Commander procedures, etc)
>
> 2. If you look at the Hydraulic system in the Maintenance Manual the AUX
> System is a complete separate system from the Engine driven pump lines.
> They are separated by check valves and by system design.
>
> There is a check valve between the normal ENGINE DRIVEN supply/and AUX
> pressure system lines.
> The design only permits fluid to pass from the engine/driven pump system
> to the Aux system (one way), once the engines are running.
> You can not leak fluid from the AUX system if you have a failure is in
> the engine/driven pump system.
>
> In other words, ONLY a failure in the AUX system will bleed the fluid
> below the stand pipe in the Hyd Reservoir and THEN pulling the CB WOULD
> BE appropriate in this situation. This will buy the pilot more time on
> landing rather than dumping the fluid overboard before you could use it
> for steering and brakes. The AUX system will NOT PUMP fluid overboard if
> it's in the ENGINE DRIVEN supply ie gear extension path. (unless certain
> components fail, very unlikely)
>
> Granted, most pilots can't detect or analyze a Hyd leak fast enough so
> the normal procedure is to:
> 1. PULL THE CB ON THE AUX SYSTEM, then
> 2. TURN OFF THE HYDRAULIC SHUTOFF VALVES.
>
> NOTE!!!! DANGER Later model SHRIKES have integrated the Hyd shutoff
> valves with the FUEL SHUTOFF VALVES. (The guy that did this should get
> his engineers license revoked)
>
> There are more lines in the engine/driven pump system which flow to the
> gear than in the AUX system so your odds of losing an AUX system line
> over your driven pump system is theoretically less. (but not impossible)
>
> If John lost a line in the AUX system (Brakes, Steering, Flap selector
> valve) then pulling the CB would have helped him with more time for the
> landing. (Saving the fluid for the Aux later)
>
> If he lost a line in the engine/driven pump system (Engine Driven Pump,
> Gear selector valve, Gear up check valve, main gear actuating cylinder,
> nose gear retract cyl, or pressure regulator unit then by pulling the CB
> he would not have accomplished anything useful except maybe peace of mind
> in isolating a possible AUX problem. (Which is still ok!)
>
> The only other exception to this issue would be a common component failed
> between the two systems,
> ie check valve failure, Flap selector valve, Power Brake valve, or Hyd
> Reservoir with a leak in the bottom of the can.
>
> If you notice, the AUX system has nothing in common with the gear
> extension.
> ONLY the nitrogen emergency blow down system is a back up for your gear
> extension, not the AUX system. (They are separate HYD systems think of it
> as SYSTEM 1 and SYSTEM 2)
>
> Most USAF equipment have 3 HYD systems, two for flight controls SYS 1/2,
> and then a standby or backup system for auxiliary components, and this is
> used for testing the systems on the ground with a GPU.
>
> I suspect Keith is looking for the worst case scenario with odds that a
> brake line has ruptured which will deplete the entire system if the CB is
> not Pulled in time.
>
> This would be worst case too because sooner or later you have push the CB
> back in and you better hope the break is not large enough to dump the
> remaining fluid or give you differential breaking!!!
> (Performing good preflights will help with this issue).
>
> BUT remember! If you only pull the CB and DO NOT turn off the HYDRAULIC
> SHUTOFF VALVES to the engine/driven pumps then the engine will continue
> to pump fluid overboard thru the leak in either system and then you will
> deplete the engine/driven pump system fluid until you are NOW down to
> your AUX emergency level.
> You can turn a single side off and the system will continue to work with
> only one pump if that isolated the leak.
> (the HYDRAULIC SHUTOFF VALVES are located in the left nacelle which
> supply fluid to each engine driven Hyd pump, if you turn a single system
> off the fluid can not leak thru the return line due to a check value, so
> ultimately you have isolated the complete side of that failed system.
>
> I used to check these switches all the time to ensure I could turn off
> the appropriate system at each engine nacelle. During the annual I used a
> Hyd mule to simulate various failures to see if the system continued to
> function properly. Most of you should be starting up one engine and
> testing a single pump one at a time to ensure both your pumps are
> working. ie start with left, shutdown the left to see if the right engine
> is working, then switch on occasions. Seems like everyone always starts
> the right engine first (maybe because the door on the left?).
>
> I would have to say that John followed standard procedures, after all he
> got the aircraft down on the ground with NO damage!
>
> The only thing I would have added was to isolate that side when he saw
> the fluid running off the engine nacelle, the odds are if he would have
> turned off the HYDRAULIC SHUTOFF VALVE for that engine he would have
> eliminated the leak and isolated a potential fire hazard.
> Remember HYDRAULIC fluid under pressure (if any is left) can torch if
> directed by hot gases from an exhaust system. The pumps are mounted right
> behind the engine next to the exhaust stack.
>
> Just my opinion.
> Randy Sharp
>
>
> CloudCraft(at)aol.com said:
> >In a message dated 06/17/02 22:03:19 Pacific Daylight Time,
> >john(at)vormbaum.com
> >writes:
> >
> >> It's not part of my SOP to pull the breaker after t/o. I was trained to
> pull
> >> it if I recognized a problem with the hyd. system (i.e. nosegear
dropping
> >> out).
> >
> >John,
> >
> >Don't know who you trained with, but now you know that waiting to pull
the
> >c/b in the event of an in-flight hydraulic failure is way too late in the
> >event to be of any help.
> >
> >From a systems perspecitve, once an engine driven pump is operating, the
> >electric aux pump has no function ... unless the hydraulic pressure drops
> >below the trigger point for the aux pump to come on again.
> >
> >In flight, with both engines running, the only likely cause for hydraulic
> >pressure drop is ... yes ... a leak!
> >
> >At that point, the aux pump will perform its god given task: pumping the
> >rest
> >of the fluid out the leak.
> >
> >And ... only the aux pump can access the .8 quart of fluid below the
engine
> >pump supply stand pipe, so you've blown your reserve.
> >
> >Thanks for surviving this incident with such style and grace so we can
point
> >out this important survival trick to the new commers to the Commanders.
> >
> >Wing Commander Gordon
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bow <w.bow(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A Red & Gooey Flight |
My 500A has a switch. It is much better that the CB and FAA approved. The FAA
does not look favorably on using a CB as a switch in FAR 121 opps. I'm not sure
abut us.
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: John Vormbaum
To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: A Red & Gooey Flight
Looks like my SOP has changed! I think maybe I'll put a little red tag on the
aux pump breaker to remind me...."pull here!"
/J
----- Original Message -----
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com
To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: A Red & Gooey Flight
In a message dated 06/17/02 22:03:19 Pacific Daylight Time, john(at)vormbaum.com
writes:
It's not part of my SOP to pull the breaker after t/o. I was trained to pull
it if I recognized a problem with the hyd. system (i.e. nosegear dropping
out).
John,
Don't know who you trained with, but now you know that waiting to pull the
c/b in the event of an in-flight hydraulic failure is way too late in the event
to be of any help.
>From a systems perspecitve, once an engine driven pump is operating, the electric
aux pump has no function ... unless the hydraulic pressure drops below
the trigger point for the aux pump to come on again.
In flight, with both engines running, the only likely cause for hydraulic pressure
drop is ... yes ... a leak!
At that point, the aux pump will perform its god given task: pumping the rest
of the fluid out the leak.
And ... only the aux pump can access the .8 quart of fluid below the engine
pump supply stand pipe, so you've blown your reserve.
Thanks for surviving this incident with such style and grace so we can point
out this important survival trick to the new commers to the Commanders.
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Randy Sharp <sharp.r(at)apple.com> |
| Subject: | Re: USE OF CB SWITCH FOR HYD. SAFETY |
I surely welcome any rebuttals and/or comments, this is the advantage of
living in the USA.
It allows everyone to have an opinion and state it so, it also
communicates (in a good way) to get others opinions.
In this way we inform the commander public and they get to choose what
method they would like to do as a standard procedure for their own
aircraft.
Even though it is not my SOP to pull the CB others may do so if they
understand why they are doing it.
Just to clarify though, with any indication of a problem in the HYD
system I TOO will pull the CB.
(Good indications are nose wheel dropping, gear doors open, Pressure gage
fluctions, fluid on the nacelle etc)
I strongly believe the commander Hyd system is one of the better system
designs out there for GA and especially true if the maintenance is done
properly.
As a side note then, if most of the Cmdr population does indeed pull the
CB as a switch it might be more prudent to have an appropriately rated
switch installed in series with the CB.
(Of course with a proper modification and Form 337 done, and if it can be
approved without too high of a cost)
In this way, the switch can be installed and replaced versus a CB.
The switch on/off procedure can then be added to your start/stop
checklist and the circuit can be protected as it should be via a CB.
I completely renovated my 500B and I would not want to pull the circut
breaker panel down again to replace a failed CB because I was using it as
a switch.
Chris what do you think? I know you do a lot of certification projects on
the side.
What would it cost (if feasible) to add a simple rated switch to the AUX
system?
Just a thought.
Randy
ps
It must be ingrained in me from the AF that "thou shall not use the CB as
a switch"
Under normal circumstances only Maintenance personal are allowed to
collar a CB before flight.
(But again this is not the Air Force so GA may do things differently)
Even in the HH3E (SK61)/ HH60 (SK70) Dash 1 flight manual it clearly
states that the pilot is not allowed to use any CB as a switch, as stated
so in the Sikorsky flight manual.
MOEMILLS(at)aol.com said:
>Dear Fellow Commanderlanders:
>
>With all due respect to Randy Sharp I wish to offer a different opinion on
>the use of the CB switch for the aux Hydraulic system.
>
>When I purchased my 680F(P) I was told to never fly the airplane with the
>circuit breaker switch in, and that the only time that the switch should be
>in was when the engines were to be started and the aux. (low pressure gage)
>showed below 500 psi. This 1963 680F(P) has the dual purpose over head
>switches which shut off the fuel and hyd. fluid AT THE SAME TIME.
>
>One night while flying (with the circuit breaker pulled as usual) I observed
>that the high pressure AND low pressure gages were both showing 0 PSI. I
>made a no flaps approach and the gear came down just fine. I decided not to
>push in the circuit breaker until I landed, as I had no idea how bad the
>leak
>was or where it was. Upon touch down I pushed the switch, used moderate
>braking, and exited the taxi way. By cycling the circuit breaker switch only
>when brakes or steering was needed, taxiing (very slowly) to the tarmac was
>not a problem.
>
>Upon inspection, the problem was that the hydraulic hose going to the low
>pressure hyd. gage (aux.) had 'blown up' and all of the fluid pumped out
>in a
>very short time. Please note, that if the circuit breaker switch had been
>pushed in (circuit closed) the landing would have been made with no brakes
>and no steering. If you leave the CB switch in (circuit closed) you should
>incorporate the high pressure gage into your instrument scan, otherwise, you
>will not know when the pressure is going down, and when to pull out the
>circuit breaker, which very well could result in a no flaps, no brakes, no
>steering landing. Given the location of the high pressure gage, and the
>complexity of the aircraft, I choose not to include this gage in my normal
>scan.
>
>Thank you for reading my differing opinion.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Moe Mills
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Breakers, Switches and Check Valves |
Before I go into this, I have to defer to H. Ideas Gordoninsky who was the
third runner-up for the 1991 Noble Prize in Quantum Physics.
His theory states that "For every Ph.D. there is an equal and opposite Ph.D."
Randy is very correct in much of what he wrote.
My advocating pulling the aux. hydraulic circuit breaker comes from the
Survivor School of thought that says regardless of what model flat-nacelled
Commander I happen to be in, VFR or IFR, day or night, I want to reserve that
.8 quart of hydraulic fluid for brakes and nosewheel steering and don't want
to guess where my fluid is escaping from.
I've been through 3 total hydraulic failures. One without the c/b pulled
and I had nothing on landing except rudder and then I drifted toward the edge
of the runway as I slowed down and luckily stopped. That changed my mind
about a few things.
The next two were almost fun because I knew I had a really good chance at
nose wheel steering, or at least one application of brakes.*
*This is a good time to discuss emergency braking technique. Plan on ONE
application; press and hold maximum pressure and DO NOT release the brakes,
modulate or pump, as that fluid will return to the reservoir and could be
lost forever.
Also, there is a phenomenon in the human ear that tends to make one feel that
they are decelerating at a greater rate than they are, after a rapid
deceleration has begun.
As in instrument flying, divorce yourself from what your body is telling you.
If you're doing a short stop maneuver, wait until you're really stopped
before you let go of the brakes. This applies to abnormal braking situations
and aborted takeoffs.
C/Bs as switches. Personally, I'm not thrilled them as such; I've been told
by mechanics it's a bad thing to do. I've also been told by c/b
manufacturers that they have thousands of set-trip life cycles in them and
it's OK. And as Tom pointed out, some aircraft use pulled breakers in lieu
of switches all the time.
Regardless, I have written in my columns, stood in front of audiences and
whispered to clients that the aux. hydraulic c/b should be replaced with a
breaker type SWITCH.
Ted Smith did this in the AeroStar ... and evidently did some thinking along
the lines we are discussing because the s.o.p. in the 'Star is to turn the
aux pump off once airborne.
I won't go into the full Monty here and now, but I've suggested that a few
people in the business develop and STC that would place a breaker type switch
next to the gear handle where it's in the natural flow of "gear up, aux pump
disabled." "Gear down, (verify stable hydraulic pressure) aux pump enabled."
John V is spot on: The other bright idea is to color code your aux hydraulic
c/b.
If you're of the school that does not disable the aux pump airborne, you have
precious few seconds to find it and pull it when you find out you've already
had a hydraulic failure.
If you're of the school that does disable the aux pump airborne, you need to
easily find it so it is prominent in your after take off and before landing
cockpit flow / check list.
Check valves? Do those things really work after a few years? After 30
years? (Randy, I salute your knowldege base and am amazed that you run test
secarios during annual with a hydraulic mule. I'd trust your check vales ...
not so sure about the rest of the fleet!)
Definition of an aircraft: Nothing but bunch of O rings and check valves
flying in a very tight formation.
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: USE OF CB SWITCH FOR HYD. SAFETY |
Randy Sharp wrote:
> Chris what do you think? I know you do a lot of certification projects on
> the side.
> What would it cost (if feasible) to add a simple rated switch to the AUX
> system?
Since asked, I'll respond (although responding to questions has
caused me a bit of heat as of late).
Here in the OKC FSDO region, a "repair station" could easily get
this done and the paperwork straight. The easiest method would
be to replace the existing pull-out breaker with a toggle-switch
style breaker. There are a number of cb designs which are
actually intended to be used as a switch. I'd have to ask my
local shop, but that route might not even take a 337. Adding
a switch would (technically) require a 337 though.
Like Randy, I would rather not use a breaker for a switch if
it's not specifically designed for such use. I think the rating
may actually decrease over time from use. I do, however, concur
with Mr Gordon's undeniable logic that having the pump disabled
may be a very good thing in some situations. The earlier
Commanders do not shut off (isolate) the hydraulics. Most of
those types have a hand pump, so this wouldn't be an issue.
chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MOEMILLS(at)aol.com <MOEMILLS(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Windshield wiper blade tension |
Dear Commanderlanders:
Does any one know how much tension the winshield wiper should exzert against
the windshield? Pounds at the pivot point where the blade meets the arm
would be great. Any help will be much appreciated, as the book for my
680f(p) doesn't give the numbers.
Best regards,
Moe Mills
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: USE OF CB SWITCH FOR HYD. SAFETY |
> Even in the HH3E (SK61)/ HH60 (SK70) Dash 1 flight manual it clearly
> states that the pilot is not allowed to use any CB as a switch, as stated
> so in the Sikorsky flight manual.
I flew the SK61N (civillian streched model) and although I do not recall
specifically if the manual forbade the use of C/B's as switches, I do recall
us using them as switches, but what else can you expect from spear chucking
Canadians. :)
Tom...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Sharp" <sharp.r(at)apple.com>
To: "Twin Commander"
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 14:33
Subject: Re: USE OF CB SWITCH FOR HYD. SAFETY
> I surely welcome any rebuttals and/or comments, this is the advantage of
> living in the USA.
> It allows everyone to have an opinion and state it so, it also
> communicates (in a good way) to get others opinions.
>
> In this way we inform the commander public and they get to choose what
> method they would like to do as a standard procedure for their own
> aircraft.
> Even though it is not my SOP to pull the CB others may do so if they
> understand why they are doing it.
>
> Just to clarify though, with any indication of a problem in the HYD
> system I TOO will pull the CB.
> (Good indications are nose wheel dropping, gear doors open, Pressure gage
> fluctions, fluid on the nacelle etc)
>
> I strongly believe the commander Hyd system is one of the better system
> designs out there for GA and especially true if the maintenance is done
> properly.
>
> As a side note then, if most of the Cmdr population does indeed pull the
> CB as a switch it might be more prudent to have an appropriately rated
> switch installed in series with the CB.
> (Of course with a proper modification and Form 337 done, and if it can be
> approved without too high of a cost)
>
> In this way, the switch can be installed and replaced versus a CB.
> The switch on/off procedure can then be added to your start/stop
> checklist and the circuit can be protected as it should be via a CB.
>
> I completely renovated my 500B and I would not want to pull the circut
> breaker panel down again to replace a failed CB because I was using it as
> a switch.
>
> Chris what do you think? I know you do a lot of certification projects on
> the side.
> What would it cost (if feasible) to add a simple rated switch to the AUX
> system?
>
> Just a thought.
> Randy
>
> ps
> It must be ingrained in me from the AF that "thou shall not use the CB as
> a switch"
> Under normal circumstances only Maintenance personal are allowed to
> collar a CB before flight.
> (But again this is not the Air Force so GA may do things differently)
>
> Even in the HH3E (SK61)/ HH60 (SK70) Dash 1 flight manual it clearly
> states that the pilot is not allowed to use any CB as a switch, as stated
> so in the Sikorsky flight manual.
>
>
> MOEMILLS(at)aol.com said:
> >Dear Fellow Commanderlanders:
> >
> >With all due respect to Randy Sharp I wish to offer a different opinion
on
> >the use of the CB switch for the aux Hydraulic system.
> >
> >When I purchased my 680F(P) I was told to never fly the airplane with the
> >circuit breaker switch in, and that the only time that the switch should
be
> >in was when the engines were to be started and the aux. (low pressure
gage)
> >showed below 500 psi. This 1963 680F(P) has the dual purpose over head
> >switches which shut off the fuel and hyd. fluid AT THE SAME TIME.
> >
> >One night while flying (with the circuit breaker pulled as usual) I
observed
> >that the high pressure AND low pressure gages were both showing 0 PSI. I
> >made a no flaps approach and the gear came down just fine. I decided not
to
> >push in the circuit breaker until I landed, as I had no idea how bad the
> >leak
> >was or where it was. Upon touch down I pushed the switch, used moderate
> >braking, and exited the taxi way. By cycling the circuit breaker switch
only
> >when brakes or steering was needed, taxiing (very slowly) to the tarmac
was
> >not a problem.
> >
> >Upon inspection, the problem was that the hydraulic hose going to the low
> >pressure hyd. gage (aux.) had 'blown up' and all of the fluid pumped out
> >in a
> >very short time. Please note, that if the circuit breaker switch had
been
> >pushed in (circuit closed) the landing would have been made with no
brakes
> >and no steering. If you leave the CB switch in (circuit closed) you
should
> >incorporate the high pressure gage into your instrument scan, otherwise,
you
> >will not know when the pressure is going down, and when to pull out the
> >circuit breaker, which very well could result in a no flaps, no brakes,
no
> >steering landing. Given the location of the high pressure gage, and the
> >complexity of the aircraft, I choose not to include this gage in my
normal
> >scan.
> >
> >Thank you for reading my differing opinion.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >Moe Mills
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | blake hermel <bhermel(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A Red & Gooey Flight |
i recently got my new issue of flying magazine in the mail and almost croaked when
i read the report on the new seneca. what sane person buys a $733,000 dollar
high performance twin engine airplane with an 1,100 lbs useful load, according
to my calculations, with 800 lbs of fuel that is around 300 pounds of empty
weight left, is it me, or does this seem like a major rip off??? you know,
i have a 1,050 lbs useful load on my cherokee 180!!!, and it cost alot less!!
Blake
>From: John Vormbaum
>To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
>Subject: Re: A Red & Gooey Flight
>Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:02:00 -0700
>
>Looks like my SOP has changed! I think maybe I'll put a little red tag on the
aux pump breaker to remind me...."pull here!"
>
>/J
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com
> To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 10:43 PM
> Subject: Re: A Red & Gooey Flight
>
>
> In a message dated 06/17/02 22:03:19 Pacific Daylight Time, john(at)vormbaum.com
writes:
>
>
>
> It's not part of my SOP to pull the breaker after t/o. I was trained to pull
it if I recognized a problem with the hyd. system (i.e. nosegear dropping out).
>
>
> John,
>
> Don't know who you trained with, but now you know that waiting to pull the c/b
in the event of an in-flight hydraulic failure is way too late in the event
to be of any help.
>
> >From a systems perspecitve, once an engine driven pump is operating, the electric
aux pump has no function ... unless the hydraulic pressure drops below the
trigger point for the aux pump to come on again.
>
> In flight, with both engines running, the only likely cause for hydraulic pressure
drop is ... yes ... a leak!
>
> At that point, the aux pump will perform its god given task: pumping the rest
of the fluid out the leak.
>
> And ... only the aux pump can access the .8 quart of fluid below the engine pump
supply stand pipe, so you've blown your reserve.
>
> Thanks for surviving this incident with such style and grace so we can point
out this important survival trick to the new commers to the Commanders.
>
> Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Laxson <wlaxson(at)corecom.net> |
I'm sure it will be all over the news tonight. The sight brought tears
to my eyes.
I've heard that the C130 wings are incredibly strong. The symmetry of
the failure is amazing. I'm guessing the wings were not put on
correctly (a maintenance oversight of some sort), or that counterfit
parts were involved.
Bill Laxson
> Nico van Niekerk wrote:
>
> Did you guys see that C130 fold its wings? For a moment it looked like
> a phoenix trying to fly out of there. What a tragedy! I am not a guru
> on physics, but I do know that the object of drag can never overtake
> the object of thrust. What amazes me is that those wings broke off
> going up, first, and then back. The fuselage, of course, continued on
> its own plummeting away from the wings. If a structural failure was
> the cause, what are the chances that both wings would separate from
> the fuselage at the same moment?
> Did someone inadvertantly pull reverse thrust and pulled the wings
> off? They were climbing out after a drop, if I understand the
> situation correctly, so the engines would have produced a lot of
> power.
> Is it even possible to engage reverse thrust in flight? Anybody out
> there know C130's?
> Nico
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
William Laxson wrote:
> I've heard that the C130 wings are incredibly strong.
A terrible accident indeed!
Interesting to note, however, that the bird is reported to
have been a 1956 "A" model. Who knows how many zillions of
hours of hard work this airplane had seen. I'd be willing
to bet that the NTSB finds corrosion and substantial
fatigue damage in many major structures.
This may well serve as a reminder to all of us that our
airplanes are not getting any younger and that fatigue in
metal is cumulative.
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Intrex <woodlema(at)intrex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A Red & Gooey Flight |
My AC560 has 2100 lbs of useful load. Go figure.
----- Original Message -----
From: blake hermel
To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: A Red & Gooey Flight
i recently got my new issue of flying magazine in the mail and almost croaked
when i read the report on the new seneca. what sane person buys a $733,000 dollar
high performance twin engine airplane with an 1,100 lbs useful load, according
to my calculations, with 800 lbs of fuel that is around 300 pounds of empty
weight left, is it me, or does this seem like a major rip off??? you know,
i have a 1,050 lbs useful load on my cherokee 180!!!, and it cost alot less!!
Blake
>From: John Vormbaum
>To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
>Subject: Re: A Red & Gooey Flight
>Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:02:00 -0700
>
>Looks like my SOP has changed! I think maybe I'll put a little red tag on the
aux pump breaker to remind me...."pull here!"
>
>/J
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com
> To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 10:43 PM
> Subject: Re: A Red & Gooey Flight
>
>
> In a message dated 06/17/02 22:03:19 Pacific Daylight Time, john(at)vormbaum.com
writes:
>
>
>
> It's not part of my SOP to pull the breaker after t/o. I was trained to pull
it if I recognized a problem with the hyd. system (i.e. nosegear dropping out).
>
>
> John,
>
> Don't know who you trained with, but now you know that waiting to pull the
c/b in the event of an in-flight hydraulic failure is way too late in the event
to be of any help.
>
> >From a systems perspecitve, once an engine driven pump is operating, the electric
aux pump has no function ... unless the hydraulic pressure drops below
the trigger point for the aux pump to come on again.
>
> In flight, with both engines running, the only likely cause for hydraulic pressure
drop is ... yes ... a leak!
>
> At that point, the aux pump will perform its god given task: pumping the rest
of the fluid out the leak.
>
> And ... only the aux pump can access the .8 quart of fluid below the engine
pump supply stand pipe, so you've blown your reserve.
>
> Thanks for surviving this incident with such style and grace so we can point
out this important survival trick to the new commers to the Commanders.
>
> Wing Commander Gordon
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Red and gooooooooeyyyyyy!!!!!!!! |
Switch or circuitbreaker John did a marvelous job.
If he wasn't married I'd send him a squak
Milt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net> |
I've spent a lot of time in C130s and even pulled enough Gs to rip the a refueling
of one of the wings. I can't imagine a G load that would take both wings at
once. I remember in the A models we had a lot of trouble with fuel leaking into
the wing roots and between the spars over the fuselage. My guess would be
an explosion between the wing roots.
I just can't fathom the last thoughts of those poor guys driving that thing.
Milt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Red and gooooooooeyyyyyy!!!!!!!! |
Hey, I still have 3 months to go....I could use a nekkid squak.....and send a jug
o' no-name too!
----- Original Message -----
From: N414C
To: Commander BSChat Chat
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 7:03 PM
Subject: Red and gooooooooeyyyyyy!!!!!!!!
Switch or circuitbreaker John did a marvelous job.
If he wasn't married I'd send him a squak
Milt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> |
In a message dated 06/18/02 19:28:06 Pacific Daylight Time,
N414C(at)cableone.net writes:
> I just can't fathom the last thoughts of those poor guys driving that thing.
>
I hope this doesn't sound glib or insensitive but from my experience as a
young lad who fell nearly to my death during a mountaineering accident in
Canada, I believe dying is perfectly safe.
As gruesome as any aircraft accident is, as much as it seeing the footage of
the C-130 put me in a mild state of shock complete with nausea, I know the
crew passed into a very inviting, safe place.
It's far worse for us than for them.
I also flew two seasons as an Air Attack pilot for the U.S. Forest Service
(in Commanders!), working with the helitac, air tankers and crews. Fighting
a fire is every bit a war and the risks are every bit as great. The pilots
and firefighters who do this are a remakable breed.
Godspeed, gentlemen.
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deborah R. Hancock <whiteslave(at)cox.net> |
I have a buddy who flew "Spooky's" and "Scepter's" in the USAF Special
Forces. He saw the video and believes the guy just pulled too hard on a
tired stretch version of the C-130....
BH
On Tuesday, June 18, 2002, at 12:22 PM, Nico van Niekerk wrote:
> Did you guys see that C130 fold its wings? For a moment it looked like
> a phoenix trying to fly out of there. What a tragedy! I am not a guru
> on physics, but I do know that the object of drag can never overtake
> the object of thrust. What amazes me is that those wings broke off
> going up, first, and then back. The fuselage, of course, continued on
> its own plummeting away from the wings. If a structural failure was the
> cause, what are the chances that both wings would separate from the
> fuselage at the same moment?
> Did someone inadvertantly pull reverse thrust and pulled the wings off?
> They were climbing out after a drop, if I understand the situation
> correctly, so the engines would have produced a lot of power.
> Isit even possible to engage reverse thrust in flight? Anybody out
> there know C130's?
> Nico
>
>
Barry Hancock
Flying Bdog Enterprises
(949) 300-5510
radialpower(at)cox.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A Red & Gooey Flight |
In a message dated 6/18/02 5:30:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
bhermel(at)hotmail.com writes:
> i recently got my new issue of flying magazine in the mail and almost
> croaked when i read the report on the new seneca. what sane person buys a
> $733,000 dollar high performance twin engine airplane with an 1,100 lbs
> useful load, according to my calculations, with 800 lbs of fuel that is
> around 300 pounds of empty weight left, is it me, or does this seem like a
> major rip off??? you know, i have a 1,050 lbs useful load on my cherokee
> 180!!!, and it cost alot less!!
>
>
>
>
ME TOO!!! jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deborah R. Hancock <whiteslave(at)cox.net> |
>
>
> As gruesome as any aircraft accident is, as much as it seeing the
> footage of the C-130 put me in a mild state of shock complete with
> nausea, I know the crew passed into a very inviting, safe place.
>
> It's far worse for us than for them.
>
>
Amen, brother. Amen.
Barry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michrandi(at)aol.com <Michrandi(at)aol.com> |
My wife and I are flying to Burbank on Sat. morning to
attend a wedding. What I'm looking for, are any suggestions
as to which FBO might be a good one? Radial Barry, Nico,
John V., Keith G. ............... the person with the best suggestion
wins a quart of "Starbucks Mocha Java Chip"
Fly safe,
Mike
702-524-8267
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> |
There I go again, posting on my wife's address. Yes, "whiteslave" is
her handle. What can I say, she knows her place... :)
Cheers,
Barry
>>
>>
>> As gruesome as any aircraft accident is, as much as it seeing the
>> footage of the C-130 put me in a mild state of shock complete with
>> nausea, I know the crew passed into a very inviting, safe place.
>>
>> It's far worse for us than for them.
>>
>>
> Amen, brother. Amen.
>
> Barry
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deborah R. Hancock <whiteslave(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Burbank FBO's |
On Tuesday, June 18, 2002, at 09:51 PM, Michrandi(at)aol.com wrote:
> My wife and I are flying to Burbank on Sat. morning to
> attend a wedding. What I'm looking for, are any suggestions
> as to which FBO might be a good one? Radial Barry, Nico,
> John V., Keith G. ............... the person with the best suggestion
> wins a quart of "Starbucks Mocha Java Chip"
>
First of all, you cannot include WCG in this group. That would be
insider trading. Secondly, Burbank has two FBO's. Both are nice, both
are set up for corporate bizz travel.
Media aviation is a bit cheaper http://www.mediaaviation.com/.
Mercury is top cat
http://www.mercuryairgroup.com/newwebtrial/FBO_BUR.asp,
a little more pricy ($15 ramp fee v. $13).
Both will waive fee with a minimum fuel purchase. I'd call ahead and
compare fuel prices and make my decision that way.....
Barry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Burbank FBO's |
In a message dated 06/18/02 22:34:49 Pacific Daylight Time,
whiteslave(at)cox.net writes:
> First of all, you cannot include WCG in this group.
OK, I'll bow out ... but I want a percentage. Two scoops.
You info was spot on, Barry.
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Randy Dettmer, AIA <rcdettmer(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A Red & Gooey Flight |
Can't help but chime in...my 680F has a gross weight of 8,000 lbs with useful load
of 2,700 lbs. That's almost 1 1/2 tons.
You can literally fill the tanks (223 gals), fill the seats (7), fill the baggage
compartment and still be below gross. And it still climbs at 140 kts IAS at
1,000 fpm. Don't know why I'd want one of those Seneca's
Randy Dettmer
680F/N6253X
----- Original Message -----
From: Intrex
To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: A Red & Gooey Flight
My AC560 has 2100 lbs of useful load. Go figure.
----- Original Message -----
From: blake hermel
To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: A Red & Gooey Flight
i recently got my new issue of flying magazine in the mail and almost croaked
when i read the report on the new seneca. what sane person buys a $733,000
dollar high performance twin engine airplane with an 1,100 lbs useful load, according
to my calculations, with 800 lbs of fuel that is around 300 pounds of
empty weight left, is it me, or does this seem like a major rip off??? you know,
i have a 1,050 lbs useful load on my cherokee 180!!!, and it cost alot less!!
Blake
>From: John Vormbaum
>To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
>Subject: Re: A Red & Gooey Flight
>Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:02:00 -0700
>
>Looks like my SOP has changed! I think maybe I'll put a little red tag on
the aux pump breaker to remind me...."pull here!"
>
>/J
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com
> To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 10:43 PM
> Subject: Re: A Red & Gooey Flight
>
>
> In a message dated 06/17/02 22:03:19 Pacific Daylight Time, john(at)vormbaum.com
writes:
>
>
>
> It's not part of my SOP to pull the breaker after t/o. I was trained to pull
it if I recognized a problem with the hyd. system (i.e. nosegear dropping
out).
>
>
> John,
>
> Don't know who you trained with, but now you know that waiting to pull the
c/b in the event of an in-flight hydraulic failure is way too late in the event
to be of any help.
>
> >From a systems perspecitve, once an engine driven pump is operating, the
electric aux pump has no function ... unless the hydraulic pressure drops below
the trigger point for the aux pump to come on again.
>
> In flight, with both engines running, the only likely cause for hydraulic
pressure drop is ... yes ... a leak!
>
> At that point, the aux pump will perform its god given task: pumping the
rest of the fluid out the leak.
>
> And ... only the aux pump can access the .8 quart of fluid below the engine
pump supply stand pipe, so you've blown your reserve.
>
> Thanks for surviving this incident with such style and grace so we can point
out this important survival trick to the new commers to the Commanders.
>
> Wing Commander Gordon
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A Red & Gooey Flight |
In a message dated 6/18/2002 5:13:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, w.bow(at)att.net
writes:
> The FAA does not look favorably on using a CB as a switch in FAR 121 opps.
The only example I can think of is for the Inside Window Anti-Fog heating on
the DC-9's that came on auto with the windshield heat. If the airplane did
not come from the factory with a Anit fog switch and a Anti ice switch you
could pull the breakers and use them as aswitch.
How about installing on of those great Breaker Switches?? They look like
toggle switches, and are rated to required amp capacity??
I do however aggree with Some of what Randy Sharp said, The two systems are
completey different plumbing, and loosing all the fluid from a common source
is not likely.
You make and model may differ. Some airplanes shown with optional equipment.
Mileage will vary. Price plus tax, tag, license, and registration fees.
JetPaul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com> |
In a message dated 6/18/2002 10:28:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
N414C(at)cableone.net writes:
> My guess would be an explosion between the wing roots.
Man thats just what I thought Milt. From the video I could not explain /
understand the almost instant fuel fire / explosion from the wing root.
I had no idea about the problems that you speak of (with all the fuel
leaks.)..but I told my wife it looked like an explosion to me!!
JetPaul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CapnSpray(at)aol.com <CapnSpray(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Windshield wiper blade tension |
My 680F(P) Maint Manual say's 4 to 7 lbs
capnspray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
In a message dated 6/19/02 9:20:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, JETPAUL(at)aol.com
writes:
> I had no idea about the problems that you speak of (with all the fuel
> leaks.)..but I told my wife it looked like an explosion to me!!
It looked to me like the guy just goofed and pulled to hard? Nothing is
indestructible and if you gave is a mighty jerk just as you flew through a
big thermal?? I didn't see any fire until after the wing began to separate.
Really super sad, amazing, sad. jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> |
> Btw what was min crew for you guys?
> We had a crew of 3, Pilot,copilot, and flight engineer.
> Usually carried a PJ (para-rescue jumper)
I was flying to floating drill rig ships in the Beaufort Sea and carried a
crew of three Pilot, copilot and a (male) flight attendant (for the
passengers).
We could fly it with one crew member as long as there were less than 10
passangers and the gear was left down because the emergency extension gear
handle was under the copilot's seat.
> Hey the USAF liked the Canadians.
> Last time I was in Comox we almost beat you guys at crud.
The boys at 442 Squadron in Comox know me well, my SAR group whooped them in
an ELT homing contest.
Since then we have developed a "real time" positioning system that displays
the search aircraft GPS information on an Oziexplorer topographical map on a
computer on the ground (also available on a web site that anyone can look
at).
There response to that is that although we beat them into the 21st century,
they have fast aircraft and will soon catch up.
Tom...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Sharp" <sharp.r(at)apple.com>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 23:00
Subject: Re: SK61
> Hi Tom,
>
> I sure enjoyed the HH3.
> The Military version was slightly modified than the civilian.
> I have over 2000 hours as command pilot in it.
>
> The AF version had inflight air refueling, an aft ramp that lowered while
in
> flight and full down into the water when we shut down while a float.
> Best flying machine for helos. Mostly sea type missions, the high altitude
> stuff was very marginal in power.
>
> A little under powered but it was sure fun landing in the water.
>
> The H60 is fun, 2000 shp a side with the same GW as the HH3 and fully
> aerobatic. The AF limits us to 90 deg. Top speed of 193kts, I got it to
180
> once.
>
> But once you strap in you ain't getting out of the 5 point seat belt
> restraint.
>
> At least in the H3 we could get out of the seat and let the FE fly it.
>
> Btw what was min crew for you guys?
> We had a crew of 3, Pilot,copilot, and flight engineer.
> Usually carried a PJ (para-rescue jumper)
>
> Hey the USAF liked the Canadians.
> Last time I was in Comox we almost beat you guys at crud.
>
> Randy
>
>
> On 6/18/02 4:30 PM, "Tom Fisher" wrote:
>
> >> Even in the HH3E (SK61)/ HH60 (SK70) Dash 1 flight manual it clearly
> >> states that the pilot is not allowed to use any CB as a switch, as
stated
> >> so in the Sikorsky flight manual.
> >
> > I flew the SK61N (civillian streched model) and although I do not
recall
> > specifically if the manual forbade the use of C/B's as switches, I do
recall
> > us using them as switches, but what else can you expect from spear
chucking
> > Canadians. :)
> >
> > Tom...
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Randy Sharp" <sharp.r(at)apple.com>
> > To: "Twin Commander"
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 14:33
> > Subject: Re: USE OF CB SWITCH FOR HYD. SAFETY
> >
> >
> >> I surely welcome any rebuttals and/or comments, this is the advantage
of
> >> living in the USA.
> >> It allows everyone to have an opinion and state it so, it also
> >> communicates (in a good way) to get others opinions.
> >>
> >> In this way we inform the commander public and they get to choose what
> >> method they would like to do as a standard procedure for their own
> >> aircraft.
> >> Even though it is not my SOP to pull the CB others may do so if they
> >> understand why they are doing it.
> >>
> >> Just to clarify though, with any indication of a problem in the HYD
> >> system I TOO will pull the CB.
> >> (Good indications are nose wheel dropping, gear doors open, Pressure
gage
> >> fluctions, fluid on the nacelle etc)
> >>
> >> I strongly believe the commander Hyd system is one of the better system
> >> designs out there for GA and especially true if the maintenance is done
> >> properly.
> >>
> >> As a side note then, if most of the Cmdr population does indeed pull
the
> >> CB as a switch it might be more prudent to have an appropriately rated
> >> switch installed in series with the CB.
> >> (Of course with a proper modification and Form 337 done, and if it can
be
> >> approved without too high of a cost)
> >>
> >> In this way, the switch can be installed and replaced versus a CB.
> >> The switch on/off procedure can then be added to your start/stop
> >> checklist and the circuit can be protected as it should be via a CB.
> >>
> >> I completely renovated my 500B and I would not want to pull the circut
> >> breaker panel down again to replace a failed CB because I was using it
as
> >> a switch.
> >>
> >> Chris what do you think? I know you do a lot of certification projects
on
> >> the side.
> >> What would it cost (if feasible) to add a simple rated switch to the
AUX
> >> system?
> >>
> >> Just a thought.
> >> Randy
> >>
> >> ps
> >> It must be ingrained in me from the AF that "thou shall not use the CB
as
> >> a switch"
> >> Under normal circumstances only Maintenance personal are allowed to
> >> collar a CB before flight.
> >> (But again this is not the Air Force so GA may do things differently)
> >>
> >> Even in the HH3E (SK61)/ HH60 (SK70) Dash 1 flight manual it clearly
> >> states that the pilot is not allowed to use any CB as a switch, as
stated
> >> so in the Sikorsky flight manual.
> >>
> >>
> >> MOEMILLS(at)aol.com said:
> >>> Dear Fellow Commanderlanders:
> >>>
> >>> With all due respect to Randy Sharp I wish to offer a different
opinion
> > on
> >>> the use of the CB switch for the aux Hydraulic system.
> >>>
> >>> When I purchased my 680F(P) I was told to never fly the airplane with
the
> >>> circuit breaker switch in, and that the only time that the switch
should
> > be
> >>> in was when the engines were to be started and the aux. (low pressure
> > gage)
> >>> showed below 500 psi. This 1963 680F(P) has the dual purpose over
head
> >>> switches which shut off the fuel and hyd. fluid AT THE SAME TIME.
> >>>
> >>> One night while flying (with the circuit breaker pulled as usual) I
> > observed
> >>> that the high pressure AND low pressure gages were both showing 0 PSI.
I
> >>> made a no flaps approach and the gear came down just fine. I decided
not
> > to
> >>> push in the circuit breaker until I landed, as I had no idea how bad
the
> >>> leak
> >>> was or where it was. Upon touch down I pushed the switch, used
moderate
> >>> braking, and exited the taxi way. By cycling the circuit breaker
switch
> > only
> >>> when brakes or steering was needed, taxiing (very slowly) to the
tarmac
> > was
> >>> not a problem.
> >>>
> >>> Upon inspection, the problem was that the hydraulic hose going to the
low
> >>> pressure hyd. gage (aux.) had 'blown up' and all of the fluid pumped
out
> >>> in a
> >>> very short time. Please note, that if the circuit breaker switch had
> > been
> >>> pushed in (circuit closed) the landing would have been made with no
> > brakes
> >>> and no steering. If you leave the CB switch in (circuit closed) you
> > should
> >>> incorporate the high pressure gage into your instrument scan,
otherwise,
> > you
> >>> will not know when the pressure is going down, and when to pull out
the
> >>> circuit breaker, which very well could result in a no flaps, no
brakes,
> > no
> >>> steering landing. Given the location of the high pressure gage, and
the
> >>> complexity of the aircraft, I choose not to include this gage in my
> > normal
> >>> scan.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for reading my differing opinion.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>> Moe Mills
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A Red & Gooey Flight |
In a message dated 06/19/02 09:01:25 Pacific Daylight Time, JETPAUL(at)aol.com
writes:
> I do however aggree with Some of what Randy Sharp said, The two systems are
> completey different plumbing, and loosing all the fluid from a common
> source is not likely.
Boys and Girls,
Yes. The above statement is correct.
And here comes the "Yeah, but."
How do you know where the leak is? Supply line? Return line? Retract
cylinder? Flap Actuator/line? Uplocks? Nose wheel steering
acutator/lines? Hydraulic pressure gauge? The list goes on.
I checked with Yoda this morning to make sure what I've been teaching for 10
years is correct and he is as emphatic about this procedure as I am.
Routine disabling the aux hydraulic pump is the best insurance you have of
arriving at an airport with some fluid for brakes and nose wheel steering
(and flaps if you want to gamble your fluid on those).
It's not in the manual? That is also a correct statement. Although the
manual does authorize the disabling of the aux pump -- after it's too late.
I just find that kind of odd ...
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
BillLeff1(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Hi Chris. This is Bill Leff (formerly of Commander Aero). I would like to
> participate in Commander Chat and the TCFG. I would also be interested in
> working with the group as a technical advisor and share my 32+ years of
> experience in maintenance, operation, training and ownership. I currently own
> 560F1243-53 (N222WL). Actually I first flew this airplane as a corporate
> pilot in 1972! Now I own it! What a county!!!
>
> \Anyway, I look forward to hearing from you. I will contact Jim to join.
>
> Bill Leff
Welcome aboard Bill! I've added you to both lists.
Thanks for the offer to share you knowledge and experience with
the group. Great to have another 560F owner around also.
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> |
In a message dated 06/19/02 10:44:05 Pacific Daylight Time,
chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com writes:
> Welcome aboard Bill! I've added you to both lists.
> Thanks for the offer to share you knowledge and experience with
> the group. Great to have another 560F owner around also.
I'd also like to welcome -- and introduce Bill Leff to any of you who don't
know him.
Bill Leff was manager of Commander-Aero before he went to TWA a couple of
years ago.
Dick Wartinger tapped him to manage the facility when he stepped back from
the day-to-day operations.
That's a mighty big endorsement right there.
Oh -- and Bill is also well known for his nighttime T-6 pyrotechnic routine
on the airshow circuit.
One of the best all-around aviators in the world. Corporate pilot, air show
pilot, Commander pilot/owner, A&P, Commander sales/service facility manager,
airline Pilot. It's our good fortune to have him participating.
That means I can go back to sleep now, right Bill? ;-)
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry S. Wokral <L.Wokral(at)ix.netcom.com> |
With all of this discussion from what appears to be pretty knowledgeable
folks (I have yet to meet any of you), I couldn't help but to add my
experience to this discussion. I am new to Commander flying, and I certainly
have no specific Commander input. But I flew C119s and C130s in the Air
Guard in a previous life. The instruction then was that CBs should not be
pulled as a regular practice while power was flowing due to the resulting
small electrical arc and a possible contact burn. This wasn't to mean that
pulling them didn't occur, it just wasn't supposed to be a routine method of
disengaging the circuit in a non failure mode.
I like the idea someone here gave of replacing the pullable CB with a switch
type breaker. My avionics shop installed two toggle switch type breakers
crossing between the main and avionics busses on my Cardinal as avionics
masters. Of course these can be switched on and off routinely. Perhaps this
type switch would work with the aux hydraulic pump. These avionics breakers
were installed as a direct replacement log book entry only - too easy?
Larry Wokral
(new 500B owner still awaiting its return from Merlyn)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Randy Sharp <sharp.r(at)apple.com> |
| Subject: | A good summary on the Red & Gooey Flight |
Hi folks,
I hope I haven't muddy the waters too much.
I feel I need to make some kind of summary here because it was my fault
bring the subject up in the first place.
A good healthy discussion on hydraulics is a good thing because it is
unique to most general aviation aircraft. Understanding them is equally
important for proper reaction to failures.
I think we're in agreement on most of the issues.
Please refer back to my original posting for the details that folks are
bringing up again.
ie
>Granted, most pilots can't detect or analyze a Hyd leak fast enough so
>the normal procedure is to:
>1. PULL THE CB ON THE AUX SYSTEM, then
>2. TURN OFF THE HYDRAULIC SHUTOFF VALVES.
I think we agree on this statement below?
The HYDRAULIC SHUTOFF valves were designed to be turned off in
flight/ground if a leak was detected in the nacelles, ie engine driven
pumps or gear extension/retraction system.
The Nitrogen bottle is the backup gear extension method if we can not
shut down one of these systems or if a common line breaks which dumps the
fluid overboard so the engine driven pumps will no longer work. The Aux
system will supply all necessary fluid to the flaps, steering, brakes if
the main system fails and dumps its addressable fluid. These are nice
features to have on landing.
Pulling the CB is not in the manual BUT you are right, it is a VERY good
idea because of the design that everyone has alluded to. You don't know
where the failure is unless you see a nacelle all covered in red stuff in
the front. Odds are your break line or other AUX system component is not
leaking.... BUT pull the CB anyway so you are assured some control when
you touch down as WCG alluded to.
My only contention is we need to have a switch and not use the CB as a
switch.
I still contend there are two separate systems.
(If I am wrong please show me this in the schematics, the diagrams are
shaded and coded for each operation, which should make it easy for most
to understand)
1. (The manual calls this the main supply)
A Leak in ie SYSTEM 1 (gear system - two engine driven pumps which feeds
all components thru check valves etc. will NOT deplete the AUX system
because of the stand pipe in the reservoir (design feature). ie IT CAN'T
SUCK THE FLUID LOWER THAN THE STANDPIPE!
2. (The manual calls this Aux pressure)
A leak in ie SYSTEM 2 (Aux system - electric driven pump which feeds
those particular components which is also being pressurized by SYSTEM 1
pumps) will DEPLETE ALL fluid because it takes the fluid from the LOWEST
point in the system (HYDRAULIC reservoir below stand pipe).
1. By turning off HYDRAULIC SHUTOFF valves you eliminate problem 1.
2. By pulling the CB you eliminate problem 2 but NOT problem 1.
YES we need a switch for problem number 2.
For more information please refer to the 500B maintenance manual pages
3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5 that depict figures 3-1 sheets 1of2,2of2, figure 3-2
sheets 1of2,2of2. NOTE some aircraft have check valves and some don't
depending on the serial number. Models 1131 and sub have a common
manifold in place of a check valve that feeds into the Aux system, shown
inside the gear selector valve and flap selector valve. The diagram
doesn't show any details here, but it works I tested it with a mule.
As WCG, Tom, JetPaul and others who have received training in heavy
equipment with hydraulics realize that a majority of the complexity of
good systems knowledge is in the Hydraulics.
The 2 and 3 redundant Hydraulic system designs can be quite complex but
most can be broken down into smaller systems and components, which lends
itself to a better understanding.
If anyone would like to go over the systems sometime I'm sure we could
have a couple of beers and discuss this in even more detail.
I think Chris and/or Jim should start working on the STC to put switches
in the Cmdrs so we can have a foolproof system like the big Iron. (Or
like the Aerostar?)
Thanks for the feedback,
Randy
CloudCraft(at)aol.com said:
>In a message dated 06/19/02 09:01:25 Pacific Daylight Time, JETPAUL(at)aol.com
>writes:
>> I do however aggree with Some of what Randy Sharp said, The two systems
are
>> completey different plumbing, and loosing all the fluid from a common
>> source is not likely.
>Boys and Girls,
>Yes. The above statement is correct.
>And here comes the "Yeah, but."
>How do you know where the leak is? Supply line? Return line? Retract
>cylinder? Flap Actuator/line? Uplocks? Nose wheel steering
>acutator/lines? Hydraulic pressure gauge? The list goes on.
>I checked with Yoda this morning to make sure what I've been teaching for 10
>years is correct and he is as emphatic about this procedure as I am.
>
>Routine disabling the aux hydraulic pump is the best insurance you have of
>arriving at an airport with some fluid for brakes and nose wheel steering
>(and flaps if you want to gamble your fluid on those).
>
>It's not in the manual? That is also a correct statement. Although the
>manual does authorize the disabling of the aux pump -- after it's too late.
>I just find that kind of odd ...
>Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> |
Southern California--
Shortly before noon today the Space Shuttle Endeavor (?) announced it's
arrival to the Southern California airspace as it shook buildings more
than 50 miles from its Edwards AFB landing site.
It's been awhile since we've had a shuttle recover here, and I miss it.
The sonic boom gave me goose bumps (after the 3 seconds it took me to
realize it was not an earthquake!) and to watch that set of keys of a
glider grease down on the dry lake bed made me proud of our country all
over again.
Cool stuff!
Off to fly the twin bug smasher up north, so I'll be offline for a few
days....
Barry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com> |
Welcome Bill!!!! My partner on our 520 also has a 560F with another
(different) partner. I am sure he will be glad to say hello. He also shares
about 30 years experience with Twin Commanders. He is really old, and his son
is my age (35) so we call them Old Fart (oopppsss, I mean Old Crunk) and Oil
Slick. I will let Dr. Milt, and Chris explain where Oil Slick came from.
JetPaul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | alh1(at)juno.com <alh1(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | performance figures |
does anyone have performance figures for a 500 commander at various power settings
and altitudes. i cannot find it published anywhere. thanks, al hoffman.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bow <w.bow(at)att.net> |
No pilot with any time at all behind those engines would even think of pulling
them into reverse in flight. I flew the Electra(same basic engine). It would
be sudden death.
Lockheed has never been known for the strongest wings. Electra, C-141,and the
C-5 come to mind.
bilbo
Did someone inadvertantly pull reverse thrust and pulled the wings off? They
were climbing out after a drop, if I understand the situation correctly, so the
engines would have produced a lot of power.
Is it even possible to engage reverse thrust in flight? Anybody out there know
C130's?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Randy Sharp <sharp.r(at)apple.com> |
| Subject: | Re: performance figures |
alh1(at)juno.com said:
>does anyone have performance figures for a 500 commander at various power
>settings and altitudes. i cannot find it published anywhere. thanks, al
>hoffman.
Yes I do al.
I computerized mine when I first bought the plane.
I used the IO-540 B/E1A5 power charts from the Lyc engine chart and
tabulated them.
I also interpolated the performance charts in the 500B flight manual and
made a quick list.
I believe I have them for 4,8,10K PA. (Most common altitudes)
You look up the PA and temp adjust for desired HP and set RPM and MP and
view the KTAS.
They are quite close to my measured values.
(Just depends on how tired your engines are and the airframe
configuration)
I can email them to you or send via fax.
Let me know,
Randy
example:
Performance Checklist for AC-500B
6750lbs Gross @ 10,000FT
PA '
Tf
%Hp
MP"
RPM
MPH
KTS
10K
0
45
14.9
2450
188
164
10K
0
55
17.1
2450
200
174
10K
0
65
19.3
2450
211
183
--------
% HP
BEST PWR LBS/HR
ECON PWR LBS/HR
BEST PWR GAL/HR
ECON PWR GAL/HR
45
70
55
11.7
9.2
55
80
65
13.5
10.3
65
90
75
15.0
12.5
75
105
85
17.5
14.2
etc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jjleon(at)att.net <Jjleon(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: performance figures |
Al & others,
From my charter flying days many moons ago, our company
check list (Miami Airways) had a little table with the
following numbers for the straight 500:
PAlt StdTemp 55%/2200RPM 65%/2300RPM 75%/2400 Max/2755
SL 59 20.8 mp 11.9gph 22.5/13.5 24.3/16.3 Full23.7
2000 52 20.3 11.7 gph 22.0/ 13.2 23.7/15.5 93% 22.0
4000 45 19.8 11.4 gph 21.6/12.9 23.2/15.5 87% 19.4
6000 38 19.2 11.2 gph 21.0/12.5 22.7/14.4 81% 16.0
8000 31 18.7 typo 20.4/12.1 72%/13.5 76% 14.4
10000 23 18.2 typo 65%/ 11.9 67%/12.4 70% 13.2
I hope this helps. Also if I buy the fuel, next time
I'm in Lantana, can I fly with you or one of your guys
in a 500?
Juan Leon
> does anyone have performance figures for a 500 commander at various power
> settings and altitudes. i cannot find it published anywhere. thanks, al
> hoffman.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A good summary on the Red & Gooey Flight |
Randy,
I think the manuals are poorly worded; YES, there are "two separate
systems", but the only thing that makes them so is the aux pump &
standpipe. BOTH systems pump the fluid to the same place. If you get a leak
in "system 1", the engine-driven pumps will happily pump all the fluid
overboard, right down to the standpipe......at which point the aux pump will
happily pump the remaining fluid overboard, if it is not disabled.
Also, all the check valves in the world won't bypass a leak; all they'll do
is make sure the hyd. fluid only travels in ONE direction and not backfeed.
As I discovered on my short maintenance flight, the only way I could get the
hyd. system to not see the leak was to not use that portion of the
system....i.e. I think the leak was in an uplock or perhaps a retract
cylinder. By leaving the gear down & locked, the uplocks or retracts were
never hydraulically engaged, and no fluid was pumped out of the leak (is
this reasonable & correct, or is the system
constant-pressure-constant-motion throughout, and will pressurize the
uplocks & retract cyl's. even with the gear down?)
If this is accurate, then a load-rated switch-type breaker would be much
more appropriate. Regardless of the approved procedure, I think from now on
I will pull the aux pump breaker as soon as the engine-driven pumps come up
to speed. The fact that I was lucky enough to be VERY quick on that switch,
and lucky enough to spot the hyd. anomaly VERY quickly were the only two
things that left me any fluid at all.
/J
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Sharp" <sharp.r(at)apple.com>
To: "Twin Commander Chat"
Cc: "Twin Commander"
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 11:30 AM
Subject: A good summary on the Red & Gooey Flight
> Hi folks,
> I hope I haven't muddy the waters too much.
> I feel I need to make some kind of summary here because it was my fault
> bring the subject up in the first place.
>
> A good healthy discussion on hydraulics is a good thing because it is
> unique to most general aviation aircraft. Understanding them is equally
> important for proper reaction to failures.
>
> I think we're in agreement on most of the issues.
> Please refer back to my original posting for the details that folks are
> bringing up again.
> ie
> >Granted, most pilots can't detect or analyze a Hyd leak fast enough so
> >the normal procedure is to:
> >1. PULL THE CB ON THE AUX SYSTEM, then
> >2. TURN OFF THE HYDRAULIC SHUTOFF VALVES.
>
> I think we agree on this statement below?
> The HYDRAULIC SHUTOFF valves were designed to be turned off in
> flight/ground if a leak was detected in the nacelles, ie engine driven
> pumps or gear extension/retraction system.
> The Nitrogen bottle is the backup gear extension method if we can not
> shut down one of these systems or if a common line breaks which dumps the
> fluid overboard so the engine driven pumps will no longer work. The Aux
> system will supply all necessary fluid to the flaps, steering, brakes if
> the main system fails and dumps its addressable fluid. These are nice
> features to have on landing.
>
> Pulling the CB is not in the manual BUT you are right, it is a VERY good
> idea because of the design that everyone has alluded to. You don't know
> where the failure is unless you see a nacelle all covered in red stuff in
> the front. Odds are your break line or other AUX system component is not
> leaking.... BUT pull the CB anyway so you are assured some control when
> you touch down as WCG alluded to.
>
> My only contention is we need to have a switch and not use the CB as a
> switch.
>
> I still contend there are two separate systems.
> (If I am wrong please show me this in the schematics, the diagrams are
> shaded and coded for each operation, which should make it easy for most
> to understand)
>
> 1. (The manual calls this the main supply)
> A Leak in ie SYSTEM 1 (gear system - two engine driven pumps which feeds
> all components thru check valves etc. will NOT deplete the AUX system
> because of the stand pipe in the reservoir (design feature). ie IT CAN'T
> SUCK THE FLUID LOWER THAN THE STANDPIPE!
>
> 2. (The manual calls this Aux pressure)
> A leak in ie SYSTEM 2 (Aux system - electric driven pump which feeds
> those particular components which is also being pressurized by SYSTEM 1
> pumps) will DEPLETE ALL fluid because it takes the fluid from the LOWEST
> point in the system (HYDRAULIC reservoir below stand pipe).
>
> 1. By turning off HYDRAULIC SHUTOFF valves you eliminate problem 1.
> 2. By pulling the CB you eliminate problem 2 but NOT problem 1.
>
> YES we need a switch for problem number 2.
>
> For more information please refer to the 500B maintenance manual pages
> 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5 that depict figures 3-1 sheets 1of2,2of2, figure 3-2
> sheets 1of2,2of2. NOTE some aircraft have check valves and some don't
> depending on the serial number. Models 1131 and sub have a common
> manifold in place of a check valve that feeds into the Aux system, shown
> inside the gear selector valve and flap selector valve. The diagram
> doesn't show any details here, but it works I tested it with a mule.
>
> As WCG, Tom, JetPaul and others who have received training in heavy
> equipment with hydraulics realize that a majority of the complexity of
> good systems knowledge is in the Hydraulics.
> The 2 and 3 redundant Hydraulic system designs can be quite complex but
> most can be broken down into smaller systems and components, which lends
> itself to a better understanding.
>
> If anyone would like to go over the systems sometime I'm sure we could
> have a couple of beers and discuss this in even more detail.
>
> I think Chris and/or Jim should start working on the STC to put switches
> in the Cmdrs so we can have a foolproof system like the big Iron. (Or
> like the Aerostar?)
>
> Thanks for the feedback,
> Randy
>
> CloudCraft(at)aol.com said:
> >In a message dated 06/19/02 09:01:25 Pacific Daylight Time,
JETPAUL(at)aol.com
> >writes:
> >> I do however aggree with Some of what Randy Sharp said, The two
systems
> are
> >> completey different plumbing, and loosing all the fluid from a common
> >> source is not likely.
> >Boys and Girls,
> >Yes. The above statement is correct.
> >And here comes the "Yeah, but."
> >How do you know where the leak is? Supply line? Return line? Retract
> >cylinder? Flap Actuator/line? Uplocks? Nose wheel steering
> >acutator/lines? Hydraulic pressure gauge? The list goes on.
>
> >I checked with Yoda this morning to make sure what I've been teaching for
10
> >years is correct and he is as emphatic about this procedure as I am.
> >
> >Routine disabling the aux hydraulic pump is the best insurance you have
of
> >arriving at an airport with some fluid for brakes and nose wheel steering
> >(and flaps if you want to gamble your fluid on those).
> >
> >It's not in the manual? That is also a correct statement. Although the
> >manual does authorize the disabling of the aux pump -- after it's too
late.
> >I just find that kind of odd ...
> >Wing Commander Gordon
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bow <w.bow(at)att.net> |
Who sells windshields at a reasonable price?
Bilbo
Aero Commander 500A
N78379
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bow <w.bow(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A Red & Gooey Flight |
I should have known the would be Douglas people here. I think Douglas went to
the FAA and some compromising pictures of there POI to get that approved. The
DC-8 had the same system and the breaker was used the same way.
Having said that I still stand by my original "They don't like it" statement.
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: JETPAUL(at)aol.com
To: w.bow(at)att.net ; commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: A Red & Gooey Flight
In a message dated 6/18/2002 5:13:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, w.bow(at)att.net
writes:
The FAA does not look favorably on using a CB as a switch in FAR 121 opps.
The only example I can think of is for the Inside Window Anti-Fog heating on
the DC-9's that came on auto with the windshield heat. If the airplane did not
come from the factory with a Anit fog switch and a Anti ice switch you could
pull the breakers and use them as aswitch.
How about installing on of those great Breaker Switches?? They look like toggle
switches, and are rated to required amp capacity??
I do however aggree with Some of what Randy Sharp said, The two systems are
completey different plumbing, and loosing all the fluid from a common source is
not likely.
You make and model may differ. Some airplanes shown with optional equipment.
Mileage will vary. Price plus tax, tag, license, and registration fees.
JetPaul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bow <w.bow(at)att.net> |
That thing blows me out of bed(usually 6 to 7 am) every time it comes across
the state of Florida. We are about 60 miles west of the "Longest runway in
Florida". It's still Kool.
bilbo
> Southern California--
>
> Shortly before noon today the Space Shuttle Endeavor (?) announced it's
> arrival to the Southern California airspace as it shook buildings more
> than 50 miles from its Edwards AFB landing site.
>
> It's been awhile since we've had a shuttle recover here, and I miss it.
> The sonic boom gave me goose bumps (after the 3 seconds it took me to
> realize it was not an earthquake!) and to watch that set of keys of a
> glider grease down on the dry lake bed made me proud of our country all
> over again.
>
> Cool stuff!
>
> Off to fly the twin bug smasher up north, so I'll be offline for a few
> days....
>
> Barry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Randy Sharp <sharp.r(at)apple.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A good summary on the Red & Gooey Flight |
Hi John,
(fyi you did a great job on your HYD failure!)
Good points, pretty much what I think I had said as well.
One system will pump to the STANDPIPE the other till it's empty.
I was trying to convey an important message that if you look at the Hyd
schematic diagram....
The two switches overhead (Hydraulic shutoff valves) control the 1000psi
system and the CB controls the 500psi lower gpm system.
The pilot can control all of these switches not just the CB for the AUX.
(which I believe we are not teaching our pilots)
(ie how many of the pilots would turn off the fuel shutoff valve to the
wing/engine if you had a serious fire on a specific side? This is another
great Cmdr feature, Unfortunately some models have these switches
integrated with the Hyd switches - which might be ok for a fire.
How many pilots look out there window every few minutes or so to check
for leaks on the nacelles. Great feature on the Cmdrs, doesn't work well
with a low wing aircraft).
(Our flight engineer does leak checks every few minutes or so on the
Helos as well as the C130s, they do pee out the door every-now-and-then
too!)
I think we differ slightly in opinion in regards to the Engine driven
Pump loops prior to the Pressure Regulator unit.
The flow below is for the High pressure system or gear up/down system or
main supply, whatever you wish to call it.
(Everything is pretty much located in the left nacelle except the engine
pumps of course)
1. Reservoir -> STANDPIPE -> Hydraulic shutoff valve (for RT ENG) -> LONG
line to RIGHT Engine Pump
-> LONG line return to checkvalve -> Pressure regulator -> THIS THEN
FEEDS to all the components.
2. Reservoir -> STANDPIPE -> Hydraulic shutoff valve (for LFT ENG) ->
LONG line to LEFT Engine Pump
-> LONG line return to checkvalve -> Pressure regulator -> THIS THEN
FEEDS to all the components.
The check valves in this case will not allow HIGH pressure fluid to go
back into the open loop (Engine pump loop) from the Pressure regulator
even if the other pump is working properly, two ports are shown on the
Pressure regulator. Left/Right engine connections. if a leak is in one of
the engine pump loops, hoses connected to the pump etc. will stop leaking
at least not at the 1000psi force of the pump. This could save you some
valuable fluid later on when using the AUX pump.
(As stated in the maintenance manual)
You are quite right though if a failure does occur in the components that
are driven by the common system (PAST the REGULATOR) then the other pump
will dump it out as well.
I contend then that if you turn off BOTH Hyd switches YOU WILL NOT dump
anymore fluid other than a dribble thru the open break or defect that has
just occurred, wherever it occurred.
(NOTE: as long as the Aux pump CB has been pulled as well).
This is predicated on that you observed the failure fast enough to get
those switches off.
(Keep watching those nacelles, I keep a flash light nearby to take a look
at the nacelles when going to Tahoe at night)
When ready push the CB in for the AUX pump and you should get a whole lot
more fluid into the system from the reservoir that you did NOT PUMP
overboard by leaving the Hydraulic shutoff valves open. (AGAIN this
depends on were the break is...)
Thanks for listening.
I promise I'll keep quiet from now on.
Randy
john(at)vormbaum.com said:
>Randy,
>
>I think the manuals are poorly worded; YES, there are "two separate
>systems", but the only thing that makes them so is the aux pump &
>standpipe. BOTH systems pump the fluid to the same place. If you get a leak
>in "system 1", the engine-driven pumps will happily pump all the fluid
>overboard, right down to the standpipe......at which point the aux pump will
>happily pump the remaining fluid overboard, if it is not disabled.
>
>Also, all the check valves in the world won't bypass a leak; all they'll do
>is make sure the hyd. fluid only travels in ONE direction and not backfeed.
>
>As I discovered on my short maintenance flight, the only way I could get the
>hyd. system to not see the leak was to not use that portion of the
>system....i.e. I think the leak was in an uplock or perhaps a retract
>cylinder. By leaving the gear down & locked, the uplocks or retracts were
>never hydraulically engaged, and no fluid was pumped out of the leak (is
>this reasonable & correct, or is the system
>constant-pressure-constant-motion throughout, and will pressurize the
>uplocks & retract cyl's. even with the gear down?)
>
>If this is accurate, then a load-rated switch-type breaker would be much
>more appropriate. Regardless of the approved procedure, I think from now on
>I will pull the aux pump breaker as soon as the engine-driven pumps come up
>to speed. The fact that I was lucky enough to be VERY quick on that switch,
>and lucky enough to spot the hyd. anomaly VERY quickly were the only two
>things that left me any fluid at all.
>
>/J
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Randy Sharp" <sharp.r(at)apple.com>
>To: "Twin Commander Chat"
>Cc: "Twin Commander"
>Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 11:30 AM
>Subject: A good summary on the Red & Gooey Flight
>
>
>> Hi folks,
>> I hope I haven't muddy the waters too much.
>> I feel I need to make some kind of summary here because it was my fault
>> bring the subject up in the first place.
>>
>> A good healthy discussion on hydraulics is a good thing because it is
>> unique to most general aviation aircraft. Understanding them is equally
>> important for proper reaction to failures.
>>
>> I think we're in agreement on most of the issues.
>> Please refer back to my original posting for the details that folks are
>> bringing up again.
>> ie
>> >Granted, most pilots can't detect or analyze a Hyd leak fast enough so
>> >the normal procedure is to:
>> >1. PULL THE CB ON THE AUX SYSTEM, then
>> >2. TURN OFF THE HYDRAULIC SHUTOFF VALVES.
>>
>> I think we agree on this statement below?
>> The HYDRAULIC SHUTOFF valves were designed to be turned off in
>> flight/ground if a leak was detected in the nacelles, ie engine driven
>> pumps or gear extension/retraction system.
>> The Nitrogen bottle is the backup gear extension method if we can not
>> shut down one of these systems or if a common line breaks which dumps the
>> fluid overboard so the engine driven pumps will no longer work. The Aux
>> system will supply all necessary fluid to the flaps, steering, brakes if
>> the main system fails and dumps its addressable fluid. These are nice
>> features to have on landing.
>>
>> Pulling the CB is not in the manual BUT you are right, it is a VERY good
>> idea because of the design that everyone has alluded to. You don't know
>> where the failure is unless you see a nacelle all covered in red stuff in
>> the front. Odds are your break line or other AUX system component is not
>> leaking.... BUT pull the CB anyway so you are assured some control when
>> you touch down as WCG alluded to.
>>
>> My only contention is we need to have a switch and not use the CB as a
>> switch.
>>
>> I still contend there are two separate systems.
>> (If I am wrong please show me this in the schematics, the diagrams are
>> shaded and coded for each operation, which should make it easy for most
>> to understand)
>>
>> 1. (The manual calls this the main supply)
>> A Leak in ie SYSTEM 1 (gear system - two engine driven pumps which feeds
>> all components thru check valves etc. will NOT deplete the AUX system
>> because of the stand pipe in the reservoir (design feature). ie IT CAN'T
>> SUCK THE FLUID LOWER THAN THE STANDPIPE!
>>
>> 2. (The manual calls this Aux pressure)
>> A leak in ie SYSTEM 2 (Aux system - electric driven pump which feeds
>> those particular components which is also being pressurized by SYSTEM 1
>> pumps) will DEPLETE ALL fluid because it takes the fluid from the LOWEST
>> point in the system (HYDRAULIC reservoir below stand pipe).
>>
>> 1. By turning off HYDRAULIC SHUTOFF valves you eliminate problem 1.
>> 2. By pulling the CB you eliminate problem 2 but NOT problem 1.
>>
>> YES we need a switch for problem number 2.
>>
>> For more information please refer to the 500B maintenance manual pages
>> 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5 that depict figures 3-1 sheets 1of2,2of2, figure 3-2
>> sheets 1of2,2of2. NOTE some aircraft have check valves and some don't
>> depending on the serial number. Models 1131 and sub have a common
>> manifold in place of a check valve that feeds into the Aux system, shown
>> inside the gear selector valve and flap selector valve. The diagram
>> doesn't show any details here, but it works I tested it with a mule.
>>
>> As WCG, Tom, JetPaul and others who have received training in heavy
>> equipment with hydraulics realize that a majority of the complexity of
>> good systems knowledge is in the Hydraulics.
>> The 2 and 3 redundant Hydraulic system designs can be quite complex but
>> most can be broken down into smaller systems and components, which lends
>> itself to a better understanding.
>>
>> If anyone would like to go over the systems sometime I'm sure we could
>> have a couple of beers and discuss this in even more detail.
>>
>> I think Chris and/or Jim should start working on the STC to put switches
>> in the Cmdrs so we can have a foolproof system like the big Iron. (Or
>> like the Aerostar?)
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback,
>> Randy
>>
>> CloudCraft(at)aol.com said:
>> >In a message dated 06/19/02 09:01:25 Pacific Daylight Time,
>JETPAUL(at)aol.com
>> >writes:
>> >> I do however aggree with Some of what Randy Sharp said, The two
>systems
>> are
>> >> completey different plumbing, and loosing all the fluid from a common
>> >> source is not likely.
>> >Boys and Girls,
>> >Yes. The above statement is correct.
>> >And here comes the "Yeah, but."
>> >How do you know where the leak is? Supply line? Return line? Retract
>> >cylinder? Flap Actuator/line? Uplocks? Nose wheel steering
>> >acutator/lines? Hydraulic pressure gauge? The list goes on.
>>
>> >I checked with Yoda this morning to make sure what I've been teaching for
>10
>> >years is correct and he is as emphatic about this procedure as I am.
>> >
>> >Routine disabling the aux hydraulic pump is the best insurance you have
>of
>> >arriving at an airport with some fluid for brakes and nose wheel steering
>> >(and flaps if you want to gamble your fluid on those).
>> >
>> >It's not in the manual? That is also a correct statement. Although the
>> >manual does authorize the disabling of the aux pump -- after it's too
>late.
>> >I just find that kind of odd ...
>> >Wing Commander Gordon
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A Red & Gooey Flight |
Bilbo,
If I recall correctly, I don't think 'neutral' on the flaps depressurizes anything.
I think it just shuts the valve into that system, locking the 1,000psi into
it.
Anyone?
/J
----- Original Message -----
From: Bow
To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: A Red & Gooey Flight
After looking at this hydraulic system, it would make sense to me that as SOP,
we should be placing the flap selector to the neutral position after retraction.
This should depressurize the flap system and reduce the probability/possibility
of a leak at least in that area.
This should stir up some stuff.
bilbo
HI KIDS.
Here is the reason that separate plumbing and check valves don't stop
the whole problem. The aux pump will operate all systems EXCEPT the gear, which
blows down from the bottle. So, if the leak is in the flap system, steering
system or brakes, the engine pumps empty the revivor, the hyd pressure will
drop to 0 right? So what happens when the pressure drops to 0?? The pressure
switch in the aux pump circuit turns the pump on and it proceeds to pump the
last bit of fluid overboard.
Has nothing to do with check valves or separate systems, the only separate
system is the intake to the pump and isolation of the gear, everything
else is open to BOTH pumps. When the pressure goes to zero, the separate aux
pump system comes on and out it goes, unless the breaker is pulled :-) jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bow <w.bow(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A Red & Gooey Flight |
OK, You win.
Depressurize is the wrong term. It will however isolate a leak in the flap system
between the Landing Gear/Flap valve(throttle quadrant) and the flaps themselves.
This is a fairly large area. It is just a thought.
At my last(the Grand) Annual I replaced the two hoses in the top of the nose gear
well. I'm not sure how old they were, but they were fairly crunchy. They
are not easy to see on a preflight, at least for a fat 50 year old fart like me.
stir,,,stir,,,stir,,,stir
bilbo "the rotund"
----- Original Message -----
From: John Vormbaum
To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: A Red & Gooey Flight
Bilbo,
If I recall correctly, I don't think 'neutral' on the flaps depressurizes anything.
I think it just shuts the valve into that system, locking the 1,000psi
into it.
Anyone?
/J
----- Original Message -----
From: Bow
To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: A Red & Gooey Flight
After looking at this hydraulic system, it would make sense to me that as SOP,
we should be placing the flap selector to the neutral position after retraction.
This should depressurize the flap system and reduce the probability/possibility
of a leak at least in that area.
This should stir up some stuff.
bilbo
HI KIDS.
Here is the reason that separate plumbing and check valves don't stop
the whole problem. The aux pump will operate all systems EXCEPT the gear, which
blows down from the bottle. So, if the leak is in the flap system, steering
system or brakes, the engine pumps empty the revivor, the hyd pressure will
drop to 0 right? So what happens when the pressure drops to 0?? The pressure
switch in the aux pump circuit turns the pump on and it proceeds to pump the
last bit of fluid overboard.
Has nothing to do with check valves or separate systems, the only
separate system is the intake to the pump and isolation of the gear, everything
else is open to BOTH pumps. When the pressure goes to zero, the separate aux
pump system comes on and out it goes, unless the breaker is pulled :-) jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A Red & Gooey Flight |
In a message dated 06/19/02 15:50:28 Pacific Daylight Time, w.bow(at)att.net
writes:
> I should have known the would be Douglas people here.
We're all Douglas people here!
Ted Smith was project engineer on the Douglas A-20 and A-26.
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Circuit breakers |
Assuming you are the average American GA Pilot and fly 150hrs a year and your average
flight is 2&1/2 hrs you will pull the circuit breaker 60 times a year.
I suspect the average breaker probably has a life in the range of 3000 cycles
power on and between 5 & 10,000 cycles power off.
Since the power to the Aux pump is off when you pull the breaker we will be in
the 5000+ range.
This means the average pilot will destroy the circuit breaker in 83 years.
But lets be conservative and say you will only get 1000 cycles and you pull it
100 times a year.
That's 15 years. Except for John the rest of you old farts will have lost your
medicals before you destroy your first circuit breaker.
The reason military pilots are so religious about not using breakers as switches
is because in the early days those 90 day wonders (meaning red nosed freshly
minted officers) would use the damn things as master switches for the various
systems. Those early breakers were not as sturdy as the ones in our commanders
and when used as masters the power was still applied and caused failure in short
order.
As a result, those of us (meaning NCOs and other enlisted swine) who trained these
congress decreed gentlemen, wrote the manuals, and repaired the damage wreaked
on the aircraft by these newly minted aviation wonders put the fear of god
into them, making them forever think their personal pleasure tools would rot
and fall off if they used the breakers as switches.
Obviously we did a good job as most military pilots are still phobic about circuit
breakers. Not to worry we now have Viagra just in case yours falls off when
using a circuit breaker. And that is the rest of the story.
Milt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | spar brace kit?? |
HEY ALLEN...What the heck is a spar brace kit?? jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Anybody out there? |
> Nico van Niekerk wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
> My mail server was down for a couple of days. Was I thrown off the
> list or were you all just a little quiet?
> Nico
>
Howdy Nico. I didn't dump you from the list, but I
did see a LOT of bounced email to your address. I know your
link goes down often so I didn't worry about it - I knew
you'd be back!
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fmyers(at)attbi.com <fmyers(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Anybody out there? |
I have noticed the commander list is pretty slow also. I
thought my email was messed up. I got your email just
fine. Maybe everybody is just flying?
Fran
> Hi guys,
> My mail server was down for a couple of days. Was I thrown off the list or were
> you all just a little quiet?
> Nico
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bow <w.bow(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Anybody out there? |
I don't know Nico. I asked if anybody new where to buy a windshield and haven't
heard a thing.
bilbo
Subject: Anybody out there?
Hi guys,
My mail server was down for a couple of days. Was I thrown off the list or were
you all just a little quiet?
Nico
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Anybody out there? |
Hell,
I Insulted all the military pilots on the list 2 weeks ago an didn't get a peep
out of them.
Milt
----- Original Message -----
From: Bow
To: Nico van Niekerk ; commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com ; commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: Anybody out there?
I don't know Nico. I asked if anybody new where to buy a windshield and haven't
heard a thing.
bilbo
Subject: Anybody out there?
Hi guys,
My mail server was down for a couple of days. Was I thrown off the list or were
you all just a little quiet?
Nico
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BillLeff1(at)aol.com <BillLeff1(at)aol.com> |
With all of the talk about hard hydraulic lines, I would like to bring
attention to the most often overlooked flex lines in the airplane.
The fuel lines from the sump to the wing shut off valves. When was the last
time most of you changed those?
Also, on the dry sump engines, the oil hoses from the sump to the firewall.
My oil lines crumbled when I took them off! They are hard to see and inspect
unless you drop the aft nacelle.
Bill Leff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A good summary on the Red & Gooey Flight |
In a message dated 6/19/02 11:46:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sharp.r(at)apple.com writes:
> (If I am wrong please show me this in the schematics, the diagrams are
> shaded and coded for each operation, which should make it easy for most
> to understand)
>
page 3-3.jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BillLeff1(at)aol.com <BillLeff1(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Blow down system? |
Just thought I would point out that the nitrogen system on the Commander is
an assist system rather than a blow down system. On each gear extension it
helps the gear extend. If the hydraulic system is out, the nitrogen system
again assist the gear to extend and the bungees hold the drag links over
center locking the gear down.
I saw in a previous e-mail, someone was wondering what needs to be done after
the gear is blown down. Nothing, since the system works as a normal part of
the gear operation.
The gear will still extend and lock without the nitrogen system. I had a
hydraulic failure and later found out that the nitrogen gauge was stuck! I
had no nitrogen.
Bill Leff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Addington <adding(at)tigerbyte.net> |
Hello Gang
I may have miss lead you on the location of the shut off switch and lights
on the aux pump.
It is just above the air speed indicator. I would like to put a gauge in
the wheel well to show the pressure on the accumulator. Has any one done
this? For something to be as important it sure is hard to check.
Jim A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Charts |
In a message dated 6/22/02 6:16:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, MarcioK(at)aol.com
writes:
> I'm looking for a power chart for my 720. The engines are GSO-480s, so the
> settings must be sensibly the same as for the 680
I have a great power chart I will send you.....jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | AIRWORTHINESS CONCERN |
HI KIDS....
The FAA has issued an airworhiness concern sheet on the Continental
IO-520 (as well as the TSIO 520 and some 550) series engines. This may
effect some 500As with the Collemill conversion. I need to know what series
520s were STCed to be installed in the 500A. Anybody have that info??
Thanks. jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The Flap Over Flap Handle Position |
In a message dated 6/20/02 7:24:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
CloudCraft(at)aol.com writes:
> Another school of thought is, "If it's not being used, don't have it
> powered." That's my alma mater.
>
So WCG, should the guys with the older Commanders place the gear handle in
the neutral position once it is down and locked, after all, it isn't being
used any more ??? :-) jb
now that shoud really stir up the troops!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Pneumatics v. hydraulics |
> Although it would be more difficult to find a leak, wouldn't it be nice
> if
> the hydraulic system could be replaced with a pneumatic system.
> Tom...
YES! My CJ-6A has pneumatics instead of hydraulics....it's common to
many Eastern Bloc aircraft (and British). Leaks are not that difficult
to find....soapy water and a spray bottle. It's not as easy to detect
at 5606, but not that difficult either. The beauties of it are:
-air is an endless supply. As long as the compressor is working, you'll
be able to replace what is leaking, unless it's a catastrophic failure
of course.
-IF there is a leak, and IF the compressor fails, there is still an
emergency system that is TOTALLY separate from the main system. It has
it's own set of plumbing to all the systems and can get the gear down
and give you enough brakes to get back to your hangar.
It's kinda fun too. When you are taxiing, the breaks sound like your on
a ride at Disneyland.
Barry (radial engines and pneumatics rule!) Hancock
PS Anyone working on that STC for putting M14P's on Commanders?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Derek Monk <britmonk(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | new e-mail address |
Hi everybody,
Some TCFG members may still have my old e-mail address in your address
books. Please change my e-mail address from britmonk(at)swbell.net to:
britmonk(at)adelphia.net
Thanks,
Derek Monk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MarcioK(at)aol.com <MarcioK(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Charts |
Hi, folks, it's me again.
Chris, thanks for the clue.
I checked the Commander site. In fact, I'd already been there. I found the
same information that's in the Flight Manual, which is basically limitations.
How do you guys actually CRUISE the airplane? What do you do after you level
off?
How do you decide what is the best power setting for the trip ?
The phone number I had for Lycoming isn't in service any more, and their web
site looks more like a online shop than a technical place. By the way, I
bought all the manuals they have for the GSO-480
What I am loking for is a decent power chart for my airplane. Am I looking
for some kind of classified information ?
Any help is welcome.
Marcio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bow <w.bow(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Anybody out there? |
I don't know Nico. I asked if anybody new where to buy a windshield and haven't
heard a thing.
bilbo
Subject: Anybody out there?
Hi guys,
My mail server was down for a couple of days. Was I thrown off the list or were
you all just a little quiet?
Nico
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MarcioK(at)aol.com <MarcioK(at)aol.com> |
Hi, folks
I'm looking for a power chart for my 720. The engines are GSO-480s, so the
settings must be sensibly the same as for the 680.
Since I bought this airplane I've accrued about 20 pounds of manuals and so
far no mention whatsoever to cruise power settings.
If anyone out there have one or knows who I should contact to get one please
let me know.
Please find attached the one I used for a 560E I've flown many years ago,
which may be useful for someone with GO-480s.
Sincere thanks
Marcio Nascimento
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | June Kos <jkosciuszko(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Commander Windshields |
don't know Nico. I asked if anybody new where to buy a windshield and haven't
heard a thing.
bilbo
Bilbo;
Last fall, David Harwell, (he's a NWA mechanic) at Peachstate Airport did my
annual and ended up putting in two new windshields and two half inch thick cockpit
side glass in my 560E. I don't know the price per side, or where he ordered
them from, but if you want you may contact him, (I'm in VA for a few weeks)
. Hope this helps.
David Harwell
Barnstormer Workshop
Williamson, GA
770 227-8282
Don Girod
dongirod(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The Flap Over Flap Handle Position |
In a message dated 6/25/2002 10:20:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
YOURTCFG(at)aol.com writes:
> So WCG, should the guys with the older Commanders place the gear handle in
> the neutral position once it is down and locked, after all, it isn't being
> used any more ??? :-) jb
>
I say it is still being used J.B.!!!! it's being used as a back up to the
over center bungies, and on the 520 style gear, the little lock pins at the
top of the struts.
JetPaul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch location |
In a message dated 6/25/2002 10:13:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
adding(at)tigerbyte.net writes:
> I would like to put a gauge in
> the wheel well to show the pressure on the accumulator. Has any one done
> this? For something to be as important it sure is hard to check.
>
If you want to know if your accumulator is working just make sure you have
1,000 P.S.I. in the hyd. gauge, and then remove any source of hyd.
pressurization.
I.E. all engines, and elec. pumps off. Then see if you can cycle the flaps
about 5 times all the way down and back up. If it will do that, then you
have a good accumulator.
JetPaul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Charts |
In a message dated 6/25/02 7:25:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, MarcioK(at)aol.com
writes:
> What I am loking for is a decent power chart for my airplane. Am I looking
> for some kind of classified information ?
It will be in today's mail. I have a great chart with all you have asked
for. I had one made for you and even had it laminated. what did you do
about your propellers?? jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Keeping It Up in Older Commanders |
There is actually a service bulletin from the late 50s for the bathtubs that says
leave the flap and gear handles in the up position after retracting them.
Milt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George J. Yundt III <yundt(at)speakeasy.net> |
| Subject: | Twin Commander Pilot Job Opening in San Francisco Bay |
Area
Looking for an "experienced" Twin Commander Pilot to fly a Commander 685 for a
wealthy individual based in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Offering is for Full-Time employment, but will consider an individual that can
give flexible, part-time committment.
"Ideal" qualifications are 4,000 TT, 2,000 MEL, 250 in Twin Commanders, preferrably
with geared, supercharged or turbo-supercharged. Commercial, Mult, & Instrument
with Class II required. Prefer good attitude and helpful personality
over heavy time and experience.
Serious candidates only. Reply to:
George J. Yundt III
14516 Morningside Road
Orland Park, IL 60462-7410
phone: 708-349-2121
fax: 708-349-4747
email: yundt(at)speakeasy.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bow <w.bow(at)att.net> |
Welcome Gary!!
bilbo
500A
HI KIDS..
Welcome a new TCFG member, Gary Giesler from Hermann MO. Gary is
an optometrist and looking for his first Commander, probably a 500B. Welcome
Gary!! jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bow <w.bow(at)att.net> |
HI KIDS..
Welcome a new TCFG member, Gary Giesler from Hermann MO. Gary is
an optometrist and looking for his first Commander, probably a 500B. Welcome
Gary!! jb
Welcome Gary!!!
Bilbo
Aero Commander 500A
N78379
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Elite flight sim |
I have an elite flight simulator program (single engine) works with Win 95 and
Win 98.
Anyone want it?
Milt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MarcioK(at)aol.com <MarcioK(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch location |
Hi, Jim
That's an excellent idea.
Some Commanders ( the 680F, I think ) have a Tee with a small gauge between
the Shraeder valve and the accumulator.
The Part Number is 2120036, "Tee, filler valve".
Good luck
Marcio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> |
Gang,
Doing some cost analysis....
What does a *good* overhaul run for the GSO-480?
Also, what does a *good* prop OH run for 3-bladed Hartzell's?
Thanks a ton.
Barry Hancock
cell: (949) 300-5510
fax: (949) 766-0590
radialpower(at)cox.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GSO-480 OH cost |
"Barry W. Hancock" wrote:
> What does a *good* overhaul run for the GSO-480?
Upper $20's
I've seen quotes as low as $14k but would be wary of
the "buget" options. Last I checked, Custom Airmotive (who
has done a LOT of geared Lycs) was getting $27k, but thats
been a while...
> Also, what does a *good* prop OH run for 3-bladed Hartzell's?
Around $6-7000 including the conversion to the MV mods (to
eliminate the AD). Blades will run around $2500 ea if
needed. You should probably bet on having to replace at
least one blade from the feedback I've received. Actually,
going direct to Hartzel is a reasonable option. They're
all set up to do the mods and will probably be more likely
to not mess up a blade during the machining. I found their
prices to be pretty close to most of the major prop shops.
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Campbell <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GSO-480 OH cost |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Schuermann" <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: GSO-480 OH cost
> > Also, what does a *good* prop OH run for 3-bladed Hartzell's?
>
> Around $6-7000 including the conversion to the MV mods (to
> eliminate the AD). Blades will run around $2500 ea if
> needed. You should probably bet on having to replace at
> least one blade from the feedback I've received. Actually,
> going direct to Hartzel is a reasonable option. They're
> all set up to do the mods and will probably be more likely
> to not mess up a blade during the machining. I found their
> prices to be pretty close to most of the major prop shops.
>
Amen brother!
Their business practices are usually a little more conventional too....
Bruce Campbell
AC52 N4186B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Allen Reed <allen_reed2(at)hotmail.com> |
>>Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:02:48 +0000
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Keeping It Up in Older Commanders |
In a message dated 6/26/2002 9:14:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
crunk12(at)bellsouth.net writes:
> Am I the only one out here that noticed the key word DOWN? :-)
>
No, Crunk.
I noticed it 3 days after I replied.
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Settings |
In a message dated 6/26/02 9:56:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
rambud(at)knology.net writes:
>
> Also, I have PS5C carbs (I think, since I have lots of little "How to
> Adjust" booklets on the carb). Is this one of the auto-lean pressure carbs
> that I've read so much about, or is it OK to lean this one at altitude? The
> manuals seem to imply that I lean at altitude, but it does explicitly state
> much of anything.
>
>
HI BUD..
Nope, don't you dare touch those mixture levers. I have a great
story of flying my 560A over the Rockies. I had just bought it and was
reading the manual as I flew it home. I spent the night on the East side of
the Mountains.
When I got up, I couldn't wait to cross them. Climbed up to, I don't
remember but real high, and the old gal was running great! I read in the
book that you COULD Manually lean the engines above 12K. Being the
"fiddling" type I figured I could do better than any machine.
I learned two important lessons that day. First, the carbs don't need
leaned and second, do things one engine at a time in your twin!!
I reached over and pulled the mixture back about an inch and was
rewarded by silence and a rapidly decelerating airplane! I quickly pushed
them back rich and life was good once more.
The carbs work great and don't need any tinkering.
There are only three adjustments on the carb (maybe only two if yours
are the old style). You can adjust the idle speed (800 - 900 RPM) and the
idle mixture. They kinda work together. The late carbs were modified with a
cap and roll pin that kept one from "over adjusting" the Main metering jet.
Older carbs don't have this feature and no adjustment is approver (or
recommended).
Adjust the idle mixture to obtain about a 50 - 100 RPM rise when you
move the mixture to idle cut off, the adjust the idle speed appropriately.
Good luck and don't you be be fooling around with them mixture levers in
flight....... :-) jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bow <w.bow(at)att.net> |
yea,,,,,,,,,what he said.
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: N414C
To: commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com ; JennyRogers
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: liked your pages-http://www.AEROCOMMANDER.com
You scumball we do not want your stinking annoying obnoxious ads on this web
page.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Roger Helizon <mrcommander(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Settings |
Hello Bud,
Nothing wrong with leaning those PS5's, I do all the time and you will be
surprised at how far off auto leaning can be. Auto lean is good enough for
the sloppy flyer not interested in maximum performance; I sometimes fly that
way when I just want to clonk-around. HOWEVER, do not try to lean without a
calibrated fuel flow instrument, such as a Hoskins or Shadin etc., installed
in your aircraft. I never lean using EGT but that is another story. With a
fuel flow gauge and fuel flow chart that you should have for your engines,
you can accurately lean for best performance with no problems, in fact it
may even slove problems.
Roger
>From: "Rae A. Williams" <rambud(at)knology.net>
>To: commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com, Commander Chat
>
>Subject: Power Settings
>Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:37:15 -0500
>
>Good Evening (or morning, depending on when you read this).
>
>My name is Rae A. "Bud" Williams, and I am now the proud owner of an 520,
>N2609B (or is it a 560, or a 680? It's the "oddity shown on the Commander
>Web page...a 520 with GO-480 (560) engines and a 680 tail).
>
>I have read all of the materials that came with the aircraft and have
>noticed that the manuals are not quite up to today's standards regarding
>systems and performance. I'll start the questioning with what power
>settings do y'all use for landing and cruise? Please include traffic
>pattern settings as well as instrument approach settings.
>
>Also, I have PS5C carbs (I think, since I have lots of little "How to
>Adjust" booklets on the carb). Is this one of the auto-lean pressure carbs
>that I've read so much about, or is it OK to lean this one at altitude? The
>manuals seem to imply that I lean at altitude, but it does explicitly state
>much of anything.
>
>Obviously, the checkout from the previou owner was less than helpful, so
>anything anyone can supply by way of information is appreciated.
>
>Bud
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mrp37(at)mindspring.com <mrp37(at)mindspring.com> |
Well . . . That should do it!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Settings |
I never lean using EGT but that is another story.
So what is the "rest of the story"?
Tom...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Helizon" <mrcommander(at)hotmail.com>
To: ; ;
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 10:03
Subject: Re: Power Settings
> Hello Bud,
>
> Nothing wrong with leaning those PS5's, I do all the time and you will be
> surprised at how far off auto leaning can be. Auto lean is good enough for
> the sloppy flyer not interested in maximum performance; I sometimes fly
that
> way when I just want to clonk-around. HOWEVER, do not try to lean without
a
> calibrated fuel flow instrument, such as a Hoskins or Shadin etc.,
installed
> in your aircraft. I never lean using EGT but that is another story. With a
> fuel flow gauge and fuel flow chart that you should have for your engines,
> you can accurately lean for best performance with no problems, in fact it
> may even slove problems.
>
> Roger
>
>
> >From: "Rae A. Williams" <rambud(at)knology.net>
> >To: commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com, Commander Chat
> >
> >Subject: Power Settings
> >Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:37:15 -0500
> >
> >Good Evening (or morning, depending on when you read this).
> >
> >My name is Rae A. "Bud" Williams, and I am now the proud owner of an 520,
> >N2609B (or is it a 560, or a 680? It's the "oddity shown on the Commander
> >Web page...a 520 with GO-480 (560) engines and a 680 tail).
> >
> >I have read all of the materials that came with the aircraft and have
> >noticed that the manuals are not quite up to today's standards regarding
> >systems and performance. I'll start the questioning with what power
> >settings do y'all use for landing and cruise? Please include traffic
> >pattern settings as well as instrument approach settings.
> >
> >Also, I have PS5C carbs (I think, since I have lots of little "How to
> >Adjust" booklets on the carb). Is this one of the auto-lean pressure
carbs
> >that I've read so much about, or is it OK to lean this one at altitude?
The
> >manuals seem to imply that I lean at altitude, but it does explicitly
state
> >much of anything.
> >
> >Obviously, the checkout from the previou owner was less than helpful, so
> >anything anyone can supply by way of information is appreciated.
> >
> >Bud
>
>
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Wall <cwall(at)worldflight2000.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Settings |
>Nope, don't you dare touch those mixture levers.
I have to disagree, if you have egt or fuel flow gauges or are feeling lucky, you
can lean it more by pulling the mixure backs just as you can with any carb.
Ignore the placard that says the mixture must always be in full rich, but only
if you know what you are doing. In a perfect world the carbs will correctly
adjust for altitude and temp, we regualarly ran our carbs with the left engine
back about 1/2 an inch and the right back about an inch at around 12,000 and
we saved at least several gallons an hour per side and over the pacific even
ran 100 degrees lean of peak and got fuel burns down to about 9 gph per side.
(We had digital fuel flow and EGT for every cylinder, GO-480-G1B6 with PS5BD)
Chris Wall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | woodlema <woodlema(at)intrex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Settings |
Well, all I need to do is think abuot touching my mixture controls and the engines
start to cough. According to my mechanic and all testing, mine is working
just the way it was designed.
Mark
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Roger Helizon <mrcommander(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:03:04 +0000
>Hello Bud,
>
>Nothing wrong with leaning those PS5's, I do all the time and you will be
>surprised at how far off auto leaning can be. Auto lean is good enough for
>the sloppy flyer not interested in maximum performance; I sometimes fly that
>way when I just want to clonk-around. HOWEVER, do not try to lean without a
>calibrated fuel flow instrument, such as a Hoskins or Shadin etc., installed
>in your aircraft. I never lean using EGT but that is another story. With a
>fuel flow gauge and fuel flow chart that you should have for your engines,
>you can accurately lean for best performance with no problems, in fact it
>may even slove problems.
>
>Roger
>
>
>>From: "Rae A. Williams" <rambud(at)knology.net>
>>To: commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com, Commander Chat
>>
>>Subject: Power Settings
>>Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:37:15 -0500
>>
>>Good Evening (or morning, depending on when you read this).
>>
>>My name is Rae A. "Bud" Williams, and I am now the proud owner of an 520,
>>N2609B (or is it a 560, or a 680? It's the "oddity shown on the Commander
>>Web page...a 520 with GO-480 (560) engines and a 680 tail).
>>
>>I have read all of the materials that came with the aircraft and have
>>noticed that the manuals are not quite up to today's standards regarding
>>systems and performance. I'll start the questioning with what power
>>settings do y'all use for landing and cruise? Please include traffic
>>pattern settings as well as instrument approach settings.
>>
>>Also, I have PS5C carbs (I think, since I have lots of little "How to
>>Adjust" booklets on the carb). Is this one of the auto-lean pressure carbs
>>that I've read so much about, or is it OK to lean this one at altitude? The
>>manuals seem to imply that I lean at altitude, but it does explicitly state
>>much of anything.
>>
>>Obviously, the checkout from the previou owner was less than helpful, so
>>anything anyone can supply by way of information is appreciated.
>>
>>Bud
>
>
>Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GSO-480 OH cost |
In a message dated 6/26/02 11:58:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
baruch(at)intelligentflight.com writes:
> On the props, I wouldn't expect to pay less than US$12k-16k for each. Even
> though new props only cost a little more, there are very often Big Parts
> Issues, especially about the blades, but also because the hubs can get
> small pits that render the hub, clamps, etc unusable
WHOA BOYS...He has the "Heavy Hartzel" mod with the Queen air props. OH cost
about @K Don't need no stinking "MV" mod and the clamps and bearings are the
same as the tubines use (lots of them around) jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Hamilton <fighterf(at)ozemail.com.au> |
All,
ATC controllers are failed Fighter Controllers.
A Fighter Controllers job is to bring about an near miss (ICAO) or near
hit ( FAA), failed Fighter controllers automatically qualify for ATC.
ATC, a system whereby a small number of aircraft, in a vast sky, are all
directed over the same place, immeasurably increasing the risk of
collision, and thereby justifying the existence of air traffic control.
Cheers,
Bill H.
>In a message dated 06/16/02 11:03:24 Pacific Daylight Time,
>kerryvjohnson(at)yahoo.com writes:
>
>
>>I don't
>>understand why this is always the case, but it has
>>been so every trip I've made into the LA basin. Why
>>can't the controllers settle on a routing?
>
>
>Kerry,
>
>The best way I've heard ATC's job described: "Controllers put airplanes
>where airplanes aren't."
>
>You know how saturated the SoCal airspace is. ATC really does a
>remarkable job of getting as many airplanes into the air as they can ...
>and there is nothing that says they have to.
>
>Quite the opposite. The could ground stop half of the traffic and still
>be busy. So, the reroutes are annoying to us, but it's how we share the
>air: My reroute is your IFR acceptance into the same area.
>
>HHR is a very noise sensitive airport. I once gave a Turbo Commander
>initial and we used that airport as a stop because it fit my client's biz trip.
>
>On departure, being new to the airplane, it took a bit long to get the
>second engine started and taxi out (reviewing the NTS check procedure and
>other system checks monitored during engine starts).
>
>Two weeks later he got a letter from the City of Hawthorne admonishing him
>for creating so much noise and "lingering" at the tie down area.
>
>He said he was going to frame it.
>
>I wonder if the 680-F will get a similar letter ... of course we could
>send Barry Hancock there with his 680-E to raise the bar on noise
>standards. Or close the airport all together!
>
>Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Roger Helizon <mrcommander(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Settings |
Mark,
Mechanical altitude/temperature compensation servo that adjusts your fuel
flow does not have the precision or accuracy to work at fuel flow limits. If
your mixture is as sensitive to leaning as you say, that means it is working
very close to the maximum leaning curve and that would make me feel uneasy.
But that's me. Better to have the servo set up so that your fuel flows lie
in between the max rich and max lean curves so that it's not pushing the
envelope of its performance. These auto leaning servos were not designed to
be a high precision fuel flow controllers, they were designed to keep the
flow within certain margins that are good enough for reasonable safe engine
operation. The precision needs to come from the pilot.
Roger
>From: "woodlema" <woodlema(at)intrex.net>
>Reply-To:
>To: , ,
>@LOCALHOST, Roger Helizon
>Subject: Re: Power Settings
>Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:42:57 -0400
>
>Well, all I need to do is think abuot touching my mixture controls and the
>engines start to cough. According to my mechanic and all testing, mine is
>working just the way it was designed.
>
>Mark
>
>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>From: Roger Helizon <mrcommander(at)hotmail.com>
>Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:03:04 +0000
>
> >Hello Bud,
> >
> >Nothing wrong with leaning those PS5's, I do all the time and you will be
> >surprised at how far off auto leaning can be. Auto lean is good enough
>for
> >the sloppy flyer not interested in maximum performance; I sometimes fly
>that
> >way when I just want to clonk-around. HOWEVER, do not try to lean without
>a
> >calibrated fuel flow instrument, such as a Hoskins or Shadin etc.,
>installed
> >in your aircraft. I never lean using EGT but that is another story. With
>a
> >fuel flow gauge and fuel flow chart that you should have for your
>engines,
> >you can accurately lean for best performance with no problems, in fact it
> >may even slove problems.
> >
> >Roger
> >
> >
> >>From: "Rae A. Williams" <rambud(at)knology.net>
> >>To: commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com, Commander Chat
> >>
> >>Subject: Power Settings
> >>Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:37:15 -0500
> >>
> >>Good Evening (or morning, depending on when you read this).
> >>
> >>My name is Rae A. "Bud" Williams, and I am now the proud owner of an
>520,
> >>N2609B (or is it a 560, or a 680? It's the "oddity shown on the
>Commander
> >>Web page...a 520 with GO-480 (560) engines and a 680 tail).
> >>
> >>I have read all of the materials that came with the aircraft and have
> >>noticed that the manuals are not quite up to today's standards regarding
> >>systems and performance. I'll start the questioning with what power
> >>settings do y'all use for landing and cruise? Please include traffic
> >>pattern settings as well as instrument approach settings.
> >>
> >>Also, I have PS5C carbs (I think, since I have lots of little "How to
> >>Adjust" booklets on the carb). Is this one of the auto-lean pressure
>carbs
> >>that I've read so much about, or is it OK to lean this one at altitude?
>The
> >>manuals seem to imply that I lean at altitude, but it does explicitly
>state
> >>much of anything.
> >>
> >>Obviously, the checkout from the previou owner was less than helpful, so
> >>anything anyone can supply by way of information is appreciated.
> >>
> >>Bud
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jimmy Rodriguez <jimmyr(at)popsecs.com> |
| Subject: | Maintenance Questions |
1. Hartzell HC-A3VK-2A propellers with updated blade clamps. How much
should a typical overhaul cost? Is TBO limited to 60 months even with
updated clamps?
2. Hartzell EHC-G3YF-2UF propellers. Typical overhaul costs?
3. How often should flexible hydraulic hoses be replaced? And fuel hoses?
Thanks in advance,
Jimmy Rodriguez
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Settings |
In a message dated 6/27/02 11:09:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
cwall(at)worldflight2000.com writes:
> I have to disagree, if you have egt or fuel flow gauges or are feeling
> lucky, you can lean it more by pulling the mixure backs just as you can
> with any carb. Ignore the placard that says the mixture must always be in
> full rich, but only if you know what you are doing.
HI CHRIS....
I must disagree my friend. If you remember, When we were flying
together in Scottsdale you guys told me you were flying at altitude, with the
throttles full forward. This by-passes the auto rich feature and yes, you
would need to manually lean the airplane. If, on the other hand you pull the
throttles back as far as possible while maintaining Max MP, the carbs will
auto lean.
Could you possibly do a tiny bit better, maybe, but cylinder work is a
lot more expensive than a tiny bit of fuel savings. Better leave them alone
and do what Mr. Lycoming says. jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
HI KIDS.
Well, we have been having some really great weather out here and
last night I had a great flight with an instructor friend of mine. Flew out
over several small grass airports and some beautiful lakes. It was a
wonderful flight.
We stopped briefly at Woodland State airport, a paved State owned
airport right next to I-5, 1900 feet long and really pretty narrow, but no
sweat.
While we were cavorting about, triple 2 turned 200hrs since her "grand
Renegade" restoration!! Pretty fun, hope everybody had a great day in
Commanderland. Capt (only 7 days left) jimbob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | john williams <keyscrusing(at)earthlink.net> |
Good thing Milt wasn't pissed or anything!
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Bow
To: N414C ; commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com ; JennyRogers
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: liked your pages-http://www.AEROCOMMANDER.com
yea,,,,,,,,,what he said.
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: N414C
To: commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com ; JennyRogers
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: liked your pages-http://www.AEROCOMMANDER.com
You scumball we do not want your stinking annoying obnoxious ads on this web
page.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Wall <cwall(at)worldflight2000.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Settings |
>This by-passes the auto rich feature and yes, you would need to manually lean
the airplane.
My experiment was not perfect but I tried pulling the throttles back until the
manifold pressure just started to drop and then nudge them forward just a smidgen,
the idea being to make sure that the throttles were not in the auto rich
setting. In doing so I did not find a decrease in fuel flow or a change in the
EGT. The experiment was repeated several times with the same findings. I
do not know if our carburetors were not adjusted properly(which is very likely)
or what other factors might have played into this we still found that we needed
to lean the mixtures manually. We normally like to cruise about 125 rich
and with of peak out leaning the mixture our carbs gave us about 250 rich of
peak.
Throwing out another question is it possible to convert a GO-480-D1A to a GO-480-C1B6.
Is more involved than just putting in high compression pistons. I am
concerned that the counterwieghts are not the same but I do not have a parts
manual for GO-480 low compression.
Chris Wall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Settings |
In a message dated 6/27/02 8:11:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
cwall(at)worldflight2000.com writes:
> Throwing out another question is it possible to convert a GO-480-D1A to a
> GO-480-C1B6. Is more involved than just putting in high compression
> pistons. I am concerned that the counterwieghts are not the same but I do
> not have a parts manual for GO-480 low compression.
>
HI CHRIS..
Sorry, but it cant be done. I have talked extensively with both
Hartzell and Lycoming about this (propeller STC) The D1A is an engine unto
its own. It has a unique family of counter weights and cant be changed.
Even the cases are slightly different. Great idea though.......jb
I still think you dont got id right with the mixtures :-) jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Settings |
Chris Wall wrote:
> Throwing out another question is it possible to convert a GO-480-D1A to a GO-480-C1B6.
Chris,
I don't have a parts manual here, but I believe the C1B6 has the 6th
order dampeners. I may only be one of the counterweights thats
different though. I'm also thinking that the accessory housing
is different. I'll try to find a book...
chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bow <w.bow(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Settings |
I think time will tell who has the lower cylinder bill.
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
To: cwall(at)worldflight2000.com ; commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 1:18 AM
Subject: Re: Power Settings
In a message dated 6/27/02 8:11:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, cwall(at)worldflight2000.com
writes:
Throwing out another question is it possible to convert a GO-480-D1A to a GO-480-C1B6.
Is more involved than just putting in high compression pistons.
I am concerned that the counterwieghts are not the same but I do not have a parts
manual for GO-480 low compression.
HI CHRIS..
Sorry, but it cant be done. I have talked extensively with both
Hartzell and Lycoming about this (propeller STC) The D1A is an engine unto its
own. It has a unique family of counter weights and cant be changed. Even
the cases are slightly different. Great idea though.......jb
I still think you dont got id right with the mixtures :-) jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Settings |
In a message dated 6/27/2002 9:30:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
YOURTCFG(at)aol.com writes:
> you guys told me you were flying at altitude, with the throttles full
> forward. This by-passes the auto rich feature and yes, you would need to
> manually lean the airplane.
I was wondering when somebody would get around to this important little
tid-bit. When setting cruise power you should pull the throttles back untill
the M/P just starts to drop. That way the bypass of auto lean for climb
power is overridden.
JetPaul
JetPaul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Crunkleton <crunk12(at)bellsouth.net> |
N414C wrote:
> /You scumball we do not want your stinking annoying obnoxious ads on
> this web page./
>
Milt,
You've GOT to stop mincing your words! :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | junekos <junekos(at)cox.net> |
Commander Land;
I got this from my sister, thought it was worth passing on. Milt can probably
explain what the problem was, the guy sounded very thoughtful and understanding
to me. Wonder if he owned and flew a Commander?
Don
dongirod(at)earthlink.net
> > An Aging Wife
> >
> > It is important for men to remember that as women grow older it becomes
> > harder for them to maintain the same quality of housekeeping they did when
> > they were younger. When men notice this, they should try not to yell.
> Let me relate how I handle the situation.
> >
> > When I chucked my job and took early retirement a year ago, it became
> > necessary for Nancy to get a full-time job both for extra income and for
> > health insurance benefits that we need. She was a trained lab tech when
> we met thirty some years ago and was fortunate to land a job at the local
> > medical center as a phlebotomist.
> >
> > It was shortly after she started working at this job that I noticed that
> she was beginning to show her age. I usually get home from fishing or
hunting about the same time she gets home from work. Although she
knows how hungry I am, she almost always says that she has to rest
for half an hour or so before she starts supper. I try not to yell at her
when this happens. Instead, I tell her to take her time. I understand
that she is not as young as she used to be. I just tell her to wake me
when she finally does get supper on the table.
> >
> > She used to wash and dry the dishes as soon as we finished eating. It
is now not unusual for them to sit on the table for several hours after
> supper. I do what I can by reminding her several times each evening
that they aren't cleaning themselves. I know she appreciates this, as
it does seem to help her get them done before she goes to bed.
> >
> > Our washer and dryer are in the basement. When she was younger,
Nancy used to be able to go up and down the stairs all day and not
get tired. Now that she is older she seems to get tired so much more
quickly. Sometimes she says she just can't make another trip down
those steps. I don't make a big issue of this. As long as she finishes
up the laundry the next evening I am willing to overlook it. Not only
that, but unless I need something ironed to wear to the Monday's
lodge meeting or to Wednesday's or Saturday's poker club or to
Tuesday's or Thursday's bowling or something like that, I will tell
her to wait until the next evening to do the ironing. This gives her
a little more time to do some of those odds and ends things like
shampooing the dog, vacuuming, or dusting.
> >
> > Also, if I have had a really good day fishing, this allows her to gut and
> > scale the fish at a more leisurely pace. Nancy is starting to complain a
> > little occasionally. Not often, mind you, but just enough for me to
> notice. For example, she will say that it is difficult for her to find time
to
> pay the monthly bills during her lunch hour. In spite of her complaining,
I
> continue to try to offer encouragement. I tell her to stretch it out over
> > two or even three days. That way she won't have to rush so much. I also
> > remind her that missing lunch completely now and then wouldn't hurt her
> any, if you know what I mean.
> >
> > When doing simple jobs she seems to think she needs more rest periods than
> > she used to have to take. A couple of weeks ago she said she had to take
> a break when she was only half finished mowing the yard. I overlook
> comments like these because I realize it's just age talking. In fact, I try
to
not embarrass her when she needs these little extra rest breaks. I tell her
> to fix herself a nice, big, cold glass of freshly squeezed lemonade and just
> sit for a while. I tell her that as long as she is making one for herself,
she
may as well make one for me and take her break by the hammock so she
> can talk with me until I fall asleep.
> >
> > I could go on and on, but I think you know where I'm coming from.
> > I know that I probably look like a saint in the way I support Nancy on a
> > daily basis. I'm not saying that the ability to show this much
> > consideration is easy. Many men will find it difficult. Some will find
> it impossible. No one knows better than I do how frustrating women can
> become as they get older. My purpose in writing this is simply to suggest
that you make the effort.. I realize that achieving the exemplary level of
showing consideration I have attained is out of reach for the average man.
> However guys, even if you just yell at your wife a little less often because
of this article, I will consider that writing it was worthwhile.
> >
> > (This was written by the deceased husband of a friend of mine! He
> > mysteriously passed on shortly after writing this. The cause of death is
> > still under investigation).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | landing light bulbs |
OK, my Parts Catalogue is out at the hangar and I'm thinking of it now,
sooooo...
What are you guys using for landing light bulbs (in the Shrike nose?)
Thanks,
Barry Hancock
cell: (949) 300-5510
fax: (949) 766-0590
radialpower(at)cox.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | n55bz <n55bz(at)prodigy.net> |
| Subject: | Re: landing light bulbs |
Landing light : GE 4553, 250 watt, 28 vdc.
----- Original Message -----
From: Barry W. Hancock
To: Commander Chat ; commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 10:15 PM
Subject: landing light bulbs
OK, my Parts Catalogue is out at the hangar and I'm thinking of it now, sooooo...
What are you guys using for landing light bulbs (in the Shrike nose?)
Thanks,
Barry Hancock
cell: (949) 300-5510
fax: (949) 766-0590
radialpower(at)cox.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TILLMAN333(at)aol.com <TILLMAN333(at)aol.com> |
Good Afternoon,
Please give an opinion with respects to the
AeroCommander 681 Hawk.
Thanks,
Gary Tillman
ps. flysafeinsurance.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Campbell <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com> |
Well...
The heater works, the hydraulic accumulator no longer leaks (nitrogen), the IFR
GPS is approved, and the flight test is tomorrow.
Pretty cool.
Group Capt Jimbob: Thanks. It was the schraeder valve.
Now to get Coast Gaurd approval to go look for Bad Guys.
Bruce A. Campbell
AC52 N4186B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: landing light bulbs |
The 150 watt bulbs last a lot longer if you don't mind the reduced light, not really
noticeable if you are using the light for recognition.
Tom...
----- Original Message -----
From: n55bz
To: Barry W. Hancock ; Commander Chat ; commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 08:39
Subject: Re: landing light bulbs
Landing light : GE 4553, 250 watt, 28 vdc.
----- Original Message -----
From: Barry W. Hancock
To: Commander Chat ; commandertech(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 10:15 PM
Subject: landing light bulbs
OK, my Parts Catalogue is out at the hangar and I'm thinking of it now, sooooo...
What are you guys using for landing light bulbs (in the Shrike nose?)
Thanks,
Barry Hancock
cell: (949) 300-5510
fax: (949) 766-0590
radialpower(at)cox.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
Ladies and Gents,
I am looking for a trusted and capable person to take
over the Commander web site and discussion lists. If you
have the abilities, spare time, and desire, please contact
me.
So long and thanks for all the fish,
Chris Schuermann
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bow <w.bow(at)att.net> |
DISSSSAAAAAPPPPPRRROOOVVVEEDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BILBO
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Schuermann" <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 6:21 PM
Subject: Anyone??
> Ladies and Gents,
> I am looking for a trusted and capable person to take
> over the Commander web site and discussion lists. If you
> have the abilities, spare time, and desire, please contact
> me.
>
> So long and thanks for all the fish,
>
> Chris Schuermann
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Campbell <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com> |
1. Im based in Seattle.
2. I replaced the schraeder valve. IT takes about 5 minutes, not including making
sure you dont have any N2 in the tank before removal. I have the part number
(somewhere).
3. Yup. CG Aux is big in Western Wash. Lots of water. And these days they seem
to be stretched pretty thin. All of a sudden there's a LOT of Coast to Guard (more
then 1000 miles inside puget sound alone..
The only issue so far is the processing time to get my member number.
Bruce A Campbell
AC52
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Addington
To: Bruce Campbell
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:51 PM
Subject: RE: n4186b
Bruce
How did you fix the accumulator? I had 4 hyd failures before we figured out
it was the accumulator. The new one has a slow leak.
Also where are you based and is it the CG Aux you are talking about? If it is
and you are close to the Dallas area I can help.
Jim A.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Campbell [mailto:baruch(at)intelligentflight.com]
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 4:51 PM
To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Subject: n4186b
Well...
The heater works, the hydraulic accumulator no longer leaks (nitrogen), the
IFR GPS is approved, and the flight test is tomorrow.
Pretty cool.
Group Capt Jimbob: Thanks. It was the schraeder valve.
Now to get Coast Gaurd approval to go look for Bad Guys.
Bruce A. Campbell
AC52 N4186B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bow <w.bow(at)att.net> |
To those who have never been here and have never heard about place,
Anybody who gets fired up about General Aviation should come up here to the Anchorage
International Airport. For those who don't know this is the largest Float
Plane Base in the country(Lake Spinard), if not the world. There is some
of the neatest stuff flying up here on floats in the Summer and skis in the Winter.
We stay out here at the airport and the show off of the lake is non stop.
Just a fun place, OK I'm frew.
Bilbo
Aero Commander 500A
N78379
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
> Let me know.
> Thanks
> Nico
Thanks Nico. Supporting the web site would be easy. I'm
not sure how to handle the chatlist though. I'm running a
custom built MMDF mail system. I suppose anyone who has
some Unix experience could install/build and support. You'll
just have to tell me what you can do and we'll go from there.
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
Nico van Niekerk wrote:
> I have mail and list software but I will have to
> check them out to see that they do what we want done.
> Perhaps a chat site instead of email lists would appeal to the folks. What
> do you think?
I tried out the website style approach some time back and found
that it just didn't work well for our group. The email dist
method was much better. Just let me know what you can do with
that method. I certainly want to see this all continue and
thrive.
> As a matter of interest, what is the cause of the change? If it is private,
> don't hesitate to shut me up.
The short version is that I find myself unemployeed and will
not have the resources or money (or time) to continue. Lots
of misc ugly details which are not important. Hopefully I'll
be able to do a "life reboot" and get things back in order in
the future.
chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Fisher <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> |
Have you ever seen a Commander on floats?
Tom...
----- Original Message -----
From: Bow
To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 18:12
Subject: ANC
To those who have never been here and have never heard about place,
Anybody who gets fired up about General Aviation should come up here to the Anchorage
International Airport. For those who don't know this is the largest
Float Plane Base in the country(Lake Spinard), if not the world. There is some
of the neatest stuff flying up here on floats in the Summer and skis in the
Winter. We stay out here at the airport and the show off of the lake is non stop.
Just a fun place, OK I'm frew.
Bilbo
Aero Commander 500A
N78379
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
Nico van Niekerk wrote:
> need to know if we have hours,
> days, or weeks.
Probably at least two weeks. I may be able to keep things
running a bit longer, but just don't know for certain right now.
I know that capt jimbob really wants to see this all continue and
wants to be a part of it. I just am not sure he has everything
needed to make a go of it by himself. Might be that the two of
you could colaborate.
chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
Nico van Niekerk wrote:
> What will happen with the
> newsletter and membership?
The newsletter and TCFG membership will be unaffected. That's
Jim's stuff. The web site and chatlist are mine and actually
predate the TCFG. I just try to "support" Jim and the membership
as much as possible
> What are your skills, Chris?
Well, at heart (and by schooling) I'm an electrical and mechanical
engineer. Beyond that, years of doing all the stuff that nobody
else would (or could figure out how to) in all kinds of areas.
I suppose my best "skill" is simply figuring out HOW to do things,
then getting the job actually done (people and project mgmt).
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
Well, my inquisition about a resource to take over operation of the
web site and discussion lists generated rather a flurry of impassioned
emails - many with concerns and questions - so a bit more...
The short version is that I'm going out of business. There are
several issues (yes, the sour airplane deal was a substantial
contributing factor - PO'd shareholders are not fun - but that's
another topic). Anyway, I find myself unemployeed and loosing the
required assets to operate the servers used by aerocommander.com and
the chat/tech lists.
To be clear: these items are not part of the Twin Commander Flight
Group. The TCFG is alive, healthy and well, and I am just a
fan, member, and avid supporter. I'm working with Jim and others to
try to turn over my work to someone who can better attend to the
needs than I will be able to for a while. I guess it's been close
to 10 years ago that I started my "hypertext diary" of Commander
stuff and I'd love to see it live on. I hope to not fall off
the end of the earth and sincerely wish to stay in touch will all
of you (okay, _most_ of you :-).
This is a major life re-boot for Kim and I. Her job was, sadly,
collateral damage from the situation. We're going to try to gather
up our remaining legos and build a new toy to play with, but will
certainly need to focus %110 of our energies to whatever new
endevor we decide to undertake. I will try to keep the web site
and chatlist up as long as possible and then make a smooth
transition to whatever the next phase is. If there is any
interuption in service, please bear with me. As soon as I have
further details, I'll inform everyone. My email address will work
for a bit longer but will be changing also in the future.
I would like to take just one additional moment to express my
sincere appreciation to all of you who have shown me so much
support over the years. I consider many of you my closest personal
friends. The enthusiasm and kind words that I've been the
reciepient of have meant a great deal to me and will never be
forgotten!
Chris
(hang on lady...we going for a ride!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Campbell <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fish followup |
Because of hand injuries, I can run the group, but I can volunteer my Sparc5
server.
Bruce Campbell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Schuermann" <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 12:58 PM
Subject: Fish followup
> Well, my inquisition about a resource to take over operation of the
> web site and discussion lists generated rather a flurry of impassioned
> emails - many with concerns and questions - so a bit more...
>
> The short version is that I'm going out of business. There are
> several issues (yes, the sour airplane deal was a substantial
> contributing factor - PO'd shareholders are not fun - but that's
> another topic). Anyway, I find myself unemployeed and loosing the
> required assets to operate the servers used by aerocommander.com and
> the chat/tech lists.
> To be clear: these items are not part of the Twin Commander Flight
> Group. The TCFG is alive, healthy and well, and I am just a
> fan, member, and avid supporter. I'm working with Jim and others to
> try to turn over my work to someone who can better attend to the
> needs than I will be able to for a while. I guess it's been close
> to 10 years ago that I started my "hypertext diary" of Commander
> stuff and I'd love to see it live on. I hope to not fall off
> the end of the earth and sincerely wish to stay in touch will all
> of you (okay, _most_ of you :-).
> This is a major life re-boot for Kim and I. Her job was, sadly,
> collateral damage from the situation. We're going to try to gather
> up our remaining legos and build a new toy to play with, but will
> certainly need to focus %110 of our energies to whatever new
> endevor we decide to undertake. I will try to keep the web site
> and chatlist up as long as possible and then make a smooth
> transition to whatever the next phase is. If there is any
> interuption in service, please bear with me. As soon as I have
> further details, I'll inform everyone. My email address will work
> for a bit longer but will be changing also in the future.
>
> I would like to take just one additional moment to express my
> sincere appreciation to all of you who have shown me so much
> support over the years. I consider many of you my closest personal
> friends. The enthusiasm and kind words that I've been the
> reciepient of have meant a great deal to me and will never be
> forgotten!
>
> Chris
> (hang on lady...we going for a ride!)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Barry W. Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fish followup |
> I would like to take just one additional moment to express my
> sincere appreciation to all of you who have shown me so much
> support over the years. I consider many of you my closest personal
> friends.
Chris,
Though I've only been a Commander owner a little over a year, I feel
priviledged to have met you, and give you the highest praise for your
tireless and selfless contributions to the group.
Any of us that have ever been screwed (or a currently being screwed, but
that's another story), which means most of us, are saddened by your
situation. Well at least I am.
I must say, however, that from what I know of you that you will rebound
with authority (like Shaq in the NBA Finals). In the meantime, your
contributions will be sorely missed.
You have set the bar very high, and I just hope that we can sustain it
in your absence.
Best of luck and don't stay away too long, ya hear?
Barry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Cleveland Brakes |
HI KIDS...
I just sent some paperwork to Chris (around the world in a 560E)
Wall. He is installing brand new Cleveland wheels and brakes on the "Dream
catcher" I want to remind you that you can install new Cleveland on all short
bodied Commanders (except the 520 -560) for about $2500 by using special
paperwork only available from the TCFG.
These are the old 4 piston, single caliper style brakes that work so
well (no jerky steering and they don't weigh any more than original, meaning
they wont pull the gear down on the old bathtub Commanders). They were
discontinued some years back and replaced by the more powerful 4 piston
brakes that seem to cause some taxing troubles.
Anyway, this is a really good deal and if you are a TCFG member, take
advantage of this opportunity Happy 4th!!!! capt (one day left) jimbob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
HI KIDS..
Happy 4th!!! Remember all those who gave their all so we could
have this freedom.
Welcome a new TCFG member. Robert Steele has just bought a 500S This
is a very special airplane. It has all the great mods including A NEW SPAR!!
And, only 2360TT What a find. Dick Wartinger and Commander Aero will be
taking care of the airplane for him.
Bob is an accountant and owns a company called Steelesky in Mainsville
OH. Welcome Bob!! jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N414C <N414C(at)cableone.net> |
Does anyone know the prop diameter on the 685?
Milt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <chris(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com> |
> N414C wrote:
>
> Does anyone know the prop diameter on the 685?
> Milt
88" for new spec. Allowable cutdown to 87"
Chris Schuermann
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AVERSESA <aversesa(at)intercable.net> |
Hi AeroCommander Friends,
I will appresate your help, where I can find a Aerocommander 685 performaance sheet?
I will appresate your help, thank you and kind regards.
Chris
* This communication is copyrighted by the author.1996-2002, All Rights Reserved.
This communication may be read only by the person to whom it is addressed.
Unauthorized interception, forwarding, posting/re-posting of all or any part
of this message to a public forum or Usenet without expressed written permission
from the author is a violation of Copyright laws and will result in civil
action and criminal complaint filed with the respective agencies against Digital
Millenium Copyright Act violators
* La informacin contenida en este mensaje es confidencial, si la persona que
recibiera este mensaje no es su destinatario deseado, se le notifica por este
medio que cualquier discusin, distribucin o copiado de esta comunicacin est
prohibida.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JETPAUL(at)aol.com <JETPAUL(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fish followup |
I am sorry to hear that Chris. I have hit "cntrl-alt-del" a time or 2 in my
life also.
I cant volunteer any equipment, but I can help out with some time, and typing
skills.
I own "www.RebelCommanders.com", but I never moved my meager attempt of a
website over to it. My first try is still on AOL's server. You can see it
here:
Southern Gentelmen's Twin
Commander Group
I will do whatever I can keep the dialogue going!!!
JetPaul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> |
Cap't. JimBob,
What's the report, Oh Restored-to-Flight One?
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flight Plan? |
In a message dated 7/6/02 8:46:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
CloudCraft(at)aol.com writes:
> What's the report, Oh Restored-to-Flight One?
At 12.01, July 4th, my Comm pilot license was restored to a useable state.
10 hours later, Sue and I were aboard triple 2 and winging our way to BFI for
the 4th celebration.
Were toped off and loaded enough cloths for a week (we were only
staying overnight, it's tradition, it's why we dont fly a Mooney) and were
gear in the wells by about 10am. The weather was a bit challenging, low
clouds and showers but the completion of the flight was never in doubt.
40 short minutes later, we were in the pattern to land at Boeing
Field. We used 13L, my favorite approach as it takes the airplane right over
the house tops at about 600agl, and then a shallow dive around base to final.
Fun!!
After a great 4th, we went to the wooden boat festival where some good
friends had their 88 foot tug boat the "Tyee" in the show. Then quick trip
to Kenmore air harbor to get my float plane fix. It was a bit sad seeing all
the guys but not having my airplane there. I have had many calls this year
wondering why I am not flying the biplane.
By about 6PM it was time to head home. We asked for and got the
Vashon Island departure (Left turn when able, then at or below 1000 feet
until west shore line, it is a hoooot!!)
Then down south, by Tacoma, there is this little hole you can slip
through VFR The floor of the class B airspace is 3000, they have an
artificially lowered ceiling for the class D airspace at Tacoma Narrows
airport and Machord AFB (C-117) of 2800. So you can and we did very
carefully slip in between at 2900. I called Machord as a courtesy.
From there, a great flight home in severe clear. We could see Mt
Jefferson, Mt Hood, Mt, Adams, Mt St. Helen and Mt. Rainier all a the same
time!!
Back in the pattern and home for an early supper. Aint life grand!!!
Man it is good to fly again.....jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Is there a lawer in the hose?? |
HI KIDS.
If we have an attorney in the group, I have a need (not for me)
Thanks....jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | NEWSLETTER/MEMBERS |
HI KIDS.
I have sent a number of TCFG application out over the last
couple of weeks, all requested. I have only received one return. If you
have an application, please send it back ASAP. The next newsletter will be
in the mail this week. jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | john phillip stubbs <br549phil(at)mindspring.com> |
Anyone recomend a source for fuel cells?
Also looking for a used spinner for a 560F.
Phil Stubbs
N160K
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bow <w.bow(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Is there a lawer in the hose?? |
No Doctor, I'm not the one with the discharge. I'm just asking for a friend.;>)
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
To: commanderchat(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com ; COMMANDERTECH(at)skymaster.c2-tech.com
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 8:49 PM
Subject: Is there a lawer in the hose??
HI KIDS.
If we have an attorney in the group, I have a need (not for me)
Thanks....jb
June 05, 2002 - July 08, 2002
Commander-Archive.digest.vol-ao