Commander-List Archive Browser

Commander-Archive.digest.vol-bw
January 13, 2006 - January 29, 2006

> > > >Tom F. > >C-GISS 680FLP (Mr.RPM) > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Documentation +
Date: Jan 13, 2006
Thanks but I have not got anything yet, we will need to allow some time for the Customs to process the package. Tom F. ----- Original Message ----- From: "MASON CHEVAILLIER" <KAMALA(at)msn.com> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 06:54 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Documentation + > > tf, have you rcd the stuff I sent you? mason > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Tom Fisher<mailto:tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 7:57 PM > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Documentation + > > > > > Sorry about the blank send a second ago, cell: 604-649-9320 > Tom F. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "MASON Chevaillier" <kamala(at)msn.com<mailto:kamala(at)msn.com>> > To: > > Subject: RE: Commander-List: Documentation + > > > > > > > tf, please forward your phone number i will call you on these. mason > > > > > > >From: "Tom Fisher" > > > >Reply-To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > > >To: > > > >Subject: Commander-List: Documentation + > > >Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:28:56 -0800 > > > > > >> > > > > > >Gents, > > > > > >I am looking for documentation in the for of drawings or lists of parts > on > > >the Mr. RPM conversion, one question that came up is that the data plate > on > > >the aircraft still has the wrong engines on it and we need to see the STC > > >to > > >determine if the data plate is required to be changed or not. > > >Another item is that I have on each engine a plastic air line going from > > >the > > >fuel pump to the fuel pressure gauge that appears to be an automotive > part. > > >This too may be mentioned in the STC documentation. > > > > > >I last heard that Dick sold the MR.RPM rights to a couple of people who > > >have > > >not been able to supply me with information this summer as they were > saying > > >"everything is in boxes", and "not set up", any update on them? > > > > > >My local engineers are about to tackle the job of setting up the engines > to > > >spec. As I really dislike paying for their learning curve I would like > to > > >supply them with some form of documentation for this engine setup. > > >Short of that I'll pay someone like Morris Kernik to come to Vancouver to > > >teach my locals how to service this machine. > > > > > >I'll take all the responses I can get, I would like to get my plane back > > >before the Christmas holidays. > > > > > >Tom F. > > >C-GISS 680FLP (Mr.RPM) > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2006
From: Donnie Rose <aquadiver99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: 500B hydraulic pump parts
Dear members, does anyone have any info on the below topic? Thank you in advance... Good morning Mr. Tower, You had offered you help earlier in the Commander search for things and now I surely need it. I am in need of an oil seal for one of the main hydraulic pumps in my 1964 500B. My serial number is in the upper bracket [1300-] and the pump was manufactured by Eastern Industries, Hamden, CT. Model number of the pump is 105HBG-211B, part 4790222-501. The seal is on the input shaft and is in itself unique because of it's unusual depth of .690 on the outer case housing a double seal. I have found two smaller seals to "stack" in the originals place but would prefer OEM config. These two seals were obtained from Motion Industries with no other options. I sure hope you or one of the other members of the chat group can help Mr. Tower, I have exhausted all of my options. Best Regards, Donnie Rose Donnie Rose 205/492-8444 Donnie Rose 205/492-8444 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: skyhawkC-172(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: GSO-480 Overhaul
Date: Jan 14, 2006
Anyone know anything regarding Commander with all the signatures on the nose @: twincommanderflyer.com -------------- Original message -------------- From: TILLMAN333(at)aol.com > > Hi. I am part of the staff for Gary Tillman, who was killed in the Cessna > 195 crash the week of Christmas. We want to keep his email address active for > business reasons because a lot of clients have the address...however Gary seems > to get a lot of emails from the commander chat list. How do we get his email > address removed from the list? > > Thanks, > Melissa > > Av. Ins. Brokers of NA > http://www.flysafeinsurance.com/ > 800-228-4283 > 706-291-4077 office > 706-238-1143 cell > 706-232-3081 fax > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone know anything regardingCommander with all the signatures on the nose @: twincommanderflyer.com -------------- Original message -------------- From: TILLMAN333(at)aol.com -- Commander-List message posted by: TILLMAN333(at)aol.com Hi. I am part of the staff for Gary Tillman, who was killed in the Cessna 195 crash the week of Christmas. We want to keep his email address active for business reasons because a lot of clients have the address...however Gary seems to get a lot of emails from the commander chat list. How do we get his email address removed from the list? Thanks, Melissa Av. Ins. Brokers of NA http://www.flysafeinsurance.com/ 800-228-4283 706-291-4077 office 706-238-1143 cell 706-232-3081 fax mmander-List Email Forum - ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Aero Commander N6362U - Greenland
Date: Jan 14, 2006
Folks, The Commander list has assisted Peter in resolving many mysteries of this accident. The thread is included in this email to refresh your memories. Thanks Nico ----- Original Message ----- From: acu nico Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:58 AM Subject: Re: Aero Commander N6362U - Greenland Yes, I do remember. Good to hear from you and a happy 2006 for you and your family. I am glad that some resolution came for you. It just goes to show what a little, insignificant contribution can lead to. One never knows when an insignificant charity tips the balance in a huge way for someone else. The lesson I learned: always be charitable and hospitable to all. Thank you for your kind words, Peter. We are seeking pilot stories and experiences for our Commander website and this is one that is particularly newsworthy. Would you be so kind and consider sharing with us your information and experience in finding the facts? Perhaps who your grandfather was and how the flight originated and ended; how your search started and the conclusion of the events. I will publish it, with credits, so that all can share in this experience. Pictures or videos would be especially welcome. Thanks Nico ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Hawkins To: 'nico acu' Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 2:29 AM Subject: Aero Commander N6362U - Greenland Nico, Remember me? A short while ago I received an email from Kevin Woltertoon, the son of one of the two survivors of my grandfathers accident. He had found my details on the internet after searching for N6362U and finding the note that you had posted on the Commander chat site. He had been researching the accident and had already made contact with a member of the USAF crew (William Nielson) that rescued his father. William also lead and finally called off the search for my grandfather. I have been in touch with William who has been kind enough to forward photos and many details of the accident and rescue. As a result some of the mystery has been explained and I now have a little closure - I never imagined when I started my research a year ago that I would end up in touch with someone who was actually on the ground that day, and in many respects all thanks to you. So thank you once again for posting your note. With kind regards, Peter Hawkins -----Original Message----- From: nico acu [mailto:nico(at)acu.org] Sent: 07 February 2005 18:33 To: PeterHawkins(at)greeneking.co.uk Subject: Commander Junkyard Peter, I posted your request on the Commander chat list and received the following response from Barry Collman. Apparently he is already on the case. I am sorry that your grandfather was lost in this way. It would be interesting to stay in contact with the progress. I have a question for you, though. Although I write a lot about many topics, some about aviation and Commanders, I cannot readily recall anything about Commander Junkyards. Would you be so kind to refresh my memory where you read about me? Thanks Nico Hi All, Peter has contacted me regarding N6362U. The accident report was prepared under the jurisdiction of the Danish Government and I'm trying to obtain a copy of it through Air-Britain's Specialist on aviation in that country. Best Regards, Barry C. ********************************************************************** The contents of this E Mail message are confidential as between the sender and the named recipient, and may be legally privileged. Any person receiving this E Mail message not being the named recipient is prohibited from using the contents for any purpose other than to pass it to the named recipient without copying, disclosing or disseminating the contents in any way other than with the express consent of the named recipient. Greene King reserves the right to monitor any and all E Mail communications using any part of its Network. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper/Sophos for the presence of computer viruses. ********************************************************************** ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 14, 2006
Subject: Re: GSO-480 Overhaul
In a message dated 1/14/2006 11:11:43 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, skyhawkC-172(at)comcast.net writes: Anyone know anything regarding Commander with all the signatures on the nose @: Yep, that is N222JS before the paint job. I used to live in Idaho and was GM of Avid Aircraft, the kit mfg. The signatures are from friends and former employees. They all wrote a little note. They had a hangar and nose signing party!! "Triple 2 Jim & Sue" was a derelict bought from Harry Merritt in FL. I paid 15K and flew it home. The majority of the restoration was done in a friends hangar in Idaho. I was finished with most of the work and heading to the paint shop. The airplane had been sitting in the hangar for a couple weeks and when I came to pick it up, it had a bright pink nose with lots of graffiti (all cool stuff, from great people) I was humbled and amused as I read all thier work. It brought back many fond memories. I am blessed to have such great friends jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: skyhawkC-172(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: GSO-480 Overhaul
Date: Jan 15, 2006
Certainly a distinctive looking bird. The Pink nose with all the signatures is really some nice nose art...: ) -------------- Original message -------------- From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com > > > In a message dated 1/14/2006 11:11:43 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > skyhawkC-172(at)comcast.net writes: > > Anyone know anything regarding Commander with all the signatures on the nose > @: > > > Yep, that is N222JS before the paint job. I used to live in Idaho and was > GM of Avid Aircraft, the kit mfg. The signatures are from friends and former > employees. They all wrote a little note. They had a hangar and nose signing > party!! > "Triple 2 Jim & Sue" was a derelict bought from Harry Merritt in FL. I > paid 15K and flew it home. The majority of the restoration was done in a > friends hangar in Idaho. > I was finished with most of the work and heading to the paint shop. The > airplane had been sitting in the hangar for a couple weeks and when I came > to pick it up, it had a bright pink nose with lots of graffiti (all cool > stuff, from great people) I was humbled and amused as I read all thier work. > It > brought back many fond memories. I am blessed to have such great friends jb > > > > > > > > > > > > > Certainly a distinctive looking bird. The Pink nose with all the signatures is really some nice nose art...: ) -------------- Original message -------------- From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com -- Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com In a message dated 1/14/2006 11:11:43 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, skyhawkC-172(at)comcast.net writes: Anyone know anything regarding Commander with all the signatures on the nose @: Yep, that is N222JS before the paint job. I used to live in Idaho and was GM of Avid Aircraft, the kit mfg. The signatures are from friends and former employees. They all wrote a little note. They had a hangar and nose signing party!! "Triple 2 Jim Sue" was a derelict bought from Harry Merritt in FL. I paid 15K and flew it home. The majority of the restoration was done in a friends hangar in Idaho. I was finished wi th most of the work and heading to the paint shop. The airplane had been sitting in the hangar for a couple weeks and when I came to pick it up, it had a bright pink nose with lots of graffiti (all cool stuff, from great people) I was humbled and amused as I read all thier work. It brought back many fond memories. I am blessed to have such great friends jb bution Web Site - ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2006
From: Nancy & Roland Gilliam <amg(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Shrike nose
Hello, Anyone know how much a Shrike nose cost, and who sells and installs them??? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 15, 2006
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
In a message dated 1/14/2006 6:39:20 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, amg(at)nc.rr.com writes: Anyone know how much a Shrike nose cost, and who sells and installs them??? About 12K for the nose. Installation is another 5 -6K Gary Gadberry, "The Air Center" is the only source for new noses. jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 15, 2006
From: Nancy & Roland Gilliam <amg(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
Thanks for the quick response, could use that much money for something else more useful than looks. Thanks Roland YOURTCFG(at)aol.com wrote: > > >In a message dated 1/14/2006 6:39:20 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, >amg(at)nc.rr.com writes: > >Anyone know how much a Shrike nose cost, and who sells and installs them??? > > >About 12K for the nose. Installation is another 5 -6K Gary Gadberry, "The >Air Center" is the only source for new noses. jb > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
From: "N395V" <N395V(at)direcway.com>
Date: Jan 15, 2006
If you are looking for speed the flap gap seals and square rudder cap mods give a lot better bang for the buck than a nose job. +/_ winglets. The winglets are from Commander Aero the others from Air Center (Gadberry) -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Driver Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=4143#4143 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 15, 2006
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
In a message dated 1/15/2006 8:11:01 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, N395V(at)direcway.com writes: If you are looking for speed The best speed mods are #1 Buy a good GPS, and use it. Fly everywhere "GPS Direct" and #2 bigger gas tanks:-) jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steven" <steve2(at)sover.net>
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
Date: Jan 16, 2006
I must be in the minority prefering the snub-nose of the older Commanders to the pointy nose of the later models...... What kind of percentage of older models get the nose-job? Sounds like a question for Barry.... Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy & Roland Gilliam" <amg(at)nc.rr.com> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 9:34 PM Subject: Commander-List: Shrike nose > > > Hello, > > Anyone know how much a Shrike nose cost, and who sells and installs > them??? > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
From: "N395V" <N395V(at)direcway.com>
Date: Jan 16, 2006
> I must be in the minority prefering the snub-nose of the older Commanders Nope. I suspect most of us prefer that classic buxom look. :D -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=4348#4348 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dcp_0040_993.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Myron Ashley" <mashley2(at)kc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: 500B hydraulic pump parts
Date: Jan 16, 2006
Aircraft accessories of oklahoma are the experts for the hydrualic pumps. 800-255-9924 Good Luck, Myron Ashley ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donnie Rose" <aquadiver99(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 12:07 PM Subject: Commander-List: 500B hydraulic pump parts > > Dear members, does anyone have any info on the below > topic? > Thank you in advance... > > > Good morning Mr. Tower, > You had offered you help earlier in the Commander > search for things and now I surely need it. I am in > need of an oil seal for one of the main hydraulic > pumps in my 1964 500B. My serial number is in the > upper bracket [1300-] and the pump was manufactured by > Eastern Industries, Hamden, CT. Model number of the > pump is 105HBG-211B, part 4790222-501. > The seal is on the input shaft and is in itself unique > because of it's unusual depth of .690 on the outer > case housing a double seal. I have found two smaller > seals to "stack" in the originals place but would > prefer OEM config. These two seals were obtained from > Motion Industries with no other options. > I sure hope you or one of the other members of the > chat group can help Mr. Tower, I have exhausted all of > my options. > > Best Regards, > Donnie Rose > > > Donnie Rose > 205/492-8444 > > > Donnie Rose > 205/492-8444 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
Date: Jan 16, 2006
Hi Steve, Well, it is indeed a question for me! I have traced about 270 of the Bathtub and Speedline nacelle Models that have been modified with the installation of a Miller nose. There were 1,865 airframes built under the 'old' msn system, but some of these left the factory with the long nose. Without refining everything down to the last decimal point, the answer is approximately 15%. Very Best Regards, Barry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven" <steve2(at)sover.net> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 1:17 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Shrike nose Commander-List message posted by: "Steven" | From: "Moe" <moe(at)rosspistons.com>
Subject: Slipping a short Commander
Date: Jan 16, 2006
Commander Hearders, Regardin the posts of a couple of weeks ago, it seems that no matter how hard you slip a 680F(p) at about 120 MPH both the right and left air speed indicators will stay within about three MPH of each other. Regards, Moe N680RR 680F(p) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2006
From: Nancy & Roland Gilliam <amg(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
My original question was not intended to change my model 500 from the original nose, but to try to see if this increased the value of a project I know of. I appreciate all the response from all of you. Gap seals is not an option for me as I have a 2500 ft. (paved) strip of my own, and understand this inhibits the climb performance somewhat. Comments??? Roland Barry Collman wrote: > >Hi Steve, > >Well, it is indeed a question for me! > >I have traced about 270 of the Bathtub and Speedline nacelle Models that have >been modified with the installation of a Miller nose. > >There were 1,865 airframes built under the 'old' msn system, but some of these >left the factory with the long nose. > >Without refining everything down to the last decimal point, the answer is >approximately 15%. > >Very Best Regards, >Barry > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Steven" <steve2(at)sover.net> >To: >Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 1:17 PM >Subject: Re: Commander-List: Shrike nose >Commander-List message posted by: "Steven" >| | I must be in the minority prefering the snub-nose of >| the older Commanders to the pointy nose of the later models...... What >| kind of percentage of older models get the nose-job? Sounds like a >| question for Barry.... [...] > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Moe" <moe(at)rosspistons.com>
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
Date: Jan 16, 2006
Roland, You are most likely correct in your feelings that Flap Gap Seals are not a good idea if you operate on a 2,500 foot strip. Moe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy & Roland Gilliam" <amg(at)nc.rr.com> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 6:21 AM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Shrike nose > > My original question was not intended to change my model 500 from the > original nose, but to try to see if this increased the value of a > project I know of. I appreciate all the response from all of you. Gap > seals is not an option for me as I have a 2500 ft. (paved) strip of my > own, and understand this inhibits the climb performance somewhat. > Comments??? > > Roland > > > Barry Collman wrote: > <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk> > > > >Hi Steve, > > > >Well, it is indeed a question for me! > > > >I have traced about 270 of the Bathtub and Speedline nacelle Models that have > >been modified with the installation of a Miller nose. > > > >There were 1,865 airframes built under the 'old' msn system, but some of these > >left the factory with the long nose. > > > >Without refining everything down to the last decimal point, the answer is > >approximately 15%. > > > >Very Best Regards, > >Barry > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Steven" <steve2(at)sover.net> > >To: > >Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 1:17 PM > >Subject: Re: Commander-List: Shrike nose > >Commander-List message posted by: "Steven" > >| >| I must be in the minority prefering the snub-nose of > >| the older Commanders to the pointy nose of the later models...... What > >| kind of percentage of older models get the nose-job? Sounds like a > >| question for Barry.... [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Air Schuerman
From: "N395V" <N395V(at)direcway.com>
Date: Jan 16, 2006
When travelling the Midwest I highly reccomend Captain Chris and First officer Kim -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=4394#4394 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/100_0077_150.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 16, 2006
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
In a message dated 1/16/2006 5:48:55 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk writes: I have traced about 270 of the Bathtub and Speedline nacelle Models that have been modified with the installation of a Miller nose. SIR BARRY. You forgot the 6 that had the "Little Rock" nose installed;_) jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 16, 2006
Subject: Re: Slipping a short Commander
In a message dated 1/16/2006 6:10:17 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, moe(at)rosspistons.com writes: about three MPH of each other. That is about what I remember moe. Thanks!! jb PS I may be needing a set of Pistons for a 454 chevy pretty soon. jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
Date: Jan 16, 2006
No, no, no. I didn't forget. Just wanted to see if anyone was on the ball.! Well done JimBob!! Barry ;-) ----- Original Message ----- From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 6:55 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Shrike nose | | | In a message dated 1/16/2006 5:48:55 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, | barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk writes: | | I have traced about 270 of the Bathtub and Speedline nacelle Models that have | been modified with the installation of a Miller nose. | | | SIR BARRY. | | You forgot the 6 that had the "Little Rock" nose installed;_) jb | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
Date: Jan 16, 2006
Maybe a relief tube to go with those loooong range tanks. bilbo -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of YOURTCFG(at)aol.com Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:27 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Shrike nose In a message dated 1/15/2006 8:11:01 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, N395V(at)direcway.com writes: If you are looking for speed The best speed mods are #1 Buy a good GPS, and use it. Fly everywhere "GPS Direct" and #2 bigger gas tanks:-) jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 16, 2006
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
Flap gap seals actually improve takeoff performance even though they close off the gap somewhat. Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)AOL.COM
Date: Jan 16, 2006
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
In a message dated 1/16/2006 5:36:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, BillLeff1(at)aol.com writes: Flap gap seals actually improve takeoff performance even though they close off the gap somewhat. That is not true:-) I have empirical knowledge of this. I operated from a very short (1600) strip at 2500 ft above sea level. After installing the gap seals, the TO (and landing) performance suffered noticeably. In fact, I was so disappointed that I never painted the gap seals, wondering if I might remove them. They do however give the advertised increase in speed. If you always fly from a long (3000 ft) I recommend them. jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tylor Hall <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
Date: Jan 16, 2006
Has anyone tried to add Vortex Generators on a field approval? There is one 500B that has them on it and I was told that they were a great help in lowering approach speeds and lower single engine control speed. They were installed on a one time STC. Sir Berry can tell us who has them. Tylor Hall On Jan 16, 2006, at 7:19 PM, YOURTCFG(at)aol.com wrote: > > > In a message dated 1/16/2006 5:36:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > BillLeff1(at)aol.com writes: > > Flap gap seals actually improve takeoff performance even though > they close > off the gap somewhat. > > > That is not true:-) I have empirical knowledge of this. I > operated from a > very short (1600) strip at 2500 ft above sea level. After > installing the gap > seals, the TO (and landing) performance suffered noticeably. In > fact, I was > so disappointed that I never painted the gap seals, wondering if I > might > remove them. They do however give the advertised increase in > speed. If you > always fly from a long (3000 ft) I recommend them. jb > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Addington" <jtaddington(at)charter.net>
Subject: Shrike Nose
Date: Jan 16, 2006
I thought the long nose was so you could install a radar antenna with out having a wart on the nose. I thought the good looks just came with it. Jim Addington N444BD ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
Date: Jan 17, 2006
Hi Tylor, No, I can't! Vortex Generators is an item I don't track. I do recall seeing a few Forms 337 for their installation, but to find them again......... Best Regards, Barry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tylor Hall" <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 3:06 AM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Shrike nose | | | Has anyone tried to add Vortex Generators on a field approval? | | There is one 500B that has them on it and I was told that they were a | great help in lowering approach speeds and lower single engine | control speed. They were installed on a one time STC. | Sir Berry can tell us who has them. | | Tylor Hall | | On Jan 16, 2006, at 7:19 PM, YOURTCFG(at)aol.com wrote: | | > | > | > In a message dated 1/16/2006 5:36:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, | > BillLeff1(at)aol.com writes: | > | > Flap gap seals actually improve takeoff performance even though | > they close | > off the gap somewhat. | > | > | > That is not true:-) I have empirical knowledge of this. I | > operated from a | > very short (1600) strip at 2500 ft above sea level. After | > installing the gap | > seals, the TO (and landing) performance suffered noticeably. In | > fact, I was | > so disappointed that I never painted the gap seals, wondering if I | > might | > remove them. They do however give the advertised increase in | > speed. If you | > always fly from a long (3000 ft) I recommend them. jb | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2006
From: Nancy & Roland Gilliam <amg(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
Hello all, Try landshorter.com. Roland Barry Collman wrote: > >Hi Tylor, > >No, I can't! Vortex Generators is an item I don't track. I do recall seeing a >few Forms 337 for their installation, but to find them again......... > >Best Regards, >Barry > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tylor Hall" <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net> >To: >Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 3:06 AM >Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Shrike nose > > >| >| >| Has anyone tried to add Vortex Generators on a field approval? >| >| There is one 500B that has them on it and I was told that they were a >| great help in lowering approach speeds and lower single engine >| control speed. They were installed on a one time STC. >| Sir Berry can tell us who has them. >| >| Tylor Hall >| >| On Jan 16, 2006, at 7:19 PM, YOURTCFG(at)aol.com wrote: >| >| > >| > >| > In a message dated 1/16/2006 5:36:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, >| > BillLeff1(at)aol.com writes: >| > >| > Flap gap seals actually improve takeoff performance even though >| > they close >| > off the gap somewhat. >| > >| > >| > That is not true:-) I have empirical knowledge of this. I >| > operated from a >| > very short (1600) strip at 2500 ft above sea level. After >| > installing the gap >| > seals, the TO (and landing) performance suffered noticeably. In >| > fact, I was >| > so disappointed that I never painted the gap seals, wondering if I >| > might >| > remove them. They do however give the advertised increase in >| > speed. If you >| > always fly from a long (3000 ft) I recommend them. jb >| > >| > >| > >| > >| > >| > >| > >| > >| > >| > >| > >| > >| > >| >| >| >| >| >| >| >| >| >| >| >| >| >| >| >| > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jerry Sprayberry" <capnspray_611(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
Date: Jan 17, 2006
I hate to get into this one, However, I have Pictures of N198JW 50FT. in the air, 1000FT from start of take-off from my 1900 FT grass strip 800 Ft Elevation. I can't complain about that performance. My Two Cent's worth JRS. ----- Original Message ----- From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 9:19 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Shrike nose > > > In a message dated 1/16/2006 5:36:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > BillLeff1(at)aol.com writes: > > Flap gap seals actually improve takeoff performance even though they > close > off the gap somewhat. > > > That is not true:-) I have empirical knowledge of this. I operated from > a > very short (1600) strip at 2500 ft above sea level. After installing the > gap > seals, the TO (and landing) performance suffered noticeably. In fact, I > was > so disappointed that I never painted the gap seals, wondering if I might > remove them. They do however give the advertised increase in speed. If > you > always fly from a long (3000 ft) I recommend them. jb > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
From: "Bert Berry" <bertberry1(at)aol.com>
Date: Jan 17, 2006
Hey JB, Maybe the magic doesn't work until you paint them. Bert -----Original Message----- From: "Jerry Sprayberry" <capnspray_611(at)hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:52:55 To: Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Shrike nose I hate to get into this one, However, I have Pictures of N198JW 50FT. in the air, 1000FT from start of take-off from my 1900 FT grass strip 800 Ft Elevation. I can't complain about that performance. My Two Cent's worth JRS. ----- Original Message ----- From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 9:19 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Shrike nose > > > In a message dated 1/16/2006 5:36:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > BillLeff1(at)aol.com writes: > > Flap gap seals actually improve takeoff performance even though they > close > off the gap somewhat. > > > That is not true:-) I have empirical knowledge of this. I operated from > a > very short (1600) strip at 2500 ft above sea level. After installing the > gap > seals, the TO (and landing) performance suffered noticeably. In fact, I > was > so disappointed that I never painted the gap seals, wondering if I might > remove them. They do however give the advertised increase in speed. If > you > always fly from a long (3000 ft) I recommend them. jb > > > bertberry1(at)aol.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2006
From: Donnie Rose <aquadiver99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 500B hydraulic pump parts
Thank you Myron. Donnie --- Myron Ashley wrote: > > > > Aircraft accessories of oklahoma are the experts for > the hydrualic pumps. > 800-255-9924 > > Good Luck, > Myron Ashley > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Donnie Rose" <aquadiver99(at)yahoo.com> > To: > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 12:07 PM > Subject: Commander-List: 500B hydraulic pump parts > > > > > > > Dear members, does anyone have any info on the > below > > topic? > > Thank you in advance... > > > > > > > > > > Good morning Mr. Tower, > > You had offered you help earlier in the > Commander > > search for things and now I surely need it. I am > in > > need of an oil seal for one of the main hydraulic > > pumps in my 1964 500B. My serial number is in the > > upper bracket [1300-] and the pump was > manufactured by > > Eastern Industries, Hamden, CT. Model number of > the > > pump is 105HBG-211B, part 4790222-501. > > The seal is on the input shaft and is in itself > unique > > because of it's unusual depth of .690 on the outer > > case housing a double seal. I have found two > smaller > > seals to "stack" in the originals place but would > > prefer OEM config. These two seals were obtained > from > > Motion Industries with no other options. > > I sure hope you or one of the other members of > the > > chat group can help Mr. Tower, I have exhausted > all of > > my options. > > > > Best Regards, > > Donnie Rose > > > > > > Donnie Rose > > 205/492-8444 > > > > > > > > Donnie Rose > > 205/492-8444 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List > > Admin. > > > > > > > > > > > Donnie Rose 205/492-8444 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Bijou" <tom(at)bhmassociates.com>
Subject: Aircraft Jacks
Date: Jan 17, 2006
After years of operating and maintaining various Twin Commanders I am stepping down to a Cirrus SR22 (to be supplemented by a Diamond Twin Star in December). I loved the aircraft, but 75gph is a lot of fuel to burn to move one or two people around. The point of all this is I have a set of jacks, of the correct size for high wing aircraft like commanders that I no longer need. They are for sale for $500.00. Located at ADS in the Dallas area. 8 ton capacity and about a year old. I can be reached at 800-500-1650 if anyone is interested. Tom Bijou ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
From: "N395V" <N395V(at)direcway.com>
Date: Jan 17, 2006
It is my impression that an STC requires demonstration and documentation of claims as well as demonstration and documentation of adverse affects of the modification in question. Below is the link to the flap gap seal page of Aircenters website and an excerpt from that page stating what the flap gap seals will do. http://www.aircenterinc.com/products_seals.php WHY? Increases Speed, Rate Of Climb, & Roll Rate Less Drag Increase In Fuel Efficiency Cosmetics PRICE OF KIT: $1,800 PMA: Yes STC NO: SA2903SW The Flap Gap Seals are installed on the top and bottom of the wings. There is a large opening between the flaps and the bottom of the wing. The Flap Gap Seal will seal this opening between the top and bottom of the flaps. When the flaps are in the up position, lifting air pressure can no longer escape through this gap, thus the increased lift improves rate of climb and performance. Our Flap Gap Seal STC is the same type as you find on the Turbo Commanders. The Flap Gap Seals increase overall airspeed by six knots. Installation of the Flap Gap Seals will greatly improve slow speed roll control, resulting in better short field take-off and landing capabilities. Our STC is approved for all 500 and 600 series Twin Commanders. The kit can be installed in two days. I suppose that "improved short field takeoff capabilities" is open to interpretation but it suggests to me shorter takeoff. My suspicion is that the amount of increased or decreased takeoff distance is negated by pilot technique in either direction and is a small number when measured in feet so as to make it inconsequential to the original poster of the nose question. If indeed the seals do increase takeoff distance by a small amount you probably shouldn't be taking off from that field in the first place. I understand that using the seals the standard technique is to not use flaps. This is immensley beneficial in the event of engine loss at a critical moment in that it is one less item to have to clean up. Thus one could argue that the gap seals add a safety factor. As the owner of the STC Gary should be able to tell us exactly the Takeoff difference with the seals for each model. [/url] -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=4741#4741 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 17, 2006
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
My 560F gets off the ground better since I installed them. I did not see much speed difference Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jody Pillatzki" <Jpillatzki(at)702com.net>
Subject: Aircraft Jacks
Date: Jan 17, 2006
Tim Sold, call me tonight (701)640-0113. Jody -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom Bijou Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 9:29 AM Subject: Commander-List: Aircraft Jacks After years of operating and maintaining various Twin Commanders I am stepping down to a Cirrus SR22 (to be supplemented by a Diamond Twin Star in December). I loved the aircraft, but 75gph is a lot of fuel to burn to move one or two people around. The point of all this is I have a set of jacks, of the correct size for high wing aircraft like commanders that I no longer need. They are for sale for $500.00. Located at ADS in the Dallas area. 8 ton capacity and about a year old. I can be reached at 800-500-1650 if anyone is interested. Tom Bijou ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
From: "jetprop" <flybyerly(at)insightbb.com>
Date: Jan 17, 2006
amg(at)nc.rr.com wrote: > Hello, > > Anyone know how much a Shrike nose cost, and who sells and installs them??? Hi - Bruce Byerly here - just wanted to introduce myself. I've been lurking around the board for awhile now -- you guys seem to be having fun :D I've grown up with Commanders and we have had a fiberglass nose cut from an airframe for years. It's in good shape but will need to be removed from the original structure. It's setup for a radome, but the radome has since found a home. Let me know if you're interested. 309-397-2525 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=4817#4817 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <dfalik(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
Date: Jan 17, 2006
Installation of flap gap seals on my 500 Shrike improved my landings by 100% as it improved the slow speed handling and allowed it to float. I am now able to reduce my over the numbers speed by 15 mph without worrying about stalling and flopping down. By being able to slow down safely I can reduce my ground roll significantly and operate into shorter fields without burning out my brakes. As far as take off performance, and this is anecdotal, I feel it comes off the ground sooner due to improved lift. I cost me $1800.00 for the kit and 32 hours labor but I wouldn't fly without them. -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BillLeff1(at)aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 3:50 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Shrike nose My 560F gets off the ground better since I installed them. I did not see much speed difference Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Moe" <moe(at)rosspistons.com>
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
Date: Jan 17, 2006
Regarding the Flap Gap Seals, There is no doubt in my mind that flap gap seals do degrade the distance before rotation. I can't remember exactly how much (I think that it is about 75 feet) but if anyone wants to know exactly, I will stop by the plane and pick up my figures. This comes from taking off and landing at the same airport (HHR) for several years in the same plane with the conditions being about the same every day. I had the flap gap seals and winglets added at the same time. The performance degraded enough that I changed my "you should rotate at this point" when taking off references. Regards, Moe N680RR 680F(p) ----- Original Message ----- From: "jetprop" <flybyerly(at)insightbb.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:33 PM Subject: Commander-List: Re: Shrike nose > > > amg(at)nc.rr.com wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Anyone know how much a Shrike nose cost, and who sells and installs them??? > > > Hi - Bruce Byerly here - just wanted to introduce myself. I've been lurking around the board for awhile now -- you guys seem to be having fun :D > > I've grown up with Commanders and we have had a fiberglass nose cut from an airframe for years. It's in good shape but will need to be removed from the original structure. It's setup for a radome, but the radome has since found a home. Let me know if you're interested. > > 309-397-2525 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=4817#4817 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2006
From: Seth <capt_seth(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
It seems to make sense to me that adding the gap seals will eliminate any intended or unintended slotted effect that might exist in the flap design, thereby reducing runway performance but increasing cruise performance. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Please consider the materials in this electronic mail transmission (including all attachments) as private, confidential, and the property of the sender. The information contained in the material is privileged and is intended only for the use of the named addressee(s). Please do not make any unauthorized disclosure, copying, or distribution of this material. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please immediately notify me by sending an electronic message to capt_seth(at)yahoo.com, and thereafter, destroy it immediately. Thank you. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Victor C. Rupert" <v-man@v-man.net>
Subject: gap seals
Date: Jan 17, 2006
Hmmmm.... Me suspicious of your winglets. Every plane that I've had from T-Tail Arrow, Mooney 201, Beech A-36, F-33 and a Twin Comanche, all had much better TOL performance ( by that I mean distance and speed were both lower ) with gap seals... Not to mention cruise is better so much so that is now the first mod I make on a new plane. Victor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Moe" <moe(at)rosspistons.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:01 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Shrike nose > > Regarding the Flap Gap Seals, > > There is no doubt in my mind that flap gap seals do degrade the distance > before rotation. I can't remember exactly how much (I think that it is > about 75 feet) but if anyone wants to know exactly, I will stop by the > plane > and pick up my figures. This comes from taking off and landing at the > same > airport (HHR) for several years in the same plane with the conditions > being > about the same every day. I had the flap gap seals and winglets added at > the > same time. The performance degraded enough that I changed my "you should > rotate at this point" when taking off references. > > Regards, > > Moe > N680RR > 680F(p) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "jetprop" <flybyerly(at)insightbb.com> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:33 PM > Subject: Commander-List: Re: Shrike nose > > >> >> >> amg(at)nc.rr.com wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > Anyone know how much a Shrike nose cost, and who sells and installs > them??? >> >> >> Hi - Bruce Byerly here - just wanted to introduce myself. I've been > lurking around the board for awhile now -- you guys seem to be having fun > :D >> >> I've grown up with Commanders and we have had a fiberglass nose cut from > an airframe for years. It's in good shape but will need to be removed from > the original structure. It's setup for a radome, but the radome has since > found a home. Let me know if you're interested. >> >> 309-397-2525 >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=4817#4817 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 18, 2006
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
In a message dated 1/17/2006 6:54:13 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, capnspray_611(at)hotmail.com writes: Pictures of N198JW 50FT. in the air, 1000FT from start of take-off from my 1900 FT grass strip 800 Ft Without the gap seals it would have been 150 feet at the same spot;-) jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 18, 2006
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
In a message dated 1/17/2006 7:03:26 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, bertberry1(at)aol.com writes: Maybe the magic doesn't work until you paint them Never thought of that!! What WAS I thinking????? jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 18, 2006
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
In a message dated 1/17/2006 6:05:01 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, moe(at)rosspistons.com writes: The performance degraded enough that I changed my "you should rotate at this point" when taking off references. That's how it worked in my neighborhood as well. jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 18, 2006
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
In a message dated 1/17/2006 5:39:16 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, dfalik(at)sbcglobal.net writes: As far as take off performance, and this is anecdotal, I feel it comes off the ground sooner due to improved lift. Great opinion. But lets be reasonable here. Without the gap seals, the air is free to travel up a well thought out slot between the flap and the TE of the wing. If you look closely, you will see that Ted Smith put a lot of time into this area of the wing. The air can reattach to the LE of the flap and creates a much more efficient slow speed wing (look at the flaps on a Boeing). You simply cannot improve lift by closing this area up. You can, however, decrease drag. (more lift, more drag, less lift, less drag) Cover the gap up, and you now have an early twin Cessna flap. There is less drag, sure, hince the "float". But float does not mean the airplane is performing better at slow speed, in fact, just the opposite is true. Look, I fly all kinds of Commanders, all different models, all the time. I fly them with and without all of these mods, long and short noses, gap seals etc. I love the gap seals if TO / Landing performance is not an issue. If it is, better think twice. I am not trying to be a pill here, but this is aerodynamic fact. jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jerry Sprayberry" <capnspray_611(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Shrike nose
Date: Jan 18, 2006
Good to know that, even though I have painted mine, so I guess the paint is not the answer. JRS: ----- Original Message ----- From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 1:00 AM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Shrike nose > > > In a message dated 1/17/2006 6:54:13 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > capnspray_611(at)hotmail.com writes: > > Pictures of N198JW 50FT. in the > air, 1000FT from start of take-off from my 1900 FT grass strip 800 Ft > > > Without the gap seals it would have been 150 feet at the same spot;-) jb > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Subject: 560 being scrapped
Date: Jan 18, 2006
Hi All, If anyone is interested in possibly getting parts, I understand that cancellation of Model 560, msn 168, N747DT is beyond economical repair and is being scrapped. The cancellation request was from one of the co-owners, Butterfield Airplane Store Inc., of 2450 Montecito Road, Ramona, CA. Letter was signed by: Mark D Hinzman, President, 19 NOrth West Street, Yerington, NV The last I knew of this Commander was when it was noted at Chino, CA in June 2001. Best Regards, Barry C. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ricardo Otaola" <otayca(at)telcel.net.ve>
Subject: FW: Overhead panels
Date: Jan 18, 2006
_____ From: Ricardo Otaola Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 11:49 AM Subject: Overhead panels Friends: Someone mentioned a company or group, that makes the opverhead panels for commanders. Perhaps you can send info, so that I can replace my original 680F overheads. Ricardo A. Otaola Presidente Telecomunicaciones Bantel, C.A. www.bantel.com.ve www.bantelbas.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 18, 2006
Subject: Re: FW: Overhead panels
Are yours damaged or just need refinishing? Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Subject: Shrike for salvage bid
Date: Jan 18, 2006
Hi Guys, Hurricane "Wilma" (when was that?), caused a hangar collapse, I think at Pompano Beach, but Shrike sn 3054, N9005N, was damaged. AIG Aviation are asking for bids on the aircraft. Fuller details can be found at: http://www.aigaviation.com/salvage/Salvagecraftzq.aspx Front doors are scarce - this one was built with one! Very Best Regards, Barry C. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ricardo Otaola" <otayca(at)telcel.net.ve>
Subject: FW: Overhead panels
Date: Jan 18, 2006
refinishing -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BillLeff1(at)aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 11:55 AM Subject: Re: Commander-List: FW: Overhead panels Are yours damaged or just need refinishing? Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <avtec2(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Fw: -TWO DAY AVIATION AUCTION-
Date: Jan 19, 2006
----- Original Message ----- From: <sbainfo(at)starmanauctions.com> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 11:37 AM Subject: -TWO DAY AVIATION AUCTION- > -TWO DAY AVIATION AUCTION- > Fri & Sat. Jan. 20 & 21, 2006 > Starting @ 9:00 A.M. Both Days > EARLE AIRCRAFT > 8701 Hastings Blvd. Hastings, Florida > > This Is A Very Large Salvage > Yard with A Large Selection of > Beech & Piper Inv. Misc. Cessna > Inv. Helicopter Inv. Recip & Radial > Engine Inv. Seats, Accessories > Etc. Plan On Two Long Days > For Complete Listing Visit > Our Website @ www.starmanauctions.com > and Click On Upcoming Auctions > Or Call (402)592-1933 > For More Info. > > To Be Removed From This Service Email info(at)starmanauctions.com or call > (402)592-1933. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "steve" <steveg(at)nternet.com>
Subject: Interesting from Oz
Date: Jan 19, 2006
My business partner in Oz who is looking for a good surveillance aircraft sent this to me as we were looking at one of the original AC560 E's VH CAU, to purchase for the mission. Just a matter of interest to those of you that may have not seen it before. Steve Gilson ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 19, 2006
From: todd(at)hindmarsh.us
Subject: Interesting from Oz
Sent what? > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz > From: "steve" <steveg(at)nternet.com> > Date: Thu, January 19, 2006 7:00 pm > To: > > > My business partner in Oz who is looking for a good surveillance aircraft > sent this to me as we were looking at one of the original AC560 E's VH CAU, > to purchase for the mission. Just a matter of interest to those of you that > may have not seen it before. > > > > Steve Gilson > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "steve" <steveg(at)nternet.com>
Subject: Interesting from Oz
Date: Jan 19, 2006
Here is the attachment again. Only 380KB PDF article. Don't know why it did not go through earlier. Steve G -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steve Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:00 PM Subject: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz My business partner in Oz who is looking for a good surveillance aircraft sent this to me as we were looking at one of the original AC560 E's VH CAU, to purchase for the mission. Just a matter of interest to those of you that may have not seen it before. Steve Gilson ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 19, 2006
From: Nancy & Roland Gilliam <amg(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Interesting from Oz
Still nothing on my screen. Roland steve wrote: > >Here is the attachment again. Only 380KB PDF article. Don't know why it >did not go through earlier. > >Steve G > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steve >Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:00 PM >To: commander-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz > > >My business partner in Oz who is looking for a good surveillance aircraft >sent this to me as we were looking at one of the original AC560 E's VH CAU, >to purchase for the mission. Just a matter of interest to those of you that >may have not seen it before. > > > >Steve Gilson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "steve" <steveg(at)nternet.com>
Subject: Interesting from Oz
Date: Jan 19, 2006
Sorry guys. Attaches but the list won't accept it I guess. It is from Oz CASA regarding their look at the history of wing corrosion and failures in ACommanders. Steve G -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steve Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:23 PM Subject: RE: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz Here is the attachment again. Only 380KB PDF article. Don't know why it did not go through earlier. Steve G -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steve Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:00 PM Subject: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz My business partner in Oz who is looking for a good surveillance aircraft sent this to me as we were looking at one of the original AC560 E's VH CAU, to purchase for the mission. Just a matter of interest to those of you that may have not seen it before. Steve Gilson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Interesting from Oz
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Steve, If you copy the file to Nico, I'm sure he'll get something organised so those of us who'd like to see it can gain access to it. Very Best Regards, Barry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy & Roland Gilliam" <amg(at)nc.rr.com> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 1:31 AM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz | | Still nothing on my screen. | | Roland | | | | steve wrote: | | > | >Here is the attachment again. Only 380KB PDF article. Don't know why it | >did not go through earlier. | > | >Steve G | > | >-----Original Message----- | >From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com | >[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steve | >Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:00 PM | >To: commander-list(at)matronics.com | >Subject: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz | > | > | >My business partner in Oz who is looking for a good surveillance aircraft | >sent this to me as we were looking at one of the original AC560 E's VH CAU, | >to purchase for the mission. Just a matter of interest to those of you that | >may have not seen it before. | > | > | > | >Steve Gilson | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jerry Sprayberry" <capnspray_611(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Interesting from Oz
Date: Jan 19, 2006
Hi Barry: It's about 0152 over there, what do you do in the daytime? Regards to you, Jerry Sprayberry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 8:41 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz > <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk> > > Steve, > > If you copy the file to Nico, I'm sure he'll get something organised so > those of > us who'd like to see it can gain access to it. > > Very Best Regards, > Barry > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nancy & Roland Gilliam" <amg(at)nc.rr.com> > To: > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 1:31 AM > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz > > > > | > | Still nothing on my screen. > | > | Roland > | > | > | > | steve wrote: > | > | > > | >Here is the attachment again. Only 380KB PDF article. Don't know why > it > | >did not go through earlier. > | > > | >Steve G > | > > | >-----Original Message----- > | >From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > | >[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steve > | >Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:00 PM > | >To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > | >Subject: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz > | > > | > > | >My business partner in Oz who is looking for a good surveillance > aircraft > | >sent this to me as we were looking at one of the original AC560 E's VH > CAU, > | >to purchase for the mission. Just a matter of interest to those of you > that > | >may have not seen it before. > | > > | > > | > > | >Steve Gilson > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Re: Interesting from Oz
Date: Jan 19, 2006
The list strips off any attachments. If you would send it to me directly, I will publish it on my website and reference it on the list. Nico ----- Original Message ----- From: "steve" <steveg(at)nternet.com> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 5:23 PM Subject: RE: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz > > Here is the attachment again. Only 380KB PDF article. Don't know why it > did not go through earlier. > > Steve G > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steve > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:00 PM > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz > > > My business partner in Oz who is looking for a good surveillance aircraft > sent this to me as we were looking at one of the original AC560 E's VH CAU, > to purchase for the mission. Just a matter of interest to those of you that > may have not seen it before. > > > Steve Gilson > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tylor Hall <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Interesting from Oz
Date: Jan 19, 2006
Steve, All attachments are stripped off when it is sent to the group. You can send to an individual or send it to Nico and he posts things on his web site like photos and PDF's. By the way did you see the 685 that is for sale in Japan that has a camera in it? It is listed in Trade-a-plane. Japan to OZ is closer than coming from the US. Tylor Hall On Jan 19, 2006, at 6:23 PM, steve wrote: > > Here is the attachment again. Only 380KB PDF article. Don't know > why it > did not go through earlier. > > Steve G > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steve > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:00 PM > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz > > > My business partner in Oz who is looking for a good surveillance > aircraft > sent this to me as we were looking at one of the original AC560 E's > VH CAU, > to purchase for the mission. Just a matter of interest to those of > you that > may have not seen it before. > > > Steve Gilson > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: skyhawkC-172(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Interesting from Oz
Date: Jan 20, 2006
If you like, Post it on: twincommanderflyer.com it's easy, and the group can use it as a back-up for issues like this. -------------- Original message -------------- From: Tylor Hall <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net> > > Steve, > All attachments are stripped off when it is sent to the group. > You can send to an individual or send it to Nico and he posts things > on his web site like photos and PDF's. > > By the way did you see the 685 that is for sale in Japan that has a > camera in it? > It is listed in Trade-a-plane. Japan to OZ is closer than coming > from the US. > > Tylor Hall > > On Jan 19, 2006, at 6:23 PM, steve wrote: > > > > > Here is the attachment again. Only 380KB PDF article. Don't know > > why it > > did not go through earlier. > > > > Steve G > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steve > > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:00 PM > > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz > > > > > > My business partner in Oz who is looking for a good surveillance > > aircraft > > sent this to me as we were looking at one of the original AC560 E's > > VH CAU, > > to purchase for the mission. Just a matter of interest to those of > > you that > > may have not seen it before. > > > > > > > > Steve Gilson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you like, Post it on: twincommanderflyer.com it's easy, and the group can use it as a back-up for issues like this. -------------- Original message -------------- From: Tylor Hall tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net -- Commander-List message posted by: Tylor Hall Steve, All attachments are stripped off when it is sent to the group. You can send to an individual or send it to Nico and he posts things on his web site like photos and PDF's. By the way did you see the 685 that is for sale in Japan that has a camera in it? It is listed in Trade-a-plane. Japan to OZ is closer than coming from the US. Tylor Hall On Jan 19, 2006, at 6:23 PM, steve wrote: -- Commander-List message posted by: "steve" Here is the attachment again. Only 380KB PDF article. Don't know why it did not go through earlier. Steve G -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steve Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:00 PM To: commander-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz -- Commander-List message posted by: "steve" My business partner in Oz who is looking for a good surveillance aircraft sent this to me as we were looking at one of the original AC560 E's VH CAU, to purchase for the mission. Just a matter of interest to those of you that may have not seen it before. Steve Gilson
ution Web Site - ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: Interesting from Oz
Date: Jan 20, 2006
[rant] You know, These solicitous emails by someone whose email is SKYHAWK172 are getting extremely tiresome. I seldom jump into the fray with so opinionated a stance, but this really irks me. Not 60 days ago we (COMMANDER listees) had a conversation about how we have a very small community to begin with; we mentioned how strong the Matronics forum is, how Matt Dralle has stood by us for years (with nothing to gain except the annual cost-covering good samaritan contribution) and how dividing a community as small as ours could only hurt us in the long run. As a group, and reply emails supported this, we decided that we would stick to this forum for its simplicity, its proven knowledge base (hello Sir Barry, Jimbob, Mason, Nico, Harry, Chris S. etc!), its widespread acceptance, and its effectiveness. However, 1 in 10 messages on this list are from Joe Skyhawk attempting to lure users away. I'm sick of it. Take a hike, Joe. If we want a different forum, WE'LL solicit YOU. If you need friends, there are probably 35,000 Chickenhawk pilots that you could lure to another site. /John PS: I've been to Joe Skyhawk's site. Nothing there, really. Add to that the fact that he needs to keep posting questions HERE to get answers to the basics, and it makes me wonder why someone with obviously so little Commander knowledge/experience (read: interest) feels the need to create his own portal. Is there a profit motive? PPS: We need Joe Skyhawk even less, now, since Matt has created an online forum version of our list....that *automatically* posts these emails. [/rant] ----- Original Message ----- From: <skyhawkC-172(at)comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:58 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz > > If you like, Post it on: > twincommanderflyer.com > it's easy, and the group can use it as a back-up for issues like this. > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: Tylor Hall <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net> > >> >> Steve, >> All attachments are stripped off when it is sent to the group. >> You can send to an individual or send it to Nico and he posts things >> on his web site like photos and PDF's. >> >> By the way did you see the 685 that is for sale in Japan that has a >> camera in it? >> It is listed in Trade-a-plane. Japan to OZ is closer than coming >> from the US. >> >> Tylor Hall >> >> On Jan 19, 2006, at 6:23 PM, steve wrote: >> >> > >> > Here is the attachment again. Only 380KB PDF article. Don't know >> > why it >> > did not go through earlier. >> > >> > Steve G >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com >> > [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steve >> > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:00 PM >> > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com >> > Subject: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz >> > >> > >> > My business partner in Oz who is looking for a good surveillance >> > aircraft >> > sent this to me as we were looking at one of the original AC560 E's >> > VH CAU, >> > to purchase for the mission. Just a matter of interest to those of >> > you that >> > may have not seen it before. >> > >> > >> > >> > Steve Gilson >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > If you like, Post it on: > twincommanderflyer.com > it's easy, and the group can use it as a back-up for issues like this. > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: Tylor Hall tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net > > -- Commander-List message posted by: Tylor Hall > > Steve, > All attachments are stripped off when it is sent to the group. > You can send to an individual or send it to Nico and he posts things > on his web site like photos and PDF's. > > By the way did you see the 685 that is for sale in Japan that has a > camera in it? > It is listed in Trade-a-plane. Japan to OZ is closer than coming > from the US. > > Tylor Hall > > On Jan 19, 2006, at 6:23 PM, steve wrote: > > -- Commander-List message posted by: "steve" > > Here is the attachment again. Only 380KB PDF article. Don't know > > why it > did not go through earlier. > > Steve G > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steve > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:00 PM > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz > > -- Commander-List message posted by: "steve" > > My business partner in Oz who is looking for a good surveillance > aircraft > sent this to me as we were looking at one of the original AC560 E's > VH CAU, > to purchase for the mission. Just a matter of interest to those of > you that > may have not seen it before. > > > Steve Gilson
> > > > ution Web Site - > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Interesting from Oz
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Sleep!!! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Sprayberry" <capnspray_611(at)hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 1:53 AM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz | | Hi Barry: | | It's about 0152 over there, what do you do in the daytime? | | Regards to you, | | Jerry Sprayberry | ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk> | To: | Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 8:41 PM | Subject: Re: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz | | | > <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk> | > | > Steve, | > | > If you copy the file to Nico, I'm sure he'll get something organised so | > those of | > us who'd like to see it can gain access to it. | > | > Very Best Regards, | > Barry | > | > ----- Original Message ----- | > From: "Nancy & Roland Gilliam" <amg(at)nc.rr.com> | > To: | > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 1:31 AM | > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz | > | > | > | > | | > | Still nothing on my screen. | > | | > | Roland | > | | > | | > | | > | steve wrote: | > | | > | > | > | >Here is the attachment again. Only 380KB PDF article. Don't know why | > it | > | >did not go through earlier. | > | > | > | >Steve G | > | > | > | >-----Original Message----- | > | >From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com | > | >[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steve | > | >Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:00 PM | > | >To: commander-list(at)matronics.com | > | >Subject: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz | > | > | > | > | > | >My business partner in Oz who is looking for a good surveillance | > aircraft | > | >sent this to me as we were looking at one of the original AC560 E's VH | > CAU, | > | >to purchase for the mission. Just a matter of interest to those of you | > that | > | >may have not seen it before. | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | >Steve Gilson | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "steve" <steveg(at)nternet.com>
Subject: Interesting from Oz
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Tylor, OK. No problem. Sent to Nico and a few others off list. I recently ferried a Bonanza back from Santo Domingo Dom Rep for a friend and while there got pics of a few ACommanders sitting idly on the side of the Herrera airport. Will get them developed this weekend and send to NICO. Steve -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tylor Hall Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 12:05 AM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz Steve, All attachments are stripped off when it is sent to the group. You can send to an individual or send it to Nico and he posts things on his web site like photos and PDF's. By the way did you see the 685 that is for sale in Japan that has a camera in it? It is listed in Trade-a-plane. Japan to OZ is closer than coming from the US. Tylor Hall On Jan 19, 2006, at 6:23 PM, steve wrote: > > Here is the attachment again. Only 380KB PDF article. Don't know > why it > did not go through earlier. > > Steve G > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steve > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:00 PM > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz > > > My business partner in Oz who is looking for a good surveillance > aircraft > sent this to me as we were looking at one of the original AC560 E's > VH CAU, > to purchase for the mission. Just a matter of interest to those of > you that > may have not seen it before. > > > Steve Gilson > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Posting images
From: "N395V" <N395V(at)direcway.com>
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Go Here It is free. Cut thr address (last one offered) form your image and use th Img box above.[/url] -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=5438#5438 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Interesting from Oz
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Skyhawk. In case you missed it we all (the ones who expressed their preferences) voted to keep our forum in one place (HERE). The constant suggestions from you (or someone from your Email address) indicates that you do not care what we within this forum want, I question your motives as to why you keep prodding members here to move/use your site. Give it up, please. Tom F. ----- Original Message ----- From: <skyhawkC-172(at)comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 22:58 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz > > If you like, Post it on: > twincommanderflyer.com > it's easy, and the group can use it as a back-up for issues like this. > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: Tylor Hall <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net> > > > > > Steve, > > All attachments are stripped off when it is sent to the group. > > You can send to an individual or send it to Nico and he posts things > > on his web site like photos and PDF's. > > > > By the way did you see the 685 that is for sale in Japan that has a > > camera in it? > > It is listed in Trade-a-plane. Japan to OZ is closer than coming > > from the US. > > > > Tylor Hall > > > > On Jan 19, 2006, at 6:23 PM, steve wrote: > > > > > > > > Here is the attachment again. Only 380KB PDF article. Don't know > > > why it > > > did not go through earlier. > > > > > > Steve G > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > > > [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steve > > > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:00 PM > > > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > > > Subject: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz > > > > > > > > > My business partner in Oz who is looking for a good surveillance > > > aircraft > > > sent this to me as we were looking at one of the original AC560 E's > > > VH CAU, > > > to purchase for the mission. Just a matter of interest to those of > > > you that > > > may have not seen it before. > > > > > > > > > > > > Steve Gilson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you like, Post it on: > twincommanderflyer.com > it's easy, and the group can use it as a back-up for issues like this. > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: Tylor Hall tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net > > -- Commander-List message posted by: Tylor Hall > > Steve, > All attachments are stripped off when it is sent to the group. > You can send to an individual or send it to Nico and he posts things > on his web site like photos and PDF's. > > By the way did you see the 685 that is for sale in Japan that has a > camera in it? > It is listed in Trade-a-plane. Japan to OZ is closer than coming > from the US. > > Tylor Hall > > On Jan 19, 2006, at 6:23 PM, steve wrote: > > -- Commander-List message posted by: "steve" > > Here is the attachment again. Only 380KB PDF article. Don't know > > why it > did not go through earlier. > > Steve G > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steve > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:00 PM > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz > > -- Commander-List message posted by: "steve" > > My business partner in Oz who is looking for a good surveillance > aircraft > sent this to me as we were looking at one of the original AC560 E's > VH CAU, > to purchase for the mission. Just a matter of interest to those of > you that > may have not seen it before. > > > Steve Gilson
> > > > ution Web Site - > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Interesting from Oz
Date: Jan 20, 2006
I sent my response before I even saw this Email, great minds think alike. Tom F. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 00:04 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz > > [rant] > > You know, > > These solicitous emails by someone whose email is SKYHAWK172 are getting > extremely tiresome. I seldom jump into the fray with so opinionated a > stance, but this really irks me. > > Not 60 days ago we (COMMANDER listees) had a conversation about how we have > a very small community to begin with; we mentioned how strong the Matronics > forum is, how Matt Dralle has stood by us for years (with nothing to gain > except the annual cost-covering good samaritan contribution) and how > dividing a community as small as ours could only hurt us in the long run. As > a group, and reply emails supported this, we decided that we would stick to > this forum for its simplicity, its proven knowledge base (hello Sir Barry, > Jimbob, Mason, Nico, Harry, Chris S. etc!), its widespread acceptance, and > its effectiveness. However, 1 in 10 messages on this list are from Joe > Skyhawk attempting to lure users away. I'm sick of it. > > Take a hike, Joe. If we want a different forum, WE'LL solicit YOU. If you > need friends, there are probably 35,000 Chickenhawk pilots that you could > lure to another site. > > /John > > PS: I've been to Joe Skyhawk's site. Nothing there, really. Add to that the > fact that he needs to keep posting questions HERE to get answers to the > basics, and it makes me wonder why someone with obviously so little > Commander knowledge/experience (read: interest) feels the need to create his > own portal. Is there a profit motive? > > PPS: We need Joe Skyhawk even less, now, since Matt has created an online > forum version of our list....that *automatically* posts these emails. > > [/rant] > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <skyhawkC-172(at)comcast.net> > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:58 PM > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz > > > > > > If you like, Post it on: > > twincommanderflyer.com > > it's easy, and the group can use it as a back-up for issues like this. > > -------------- Original message -------------- > > From: Tylor Hall <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net> > > > >> > >> Steve, > >> All attachments are stripped off when it is sent to the group. > >> You can send to an individual or send it to Nico and he posts things > >> on his web site like photos and PDF's. > >> > >> By the way did you see the 685 that is for sale in Japan that has a > >> camera in it? > >> It is listed in Trade-a-plane. Japan to OZ is closer than coming > >> from the US. > >> > >> Tylor Hall > >> > >> On Jan 19, 2006, at 6:23 PM, steve wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > Here is the attachment again. Only 380KB PDF article. Don't know > >> > why it > >> > did not go through earlier. > >> > > >> > Steve G > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > >> > [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steve > >> > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:00 PM > >> > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > >> > Subject: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz > >> > > >> > > >> > My business partner in Oz who is looking for a good surveillance > >> > aircraft > >> > sent this to me as we were looking at one of the original AC560 E's > >> > VH CAU, > >> > to purchase for the mission. Just a matter of interest to those of > >> > you that > >> > may have not seen it before. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Steve Gilson > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > If you like, Post it on: > > twincommanderflyer.com > > it's easy, and the group can use it as a back-up for issues like this. > > -------------- Original message -------------- > > From: Tylor Hall tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net > > > > -- Commander-List message posted by: Tylor Hall > > > > Steve, > > All attachments are stripped off when it is sent to the group. > > You can send to an individual or send it to Nico and he posts things > > on his web site like photos and PDF's. > > > > By the way did you see the 685 that is for sale in Japan that has a > > camera in it? > > It is listed in Trade-a-plane. Japan to OZ is closer than coming > > from the US. > > > > Tylor Hall > > > > On Jan 19, 2006, at 6:23 PM, steve wrote: > > > > -- Commander-List message posted by: "steve" > > > > Here is the attachment again. Only 380KB PDF article. Don't know > > > > why it > > did not go through earlier. > > > > Steve G > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steve > > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:00 PM > > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: Commander-List: Interesting from Oz > > > > -- Commander-List message posted by: "steve" > > > > My business partner in Oz who is looking for a good surveillance > > aircraft > > sent this to me as we were looking at one of the original AC560 E's > > VH CAU, > > to purchase for the mission. Just a matter of interest to those of > > you that > > may have not seen it before. > > > > > > > > Steve Gilson
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ution Web Site - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Subject: Re: Interesting from Oz
From: "Deneal Schilmeister (iMac)" <deneals(at)sbcglobal.net>
On 1/20/06 2:04 AM, "John Vormbaum" wrote: > > Take a hike, Joe. If we want a different forum, WE'LL solicit YOU. If you > need friends, there are probably 35,000 Chickenhawk pilots that you could > lure to another site. I totally agree with John's rant. A rant is good every now and again! -- Deneal Schilmeister ATP Learjet St. Louis, Missouri USA http://homepage.mac.com/deneals ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BertBerry1(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Subject: 690A Up for Auction
Just In case someone is in the market, I found this last night. Its NOAA's 690A up for auction. http://gsaauctions.gov/gsaauctions/gsaauctions/ Bert ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2006
From: Chris Schuermann <cschuerm(at)cox.net>
Subject: chicken or egg
>>Take a hike, Joe. If we want a different forum, WE'LL solicit YOU. I've noticed the discussions regarding the person who's trying to put together some kind of web commander related web site lately. Havn't really paid any attention as I have little interest these days. Some of the more acidic comments did strike a bit of a chord however. IMO, there are some people who are looking at this from a rather strange perspective. If nobody ever takes the initiative to try to create new and better things, nothing ever progresses. I have no idea who the skyhawk guy is and agree that he might be going at whatever he's trying to accomplish in the wrong way, but more power to him for at least trying to do something....even if it isn't exactly in harmony with the status quo. A little competition can do a lot to improve the product. Other than Nico's document archive, there has no no innovation in Commander net-land in years. Maybe this will spur some effort towards improving that situation. When I first created aerocommander.com, there were pre-existing Commander related web sites. I found them to be lacking in value and decided to create my own - not to cause problems in the community, but to add value. Took a few shots from a few people early on, but more appreciated the effort than not. Could it be that this guy has simply found the existing efforts to be simply insufficient in his eyes and he's trying to do better? I say let him try....and fail or succeed... The "market" will decide. chris ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: chicken or egg
Date: Jan 20, 2006
You make a point but I see it as yet another annoying piece of Email that I have to scrutinize as to whether I am going to delete it or not without viewing it as I do to some 60% of my Email/Spam. I prefer to have one good site (maybe room for improvement) as opposed to many not so good sites. Tom F. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm(at)cox.net> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:14 Subject: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > > >>Take a hike, Joe. If we want a different forum, WE'LL solicit YOU. > > > I've noticed the discussions regarding the person who's trying to put > together some kind of web commander related web site lately. Havn't > really paid any attention as I have little interest these days. Some of > the more acidic comments did strike a bit of a chord however. IMO, > there are some people who are looking at this from a rather strange > perspective. If nobody ever takes the initiative to try to create new > and better things, nothing ever progresses. I have no idea who the > skyhawk guy is and agree that he might be going at whatever he's trying > to accomplish in the wrong way, but more power to him for at least > trying to do something....even if it isn't exactly in harmony with the > status quo. A little competition can do a lot to improve the product. > Other than Nico's document archive, there has no no innovation in > Commander net-land in years. Maybe this will spur some effort towards > improving that situation. > When I first created aerocommander.com, there were pre-existing > Commander related web sites. I found them to be lacking in value and > decided to create my own - not to cause problems in the community, but > to add value. Took a few shots from a few people early on, but more > appreciated the effort than not. Could it be that this guy has simply > found the existing efforts to be simply insufficient in his eyes and > he's trying to do better? I say let him try....and fail or succeed... > The "market" will decide. > > chris > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: chicken or egg
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Perhaps you're right, Chris. What I don't like is the fact that he participates in NO Commander discussions, evidently doesn't own, fly, or want a Commander, and the only indication of his presence is the frequent "go here" emails. When I was first becoming interested in these airplanes, if I'd said, "golly gosh, guys, how would you like an interactive bulletin-board style of forum, and I'll manage it for you?" after properly introducing myself, I think I would have gotten a much better reaction than Joe Skyhawk has. I think it's his approach & attitude causing the problem. /J ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm(at)cox.net> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:14 AM Subject: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > >>>Take a hike, Joe. If we want a different forum, WE'LL solicit YOU. > > > I've noticed the discussions regarding the person who's trying to put > together some kind of web commander related web site lately. Havn't > really paid any attention as I have little interest these days. Some of > the more acidic comments did strike a bit of a chord however. IMO, > there are some people who are looking at this from a rather strange > perspective. If nobody ever takes the initiative to try to create new > and better things, nothing ever progresses. I have no idea who the > skyhawk guy is and agree that he might be going at whatever he's trying > to accomplish in the wrong way, but more power to him for at least > trying to do something....even if it isn't exactly in harmony with the > status quo. A little competition can do a lot to improve the product. > Other than Nico's document archive, there has no no innovation in > Commander net-land in years. Maybe this will spur some effort towards > improving that situation. > When I first created aerocommander.com, there were pre-existing > Commander related web sites. I found them to be lacking in value and > decided to create my own - not to cause problems in the community, but > to add value. Took a few shots from a few people early on, but more > appreciated the effort than not. Could it be that this guy has simply > found the existing efforts to be simply insufficient in his eyes and > he's trying to do better? I say let him try....and fail or succeed... > The "market" will decide. > > chris > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Andrew & Bridget Watson" <andrew.bridget(at)telus.net>
Subject: New "Commander" in the family
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Hi all, I just wanted to share a proud moment in our lives. We've just got back from China with our new "Commander". We completed the adoption of our new daughter, Rebecca Marion Na-Ci Watson, from the Fuzhou Orphanage in Jiangxi province in China on January 10. She's 19 months old and can speak a few words of Mandarin, which is a few more than we can... She copies everything we do, so she'll pick up English very quickly from now. Things have been quite overwhelming for her; the flight from Beijing (where we had to go to complete the Canadian immigration requirements) to Vancouver was difficult, and last night at home was a total upheaval. Time change, totally different surroundings, new things like dogs and cats, and possibly the fact that she recognised that we are now in a house, as opposed to a hotel, probably signified to her that everything was final, all led to a really difficult time last night. One thing that we found really amazing was that she had a Crucifix, a St. Christopher, and a Catholic prayer card in her pocket. There are not many Christian people in China, but those that are, attend Catholic churches, which are officially sanctioned by the state. We're Christians, so it was a real blessing to know that Rebecca's previous care-giver at the orphanage was Christian. A lot of prayer has gone up for our little daughter, and to us, this is God saying "See... I have kept my promise, your daughter is safe and has been loved and cared for by the best person I could find." Rebecca is a beautiful child. Wherever we went people would comment on her beauty (and of course, to criticise us that we weren't dressing her warmly enough - despite the fact that she was sweating under layers of clothing). Her parents "left her to be found" on the steps of the Fuzhou No. 2 Hospital in Fuzhou, Jiangxi, the day after was born. For those of you that have prayed for us on our adoption journey, thank you and keep praying, please! Best regards and God bless, Andrew ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: chicken or egg
Date: Jan 20, 2006
I think Chris S. " doesn't own, fly, or want a Commander" yet he is allowed to participate.....???? bilbo -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Vormbaum Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:33 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: chicken or egg Perhaps you're right, Chris. What I don't like is the fact that he participates in NO Commander discussions, evidently doesn't own, fly, or want a Commander, and the only indication of his presence is the frequent "go here" emails. When I was first becoming interested in these airplanes, if I'd said, "golly gosh, guys, how would you like an interactive bulletin-board style of forum, and I'll manage it for you?" after properly introducing myself, I think I would have gotten a much better reaction than Joe Skyhawk has. I think it's his approach & attitude causing the problem. /J ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm(at)cox.net> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:14 AM Subject: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > >>>Take a hike, Joe. If we want a different forum, WE'LL solicit YOU. > > > I've noticed the discussions regarding the person who's trying to put > together some kind of web commander related web site lately. Havn't > really paid any attention as I have little interest these days. Some of > the more acidic comments did strike a bit of a chord however. IMO, > there are some people who are looking at this from a rather strange > perspective. If nobody ever takes the initiative to try to create new > and better things, nothing ever progresses. I have no idea who the > skyhawk guy is and agree that he might be going at whatever he's trying > to accomplish in the wrong way, but more power to him for at least > trying to do something....even if it isn't exactly in harmony with the > status quo. A little competition can do a lot to improve the product. > Other than Nico's document archive, there has no no innovation in > Commander net-land in years. Maybe this will spur some effort towards > improving that situation. > When I first created aerocommander.com, there were pre-existing > Commander related web sites. I found them to be lacking in value and > decided to create my own - not to cause problems in the community, but > to add value. Took a few shots from a few people early on, but more > appreciated the effort than not. Could it be that this guy has simply > found the existing efforts to be simply insufficient in his eyes and > he's trying to do better? I say let him try....and fail or succeed... > The "market" will decide. > > chris > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: chicken or egg
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Bilbo, True. But Chris's motives are to share knowledge and strengthen the group. We all know he's a fantastic contributor. We don't know Joe Skyhawk's motives, but based on what we've seen here, it's fairly easy to conclude that he just wants to lure people to his site. What has he contributed? Nothing. The interface at his site isn't even that great. As far as knowledge, there doesn't seem to be any of that there either. /John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:46 AM Subject: RE: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > I think Chris S. " doesn't own, fly, or want a Commander" yet he is > allowed > to participate.....???? > > bilbo > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John > Vormbaum > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:33 PM > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > > Perhaps you're right, Chris. What I don't like is the fact that he > participates in NO Commander discussions, evidently doesn't own, fly, or > want a Commander, and the only indication of his presence is the frequent > "go here" emails. > > When I was first becoming interested in these airplanes, if I'd said, > "golly > > gosh, guys, how would you like an interactive bulletin-board style of > forum, > > and I'll manage it for you?" after properly introducing myself, I think I > would have gotten a much better reaction than Joe Skyhawk has. I think > it's > his approach & attitude causing the problem. > > /J > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm(at)cox.net> > To: > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:14 AM > Subject: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > >> >> >>>>Take a hike, Joe. If we want a different forum, WE'LL solicit YOU. >> >> >> I've noticed the discussions regarding the person who's trying to put >> together some kind of web commander related web site lately. Havn't >> really paid any attention as I have little interest these days. Some of >> the more acidic comments did strike a bit of a chord however. IMO, >> there are some people who are looking at this from a rather strange >> perspective. If nobody ever takes the initiative to try to create new >> and better things, nothing ever progresses. I have no idea who the >> skyhawk guy is and agree that he might be going at whatever he's trying >> to accomplish in the wrong way, but more power to him for at least >> trying to do something....even if it isn't exactly in harmony with the >> status quo. A little competition can do a lot to improve the product. >> Other than Nico's document archive, there has no no innovation in >> Commander net-land in years. Maybe this will spur some effort towards >> improving that situation. >> When I first created aerocommander.com, there were pre-existing >> Commander related web sites. I found them to be lacking in value and >> decided to create my own - not to cause problems in the community, but >> to add value. Took a few shots from a few people early on, but more >> appreciated the effort than not. Could it be that this guy has simply >> found the existing efforts to be simply insufficient in his eyes and >> he's trying to do better? I say let him try....and fail or succeed... >> The "market" will decide. >> >> chris >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2006
From: todd(at)hindmarsh.us
Subject: New "Commander" in the family
Congratulations to the Watson's! Todd N6229B > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Commander-List: New "Commander" in the family > From: "Andrew & Bridget Watson" <andrew.bridget(at)telus.net> > Date: Fri, January 20, 2006 1:40 pm > To: > > > Hi all, > > I just wanted to share a proud moment in our lives. > > We've just got back from China with our new "Commander". We completed the adoption of our new daughter, Rebecca Marion Na-Ci Watson, from the Fuzhou Orphanage in Jiangxi province in China on January 10. She's 19 months old and can speak a few words of Mandarin, which is a few more than we can... She copies everything we do, so she'll pick up English very quickly from now. > > Things have been quite overwhelming for her; the flight from Beijing (where we had to go to complete the Canadian immigration requirements) to Vancouver was difficult, and last night at home was a total upheaval. Time change, totally different surroundings, new things like dogs and cats, and possibly the fact that she recognised that we are now in a house, as opposed to a hotel, probably signified to her that everything was final, all led to a really difficult time last night. > > One thing that we found really amazing was that she had a Crucifix, a St. Christopher, and a Catholic prayer card in her pocket. There are not many Christian people in China, but those that are, attend Catholic churches, which are officially sanctioned by the state. We're Christians, so it was a real blessing to know that Rebecca's previous care-giver at the orphanage was Christian. A lot of prayer has gone up for our little daughter, and to us, this is God saying "See... I have kept my promise, your daughter is safe and has been loved and cared for by the best person I could find." > > Rebecca is a beautiful child. Wherever we went people would comment on her beauty (and of course, to criticise us that we weren't dressing her warmly enough - despite the fact that she was sweating under layers of clothing). Her parents "left her to be found" on the steps of the Fuzhou No. 2 Hospital in Fuzhou, Jiangxi, the day after was born. > > For those of you that have prayed for us on our adoption journey, thank you and keep praying, please! > > Best regards and God bless, > Andrew > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Girod" <dongirod(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: New "Commander" in the family
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Congradulations! I think God must be smiling. Don ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew & Bridget Watson" <andrew.bridget(at)telus.net> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:40 PM Subject: Commander-List: New "Commander" in the family > > > Hi all, > > I just wanted to share a proud moment in our lives. > > We've just got back from China with our new "Commander". We completed the > adoption of our new daughter, Rebecca Marion Na-Ci Watson, from the Fuzhou > Orphanage in Jiangxi province in China on January 10. She's 19 months old > and can speak a few words of Mandarin, which is a few more than we can... > She copies everything we do, so she'll pick up English very quickly from > now. > > Things have been quite overwhelming for her; the flight from Beijing > (where we had to go to complete the Canadian immigration requirements) to > Vancouver was difficult, and last night at home was a total upheaval. Time > change, totally different surroundings, new things like dogs and cats, and > possibly the fact that she recognised that we are now in a house, as > opposed to a hotel, probably signified to her that everything was final, > all led to a really difficult time last night. > > One thing that we found really amazing was that she had a Crucifix, a St. > Christopher, and a Catholic prayer card in her pocket. There are not many > Christian people in China, but those that are, attend Catholic churches, > which are officially sanctioned by the state. We're Christians, so it was > a real blessing to know that Rebecca's previous care-giver at the > orphanage was Christian. A lot of prayer has gone up for our little > daughter, and to us, this is God saying "See... I have kept my promise, > your daughter is safe and has been loved and cared for by the best person > I could find." > > Rebecca is a beautiful child. Wherever we went people would comment on her > beauty (and of course, to criticise us that we weren't dressing her warmly > enough - despite the fact that she was sweating under layers of clothing). > Her parents "left her to be found" on the steps of the Fuzhou No. 2 > Hospital in Fuzhou, Jiangxi, the day after was born. > > For those of you that have prayed for us on our adoption journey, thank > you and keep praying, please! > > Best regards and God bless, > Andrew > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jody Pillatzki" <Jpillatzki(at)702com.net>
Subject: chicken or egg
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Actually, he does own a commander. He does love, and has had some other experiences in them before buying his own. I guess I could ask for a bio from everyone before I post or ask questions at this site as well, so that I can profile them to see if they are worth communicating with. Jody Pillatzki P.S. I own a commander as well, and I have a family, and am a Christian, I hope I make to the cut!! -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bow Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 1:47 PM Subject: RE: Commander-List: chicken or egg I think Chris S. " doesn't own, fly, or want a Commander" yet he is allowed to participate.....???? bilbo -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Vormbaum Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:33 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: chicken or egg Perhaps you're right, Chris. What I don't like is the fact that he participates in NO Commander discussions, evidently doesn't own, fly, or want a Commander, and the only indication of his presence is the frequent "go here" emails. When I was first becoming interested in these airplanes, if I'd said, "golly gosh, guys, how would you like an interactive bulletin-board style of forum, and I'll manage it for you?" after properly introducing myself, I think I would have gotten a much better reaction than Joe Skyhawk has. I think it's his approach & attitude causing the problem. /J ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm(at)cox.net> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:14 AM Subject: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > >>>Take a hike, Joe. If we want a different forum, WE'LL solicit YOU. > > > I've noticed the discussions regarding the person who's trying to put > together some kind of web commander related web site lately. Havn't > really paid any attention as I have little interest these days. Some of > the more acidic comments did strike a bit of a chord however. IMO, > there are some people who are looking at this from a rather strange > perspective. If nobody ever takes the initiative to try to create new > and better things, nothing ever progresses. I have no idea who the > skyhawk guy is and agree that he might be going at whatever he's trying > to accomplish in the wrong way, but more power to him for at least > trying to do something....even if it isn't exactly in harmony with the > status quo. A little competition can do a lot to improve the product. > Other than Nico's document archive, there has no no innovation in > Commander net-land in years. Maybe this will spur some effort towards > improving that situation. > When I first created aerocommander.com, there were pre-existing > Commander related web sites. I found them to be lacking in value and > decided to create my own - not to cause problems in the community, but > to add value. Took a few shots from a few people early on, but more > appreciated the effort than not. Could it be that this guy has simply > found the existing efforts to be simply insufficient in his eyes and > he's trying to do better? I say let him try....and fail or succeed... > The "market" will decide. > > chris > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "steve" <steveg(at)nternet.com>
Subject: FW: Airframe life expectancy
Date: Jan 20, 2006
I forwarded Jim's earlier email to my partner and his response is below. I have not had time to review and research as Michael has. Seems crazy to me that Oz sees winglets as capable of cutting a Commanders life in half. My last AC500 had winglets and other than watching for corrosion at the connection points and overall body I see no threat. Just another part of the aircraft to inspect and maintain. Any knowledgeable comments pertaining to Oz. Is Michael misreading something here?? Steve G -----Original Message----- From: Michael Pont [mailto:mpont2(at)bigpond.net.au] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 4:56 PM Subject: RE: Airframe life expectancy I have read all the CASA airworthiness directives for ACs. A 560E can fly full life. Later models with winglets fitted later have their lives halved. This goes for all aircraft with winglets fitted after manufacture. I will have an inspection done before any decision is made. Thanks for the info Michael -----Original Message----- From: steve [mailto:steveg(at)nternet.com] Sent: Saturday, 21 January 2006 12:41 AM Subject: FW: Airframe life expectancy FYI -----Original Message----- From: beech-owners-bounces(at)beechcraft.org [mailto:beech-owners-bounces(at)beechcraft.org] On Behalf Of Jim or Rose Osborn Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 11:05 PM Subject: B: Airframe life expectancy For U.S. certified aircraft, the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) is controlling. Unless the TCDS specifies certain life limits for airframe and/or components, as is the case with certain helicopter components and for pressurized aircraft like the P-Baron and Malibu (about 10,000 hours each), then no other life limits apply. That's true also of aircraft manufactured and certified in any country under the ICAO umbrella. With annual inspections and other ongoing normal maintenance, there's not much risk of GA aircraft falling victim to airframe fatigue without the victim first being voluntarily dispatched to aluminum heaven. Jim Osborn ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: chicken or egg
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Gee, that's great. Why didn't he just say so before hijacking this forum? Incidentally, why doesn't he just stop hijacking it right now, and perhaps introduce himself, like all of us have done over the last few years? /J ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jody Pillatzki" <Jpillatzki(at)702com.net> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:38 PM Subject: RE: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > > Actually, he does own a commander. He does love, and has had some other > experiences in them before buying his own. I guess I could ask for a bio > from everyone before I post or ask questions at this site as well, so that > I > can profile them to see if they are worth communicating with. > > Jody > Pillatzki > > P.S. I own a commander as well, and I have a family, and am a Christian, I > hope I make to the cut!! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bow > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 1:47 PM > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > > I think Chris S. " doesn't own, fly, or want a Commander" yet he is > allowed > to participate.....???? > > bilbo > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John > Vormbaum > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:33 PM > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > > Perhaps you're right, Chris. What I don't like is the fact that he > participates in NO Commander discussions, evidently doesn't own, fly, or > want a Commander, and the only indication of his presence is the frequent > "go here" emails. > > When I was first becoming interested in these airplanes, if I'd said, > "golly > > gosh, guys, how would you like an interactive bulletin-board style of > forum, > > and I'll manage it for you?" after properly introducing myself, I think I > would have gotten a much better reaction than Joe Skyhawk has. I think > it's > his approach & attitude causing the problem. > > /J > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm(at)cox.net> > To: > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:14 AM > Subject: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > >> >> >>>>Take a hike, Joe. If we want a different forum, WE'LL solicit YOU. >> >> >> I've noticed the discussions regarding the person who's trying to put >> together some kind of web commander related web site lately. Havn't >> really paid any attention as I have little interest these days. Some of >> the more acidic comments did strike a bit of a chord however. IMO, >> there are some people who are looking at this from a rather strange >> perspective. If nobody ever takes the initiative to try to create new >> and better things, nothing ever progresses. I have no idea who the >> skyhawk guy is and agree that he might be going at whatever he's trying >> to accomplish in the wrong way, but more power to him for at least >> trying to do something....even if it isn't exactly in harmony with the >> status quo. A little competition can do a lot to improve the product. >> Other than Nico's document archive, there has no no innovation in >> Commander net-land in years. Maybe this will spur some effort towards >> improving that situation. >> When I first created aerocommander.com, there were pre-existing >> Commander related web sites. I found them to be lacking in value and >> decided to create my own - not to cause problems in the community, but >> to add value. Took a few shots from a few people early on, but more >> appreciated the effort than not. Could it be that this guy has simply >> found the existing efforts to be simply insufficient in his eyes and >> he's trying to do better? I say let him try....and fail or succeed... >> The "market" will decide. >> >> chris >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: New "Commander" in the family
Date: Jan 20, 2006
God bless, Andrew and Bridget. A couple of photos would be in order, don't you think? Are you guys Canadian citizens already? Thanks Nico ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew & Bridget Watson" <andrew.bridget(at)telus.net> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:40 AM Subject: Commander-List: New "Commander" in the family > > Hi all, > > I just wanted to share a proud moment in our lives. > > We've just got back from China with our new "Commander". We completed the adoption of our new daughter, Rebecca Marion Na-Ci Watson, from the Fuzhou Orphanage in Jiangxi province in China on January 10. She's 19 months old and can speak a few words of Mandarin, which is a few more than we can... She copies everything we do, so she'll pick up English very quickly from now. > > Things have been quite overwhelming for her; the flight from Beijing (where we had to go to complete the Canadian immigration requirements) to Vancouver was difficult, and last night at home was a total upheaval. Time change, totally different surroundings, new things like dogs and cats, and possibly the fact that she recognised that we are now in a house, as opposed to a hotel, probably signified to her that everything was final, all led to a really difficult time last night. > > One thing that we found really amazing was that she had a Crucifix, a St. Christopher, and a Catholic prayer card in her pocket. There are not many Christian people in China, but those that are, attend Catholic churches, which are officially sanctioned by the state. We're Christians, so it was a real blessing to know that Rebecca's previous care-giver at the orphanage was Christian. A lot of prayer has gone up for our little daughter, and to us, this is God saying "See... I have kept my promise, your daughter is safe and has been loved and cared for by the best person I could find." > > Rebecca is a beautiful child. Wherever we went people would comment on her beauty (and of course, to criticise us that we weren't dressing her warmly enough - despite the fact that she was sweating under layers of clothing). Her parents "left her to be found" on the steps of the Fuzhou No. 2 Hospital in Fuzhou, Jiangxi, the day after was born. > > For those of you that have prayed for us on our adoption journey, thank you and keep praying, please! > > Best regards and God bless, > Andrew > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Subject: Re: FW: Airframe life expectancy
Good Evening Steve, I certainly do not understand why the folks down under want to extract such a penalty from those who attempt to improve their flying machines, but may I make a comment? Adding winglets should make the outer portion of the wing more efficient. Something like a tip plate. Getting a little more lift out there means that the center of pressure (lift) moves outboard a bit. Moving the lifting point outboard causes a greater bending moment at whatever point the bending moment is calculated. It appears to me that the people in charge down there are making those onerous noises in an effort to force someone to develop data that will show the increased bending moment is not great enough to demand cutting the useful life in half. Has anyone developed such data? One the other hand: Why not maintain the airplane as a US registered aircraft? Are we not allowed to fly our US registered airplanes in Australia and then use US standards? Just in case it matters, I do not own a Commander, but I did fly them quite a bit forty to fifty years ago. I enjoy your list, but will leave if asked. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 1/20/2006 5:04:51 P.M. Central Standard Time, steveg(at)nternet.com writes: I forwarded Jim's earlier email to my partner and his response is below. I have not had time to review and research as Michael has. Seems crazy to me that Oz sees winglets as capable of cutting a Commanders life in half. My last AC500 had winglets and other than watching for corrosion at the connection points and overall body I see no threat. Just another part of the aircraft to inspect and maintain. Any knowledgeable comments pertaining to Oz. Is Michael misreading something here?? Steve G ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Re: chicken or egg
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Folks, Let's not get off the deep end here. Anyone with a love for aviation and Commanders in particular would congregate, in a virtual sense, in aviation related websites. This site is particularly enjoyable mostly because of the love we share for this particular airplane and the valuable knowledge that its members share without regard of cost or effort. It's free and people can come and go as they please. The site was built on the shoulders of people who believed that it had a place in the market place of ideas and free speech, and its mere existence proves that they were right. Let's not ask people if they should be here or not; they will leave if what we do doesn't interest them any longer and those that want to be here will not leave unless we insult them. Chris has been a pillar of strength in this community and his efforts in starting the site and getting it off the ground has created momentum from which we all benefit. Skyhawk's insistence on getting people to join his site cuts the wrong way with most folks, and that's my (not always) humble opinion, because he doesn't propose to contribute anything to the site. He has a right to say what he wants - he might not have the privilege of acceptance from everybody. That's my 2c worth. Nico ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jody Pillatzki" <Jpillatzki(at)702com.net> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:38 PM Subject: RE: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > Actually, he does own a commander. He does love, and has had some other > experiences in them before buying his own. I guess I could ask for a bio > from everyone before I post or ask questions at this site as well, so that I > can profile them to see if they are worth communicating with. > > Jody > Pillatzki > > P.S. I own a commander as well, and I have a family, and am a Christian, I > hope I make to the cut!! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bow > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 1:47 PM > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > > I think Chris S. " doesn't own, fly, or want a Commander" yet he is allowed > to participate.....???? > > bilbo > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John > Vormbaum > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:33 PM > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > > Perhaps you're right, Chris. What I don't like is the fact that he > participates in NO Commander discussions, evidently doesn't own, fly, or > want a Commander, and the only indication of his presence is the frequent > "go here" emails. > > When I was first becoming interested in these airplanes, if I'd said, "golly > > gosh, guys, how would you like an interactive bulletin-board style of forum, > > and I'll manage it for you?" after properly introducing myself, I think I > would have gotten a much better reaction than Joe Skyhawk has. I think it's > his approach & attitude causing the problem. > > /J > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm(at)cox.net> > To: > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:14 AM > Subject: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > > > > > > >>>Take a hike, Joe. If we want a different forum, WE'LL solicit YOU. > > > > > > I've noticed the discussions regarding the person who's trying to put > > together some kind of web commander related web site lately. Havn't > > really paid any attention as I have little interest these days. Some of > > the more acidic comments did strike a bit of a chord however. IMO, > > there are some people who are looking at this from a rather strange > > perspective. If nobody ever takes the initiative to try to create new > > and better things, nothing ever progresses. I have no idea who the > > skyhawk guy is and agree that he might be going at whatever he's trying > > to accomplish in the wrong way, but more power to him for at least > > trying to do something....even if it isn't exactly in harmony with the > > status quo. A little competition can do a lot to improve the product. > > Other than Nico's document archive, there has no no innovation in > > Commander net-land in years. Maybe this will spur some effort towards > > improving that situation. > > When I first created aerocommander.com, there were pre-existing > > Commander related web sites. I found them to be lacking in value and > > decided to create my own - not to cause problems in the community, but > > to add value. Took a few shots from a few people early on, but more > > appreciated the effort than not. Could it be that this guy has simply > > found the existing efforts to be simply insufficient in his eyes and > > he's trying to do better? I say let him try....and fail or succeed... > > The "market" will decide. > > > > chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "steve" <steveg(at)nternet.com>
Subject: FW: Airframe life expectancy
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Bob, Your input and knowledge are invaluable. I was part owner of AC500 N6291B with Rob. Now only own Bonanza E35 N52DF and participate on both lists. Dream of owning another AC500 and may wind up doing so with my Australian business associate or may not. Either way, both lists are full of talented, knowledgeable people that feed my thirst for aviation knowledge, particularly involving specific types of aircraft. You even got me looking at the new Xerion for my Bonanza the other day. Might do it!! Thanks, Steve G -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B(at)aol.com Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:36 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: FW: Airframe life expectancy Good Evening Steve, I certainly do not understand why the folks down under want to extract such a penalty from those who attempt to improve their flying machines, but may I make a comment? Adding winglets should make the outer portion of the wing more efficient. Something like a tip plate. Getting a little more lift out there means that the center of pressure (lift) moves outboard a bit. Moving the lifting point outboard causes a greater bending moment at whatever point the bending moment is calculated. It appears to me that the people in charge down there are making those onerous noises in an effort to force someone to develop data that will show the increased bending moment is not great enough to demand cutting the useful life in half. Has anyone developed such data? One the other hand: Why not maintain the airplane as a US registered aircraft? Are we not allowed to fly our US registered airplanes in Australia and then use US standards? Just in case it matters, I do not own a Commander, but I did fly them quite a bit forty to fifty years ago. I enjoy your list, but will leave if asked. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 1/20/2006 5:04:51 P.M. Central Standard Time, steveg(at)nternet.com writes: I forwarded Jim's earlier email to my partner and his response is below. I have not had time to review and research as Michael has. Seems crazy to me that Oz sees winglets as capable of cutting a Commanders life in half. My last AC500 had winglets and other than watching for corrosion at the connection points and overall body I see no threat. Just another part of the aircraft to inspect and maintain. Any knowledgeable comments pertaining to Oz. Is Michael misreading something here?? Steve G ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: List Snipers
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Guys, This wasn't meant to become a flame war; it was just (what I thought) was an appropriate expression of my displeasure at the breach of etiquette exhibited by joe skyhawk. If he's a Commander fan, than by all means, JOIN IN on the discussions. INTRODUCE yourself. I don't even know this person's name--I'm reduced to calling him (her?) joe skyhawk, and he's trying to get me to patronize his site? I live in the Silicon Valley, work in the technology industry, and spend a large part of my life either on the Internet or working on tasks that relate to it. Perhaps I'm a little sensitive. If so, I apologize. /J ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: chicken or egg
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam. Last word. Tom F. ----- Original Message ----- From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 15:35 Subject: Re: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > Folks, > Let's not get off the deep end here. Anyone with a love for aviation and > Commanders in particular would congregate, in a virtual sense, in aviation > related websites. This site is particularly enjoyable mostly because of the > love we share for this particular airplane and the valuable knowledge that > its members share without regard of cost or effort. It's free and people can > come and go as they please. The site was built on the shoulders of people > who believed that it had a place in the market place of ideas and free > speech, and its mere existence proves that they were right. > > Let's not ask people if they should be here or not; they will leave if what > we do doesn't interest them any longer and those that want to be here will > not leave unless we insult them. > > Chris has been a pillar of strength in this community and his efforts in > starting the site and getting it off the ground has created momentum from > which we all benefit. Skyhawk's insistence on getting people to join his > site cuts the wrong way with most folks, and that's my (not always) humble > opinion, because he doesn't propose to contribute anything to the site. He > has a right to say what he wants - he might not have the privilege of > acceptance from everybody. > > That's my 2c worth. > > Nico > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jody Pillatzki" <Jpillatzki(at)702com.net> > To: > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:38 PM > Subject: RE: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > > > > > > Actually, he does own a commander. He does love, and has had some other > > experiences in them before buying his own. I guess I could ask for a bio > > from everyone before I post or ask questions at this site as well, so that > I > > can profile them to see if they are worth communicating with. > > > > Jody > > Pillatzki > > > > P.S. I own a commander as well, and I have a family, and am a Christian, I > > hope I make to the cut!! > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bow > > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 1:47 PM > > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: RE: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > > > > > I think Chris S. " doesn't own, fly, or want a Commander" yet he is > allowed > > to participate.....???? > > > > bilbo > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John > > Vormbaum > > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:33 PM > > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: Re: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > > > > > Perhaps you're right, Chris. What I don't like is the fact that he > > participates in NO Commander discussions, evidently doesn't own, fly, or > > want a Commander, and the only indication of his presence is the frequent > > "go here" emails. > > > > When I was first becoming interested in these airplanes, if I'd said, > "golly > > > > gosh, guys, how would you like an interactive bulletin-board style of > forum, > > > > and I'll manage it for you?" after properly introducing myself, I think I > > would have gotten a much better reaction than Joe Skyhawk has. I think > it's > > his approach & attitude causing the problem. > > > > /J > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm(at)cox.net> > > To: > > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:14 AM > > Subject: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>Take a hike, Joe. If we want a different forum, WE'LL solicit YOU. > > > > > > > > > I've noticed the discussions regarding the person who's trying to put > > > together some kind of web commander related web site lately. Havn't > > > really paid any attention as I have little interest these days. Some of > > > the more acidic comments did strike a bit of a chord however. IMO, > > > there are some people who are looking at this from a rather strange > > > perspective. If nobody ever takes the initiative to try to create new > > > and better things, nothing ever progresses. I have no idea who the > > > skyhawk guy is and agree that he might be going at whatever he's trying > > > to accomplish in the wrong way, but more power to him for at least > > > trying to do something....even if it isn't exactly in harmony with the > > > status quo. A little competition can do a lot to improve the product. > > > Other than Nico's document archive, there has no no innovation in > > > Commander net-land in years. Maybe this will spur some effort towards > > > improving that situation. > > > When I first created aerocommander.com, there were pre-existing > > > Commander related web sites. I found them to be lacking in value and > > > decided to create my own - not to cause problems in the community, but > > > to add value. Took a few shots from a few people early on, but more > > > appreciated the effort than not. Could it be that this guy has simply > > > found the existing efforts to be simply insufficient in his eyes and > > > he's trying to do better? I say let him try....and fail or succeed... > > > The "market" will decide. > > > > > > chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BertBerry1(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Subject: Re: FW: Airframe life expectancy
I must have missed the whole winglets conversation. Is that an article posted somewhere? Bert ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BertBerry1(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Subject: (no subject)
Ok, your probably thinking, why doesn't Bert just go to the website and look through the threads and see what they are talking about. Well normally I would do that but tonight I'm sitting in an airport using my Blackberry and it won't bring up the website for some reason are the other.... Now I'm not a Commander owner either. But I grew up in one and my Dad was a Commander dealer for years. And I think I contribute to the list as much as the other guy. But this can be somewhat of a cold environment sometimes. If this list was intended for JUST CURRENT Commander Owners, Drivers ...etc. then maybe someone should say it and get it over with. Bert ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Allen Reed" <allen_reed2(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: chicken or egg
Date: Jan 20, 2006
If you miss Aerocommander.com ,,,you might be a "RED-NECK" Commander pilot!!! Big Al >From: Chris Schuermann <cschuerm(at)cox.net> >Reply-To: commander-list(at)matronics.com >To: commander-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Commander-List: chicken or egg >Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:14:10 -0600 > > > >>Take a hike, Joe. If we want a different forum, WE'LL solicit YOU. > > >I've noticed the discussions regarding the person who's trying to put >together some kind of web commander related web site lately. Havn't >really paid any attention as I have little interest these days. Some of >the more acidic comments did strike a bit of a chord however. IMO, >there are some people who are looking at this from a rather strange >perspective. If nobody ever takes the initiative to try to create new >and better things, nothing ever progresses. I have no idea who the >skyhawk guy is and agree that he might be going at whatever he's trying >to accomplish in the wrong way, but more power to him for at least >trying to do something....even if it isn't exactly in harmony with the >status quo. A little competition can do a lot to improve the product. >Other than Nico's document archive, there has no no innovation in >Commander net-land in years. Maybe this will spur some effort towards >improving that situation. >When I first created aerocommander.com, there were pre-existing >Commander related web sites. I found them to be lacking in value and >decided to create my own - not to cause problems in the community, but >to add value. Took a few shots from a few people early on, but more >appreciated the effort than not. Could it be that this guy has simply >found the existing efforts to be simply insufficient in his eyes and >he's trying to do better? I say let him try....and fail or succeed... >The "market" will decide. > >chris > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2006
From: Nancy & Roland Gilliam <amg(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: chicken or egg
Hello. Maybe I should formally introduce myself so I won't receive the rath from above. I purchased the 500 Commander from Rob and Steve some months ago. This is my first Commander and I have always wanted one. ,However I have several other planes and like all of them. Not everyone can afford or wants an airplane, but from my point of view the forum is for anyone that is interested in the Aero Commander. I frequent the other site, and see some of the names of you guys on there also. I personally do not think that Skyhawk had any motive other than trying to be friendly in what he posted on this forum. One thing I do like about the other site is a map showing where everyone is located. My name is Roland Gilliam from Carthage N.C, . My airport is Gilliam- Mcconnell Airfield 5nc3 I am not soliciting anything I just like flying (49 years worth) another ancient aviator!! Sincerely Roland PS If my comments are not in order, I'm sure someone will let me know. css ni co wrote: > >Folks, >Let's not get off the deep end here. Anyone with a love for aviation and >Commanders in particular would congregate, in a virtual sense, in aviation >related websites. This site is particularly enjoyable mostly because of the >love we share for this particular airplane and the valuable knowledge that >its members share without regard of cost or effort. It's free and people can >come and go as they please. The site was built on the shoulders of people >who believed that it had a place in the market place of ideas and free >speech, and its mere existence proves that they were right. > >Let's not ask people if they should be here or not; they will leave if what >we do doesn't interest them any longer and those that want to be here will >not leave unless we insult them. > >Chris has been a pillar of strength in this community and his efforts in >starting the site and getting it off the ground has created momentum from >which we all benefit. Skyhawk's insistence on getting people to join his >site cuts the wrong way with most folks, and that's my (not always) humble >opinion, because he doesn't propose to contribute anything to the site. He >has a right to say what he wants - he might not have the privilege of >acceptance from everybody. > >That's my 2c worth. > >Nico > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jody Pillatzki" <Jpillatzki(at)702com.net> >To: >Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:38 PM >Subject: RE: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > > > >> >> > > > >>Actually, he does own a commander. He does love, and has had some other >>experiences in them before buying his own. I guess I could ask for a bio >>from everyone before I post or ask questions at this site as well, so that >> >> >I > > >>can profile them to see if they are worth communicating with. >> >>Jody >>Pillatzki >> >>P.S. I own a commander as well, and I have a family, and am a Christian, I >>hope I make to the cut!! >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com >>[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bow >>Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 1:47 PM >>To: commander-list(at)matronics.com >>Subject: RE: Commander-List: chicken or egg >> >> >>I think Chris S. " doesn't own, fly, or want a Commander" yet he is >> >> >allowed > > >>to participate.....???? >> >>bilbo >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com >>[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John >>Vormbaum >>Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:33 PM >>To: commander-list(at)matronics.com >>Subject: Re: Commander-List: chicken or egg >> >> >>Perhaps you're right, Chris. What I don't like is the fact that he >>participates in NO Commander discussions, evidently doesn't own, fly, or >>want a Commander, and the only indication of his presence is the frequent >>"go here" emails. >> >>When I was first becoming interested in these airplanes, if I'd said, >> >> >"golly > > >>gosh, guys, how would you like an interactive bulletin-board style of >> >> >forum, > > >>and I'll manage it for you?" after properly introducing myself, I think I >>would have gotten a much better reaction than Joe Skyhawk has. I think >> >> >it's > > >>his approach & attitude causing the problem. >> >>/J >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm(at)cox.net> >>To: >>Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:14 AM >>Subject: Commander-List: chicken or egg >> >> >> >> >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> >>>>>Take a hike, Joe. If we want a different forum, WE'LL solicit YOU. >>>>> >>>>> >>>I've noticed the discussions regarding the person who's trying to put >>>together some kind of web commander related web site lately. Havn't >>>really paid any attention as I have little interest these days. Some of >>>the more acidic comments did strike a bit of a chord however. IMO, >>>there are some people who are looking at this from a rather strange >>>perspective. If nobody ever takes the initiative to try to create new >>>and better things, nothing ever progresses. I have no idea who the >>>skyhawk guy is and agree that he might be going at whatever he's trying >>>to accomplish in the wrong way, but more power to him for at least >>>trying to do something....even if it isn't exactly in harmony with the >>>status quo. A little competition can do a lot to improve the product. >>>Other than Nico's document archive, there has no no innovation in >>>Commander net-land in years. Maybe this will spur some effort towards >>>improving that situation. >>>When I first created aerocommander.com, there were pre-existing >>>Commander related web sites. I found them to be lacking in value and >>>decided to create my own - not to cause problems in the community, but >>>to add value. Took a few shots from a few people early on, but more >>>appreciated the effort than not. Could it be that this guy has simply >>>found the existing efforts to be simply insufficient in his eyes and >>>he's trying to do better? I say let him try....and fail or succeed... >>>The "market" will decide. >>> >>>chris >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: chicken or egg or spam?
From: "N395V" <N395V(at)direcway.com>
Date: Jan 20, 2006
[Rolling Eyes] Chris, That is just "plane" weird. :) -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=5615#5615 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: AEROCOMAND(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Subject: Re: New "Commander" in the family
BEST NEWS I HEARD ON JANUARY 20,2006..... HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND U -ALL ADIOS ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Re: chicken or egg
Date: Jan 20, 2006
One thing about the folks on this site - they have a sense of humor. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy & Roland Gilliam" <amg(at)nc.rr.com> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 6:22 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > Hello. > > Maybe I should formally introduce myself so I won't receive the rath > from above. > I purchased the 500 Commander from Rob and Steve some months ago. > This is my first Commander and I have always wanted one. > ,However I have several other planes and like all of them. Not everyone > can afford or wants an airplane, but from my point of view the forum is > for anyone that is interested in the Aero Commander. I frequent the > other site, and see some of the names of you guys on there also. I > personally do not think that Skyhawk had any motive other than trying > to be friendly in what he posted on this forum. One thing I do like > about the other site is a map showing where everyone is located. > My name is Roland Gilliam from Carthage N.C, > . My airport is Gilliam- Mcconnell Airfield 5nc3 > I am not soliciting anything I just like flying (49 years worth) > another ancient aviator!! > > Sincerely > > Roland PS If my comments are not in order, I'm sure > someone will let me know. > > > css ni > co wrote: > > > > >Folks, > >Let's not get off the deep end here. Anyone with a love for aviation and > >Commanders in particular would congregate, in a virtual sense, in aviation > >related websites. This site is particularly enjoyable mostly because of the > >love we share for this particular airplane and the valuable knowledge that > >its members share without regard of cost or effort. It's free and people can > >come and go as they please. The site was built on the shoulders of people > >who believed that it had a place in the market place of ideas and free > >speech, and its mere existence proves that they were right. > > > >Let's not ask people if they should be here or not; they will leave if what > >we do doesn't interest them any longer and those that want to be here will > >not leave unless we insult them. > > > >Chris has been a pillar of strength in this community and his efforts in > >starting the site and getting it off the ground has created momentum from > >which we all benefit. Skyhawk's insistence on getting people to join his > >site cuts the wrong way with most folks, and that's my (not always) humble > >opinion, because he doesn't propose to contribute anything to the site. He > >has a right to say what he wants - he might not have the privilege of > >acceptance from everybody. > > > >That's my 2c worth. > > > >Nico > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Jody Pillatzki" <Jpillatzki(at)702com.net> > >To: > >Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:38 PM > >Subject: RE: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>Actually, he does own a commander. He does love, and has had some other > >>experiences in them before buying his own. I guess I could ask for a bio > >>from everyone before I post or ask questions at this site as well, so that > >> > >> > >I > > > > > >>can profile them to see if they are worth communicating with. > >> > >>Jody > >>Pillatzki > >> > >>P.S. I own a commander as well, and I have a family, and am a Christian, I > >>hope I make to the cut!! > >> > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > >>[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bow > >>Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 1:47 PM > >>To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > >>Subject: RE: Commander-List: chicken or egg > >> > >> > >>I think Chris S. " doesn't own, fly, or want a Commander" yet he is > >> > >> > >allowed > > > > > >>to participate.....???? > >> > >>bilbo > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > >>[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John > >>Vormbaum > >>Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:33 PM > >>To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > >>Subject: Re: Commander-List: chicken or egg > >> > >> > >>Perhaps you're right, Chris. What I don't like is the fact that he > >>participates in NO Commander discussions, evidently doesn't own, fly, or > >>want a Commander, and the only indication of his presence is the frequent > >>"go here" emails. > >> > >>When I was first becoming interested in these airplanes, if I'd said, > >> > >> > >"golly > > > > > >>gosh, guys, how would you like an interactive bulletin-board style of > >> > >> > >forum, > > > > > >>and I'll manage it for you?" after properly introducing myself, I think I > >>would have gotten a much better reaction than Joe Skyhawk has. I think > >> > >> > >it's > > > > > >>his approach & attitude causing the problem. > >> > >>/J > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm(at)cox.net> > >>To: > >>Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:14 AM > >>Subject: Commander-List: chicken or egg > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > >>> > >>>>>Take a hike, Joe. If we want a different forum, WE'LL solicit YOU. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>I've noticed the discussions regarding the person who's trying to put > >>>together some kind of web commander related web site lately. Havn't > >>>really paid any attention as I have little interest these days. Some of > >>>the more acidic comments did strike a bit of a chord however. IMO, > >>>there are some people who are looking at this from a rather strange > >>>perspective. If nobody ever takes the initiative to try to create new > >>>and better things, nothing ever progresses. I have no idea who the > >>>skyhawk guy is and agree that he might be going at whatever he's trying > >>>to accomplish in the wrong way, but more power to him for at least > >>>trying to do something....even if it isn't exactly in harmony with the > >>>status quo. A little competition can do a lot to improve the product. > >>>Other than Nico's document archive, there has no no innovation in > >>>Commander net-land in years. Maybe this will spur some effort towards > >>>improving that situation. > >>>When I first created aerocommander.com, there were pre-existing > >>>Commander related web sites. I found them to be lacking in value and > >>>decided to create my own - not to cause problems in the community, but > >>>to add value. Took a few shots from a few people early on, but more > >>>appreciated the effort than not. Could it be that this guy has simply > >>>found the existing efforts to be simply insufficient in his eyes and > >>>he's trying to do better? I say let him try....and fail or succeed... > >>>The "market" will decide. > >>> > >>>chris > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 21, 2006
Subject: Past Present Future
In a message dated 20-Jan-06 17:01:26 Pacific Standard Time, BertBerry1(at)aol.com writes: If this list was intended for JUST CURRENT Commander Owners, Drivers ...etc. then maybe someone should say it and get it over with. Bert, you and everyone esle is most welcome. We have past, present and future Commander owners and aficionados here: That's what makes this knowledge base so valuable to future and current operators. Those of us who have been here for years value that and are worried about this knowledge base getting diluted -- or polluted. I say let anyone who wants to build a better mousetrap, do so. The hard core information is right here (and on Nico's server) and I forecast this is where it will stay. Wing Commander Gordon (too sane to own an airplane, not sane enough to stop participating in the Commander world) Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Girod" <dongirod(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Past Present Future
Date: Jan 21, 2006
Wing Commander; Your remarks about being too sane to own an airplane, reminds me of a coffee cup I own. Shows an old cowboy sitting at the bar saying, "Spent most of my money on women and beer, the rest I just wasted!" Not exactly sure where my 560E comes into play! Don ----- Original Message ----- From: <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 12:23 AM Subject: Commander-List: Past Present Future > > In a message dated 20-Jan-06 17:01:26 Pacific Standard Time, > BertBerry1(at)aol.com writes: > If this list was intended for JUST CURRENT Commander Owners, Drivers > ...etc. > then maybe someone should say it and get it over with. > Bert, you and everyone esle is most welcome. We have past, present and > future Commander owners and aficionados here: That's what makes this > knowledge base > so valuable to future and current operators. > > Those of us who have been here for years value that and are worried about > this knowledge base getting diluted -- or polluted. > > I say let anyone who wants to build a better mousetrap, do so. The hard > core > information is right here (and on Nico's server) and I forecast this is > where > it will stay. > > Wing Commander Gordon > (too sane to own an airplane, not sane enough to stop participating in the > Commander world) > > Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: Past Present Future
Date: Jan 20, 2006
Excellent, Wing Commander Gordon is in the house! Perhaps you can enlighten me: I seem to have developed a bad habit, or omitted something important. Since I've had my airplane painted, and had new cowl latches put on (tightening the cowlings up quite a bit), had new antennas (antennae?) installed, adjusted the gear doors, and a few other things, all of which have cleaned up the airframe nicely (to the tune of about 6kts in cruise), I've had difficulty on final. I can set the power, enter the pattern, get the gear down, add flaps in 2 stages, and end up configured correctly at 85 kias on final, then give the flaps the last 'notch' to "full flaps" on 1/2 mile final or so, when the landing is assured, and BAM, suddenly I'm at 100kias, trying to slow up before I get over the fence. It feels like simply an attitude issue, like suddenly there's a greater pitch-down tendency than there used to be when I go to full flaps. It didn't used to be this way. I used to be able to come in at ~80kias over the fence and make the first turnoff at 1000 feet...often having to *add* power to pull off the runway. I've now got ~600 hours in the airplane, so although I'm no pro, I'm not exactly new either. So my questions are: 1) Have I started doing something boneheaded? Am I omitting something that should be in my pre-landing checklist? 2) Is this a consequence of the cleaner airframe, and if so, how do I compensate? Fly even slower on downind & base? 3) Am I being too conservative with the flaps? Should I throw full flaps much earlier? Thanks as always, /John PS: PAO is fairly noise-sensitive so I generally have the props pulled pretty far back (2,100 - 2,200 rpm)....but I've flown every approach at home that way since I got the airplane so I can't blame it on not using the props as brakes. ----- Original Message ----- From: <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:23 PM Subject: Commander-List: Past Present Future > > In a message dated 20-Jan-06 17:01:26 Pacific Standard Time, > BertBerry1(at)aol.com writes: > If this list was intended for JUST CURRENT Commander Owners, Drivers > ...etc. > then maybe someone should say it and get it over with. > Bert, you and everyone esle is most welcome. We have past, present and > future Commander owners and aficionados here: That's what makes this > knowledge base > so valuable to future and current operators. > > Those of us who have been here for years value that and are worried about > this knowledge base getting diluted -- or polluted. > > I say let anyone who wants to build a better mousetrap, do so. The hard > core > information is right here (and on Nico's server) and I forecast this is > where > it will stay. > > Wing Commander Gordon > (too sane to own an airplane, not sane enough to stop participating in the > Commander world) > > Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Brady" <westwind(at)hdiss.net>
Cc:
Subject: Re: Past Present Future
Date: Jan 21, 2006
I constantly monitor the list,but by the time I think of a comment other members jump in and say it better than I could or in the case of a "discusion" several people will hash it out and settle it so there is no need for my input. But about every 9 months or so a pressure builds up in me that can only be relieved by the birth of a posting, no matter how inane. First to Chris re: your Ode to Spam(tm) OY VEY! Next to John Vormbaum as you hit the full flap setting do you increase back pressure either with yoke or elevator trim to maintain the speed you want? It may be that with your new mods there is a slight difference in nose attitude that gives you a different windscreen picture than the one you have become accustomed to. As you know when you're close to the ground just a few degrees can make a big difference in the windscreen picture. Some day when you've got GA$ to burn fly over to a quiet strip and do some touch&gos with no flaps, partial flaps and full flaps and make mental notes of the different sound, feel and windscreen picture on each.....they might be close but they will be different. The desert duck@westwind ----- ll" Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:27 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Past Present Future > > Excellent, Wing Commander Gordon is in the house! Perhaps you can > enlighten > me: > > I seem to have developed a bad habit, or omitted something important. > Since > I've had my airplane painted, and had new cowl latches put on (tightening > the cowlings up quite a bit), had new antennas (antennae?) installed, > adjusted the gear doors, and a few other things, all of which have cleaned > up the airframe nicely (to the tune of about 6kts in cruise), I've had > difficulty on final. I can set the power, enter the pattern, get the gear > down, add flaps in 2 stages, and end up configured correctly at 85 kias on > final, then give the flaps the last 'notch' to "full flaps" on 1/2 mile > final or so, when the landing is assured, and BAM, suddenly I'm at > 100kias, > trying to slow up before I get over the fence. It feels like simply an > attitude issue, like suddenly there's a greater pitch-down tendency than > there used to be when I go to full flaps. > > It didn't used to be this way. I used to be able to come in at ~80kias > over > the fence and make the first turnoff at 1000 feet...often having to *add* > power to pull off the runway. I've now got ~600 hours in the airplane, so > although I'm no pro, I'm not exactly new either. > > So my questions are: > > 1) Have I started doing something boneheaded? Am I omitting something that > should be in my pre-landing checklist? > 2) Is this a consequence of the cleaner airframe, and if so, how do I > compensate? Fly even slower on downind & base? > 3) Am I being too conservative with the flaps? Should I throw full flaps > much earlier? > > Thanks as always, > > /John > > PS: PAO is fairly noise-sensitive so I generally have the props pulled > pretty far back (2,100 - 2,200 rpm)....but I've flown every approach at > home > that way since I got the airplane so I can't blame it on not using the > props > as brakes. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> > To: > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:23 PM > Subject: Commander-List: Past Present Future > > >> >> In a message dated 20-Jan-06 17:01:26 Pacific Standard Time, >> BertBerry1(at)aol.com writes: >> If this list was intended for JUST CURRENT Commander Owners, Drivers >> ...etc. >> then maybe someone should say it and get it over with. >> Bert, you and everyone esle is most welcome. We have past, present and >> future Commander owners and aficionados here: That's what makes this >> knowledge base >> so valuable to future and current operators. >> >> Those of us who have been here for years value that and are worried about >> this knowledge base getting diluted -- or polluted. >> >> I say let anyone who wants to build a better mousetrap, do so. The hard >> core >> information is right here (and on Nico's server) and I forecast this is >> where >> it will stay. >> >> Wing Commander Gordon >> (too sane to own an airplane, not sane enough to stop participating in >> the >> Commander world) >> >> Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: chicken or egg
Date: Jan 21, 2006
Well put! Bill Bow -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jody Pillatzki Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:39 PM Subject: RE: Commander-List: chicken or egg Actually, he does own a commander. He does love, and has had some other experiences in them before buying his own. I guess I could ask for a bio from everyone before I post or ask questions at this site as well, so that I can profile them to see if they are worth communicating with. Jody Pillatzki P.S. I own a commander as well, and I have a family, and am a Christian, I hope I make to the cut!! -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bow Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 1:47 PM Subject: RE: Commander-List: chicken or egg I think Chris S. " doesn't own, fly, or want a Commander" yet he is allowed to participate.....???? bilbo -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Vormbaum Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:33 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: chicken or egg Perhaps you're right, Chris. What I don't like is the fact that he participates in NO Commander discussions, evidently doesn't own, fly, or want a Commander, and the only indication of his presence is the frequent "go here" emails. When I was first becoming interested in these airplanes, if I'd said, "golly gosh, guys, how would you like an interactive bulletin-board style of forum, and I'll manage it for you?" after properly introducing myself, I think I would have gotten a much better reaction than Joe Skyhawk has. I think it's his approach & attitude causing the problem. /J ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm(at)cox.net> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:14 AM Subject: Commander-List: chicken or egg > > >>>Take a hike, Joe. If we want a different forum, WE'LL solicit YOU. > > > I've noticed the discussions regarding the person who's trying to put > together some kind of web commander related web site lately. Havn't > really paid any attention as I have little interest these days. Some of > the more acidic comments did strike a bit of a chord however. IMO, > there are some people who are looking at this from a rather strange > perspective. If nobody ever takes the initiative to try to create new > and better things, nothing ever progresses. I have no idea who the > skyhawk guy is and agree that he might be going at whatever he's trying > to accomplish in the wrong way, but more power to him for at least > trying to do something....even if it isn't exactly in harmony with the > status quo. A little competition can do a lot to improve the product. > Other than Nico's document archive, there has no no innovation in > Commander net-land in years. Maybe this will spur some effort towards > improving that situation. > When I first created aerocommander.com, there were pre-existing > Commander related web sites. I found them to be lacking in value and > decided to create my own - not to cause problems in the community, but > to add value. Took a few shots from a few people early on, but more > appreciated the effort than not. Could it be that this guy has simply > found the existing efforts to be simply insufficient in his eyes and > he's trying to do better? I say let him try....and fail or succeed... > The "market" will decide. > > chris > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Subject: Model 680E
Date: Jan 21, 2006
Hi Bert, Well, I've finaly managed to get some sort of cross-tab query run, and saved in .XLS format. Those built as a Model 680E are shown first, apart from the two that were built as a Model 680, then modified and re-serialled as a Model 680E. These two are shown in serial number order, not 680E unit number order. After the straight 680E models, there is an empty line, then, in serial number order are those converted to 680E from other Models. These have their previous history on the preceeding line. For instance, 560A-257 (the 25th 560A) was N2757B, as shown in column "Reg1". It was then modified, still, as N2757B, to 680E, whose history therefore starts under "Reg2". Any queries - just shout. With the query, it cannot give me fates, but I hope the remnants of your records will still have those. Very Best Regards, Barry ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2006
From: W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: FW: Airframe life expectancy
Folks, In Australia, a large variety of aircraft are subject to locally imposed fatigue life limits, they vary from reasonable ( based on the record) through illogical to unreasonable, and finally downright crazy. As to the last, take the Piper Seneca --- It was actually tested in a rig by Piper to Australian designed fatigue criteria, (the test was very severe, amongst other things zero allowance was made for engine or fuel weight for bending relief) and the test was finally stopped at the point where the wing/airframe could be declared "unlimited life" . Never mind, a severe life was imposed "to be consistent"with other aircraft. For pressure hull, don't even start me. Where a wing is re-spared, the rest of the aircraft is limited to two wing lifes. This leads to the wonderful result that a particular C-310 fuselage and tail feathers has two lives ( don't quote me on the figures, but let us say 14 or 28 thousand hours) depending on the wing it is bolted on to!! The history is interesting, the following is a highly biased summary. Some years after the end of WW11, there were lots of P-51D wings around the place, so about 100 new wings were tested to destruction, resulting ( surprise, surprise) in a "bell curve" of failures, and the just slightly contestable claim that Australia has discovered metal fatigue. Despite a more or less identical claim by the poms ( English for those of you who haven't done a Crocodile Dundee refresher recently) as a result of the loss of the "Square window" Comets, and; Despite some fascinating stuff even then on the public record about Boeing experience with the original 338, and the fact that engineering text books put it 100 years or so earlier, in the early days of railways, and some bridge collapses. Compared to any other light twin, the Aero Commander "fatigue AD" limits are not generally a big issue, they are 3 or 4 times the "average". Best regards, Bill Hamilton At 10:35 21/01/2006, you wrote: > > >Good Evening Steve, > >I certainly do not understand why the folks down under want to extract such >a penalty from those who attempt to improve their flying machines, but may I >make a comment? > >Adding winglets should make the outer portion of the wing more efficient. >Something like a tip plate. Getting a little more lift out there >means that the >center of pressure (lift) moves outboard a bit. Moving the lifting point >outboard causes a greater bending moment at whatever point the >bending moment is >calculated. > >It appears to me that the people in charge down there are making those >onerous noises in an effort to force someone to develop data that >will show the >increased bending moment is not great enough to demand cutting the >useful life >in half. > >Has anyone developed such data? > >One the other hand: > >Why not maintain the airplane as a US registered aircraft? Are we not >allowed to fly our US registered airplanes in Australia and then use >US standards? > >Just in case it matters, I do not own a Commander, but I did fly them quite >a bit forty to fifty years ago. I enjoy your list, but will leave if asked. > >Happy Skies, > >Old Bob >AKA >Bob Siegfried >Ancient Aviator >Stearman N3977A >Brookeridge Air Park LL22 >Downers Grove, IL 60516 >630 985-8503 > > >In a message dated 1/20/2006 5:04:51 P.M. Central Standard Time, >steveg(at)nternet.com writes: > >I forwarded Jim's earlier email to my partner and his response is below. I >have not had time to review and research as Michael has. Seems crazy to me >that Oz sees winglets as capable of cutting a Commanders life in half. My >last AC500 had winglets and other than watching for corrosion at the >connection points and overall body I see no threat. Just another part of >the aircraft to inspect and maintain. Any knowledgeable comments >pertaining to Oz. Is Michael misreading something here?? > >Steve G > > CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVILEGE NOTICE W.J.R.Hamilton,Glenalmond Group Companies,Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net. & . This message is intended for and should only be used by the addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged information.If you are not the intended recipient any use distribution,disclosure or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.Confidentiality and legal privilege attached to this communication are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery to you.If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately to Australia 61 (0)408 876 526 Dolores capitis non fero. Eos do. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Deneal Schilmeister (Portege)" <deneals(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: FW: Airframe life expectancy
Date: Jan 21, 2006
Thanks, Bill. As former Chief Pilot for Nomad Distributors in the US, reading your post about aircraft certifications in Australia makes me wonder.... How the heck did the NOMADS ever get certification!!?? ___________________________ Deneal Schilmeister St. Louis - Cincinnati 1997 SL500 http://homepage.mac.com/deneals/SL500.htm http://homepage.mac.com/deneals/Sites/My_Commanders.htm -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of W J R HAMILTON Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 8:50 AM Subject: Re: Commander-List: FW: Airframe life expectancy Folks, In Australia, a large variety of aircraft are subject to locally imposed fatigue life limits, they vary from reasonable ( based on the record) through illogical to unreasonable, and finally downright crazy. As to the last, take the Piper Seneca --- It was actually tested in a rig by Piper to Australian designed fatigue criteria, (the test was very severe, amongst other things zero allowance was made for engine or fuel weight for bending relief) and the test was finally stopped at the point where the wing/airframe could be declared "unlimited life" . Never mind, a severe life was imposed "to be consistent"with other aircraft. For pressure hull, don't even start me. Where a wing is re-spared, the rest of the aircraft is limited to two wing lifes. This leads to the wonderful result that a particular C-310 fuselage and tail feathers has two lives ( don't quote me on the figures, but let us say 14 or 28 thousand hours) depending on the wing it is bolted on to!! The history is interesting, the following is a highly biased summary. Some years after the end of WW11, there were lots of P-51D wings around the place, so about 100 new wings were tested to destruction, resulting ( surprise, surprise) in a "bell curve" of failures, and the just slightly contestable claim that Australia has discovered metal fatigue. Despite a more or less identical claim by the poms ( English for those of you who haven't done a Crocodile Dundee refresher recently) as a result of the loss of the "Square window" Comets, and; Despite some fascinating stuff even then on the public record about Boeing experience with the original 338, and the fact that engineering text books put it 100 years or so earlier, in the early days of railways, and some bridge collapses. Compared to any other light twin, the Aero Commander "fatigue AD" limits are not generally a big issue, they are 3 or 4 times the "average". Best regards, Bill Hamilton At 10:35 21/01/2006, you wrote: > > >Good Evening Steve, > >I certainly do not understand why the folks down under want to extract such >a penalty from those who attempt to improve their flying machines, but may I >make a comment? > >Adding winglets should make the outer portion of the wing more efficient. >Something like a tip plate. Getting a little more lift out there >means that the >center of pressure (lift) moves outboard a bit. Moving the lifting point >outboard causes a greater bending moment at whatever point the >bending moment is >calculated. > >It appears to me that the people in charge down there are making those >onerous noises in an effort to force someone to develop data that >will show the >increased bending moment is not great enough to demand cutting the >useful life >in half. > >Has anyone developed such data? > >One the other hand: > >Why not maintain the airplane as a US registered aircraft? Are we not >allowed to fly our US registered airplanes in Australia and then use >US standards? > >Just in case it matters, I do not own a Commander, but I did fly them quite >a bit forty to fifty years ago. I enjoy your list, but will leave if asked. > >Happy Skies, > >Old Bob >AKA >Bob Siegfried >Ancient Aviator >Stearman N3977A >Brookeridge Air Park LL22 >Downers Grove, IL 60516 >630 985-8503 > > >In a message dated 1/20/2006 5:04:51 P.M. Central Standard Time, >steveg(at)nternet.com writes: > >I forwarded Jim's earlier email to my partner and his response is below. I >have not had time to review and research as Michael has. Seems crazy to me >that Oz sees winglets as capable of cutting a Commanders life in half. My >last AC500 had winglets and other than watching for corrosion at the >connection points and overall body I see no threat. Just another part of >the aircraft to inspect and maintain. Any knowledgeable comments >pertaining to Oz. Is Michael misreading something here?? > >Steve G > > CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVILEGE NOTICE W.J.R.Hamilton,Glenalmond Group Companies,Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net. & . This message is intended for and should only be used by the addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged information.If you are not the intended recipient any use distribution,disclosure or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.Confidentiality and legal privilege attached to this communication are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery to you.If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately to Australia 61 (0)408 876 526 Dolores capitis non fero. Eos do. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "MASON Chevaillier" <kamala(at)msn.com>
Subject: FW: Airframe life expectancy
Date: Jan 21, 2006
suggest that for the technical info on winglets that you go to the source. call john bosh at commander aero 888-881-5580. dick wartinger at commander aero developed these winglets, they hold the stc. also the air force engineneers at the air force facility used there wind tunnels and all available u s government equipment and computing power to arive at the right design for the commander wing. mason ps there are a lot of illegal winglets out there! >From: "steve" <steveg(at)nternet.com> >Reply-To: commander-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RE: Commander-List: FW: Airframe life expectancy >Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:55:48 -0600 > > >Bob, > >Your input and knowledge are invaluable. I was part owner of AC500 N6291B >with Rob. Now only own Bonanza E35 N52DF and participate on both lists. >Dream of owning another AC500 and may wind up doing so with my Australian >business associate or may not. Either way, both lists are full of >talented, >knowledgeable people that feed my thirst for aviation knowledge, >particularly involving specific types of aircraft. You even got me looking >at the new Xerion for my Bonanza the other day. Might do it!! > >Thanks, >Steve G > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of >BobsV35B(at)aol.com >Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:36 PM >To: commander-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: Commander-List: FW: Airframe life expectancy > > >Good Evening Steve, > >I certainly do not understand why the folks down under want to extract such > >a penalty from those who attempt to improve their flying machines, but may >I > >make a comment? > >Adding winglets should make the outer portion of the wing more efficient. >Something like a tip plate. Getting a little more lift out there means that >the >center of pressure (lift) moves outboard a bit. Moving the lifting point >outboard causes a greater bending moment at whatever point the bending >moment is >calculated. > >It appears to me that the people in charge down there are making those >onerous noises in an effort to force someone to develop data that will show >the >increased bending moment is not great enough to demand cutting the useful >life >in half. > >Has anyone developed such data? > >One the other hand: > >Why not maintain the airplane as a US registered aircraft? Are we not >allowed to fly our US registered airplanes in Australia and then use US >standards? > >Just in case it matters, I do not own a Commander, but I did fly them quite > >a bit forty to fifty years ago. I enjoy your list, but will leave if >asked. > >Happy Skies, > >Old Bob >AKA >Bob Siegfried >Ancient Aviator >Stearman N3977A >Brookeridge Air Park LL22 >Downers Grove, IL 60516 >630 985-8503 > > >In a message dated 1/20/2006 5:04:51 P.M. Central Standard Time, >steveg(at)nternet.com writes: > >I forwarded Jim's earlier email to my partner and his response is below. >I >have not had time to review and research as Michael has. Seems crazy to >me >that Oz sees winglets as capable of cutting a Commanders life in half. My >last AC500 had winglets and other than watching for corrosion at the >connection points and overall body I see no threat. Just another part of >the aircraft to inspect and maintain. Any knowledgeable comments >pertaining to Oz. Is Michael misreading something here?? > >Steve G > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Girod" <dongirod(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Past Present Future
Date: Jan 21, 2006
> 1) Have I started doing something boneheaded? Am I omitting something that > should be in my pre-landing checklist? > 2) Is this a consequence of the cleaner airframe, and if so, how do I > compensate? Fly even slower on downind & base? > 3) Am I being too conservative with the flaps? Should I throw full flaps > much earlier? John; I guess its just the old habits coming through, but I put my flaps down much sooner. When flying for a living, the flaps went to 15 (about half) on down wind and over the outer marker or glide slope interception it was full flaps. True we didn't drop the gear so soon like we do in the Commander, but that is because of speed limits on the gear vs. flaps with this airplane. In a typical Boeing that I used to fly it was flaps 15 on downwind, 25 on base, glide slope movement gear down, glide slope intercept, landing flaps. With both the heavies and the Commander, its very little throttle movement once set up. Just my thoughts. Don ________________________________________________________________________________
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 21, 2006
Subject: Final Flaps
In a message dated 20-Jan-06 23:28:20 Pacific Standard Time, john(at)vormbaum.com writes: final, then give the flaps the last 'notch' to "full flaps" on 1/2 mile final or so, when the landing is assured, and BAM, suddenly I'm at 100kias, John, You've gotten some good pointers already on the sight picture and flap operation. Nice work, guys! I went to half flaps prior to turning base or about 2 minutes from final approach fix and then full flaps prior to turning final or one dot from glideslope intercept. One of the glorious things about a Commander is that the flaps will always come up (unlike electric flaps) so use them knowing you can always reduce if needed -- so use more, and earlier than you are now. I doubt that you'll need to reduce flap setting unless you go One Engine Inoperative. But something else is going on here. The Aero Dynamic clean up gave you 6 KIAS at cruise but the sudden increase in speed prior to touchdown makes me wonder about pitot/static changes that may have taken place with all of your "clean up" work. Do you have GPS? Can you get out on an ISA day with no wind and check GPS ground speed vs. indicated? No wind at PAO is a lot to ask for, but now is the time to find a cool, sea level day. I'd be curious about your IAS at different deck angles in approach configuration and full landing configuration and the GPS Ground Speed would help spot whether your indicated speeds are way out of whack. Also, having just been painted, check out your static ports; even your pitot tubes if they were removed or had paint applied near them. One thing I've learned taking 4 Falcons throught RVSM is how critical all that stuff is. Wing Commander Gordon Godless Heathen / Non-Aircraft Owner / Like this site best Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2006
From: Derek Monk <britmonk(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: FW: Airframe life expectancy
I understand that the winglets are purely cosmetic and make no change in the aerodynamic characteristics. Thus the BM should not be changed. However it only takes about a 10% change in load to half the fatigue life of a structure. Perhaps the Ozzies are just playing it safe. Derek Monk BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote: > > > >Good Evening Steve, > >I certainly do not understand why the folks down under want to extract such >a penalty from those who attempt to improve their flying machines, but may I >make a comment? > >Adding winglets should make the outer portion of the wing more efficient. >Something like a tip plate. Getting a little more lift out there means that the >center of pressure (lift) moves outboard a bit. Moving the lifting point >outboard causes a greater bending moment at whatever point the bending moment is >calculated. > >It appears to me that the people in charge down there are making those >onerous noises in an effort to force someone to develop data that will show the >increased bending moment is not great enough to demand cutting the useful life >in half. > >Has anyone developed such data? > >One the other hand: > >Why not maintain the airplane as a US registered aircraft? Are we not >allowed to fly our US registered airplanes in Australia and then use US standards? > >Just in case it matters, I do not own a Commander, but I did fly them quite >a bit forty to fifty years ago. I enjoy your list, but will leave if asked. > >Happy Skies, > >Old Bob >AKA >Bob Siegfried >Ancient Aviator >Stearman N3977A >Brookeridge Air Park LL22 >Downers Grove, IL 60516 >630 985-8503 > > >In a message dated 1/20/2006 5:04:51 P.M. Central Standard Time, >steveg(at)nternet.com writes: > >I forwarded Jim's earlier email to my partner and his response is below. I >have not had time to review and research as Michael has. Seems crazy to me >that Oz sees winglets as capable of cutting a Commanders life in half. My >last AC500 had winglets and other than watching for corrosion at the >connection points and overall body I see no threat. Just another part of >the aircraft to inspect and maintain. Any knowledgeable comments >pertaining to Oz. Is Michael misreading something here?? > >Steve G > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: Past Present Future
Date: Jan 21, 2006
Dan, that's a great suggestion. I probably have to re-learn the picture out the front window with the airframe changes. Thanks! /J ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Brady" <westwind(at)hdiss.net> Cc: Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 3:16 AM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Past Present Future > > I constantly monitor the list,but by the time I think of a comment other > members jump in and say it better than I could or in the case of a > "discusion" several people will hash it out and settle it so there is no > need for my input. But about every 9 months or so a pressure builds up in > me > that can only be relieved by the birth of a posting, no matter how inane. > First to Chris re: your Ode to Spam(tm) OY VEY! Next to John Vormbaum as > you > hit the full flap setting do you increase back pressure either with yoke > or > elevator trim to maintain the speed you want? It may be that with your new > mods there is a slight difference in nose attitude that gives you a > different windscreen picture than the one you have become accustomed to. > As > you know when you're close to the ground just a few degrees can make a big > difference in the windscreen picture. Some day when you've got GA$ to burn > fly over to a quiet strip and do some touch&gos with no flaps, partial > flaps > and full flaps and make mental notes of the different sound, feel and > windscreen picture on each.....they might be close but they will be > different. The desert duck@westwind > ----- ll" > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:27 PM > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Past Present Future > > >> >> Excellent, Wing Commander Gordon is in the house! Perhaps you can >> enlighten >> me: >> >> I seem to have developed a bad habit, or omitted something important. >> Since >> I've had my airplane painted, and had new cowl latches put on (tightening >> the cowlings up quite a bit), had new antennas (antennae?) installed, >> adjusted the gear doors, and a few other things, all of which have >> cleaned >> up the airframe nicely (to the tune of about 6kts in cruise), I've had >> difficulty on final. I can set the power, enter the pattern, get the gear >> down, add flaps in 2 stages, and end up configured correctly at 85 kias >> on >> final, then give the flaps the last 'notch' to "full flaps" on 1/2 mile >> final or so, when the landing is assured, and BAM, suddenly I'm at >> 100kias, >> trying to slow up before I get over the fence. It feels like simply an >> attitude issue, like suddenly there's a greater pitch-down tendency than >> there used to be when I go to full flaps. >> >> It didn't used to be this way. I used to be able to come in at ~80kias >> over >> the fence and make the first turnoff at 1000 feet...often having to *add* >> power to pull off the runway. I've now got ~600 hours in the airplane, so >> although I'm no pro, I'm not exactly new either. >> >> So my questions are: >> >> 1) Have I started doing something boneheaded? Am I omitting something >> that >> should be in my pre-landing checklist? >> 2) Is this a consequence of the cleaner airframe, and if so, how do I >> compensate? Fly even slower on downind & base? >> 3) Am I being too conservative with the flaps? Should I throw full flaps >> much earlier? >> >> Thanks as always, >> >> /John >> >> PS: PAO is fairly noise-sensitive so I generally have the props pulled >> pretty far back (2,100 - 2,200 rpm)....but I've flown every approach at >> home >> that way since I got the airplane so I can't blame it on not using the >> props >> as brakes. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> >> To: >> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:23 PM >> Subject: Commander-List: Past Present Future >> >> >>> >>> In a message dated 20-Jan-06 17:01:26 Pacific Standard Time, >>> BertBerry1(at)aol.com writes: >>> If this list was intended for JUST CURRENT Commander Owners, Drivers >>> ...etc. >>> then maybe someone should say it and get it over with. >>> Bert, you and everyone esle is most welcome. We have past, present and >>> future Commander owners and aficionados here: That's what makes this >>> knowledge base >>> so valuable to future and current operators. >>> >>> Those of us who have been here for years value that and are worried >>> about >>> this knowledge base getting diluted -- or polluted. >>> >>> I say let anyone who wants to build a better mousetrap, do so. The hard >>> core >>> information is right here (and on Nico's server) and I forecast this is >>> where >>> it will stay. >>> >>> Wing Commander Gordon >>> (too sane to own an airplane, not sane enough to stop participating in >>> the >>> Commander world) >>> >>> Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: Past Present Future
Date: Jan 21, 2006
> When flying for a living, the flaps went to 15 (about half) on down > wind and over the outer marker or glide slope interception it was full > flaps. Hi Don, I guess it's a shortcoming of my training; I was trained not to go full flaps until the runway was assured. How do all you other guys manage your flaps in Commanders? /John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: Final Flaps
Date: Jan 21, 2006
Keith, Thanks for the suggestions. I'll practice using the flaps earlier & more than I am now. I also hadn't considered the possible pitot/static implications. I'll definitely have to find a calm ISA day (haha, probably not at PAO!) to test these theories out. In any case, you guys have all given me something to occupy a couple of hours of flying time. And you all know how much you have to twist my arm to go fly! :-) Thanks again to all for the input. /John ----- Original Message ----- From: <CloudCraft(at)aol.com> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 12:08 PM Subject: Commander-List: Final Flaps > > In a message dated 20-Jan-06 23:28:20 Pacific Standard Time, > john(at)vormbaum.com writes: > final, then give the flaps the last 'notch' to "full flaps" on 1/2 mile > final or so, when the landing is assured, and BAM, suddenly I'm at > 100kias, > John, > > You've gotten some good pointers already on the sight picture and flap > operation. Nice work, guys! > > I went to half flaps prior to turning base or about 2 minutes from final > approach fix and then full flaps prior to turning final or one dot from > glideslope intercept. > > One of the glorious things about a Commander is that the flaps will always > come up (unlike electric flaps) so use them knowing you can always reduce > if > needed -- so use more, and earlier than you are now. > > I doubt that you'll need to reduce flap setting unless you go One Engine > Inoperative. > > But something else is going on here. The Aero Dynamic clean up gave you 6 > KIAS at cruise but the sudden increase in speed prior to touchdown makes > me > wonder about pitot/static changes that may have taken place with all of > your > "clean up" work. > > Do you have GPS? Can you get out on an ISA day with no wind and check GPS > ground speed vs. indicated? No wind at PAO is a lot to ask for, but now > is the > time to find a cool, sea level day. > > I'd be curious about your IAS at different deck angles in approach > configuration and full landing configuration and the GPS Ground Speed > would help spot > whether your indicated speeds are way out of whack. > > Also, having just been painted, check out your static ports; even your > pitot > tubes if they were removed or had paint applied near them. > > One thing I've learned taking 4 Falcons throught RVSM is how critical all > that stuff is. > > Wing Commander Gordon > Godless Heathen / Non-Aircraft Owner / Like this site best > > Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2006
From: Chris Schuermann <cschuerm(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Past Present Future
John Vormbaum wrote: > I guess it's a shortcoming of my training; I was trained not to go full > flaps until the runway was assured. John, The replies have been rather interesting and they show quite a diverse range of methodology. I was taught to fly by military instructors and the 'stabilized approach' was always their technique. By the time you were established on final approach, everything was supposed to be set up for landing. Fiddling with flaps, gear, etc was supposed to all complete by then. I ran into a civilian instructor on a bi-annual who chastized me for that technique and said the same thing yours did. Obviously it's not a question of right/wrong, but just technique. The military guys were constantly either pulling an engine or requiring a late go-around during my training which made me comfortable with a quick, last-minute re-configuration so I guess it all works out in the end. I do find I make more regular nice landings on spot when I have plenty of time during a well-established approach though.... chris ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Re: FW: Airframe life expectancy
Date: Jan 21, 2006
Didn't they just feed them kangeroos? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Deneal Schilmeister (Portege)" <deneals(at)sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 7:03 AM Subject: RE: Commander-List: FW: Airframe life expectancy > > Thanks, Bill. > As former Chief Pilot for Nomad Distributors in the US, reading your post > about aircraft certifications in Australia makes me wonder.... > How the heck did the NOMADS ever get certification!!?? > > ___________________________ > Deneal Schilmeister > St. Louis - Cincinnati > 1997 SL500 > http://homepage.mac.com/deneals/SL500.htm > http://homepage.mac.com/deneals/Sites/My_Commanders.htm > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of W J R > HAMILTON > Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 8:50 AM > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Commander-List: FW: Airframe life expectancy > > > > Folks, > In Australia, a large variety of aircraft are subject to locally > imposed fatigue life limits, they vary from reasonable ( based on the > record) through illogical to unreasonable, and finally downright crazy. > > As to the last, take the Piper Seneca --- It was actually tested in a > rig by Piper to Australian designed fatigue criteria, (the test was > very severe, amongst other things zero allowance was made for engine > or fuel weight for bending relief) and the test was finally stopped > at the point where the wing/airframe could be declared "unlimited life" . > > Never mind, a severe life was imposed "to be consistent"with other > aircraft. For pressure hull, don't even start me. > > Where a wing is re-spared, the rest of the aircraft is limited to two > wing lifes. This leads to the wonderful result that a particular > C-310 fuselage and tail feathers has two lives ( don't quote me on > the figures, but let us say 14 or 28 thousand hours) depending on the > wing it is bolted on to!! > > The history is interesting, the following is a highly biased summary. > > Some years after the end of WW11, there were lots of P-51D wings > around the place, so about 100 new wings were tested to destruction, > resulting ( surprise, surprise) in a "bell curve" of failures, and > the just slightly contestable claim that Australia has discovered > metal fatigue. > > Despite a more or less identical claim by the poms ( English for > those of you who haven't done a Crocodile Dundee refresher recently) > as a result of the loss of the "Square window" Comets, and; > > Despite some fascinating stuff even then on the public record about > Boeing experience with the original 338, and the fact that > engineering text books put it 100 years or so earlier, in the early > days of railways, and some bridge collapses. > > Compared to any other light twin, the Aero Commander "fatigue AD" > limits are not generally a big issue, they are 3 or 4 times the "average". > > Best regards, > Bill Hamilton > > > At 10:35 21/01/2006, you wrote: > > > > > > > >Good Evening Steve, > > > >I certainly do not understand why the folks down under want to extract such > >a penalty from those who attempt to improve their flying machines, but may > I > >make a comment? > > > >Adding winglets should make the outer portion of the wing more efficient. > >Something like a tip plate. Getting a little more lift out there > >means that the > >center of pressure (lift) moves outboard a bit. Moving the lifting point > >outboard causes a greater bending moment at whatever point the > >bending moment is > >calculated. > > > >It appears to me that the people in charge down there are making those > >onerous noises in an effort to force someone to develop data that > >will show the > >increased bending moment is not great enough to demand cutting the > >useful life > >in half. > > > >Has anyone developed such data? > > > >One the other hand: > > > >Why not maintain the airplane as a US registered aircraft? Are we not > >allowed to fly our US registered airplanes in Australia and then use > >US standards? > > > >Just in case it matters, I do not own a Commander, but I did fly them quite > >a bit forty to fifty years ago. I enjoy your list, but will leave if > asked. > > > >Happy Skies, > > > >Old Bob > >AKA > >Bob Siegfried > >Ancient Aviator > >Stearman N3977A > >Brookeridge Air Park LL22 > >Downers Grove, IL 60516 > >630 985-8503 > > > > > >In a message dated 1/20/2006 5:04:51 P.M. Central Standard Time, > >steveg(at)nternet.com writes: > > > >I forwarded Jim's earlier email to my partner and his response is below. > I > >have not had time to review and research as Michael has. Seems crazy to > me > >that Oz sees winglets as capable of cutting a Commanders life in half. My > >last AC500 had winglets and other than watching for corrosion at the > >connection points and overall body I see no threat. Just another part of > >the aircraft to inspect and maintain. Any knowledgeable comments > >pertaining to Oz. Is Michael misreading something here?? > > > >Steve G > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVILEGE NOTICE > W.J.R.Hamilton,Glenalmond Group Companies,Fighter Flights Internet > Services and Warbirds.Net. & . > This message is intended for and should only be used by the > addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged > information.If you are not the intended recipient any use > distribution,disclosure or copying of this message is strictly > prohibited.Confidentiality and legal privilege attached to this > communication are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken > delivery to you.If you have received this message in error, please > notify us immediately to Australia 61 (0)408 876 526 > Dolores capitis non fero. Eos do. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Re: FW: Airframe life expectancy
Date: Jan 21, 2006
My understanding is that winglets inhibit the development of wingtip vortices, one of the major players in drag. Am I right? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Derek Monk" <britmonk(at)adelphia.net> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 2:20 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: FW: Airframe life expectancy > > I understand that the winglets are purely cosmetic and make no change in > the aerodynamic characteristics. Thus the BM should not be changed. > However it only takes about a 10% change in load to half the fatigue > life of a structure. Perhaps the Ozzies are just playing it safe. > Derek Monk > > BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > >Good Evening Steve, > > > >I certainly do not understand why the folks down under want to extract such > >a penalty from those who attempt to improve their flying machines, but may I > >make a comment? > > > >Adding winglets should make the outer portion of the wing more efficient. > >Something like a tip plate. Getting a little more lift out there means that the > >center of pressure (lift) moves outboard a bit. Moving the lifting point > >outboard causes a greater bending moment at whatever point the bending moment is > >calculated. > > > >It appears to me that the people in charge down there are making those > >onerous noises in an effort to force someone to develop data that will show the > >increased bending moment is not great enough to demand cutting the useful life > >in half. > > > >Has anyone developed such data? > > > >One the other hand: > > > >Why not maintain the airplane as a US registered aircraft? Are we not > >allowed to fly our US registered airplanes in Australia and then use US standards? > > > >Just in case it matters, I do not own a Commander, but I did fly them quite > >a bit forty to fifty years ago. I enjoy your list, but will leave if asked. > > > >Happy Skies, > > > >Old Bob > >AKA > >Bob Siegfried > >Ancient Aviator > >Stearman N3977A > >Brookeridge Air Park LL22 > >Downers Grove, IL 60516 > >630 985-8503 > > > > > >In a message dated 1/20/2006 5:04:51 P.M. Central Standard Time, > >steveg(at)nternet.com writes: > > > >I forwarded Jim's earlier email to my partner and his response is below. I > >have not had time to review and research as Michael has. Seems crazy to me > >that Oz sees winglets as capable of cutting a Commanders life in half. My > >last AC500 had winglets and other than watching for corrosion at the > >connection points and overall body I see no threat. Just another part of > >the aircraft to inspect and maintain. Any knowledgeable comments > >pertaining to Oz. Is Michael misreading something here?? > > > >Steve G > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Re: Past Present Future
Date: Jan 21, 2006
As I was told (not as long ago as Old Bob) your landing begins at your TOD. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm(at)cox.net> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 4:02 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Past Present Future > > > John Vormbaum wrote: > > I guess it's a shortcoming of my training; I was trained not to go full > > flaps until the runway was assured. > > John, > The replies have been rather interesting and they show quite a diverse > range of methodology. > I was taught to fly by military instructors and the 'stabilized > approach' was always their technique. By the time you were established > on final approach, everything was supposed to be set up for landing. > Fiddling with flaps, gear, etc was supposed to all complete by then. I > ran into a civilian instructor on a bi-annual who chastized me for that > technique and said the same thing yours did. Obviously it's not a > question of right/wrong, but just technique. The military guys were > constantly either pulling an engine or requiring a late go-around during > my training which made me comfortable with a quick, last-minute > re-configuration so I guess it all works out in the end. I do find I > make more regular nice landings on spot when I have plenty of time > during a well-established approach though.... > > chris > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: Past Present Future
Date: Jan 21, 2006
I am beginning to think that the "full flaps when landing assured" technique was for a broad range of airplanes, and to make things a tad safer if you lost an engine during the approach. Keith made me think "aha" when he mentioned that unlike electric flap airplanes, the flaps on a Commander will go UP regardless, as long as you put the lever up. That in my mind makes it a bit safer to use the full range of flaps anywhere on approach. /J ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm(at)cox.net> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 4:02 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Past Present Future > > > John Vormbaum wrote: >> I guess it's a shortcoming of my training; I was trained not to go full >> flaps until the runway was assured. > > John, > The replies have been rather interesting and they show quite a diverse > range of methodology. > I was taught to fly by military instructors and the 'stabilized > approach' was always their technique. By the time you were established > on final approach, everything was supposed to be set up for landing. > Fiddling with flaps, gear, etc was supposed to all complete by then. I > ran into a civilian instructor on a bi-annual who chastized me for that > technique and said the same thing yours did. Obviously it's not a > question of right/wrong, but just technique. The military guys were > constantly either pulling an engine or requiring a late go-around during > my training which made me comfortable with a quick, last-minute > re-configuration so I guess it all works out in the end. I do find I > make more regular nice landings on spot when I have plenty of time > during a well-established approach though.... > > chris > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "" <br549phil(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Past Present Future
Date: Jan 21, 2006
My two cents on flaps. I think when you have only one running, there is great value in following whatever your normal approach routine might be. You already are dealing with one problem, keep it simple and don't add more variables to your routine, they will only increase your workload and invite distraction from the problem at hand. Remember that most accidents are the result of a series of events. An engine out on a Commander need not lead to anything worse than a low speed steering problem once on the ground. Phil > [Original Message] > From: John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com> > To: > Date: 1/21/2006 7:20:09 PM > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Past Present Future > > > I am beginning to think that the "full flaps when landing assured" technique > was for a broad range of airplanes, and to make things a tad safer if you > lost an engine during the approach. Keith made me think "aha" when he > mentioned that unlike electric flap airplanes, the flaps on a Commander will > go UP regardless, as long as you put the lever up. That in my mind makes it > a bit safer to use the full range of flaps anywhere on approach. > > /J > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm(at)cox.net> > To: > Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 4:02 PM > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Past Present Future > > > > > > > > > > John Vormbaum wrote: > >> I guess it's a shortcoming of my training; I was trained not to go full > >> flaps until the runway was assured. > > > > John, > > The replies have been rather interesting and they show quite a diverse > > range of methodology. > > I was taught to fly by military instructors and the 'stabilized > > approach' was always their technique. By the time you were established > > on final approach, everything was supposed to be set up for landing. > > Fiddling with flaps, gear, etc was supposed to all complete by then. I > > ran into a civilian instructor on a bi-annual who chastized me for that > > technique and said the same thing yours did. Obviously it's not a > > question of right/wrong, but just technique. The military guys were > > constantly either pulling an engine or requiring a late go-around during > > my training which made me comfortable with a quick, last-minute > > re-configuration so I guess it all works out in the end. I do find I > > make more regular nice landings on spot when I have plenty of time > > during a well-established approach though.... > > > > chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tylor Hall <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Past Present Future
Date: Jan 21, 2006
I read an accident report on a 500B that crashed on landing during engine out situation. The pilots were not experienced in Twin Commanders and on down wind they put the gear down. The extra drag could not be overcome and they landed about 1/2 mile short and in the trees. Both pilots died. If I was in a engine out situation, I would wait until I had the landing made before dropping the gear. Once down, it is staying there and it will cause a lot of drag. just my $0.02 Tylor Hall On Jan 21, 2006, at 8:49 PM, "" wrote: > > My two cents on flaps. I think when you have only one running, > there is > great value in following whatever your normal approach routine > might be. > You already are dealing with one problem, keep it simple and don't > add more > variables to your routine, they will only increase your workload > and invite > distraction from the problem at hand. Remember that most accidents > are the > result of a series of events. An engine out on a Commander need not > lead to > anything worse than a low speed steering problem once on the ground. > Phil > > >> [Original Message] >> From: John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com> >> To: >> Date: 1/21/2006 7:20:09 PM >> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Past Present Future >> >> >> >> I am beginning to think that the "full flaps when landing assured" > technique >> was for a broad range of airplanes, and to make things a tad safer >> if you >> lost an engine during the approach. Keith made me think "aha" when he >> mentioned that unlike electric flap airplanes, the flaps on a >> Commander > will >> go UP regardless, as long as you put the lever up. That in my mind >> makes > it >> a bit safer to use the full range of flaps anywhere on approach. >> >> /J >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm(at)cox.net> >> To: >> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 4:02 PM >> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Past Present Future >> >> > >>> >>> >>> >>> John Vormbaum wrote: >>>> I guess it's a shortcoming of my training; I was trained not to >>>> go full >>>> flaps until the runway was assured. >>> >>> John, >>> The replies have been rather interesting and they show quite a >>> diverse >>> range of methodology. >>> I was taught to fly by military instructors and the 'stabilized >>> approach' was always their technique. By the time you were >>> established >>> on final approach, everything was supposed to be set up for landing. >>> Fiddling with flaps, gear, etc was supposed to all complete by >>> then. I >>> ran into a civilian instructor on a bi-annual who chastized me >>> for that >>> technique and said the same thing yours did. Obviously it's not a >>> question of right/wrong, but just technique. The military guys >>> were >>> constantly either pulling an engine or requiring a late go-around >>> during >>> my training which made me comfortable with a quick, last-minute >>> re-configuration so I guess it all works out in the end. I do >>> find I >>> make more regular nice landings on spot when I have plenty of time >>> during a well-established approach though.... >>> >>> chris >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Kirkwood" <bkirkwoo(at)elp.rr.com>
Subject: Wiring Harness, GO480-G1B6, 560E
Date: Jan 22, 2006
I am in the process of installing a "new" engine on my 560E and would like to order a new ignition harness. Does anyone know the Champion part number that would be appropriate? Also, in the inter-cylinder baffling there is a hole with a rubber grommet in it that appears to be where the ignition wires should be routed to the bottom cylinders. These holes weren't used in the previous installation. Should they be used? If not, should they be plugged so air doesn't go through them? Thanks. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "MASON Chevaillier" <kamala(at)msn.com>
Subject: Wiring Harness, GO480-G1B6, 560E
Date: Jan 22, 2006
bk, aircraft spruce just gave me a very reasonable quote to order a wire harness through them. mason >From: "Bill Kirkwood" <bkirkwoo(at)elp.rr.com> >Reply-To: commander-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: Commander-List: Wiring Harness, GO480-G1B6, 560E >Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 06:12:52 -0800 > > >I am in the process of installing a "new" engine on my 560E and would like >to order a new ignition harness. Does anyone know the Champion part number >that would be appropriate? >Also, in the inter-cylinder baffling there is a hole with a rubber grommet >in it that appears to be where the ignition wires should be routed to the >bottom cylinders. These holes weren't used in the previous installation. >Should they be used? If not, should they be plugged so air doesn't go >through them? >Thanks. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "MASON Chevaillier" <kamala(at)msn.com>
Subject: Wiring Harness, GO480-G1B6, 560E
Date: Jan 22, 2006
bk, ps the persons name was rick morino at aircraft spruce. mason >From: "Bill Kirkwood" <bkirkwoo(at)elp.rr.com> >Reply-To: commander-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: Commander-List: Wiring Harness, GO480-G1B6, 560E >Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 06:12:52 -0800 > > >I am in the process of installing a "new" engine on my 560E and would like >to order a new ignition harness. Does anyone know the Champion part number >that would be appropriate? >Also, in the inter-cylinder baffling there is a hole with a rubber grommet >in it that appears to be where the ignition wires should be routed to the >bottom cylinders. These holes weren't used in the previous installation. >Should they be used? If not, should they be plugged so air doesn't go >through them? >Thanks. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2006
From: Donnie Rose <aquadiver99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Service
Good morning all! Can anyone tell me the best place to get air filters, oil, and oil screen gaskets {50-100 service items}. Thank you all for your help in advance. Donnie Rose Donnie Rose 205/492-8444 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 23, 2006
Subject: Re: FW: Airframe life expectancy
The Commander Aero Winglet, for the 500S was a copy of the factory tip for the 695 series. It was first put on AvFuel's Shrike. It does help low speed roll control bit does nothing for the high end. It was certified as "no change in performance" to save having to prove the numbers. Flutter test were done but no high speed computer modeling was done to my knowledge. The engineers at Wright Patterson did look at them but again, to my knowledge, they only gave an opinion. They did think that they were about as good as you could get without a major re design. They do look good and in my judgment really help low speed activities like take off, low speed roll control, maybe even single engine climb. But there is nothing to prove it. Oh Yeah, I did the flight test for Dick. There are some great reports on wing life expectancy floating around, I use to have a copy but I cant find it. It showed the fatigue life calculations for the different models based on hours and flight profile cycles. It was really neat. Low altitude aerial survey significantly reduced the life of the wing. I also saw the test facility at Norman, OK where they did the cycle life test on the 1000. As I remember they bent the wings 33 inches at the tip and pressurized the cabin to 21 psi before the cabin door blew off! It was cool! When I saw it, they had reached 21K hours and were still testing. Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 23, 2006
Subject: Re: Past, Present, Future
Jets use full flap approaches to keep the engines spooled up to reduce engine response time in the event of a go around or wind shear. Prop aircraft, ie Commanders, do not have that problem. So, full flaps when the landing is assured is still proper in the Commander. Jets also reduced the flap settings to meet Stage II and III noise requirements and did carry that setting to landing. I know one case, the DC-9-30 series reduced the landing flaps from 50 deg. to 40 for vibration. Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2006
From: W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
Subject: FW: Airframe life expectancy
Deneal, Given some of the more endearing characteristics of the Nomad ( not to be confused with the North American NA-260 Nomad, the civil certified T-28, one R. Hoover, Esq, not entirely unknown to Aero Commander or P-51 aficionados, project test pilot) perhaps a better question is "Why was the Nomad certified at all". One characteristic it shared with its North American namesake was all the performance of a polished crowbar when it all went quiet. You probably visited the Government Aircraft Factory at Avalon, Victoria, the way that place worked, it was quite amazing that the aeroplane ever got out the factory door. Bear in mind that many of the staff , particularly design staff, at the GAF, were refugees from the collapse of the British aircraft industry, to say the least there was a certain prejudice against anything from US, many of the professional engineers in (those days) the Department of Civil Aviation were also from the same bulk store. The fact that "a good solid aeroplane" like the DH Chipmunk has severe aircraft life limits, (starting at 5500 hours) and for good reasons, never dented the prejudice against spam cans , anything made by Piper, Beech or Cessna, despite some C-172 racking up 20,000 plus on the original structure. Note, spam here is not what you get every time you download your email, but a particularly nasty tinned "meat" more properly called Imperial Camp Pie, if my memory serves me correctly. My recollection of the 'orrible stuff is very clear, even if the name isn't. The same prejudice was and is displayed against airline aircraft, despite the fact that we lost a number of Vickers Viscounts from in-flight breakups for various reasons, DH 104 Dove's didn't like Australian air at all, all the later Tridents were withdrawn from service due fatigue problems,and the story goes on --- but there has been no such parallel with DC-3/4/6, L-049/749/1049/1049G/L-177/DC-9/B707-138/338/B-747-238/338/438/SP/B-767-238/338 --- get the drift. I worked for Qantas for many years, Qantas started international services with a dreadful four engine bi-plane, the DH-86A. There are none in museums, every single one crashed. The very first Qantas aircraft was nearly lost near Cairo on the delivery, flown by a Qantas crew. The second delivery, flown by an Imperial Airways crew, was lost with all aboard, at Longreach, Queensland. Our major competition, KLM, was flying Lockheed14 , DC-2 and DC-3, but the operation of US aircraft over "Imperial Routes was banned. This did not change until after WW11. Folks, I hope you are not bored with all this, its not much to do with Commanders, but you see what happens when somebody gets me started, but at least Bob Hoover rated a mention.' Cheers, Bill Hamilton At 02:03 22/01/2006, you wrote: >(Portege)" > >Thanks, Bill. >As former Chief Pilot for Nomad Distributors in the US, reading your post >about aircraft certifications in Australia makes me wonder.... >How the heck did the NOMADS ever get certification!!?? > >___________________________ >Deneal Schilmeister >St. Louis - Cincinnati >1997 SL500 >http://homepage.mac.com/deneals/SL500.htm >http://homepage.mac.com/deneals/Sites/My_Commanders.htm CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVILEGE NOTICE W.J.R.Hamilton,Glenalmond Group Companies,Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net. & . This message is intended for and should only be used by the addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged information.If you are not the intended recipient any use distribution,disclosure or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.Confidentiality and legal privilege attached to this communication are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery to you.If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately to Australia 61 (0)408 876 526 Dolores capitis non fero. Eos do. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "MASON CHEVAILLIER" <Kamala(at)msn.com>
Subject:
Date: Jan 23, 2006
HELP! DOES ANYONE HAVE LYC PART NUMBER LW-11147+ BRACKET, ALTERNATOR BELT ADJUSTING 78639 PULLEY AND SHAFT ASSY 78614 PULLEY ETC. THE PRESTOLITE ALTERNATOR ALV6403LS BROKE AND TOOK OUT THE IDLER ARM AND THE TENSIONER. ANY IDEAS EXCEPT LYCOMING WOULD BE APPRECIATED. MASON ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BertBerry1(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 23, 2006
Subject: AERO COMMANDERS ON DISPLAY
Does anyone know of any Aero Commanders on display besides the ones located at Military Museums? Thanks, Bert ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "steve" <steveg(at)nternet.com>
Subject: AERO COMMANDERS ON DISPLAY
Date: Jan 23, 2006
Yep, a couple sitting in the grass at Herrera airport Santo Domingo Dominican Republic. From: BertBerry1(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 23, 2006
Subject: Re: AERO COMMANDERS ON DISPLAY
Thanks Steve, I don't get by there too often. Don't you have some photos of those? Bert ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2006
From: Chris Schuermann <cschuerm(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AERO COMMANDERS ON DISPLAY
BertBerry1(at)aol.com wrote: > Does anyone know of any Aero Commanders on display Liberal, KS air museum ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "steve" <steveg(at)nternet.com>
Subject: AERO COMMANDERS ON DISPLAY
Date: Jan 23, 2006
Yep, in for development. Should be able to pick them up tomorrow. Will post to Nico than. Steve G. -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BertBerry1(at)aol.com Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 2:45 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: AERO COMMANDERS ON DISPLAY Thanks Steve, I don't get by there too often. Don't you have some photos of those? Bert ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BertBerry1(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 23, 2006
Subject: Re: AERO COMMANDERS ON DISPLAY
which two where they steve? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "steve" <steveg(at)nternet.com>
Subject: AERO COMMANDERS ON DISPLAY
Date: Jan 23, 2006
Bert, I took the pictures a month or so ago and don't remember the N numbers. But I did make sure to get that in each pic. It will be a surprise for us all. Steve G. -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BertBerry1(at)aol.com Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 3:00 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: AERO COMMANDERS ON DISPLAY which two where they steve? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2006
From: Dave <vinophile(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Commanders on Display
March AFB has a 520, S/N 52-6218 on display. David Mulligan Park City, UT ________________________________________________________________________________
From: AEROCOMAND(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 23, 2006
Subject: Re: AERO COMMANDERS ON DISPLAY
Bob Hoover's is under and SST at the Smithonian... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Girod" <dongirod(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Russian Airshow
Date: Jan 23, 2006
Thought some of you might enjoy these photos. Don The Russian's field some very beautiful aircraft!! Check the link below. Subject: Russian Airshow photos Vatch owt 4 da Russkies..... In the following link are some superb photos of an a Russian airshow that is rivaling Farnborough and Paris: http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Maks2005/Highlights/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Girod" <dongirod(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: AERO COMMANDERS ON DISPLAY
Date: Jan 23, 2006
There is one at the Warner Robin Air Musuem, Don >> Does anyone know of any Aero Commanders on display > > > Liberal, KS air museum > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Boelte" <n55bz(at)cox.net>
Subject: AERO COMMANDERS ON DISPLAY
Date: Jan 24, 2006
There is one on display at the Wedell Williams Air Museum at Patterson, LA. KPTN It is reported to be one in which Eisenhower flew. Bill -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Girod Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 7:57 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: AERO COMMANDERS ON DISPLAY There is one at the Warner Robin Air Musuem, Don >> Does anyone know of any Aero Commanders on display > > > Liberal, KS air museum > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 24, 2006
Subject: Re: New "Commander" in the family
In a message dated 1/20/2006 11:41:54 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, andrew.bridget(at)telus.net writes: Best regards and God bless, Andrew WOW!!!!! Great story. Thanks for sharing. jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 24, 2006
Subject: Re: AERO COMMANDERS ON DISPLAY
US Air Force Museum in Dayton Ohio ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 24, 2006
Subject: Re: Service
Challenger Aviation is certifying K&N air filters for flat nacelle Commanders. Call Chuck Rocco at 937-667-0510. I have no idea what they will cost. Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 24, 2006
Subject: Re: flaps and flexibility
I recommend full flaps on all landings except maybe very icy runways. Use differential power when exceeding more than 1/2 rudder travel. When on the ground the aircraft has a negative angle of attack and sticks quite well. Raising the flaps after touchdown helps some but they retract so slow you will be stopped before they are completely up. Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 24, 2006
Subject: Re: Past Present Future
I agree with Phil. Single engine landings should be a non event if normal landing procedures are followed, including use of flaps except do not extend gear until you are on the glide slope or started down from a VFR traffic pattern. Go to final flaps when the run way is made. DO NOT add extra airspeed because the plane will float when you cut the power because of the lack of drag from the feathered prop. It is amazing how may single engine landings end up in runway overruns! I offer training on single engine operations during recurrent training. Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2006
From: Derek Monk <britmonk(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: FW: Airframe life expectancy
Nico, The wingtip vortex causes a downflow on the wing tip which reduces lift. To maintain the necessary lift the wing AOA has to be increased thus increasing the wing drag. The properly designed (and tested) winglet will minimize the downflow thus increasing the lift at the outer wing. Thus less AOA is needed, hence lower drag. Some people look at it as an effective increase in wing span, i.e. wing efficiency. css nico wrote: > >My understanding is that winglets inhibit the development of wingtip >vortices, one of the major players in drag. Am I right? > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Derek Monk" <britmonk(at)adelphia.net> >To: >Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 2:20 PM >Subject: Re: Commander-List: FW: Airframe life expectancy > > > > >> >>I understand that the winglets are purely cosmetic and make no change in >>the aerodynamic characteristics. Thus the BM should not be changed. >>However it only takes about a 10% change in load to half the fatigue >>life of a structure. Perhaps the Ozzies are just playing it safe. >>Derek Monk >> >>BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>Good Evening Steve, >>> >>>I certainly do not understand why the folks down under want to extract >>> >>> >such > > >>>a penalty from those who attempt to improve their flying machines, but >>> >>> >may I > > >>>make a comment? >>> >>>Adding winglets should make the outer portion of the wing more efficient. >>>Something like a tip plate. Getting a little more lift out there means >>> >>> >that the > > >>>center of pressure (lift) moves outboard a bit. Moving the lifting point >>>outboard causes a greater bending moment at whatever point the bending >>> >>> >moment is > > >>>calculated. >>> >>>It appears to me that the people in charge down there are making those >>>onerous noises in an effort to force someone to develop data that will >>> >>> >show the > > >>>increased bending moment is not great enough to demand cutting the useful >>> >>> >life > > >>>in half. >>> >>>Has anyone developed such data? >>> >>>One the other hand: >>> >>>Why not maintain the airplane as a US registered aircraft? Are we not >>>allowed to fly our US registered airplanes in Australia and then use US >>> >>> >standards? > > >>>Just in case it matters, I do not own a Commander, but I did fly them >>> >>> >quite > > >>>a bit forty to fifty years ago. I enjoy your list, but will leave if >>> >>> >asked. > > >>>Happy Skies, >>> >>>Old Bob >>>AKA >>>Bob Siegfried >>>Ancient Aviator >>>Stearman N3977A >>>Brookeridge Air Park LL22 >>>Downers Grove, IL 60516 >>>630 985-8503 >>> >>> >>>In a message dated 1/20/2006 5:04:51 P.M. Central Standard Time, >>>steveg(at)nternet.com writes: >>> >>>I forwarded Jim's earlier email to my partner and his response is below. >>> >>> >I > > >>>have not had time to review and research as Michael has. Seems crazy to >>> >>> >me > > >>>that Oz sees winglets as capable of cutting a Commanders life in half. >>> >>> >My > > >>>last AC500 had winglets and other than watching for corrosion at the >>>connection points and overall body I see no threat. Just another part >>> >>> >of > > >>>the aircraft to inspect and maintain. Any knowledgeable comments >>>pertaining to Oz. Is Michael misreading something here?? >>> >>>Steve G >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Airframe life expectancy
From: "N395V" <N395V(at)direcway.com>
Date: Jan 25, 2006
nico(at)cybersuperstore.c wrote: > My understanding is that winglets inhibit the development of wingtip > vortices, one of the major players in drag. Am I right? > > --- Nico, That is correct go to the link below and look at page 12 of the PDF file [/url]http://www.commander-aero.com/image/Cat04.pdf[/url] Interestingly it does not increase lift so should not affect fatigue life of the wing. -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=6709#6709 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Past Present Future
From: "N395V" <N395V(at)direcway.com>
Date: Jan 25, 2006
> Single engine landings should be a non event if normal > landing procedures are followed, I have only lost an engine once and that was in the 685. Trimmed the plane and used my normal landing procedurs except hoding the gear up until the landing was assured. It was a non event except as John mentioned above it became a ground steering problem once I slowed to a taxi. -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=6713#6713 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2006
From: cloudcraft(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: flaps and flexibility
Outstanding advice from Bill Leff. Since Mr. Leff brought up the icy runway idea ... the ONLY time I'd use less than full flaps when landing a Twin Commander was if I was carrying airframe ice on the approach. Full flaps could aggravate a tail plane stall. I wonder if anyone else caught the very sublte but very important hint: Bill Leff is offering Commander Training. If I was looking for Commander training, I'd go to him (and I used to make my living doing Commander training!). I've landed in snarling, ripping, Santa Anas tumbleweed blowing, sand-blasting, 90 degree cross winds in a Commander. Full flaps. Differential power does the trick, coupled with that nice high wing that allows all the side slip bank angle you could ever want. Wing Commander Gordon Imperial Meat Pie? Bill Hamilton, I may print and frame your Oz Aviation History post! -----Original Message----- From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com To: commander-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Re: Commander-List: flaps and flexibility I recommend full flaps on all landings except maybe very icy runways. Use differential power when exceeding more than 1/2 rudder travel. When on the ground the aircraft has a negative angle of attack and sticks quite well. Raising the flaps after touchdown helps some but they retract so slow you will be stopped before they are completely up. Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: flaps and flexibility
From: "N395V" <N395V(at)direcway.com>
Date: Jan 25, 2006
> Outstanding advice from Bill Leff. > There is nothing safer than intimate knowledge of your plane from an operational and design standpoint. It was Keiths intimate knowledge of the 685 that enabled me to finally become a competent pilot and a complement from Keith is indeed high praise. -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=6728#6728 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert Steele" <bob.steele(at)kzf.com>
Subject: flaps and flexibility
Date: Jan 25, 2006
I will second WCG's suggestion on Bill. And I speak from experience. I bought my Commander without having my ME rating. Dick Wartinger did the pre-buy for me and then hooked me up with Bill. At the time Bill was an MD-80 instructor at TWA (now American). Due to insurance requirements I had to spend 25 hours with him and I can tell you he did everything in the world to me - including pulling engines on take off roll - before and just after take off (and on hot days). Bill is definitely old school as well as new school. I think I was his first piston student in 20 years - so he insisted on the best of the good-old-days as well as the new stuff of today. One of the best things he had me do was may make an actual single engine landing - not simulated - but feathered left engine out - and because of his training it was a snap - and it was as if he had ESP. To make a long story short - on my ME check ride (with a for-real FAA employee as the examiner) I actually had to make a single engine landing. It was a very hot summer day in August and we were 10 miles from the airport with the right engine out (long story there). Due to Bill's training I was not a bit nervous and the landing at Lunken was a breeze - even taxied all the way back to the FBO and parked her in an out of the way spot! (I got a discontinuance because the FAA man wanted two to see two more take offs and landings - which he got out of me two weeks later.) Thanks to Dick Wartinger I now a have a great instructor and a friend. Bob Steele Prestigious Holder of the 2005 Golden Rudder Award Can't wait to give it to someone else in Dayton this summer -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of cloudcraft(at)aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:33 AM Subject: Re: Commander-List: flaps and flexibility Outstanding advice from Bill Leff. Since Mr. Leff brought up the icy runway idea ... the ONLY time I'd use less than full flaps when landing a Twin Commander was if I was carrying airframe ice on the approach. Full flaps could aggravate a tail plane stall. I wonder if anyone else caught the very sublte but very important hint: Bill Leff is offering Commander Training. If I was looking for Commander training, I'd go to him (and I used to make my living doing Commander training!). I've landed in snarling, ripping, Santa Anas tumbleweed blowing, sand-blasting, 90 degree cross winds in a Commander. Full flaps. Differential power does the trick, coupled with that nice high wing that allows all the side slip bank angle you could ever want. Wing Commander Gordon Imperial Meat Pie? Bill Hamilton, I may print and frame your Oz Aviation History post! -----Original Message----- From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com To: commander-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Re: Commander-List: flaps and flexibility I recommend full flaps on all landings except maybe very icy runways. Use differential power when exceeding more than 1/2 rudder travel. When on the ground the aircraft has a negative angle of attack and sticks quite well. Raising the flaps after touchdown helps some but they retract so slow you will be stopped before they are completely up. Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Re: flaps and flexibility
Date: Jan 25, 2006
Great history, Bob. What's the golden rudder award, Bob? Pardon my ignorance. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Steele" <bob.steele(at)kzf.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:42 AM Subject: RE: Commander-List: flaps and flexibility > > I will second WCG's suggestion on Bill. And I speak from experience. > > I bought my Commander without having my ME rating. Dick Wartinger did the > pre-buy for me and then hooked me up with Bill. At the time Bill was an > MD-80 instructor at TWA (now American). Due to insurance requirements I had > to spend 25 hours with him and I can tell you he did everything in the world > to me - including pulling engines on take off roll - before and just after > take off (and on hot days). Bill is definitely old school as well as new > school. I think I was his first piston student in 20 years - so he insisted > on the best of the good-old-days as well as the new stuff of today. > > One of the best things he had me do was may make an actual single engine > landing - not simulated - but feathered left engine out - and because of his > training it was a snap - and it was as if he had ESP. To make a long story > short - on my ME check ride (with a for-real FAA employee as the examiner) I > actually had to make a single engine landing. It was a very hot summer day > in August and we were 10 miles from the airport with the right engine out > (long story there). Due to Bill's training I was not a bit nervous and the > landing at Lunken was a breeze - even taxied all the way back to the FBO and > parked her in an out of the way spot! (I got a discontinuance because the > FAA man wanted two to see two more take offs and landings - which he got out > of me two weeks later.) > > Thanks to Dick Wartinger I now a have a great instructor and a friend. > > Bob Steele > Prestigious Holder of the 2005 Golden Rudder Award > Can't wait to give it to someone else in Dayton this summer > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of > cloudcraft(at)aol.com > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:33 AM > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Commander-List: flaps and flexibility > > > Outstanding advice from Bill Leff. > > Since Mr. Leff brought up the icy runway idea ... the ONLY time I'd > use less than full flaps when landing a Twin Commander was if I was > carrying airframe ice on the approach. Full flaps could aggravate a > tail plane stall. > > I wonder if anyone else caught the very sublte but very important > hint: Bill Leff is offering Commander Training. If I was looking for > Commander training, I'd go to him (and I used to make my living doing > Commander training!). > > I've landed in snarling, ripping, Santa Anas tumbleweed blowing, > sand-blasting, 90 degree cross winds in a Commander. Full flaps. > Differential power does the trick, coupled with that nice high wing > that allows all the side slip bank angle you could ever want. > > Wing Commander Gordon > > Imperial Meat Pie? Bill Hamilton, I may print and frame your Oz > Aviation History post! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Commander-List: flaps and flexibility > > > I recommend full flaps on all landings except maybe very icy runways. > Use > differential power when exceeding more than 1/2 rudder travel. When on > the > ground the aircraft has a negative angle of attack and sticks quite > well. > Raising the flaps after touchdown helps some but they retract so slow > you will > be > stopped before they are completely up. > > Bill Leff > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2006
From: Donnie Rose <aquadiver99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Service
Thank you very much for the info Bill and GOOD FLYING! Donnie --- BillLeff1(at)aol.com wrote: > BillLeff1(at)aol.com > > Challenger Aviation is certifying K&N air filters > for flat nacelle > Commanders. Call Chuck Rocco at 937-667-0510. I have > no idea what they will cost. > > Bill Leff > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List > > Admin. > > > > > > > > > > > Donnie Rose 205/492-8444 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BertBerry1(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 26, 2006
Subject: South Australian Aviation Museum
I know this is a long shot, but, does anyone happen to know which Commander is being restored at the South Australian Aviation Museum? I know the last registration was VH-PSG, but I'm wondering if anyone knows which serial number it is. Thanks, Bert ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "steve" <steveg(at)nternet.com>
Subject: South Australian Aviation Museum
Date: Jan 26, 2006
Bert, One of my business associates lives in Sydney and my mother happens to come from there also. To the point, the museum site is at this link and they talk of the ACommander restoration. Should help. http://www.saam.org.au/SAAM.htm Steve G. -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BertBerry1(at)aol.com Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 3:24 PM Subject: Commander-List: South Australian Aviation Museum I know this is a long shot, but, does anyone happen to know which Commander is being restored at the South Australian Aviation Museum? I know the last registration was VH-PSG, but I'm wondering if anyone knows which serial number it is. Thanks, Bert ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BertBerry1(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 26, 2006
Subject: Re: South Australian Aviation Museum
Thanks Steve, I emailed them a couple of days ago and got a reply from a someone, but they weren't any help with the S/N. Thanks, Bert ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Subject: Re: South Australian Aviation Museum
Date: Jan 26, 2006
Hi Bert, Apologies for not replying on this earlier, but have been 'laid up' with a nasty cold virus. Then to-day, the email server I use has been down for maintenance. VH-PSG is a Model 680, s/n 422-96. Full i/d is N6870S, VH-SMA, VH-SMG, VH-PSG, which was cancelled as Withdrawn from Use back in February 1991. Very Best Regards, Barry ----- Original Message ----- From: <BertBerry1(at)aol.com> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 9:23 PM Subject: Commander-List: South Australian Aviation Museum | | I know this is a long shot, but, does anyone happen to know which Commander | is being restored at the South Australian Aviation Museum? I know the last | registration was VH-PSG, but I'm wondering if anyone knows which serial number it | is. | | Thanks, | | Bert | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "steve" <steveg(at)nternet.com>
Subject: South Australian Aviation Museum
Date: Jan 26, 2006
Nothing better to do right now so found the current registration listings for all ACommanders in Oz. If you don't have them, enjoy. http://www.casa.gov.au/casadata/regsearch/airsresults.asp?VHin=&modelin=&Sea rch=Search&framein=plane&manuin=commander®holdin=®opin=&serialin=&num_ results=10&offset=0 Steve G. -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BertBerry1(at)aol.com Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 3:24 PM Subject: Commander-List: South Australian Aviation Museum I know this is a long shot, but, does anyone happen to know which Commander is being restored at the South Australian Aviation Museum? I know the last registration was VH-PSG, but I'm wondering if anyone knows which serial number it is. Thanks, Bert ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "steve" <steveg(at)nternet.com>
Subject: South Australian Aviation Museum
Date: Jan 26, 2006
Bert, I will be talking with my Oz associates in a little bit and have Michael check it out for you. Steve G -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BertBerry1(at)aol.com Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 3:48 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: South Australian Aviation Museum Thanks Steve, I emailed them a couple of days ago and got a reply from a someone, but they weren't any help with the S/N. Thanks, Bert ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BertBerry1(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 26, 2006
Subject: Re: South Australian Aviation Museum
Thanks Steve ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BertBerry1(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 26, 2006
Subject: Re: South Australian Aviation Museum
Thanks Barry, hope you feel better. Bert ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "steve" <steveg(at)nternet.com>
Subject: South Australian Aviation Museum
Date: Jan 26, 2006
Bert, Berry did all the work, so I will let Michael off the hook. I should get the Herrera airport Dominican Republic pics tomorrow. A little late, but will have them and post. Steve G -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry Collman Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 3:54 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: South Australian Aviation Museum <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk> Hi Bert, Apologies for not replying on this earlier, but have been 'laid up' with a nasty cold virus. Then to-day, the email server I use has been down for maintenance. VH-PSG is a Model 680, s/n 422-96. Full i/d is N6870S, VH-SMA, VH-SMG, VH-PSG, which was cancelled as Withdrawn from Use back in February 1991. Very Best Regards, Barry ----- Original Message ----- From: <BertBerry1(at)aol.com> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 9:23 PM Subject: Commander-List: South Australian Aviation Museum | | I know this is a long shot, but, does anyone happen to know which Commander | is being restored at the South Australian Aviation Museum? I know the last | registration was VH-PSG, but I'm wondering if anyone knows which serial number it | is. | | Thanks, | | Bert | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BertBerry1(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 26, 2006
Subject: Re: South Australian Aviation Museum
Thanks Much Steve, I did alittle research and I figured out a couple of them already. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Palestinian elections
Date: Jan 26, 2006
Folks, My 2c's worth on the Palestinian elections. Sometimes it is amazing how naive world leaders can be. One such example was Zimbabwe, or as it was used to be called, Rhodesia. Marxist influences, and Britain, of course, threw the newly elected government in 1979 of Bishop Muzorewa into disarray and forced another election to accommodate communist Mugabe (you've heard of him, didn't you?) and his cohort Joshua Nkomo. Everyone expected moderate, West-friendly, Muzorewa to win but he lost in a landslide, putting Mugabe in power. He quickly dispensed with Nkomo and in the 25 years since then, that region of Africa was destroyed. Who is responsible? I cannot help but firstly blame liberal Britons of the time, whose totally ignorant arrogance has cost that region, as were with many other regions, their future. Then, of course, the people themselves are responsible for their own misery or fortune because of the vote they brought out. That's the essence of democracy. Do you see the similarities with Palestine? While world leaders expected a moderate government to be elected, a radical party took over regardless whether that would kill the only chance for peace or not. Upon hearing that Hamas has won in a landslide, my reaction was, "that's a good thing." Before you think that I have lost my capitalist, conservatist mind, let me explain. For once in Palestine there is now a government that can take responsibility for its actions. Previously, under Yassar Arafat, they were crying foul but yet they could not be held responsible for their actions because who were they? They were neither a country nor a people. Now, at least, they can be identified and put under a banner with a president and leaders who they elected to lead them - either to war or peace. Either to misery or fortune. If any world leader believed that these elections would suddenly bring about some rational thinking, or at least some moderation, then the naivet=E9 that I spoke about is rather serious incompetence. There wasn't going to be a sudden realization that independence would bring a love for Israel, or the West, for that matter, even if Fatah won the election. All that has changed is their accountability - for the good, in my (not always) humble opinion. They can, and will, now bear the burden of their decisions. I heard the same reasoning just after September 11, 2001. Some angry voices cried for the entire destruction of Afghanistan, which, of course is nonsense, but these folks were crying from the heart after the magnitude of 9/11 sunk in. I remember one reporter on TV saying that bombing the people of Afghanistan would be to add to their misery because the Taliban has already decimated them to the point of despair. Get rid of the Taliban and give them an elected government and you have placed people in place who can be held accountable. The same has just happened to the Palestinians. It should set off very loud alarms to all who do not vote at elections. You and I are being held accountable for our votes or non-votes, just as the Palestinians will learn, in the very near future, that when you have independence, you are also independently accountable. Let's hope that within a few generations some reason would sink into that region. It would, unfortunately, not come without great sacrifice. Nico ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "MASON Chevaillier" <kamala(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: South Australian Aviation Museum
Date: Jan 26, 2006
bc, please forwar your address. i have mail for you. mason >From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk> >Reply-To: commander-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: Re: Commander-List: South Australian Aviation Museum >Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:54:16 -0000 > ><barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk> > >Hi Bert, > >Apologies for not replying on this earlier, but have been 'laid up' with a >nasty >cold virus. Then to-day, the email server I use has been down for >maintenance. > >VH-PSG is a Model 680, s/n 422-96. > >Full i/d is N6870S, VH-SMA, VH-SMG, VH-PSG, which was cancelled as >Withdrawn >from Use back in February 1991. > >Very Best Regards, >Barry > >----- Original Message ----- >From: <BertBerry1(at)aol.com> >To: >Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 9:23 PM >Subject: Commander-List: South Australian Aviation Museum > > >| >| I know this is a long shot, but, does anyone happen to know which >Commander >| is being restored at the South Australian Aviation Museum? I know the >last >| registration was VH-PSG, but I'm wondering if anyone knows which serial >number >it >| is. >| >| Thanks, >| >| Bert >| >| >| >| >| >| >| >| >| >| >| >| >| >| >| >| > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2006
Subject: Thanks Capt JB!!
From: Russell Legg <rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au>
G'day Folks, The latest FGN arrived in my ("snail") mail box today in the remote Topend of Oz. I want to congratulate Jim on another great issue and my thanks to him for his ongoing efforts with the newsletter. Fantastic Jim...please keep them coming!! (Thanks to Sue as well) Cheers Russell (still looking for a nice mid-life Straight 500 or 560E...even a 680E, but no projects!) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2006
Subject: Oz Commanders
From: Russell Legg <rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au>
G'day Folks, Just returned from travelling in remote Indonesia (no Commanders here!). Nice to read that Captain Milt is back on the list...great to see you old mate! I am amused to note recent interest in Oz Commanders, particularly Bathtub models. No Bathtubs have flown in Australia for at least 12 months and only two ferry flights have occurred in the past nearly 3 years. I can add the following: 1. The Oz Bathtub seen is a sad story...only 6 airframes remain; (three in technical or museum facilities...all having been re-assembled following major surgical dismantling for road transport), one 680E in final restoration phase by TCFG member & 2 x 560E airframes (both very tired and one with significant corrosion). It is possible that some parts from a seventh (680E) airframe are located in Western Australia. 2. To Steve...take care with your surveillance of the Sydney 560E; this is a tired airframe (some corrosion and at least one earlier AD not complied with), both engines are "on condition". This was the last to fly in Oz and only a handful of brief ferry flights in last three years. (Steve...happy to be more detailed off-list). This is definitely a project piece...don't be fooled. A similar airframe exists elsewhere but has significant corrosion, hasn't flown since early 2002 (two ferry flights) and not regularly since 1999. 3. To Bert...the Straight 680 located in the South Australian museum is VH-PSG as Sir Barry reported. This aircraft has a complete airframe but had the tail section through the battery compartment completely surgically removed to allow transport by road from airport to museum. The aircraft has been dismantled twice more since the early '90s; most recently late last year when the entire museum collection was moved to a new site. The aircraft was displayed with fake engines and props and with the tail/rear fuselage bolted back on. Unfortunately its log books were separated from the aircraft when it was purchased by the museum at a liquidation auction in the early '90s. My exhaustive attempts to locate these logbooks have been unsuccessful. 4. Wingtips on Oz Commanders...not sure where this issue came from. In excess of 30 500S/U/B, 680FL, 690A, 690B and one Renaissance fly fully legally in Oz with wingtips. All these aircraft are maintained or have their maintenance schedule set by a single FBO in Victoria; in accordance with the rigidly conservative and sometimes intimidatory industry regulator. My understanding is that this brand of wingtip is fitted and operated by legal STC for Oz airspace. 5. One Bathtub airframe (no engines and many missing parts), a Straight 500 is located in Auckland in New Zealand...no bathtubs flown there for at least 8 years. Cheers Russell ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "steve" <steveg(at)nternet.com>
Subject: Oz Commanders
Date: Jan 27, 2006
Russel, Very interesting information. I have forwarded it to my friend and associate in Sydney. Steve G. -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Russell Legg Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 5:26 AM Subject: Commander-List: Oz Commanders G'day Folks, Just returned from travelling in remote Indonesia (no Commanders here!). Nice to read that Captain Milt is back on the list...great to see you old mate! I am amused to note recent interest in Oz Commanders, particularly Bathtub models. No Bathtubs have flown in Australia for at least 12 months and only two ferry flights have occurred in the past nearly 3 years. I can add the following: 1. The Oz Bathtub seen is a sad story...only 6 airframes remain; (three in technical or museum facilities...all having been re-assembled following major surgical dismantling for road transport), one 680E in final restoration phase by TCFG member & 2 x 560E airframes (both very tired and one with significant corrosion). It is possible that some parts from a seventh (680E) airframe are located in Western Australia. 2. To Steve...take care with your surveillance of the Sydney 560E; this is a tired airframe (some corrosion and at least one earlier AD not complied with), both engines are "on condition". This was the last to fly in Oz and only a handful of brief ferry flights in last three years. (Steve...happy to be more detailed off-list). This is definitely a project piece...don't be fooled. A similar airframe exists elsewhere but has significant corrosion, hasn't flown since early 2002 (two ferry flights) and not regularly since 1999. 3. To Bert...the Straight 680 located in the South Australian museum is VH-PSG as Sir Barry reported. This aircraft has a complete airframe but had the tail section through the battery compartment completely surgically removed to allow transport by road from airport to museum. The aircraft has been dismantled twice more since the early '90s; most recently late last year when the entire museum collection was moved to a new site. The aircraft was displayed with fake engines and props and with the tail/rear fuselage bolted back on. Unfortunately its log books were separated from the aircraft when it was purchased by the museum at a liquidation auction in the early '90s. My exhaustive attempts to locate these logbooks have been unsuccessful. 4. Wingtips on Oz Commanders...not sure where this issue came from. In excess of 30 500S/U/B, 680FL, 690A, 690B and one Renaissance fly fully legally in Oz with wingtips. All these aircraft are maintained or have their maintenance schedule set by a single FBO in Victoria; in accordance with the rigidly conservative and sometimes intimidatory industry regulator. My understanding is that this brand of wingtip is fitted and operated by legal STC for Oz airspace. 5. One Bathtub airframe (no engines and many missing parts), a Straight 500 is located in Auckland in New Zealand...no bathtubs flown there for at least 8 years. Cheers Russell ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2006
From: W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: flaps and flexibility
Folks, Please feel free to reprint any of my ramblings. Cheers, Bill Hamilton At 01:33 26/01/2006, you wrote: > > > Wing Commander Gordon > > Imperial Meat Pie? Bill Hamilton, I may print and frame your Oz >Aviation History post! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Commander-List: flaps and flexibility > CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVILEGE NOTICE W.J.R.Hamilton,Glenalmond Group Companies,Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net. & . This message is intended for and should only be used by the addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged information.If you are not the intended recipient any use distribution,disclosure or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.Confidentiality and legal privilege attached to this communication are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery to you.If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately to Australia 61 (0)408 876 526 Dolores capitis non fero. Eos do. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tylor Hall <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Tired Aero Commanders
Date: Jan 27, 2006
I am reading WEB Griffin's new book, The Hostage. On page 398, he has his hero arriving in a Lear 45 arriving at Jorge Newbery Airport in Buenos Aires, Argentina. and they taxi by a tired Aero Commander, "Old, Battered, and worn out". and they park next to the Aero Commander. IT appears that they are in OZ and many other places. Tylor Hall ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert Steele" <bob.steele(at)kzf.com>
Subject: Thanks Capt JB!!
Date: Jan 27, 2006
And Sue too!!! -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Russell Legg Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 5:52 AM Subject: Commander-List: Thanks Capt JB!! G'day Folks, The latest FGN arrived in my ("snail") mail box today in the remote Topend of Oz. I want to congratulate Jim on another great issue and my thanks to him for his ongoing efforts with the newsletter. Fantastic Jim...please keep them coming!! (Thanks to Sue as well) Cheers Russell (still looking for a nice mid-life Straight 500 or 560E...even a 680E, but no projects!) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "steve" <steveg(at)nternet.com>
Subject: Tired Aero Commanders
Date: Jan 27, 2006
If you read Griffins earlier books, Lieutenants, etc. series you will see that the main character Lowell (rich boy who fell in love being a military warrior) flew his personal Aero Commander on both personal and military missions to the chagrin of many of his commanding officers. I was reading WEB when he first published and that was when I fell in love with the most beautiful twin in the world. I have since been lucky to have been part owner in a AC500 for a while. Who said Dreams don't come true? WRONG!! Steve G. Now Bonanza driver. E35 N52DF L31 St. Tammany -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tylor Hall Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 8:17 AM Subject: Commander-List: Tired Aero Commanders I am reading WEB Griffin's new book, The Hostage. On page 398, he has his hero arriving in a Lear 45 arriving at Jorge Newbery Airport in Buenos Aires, Argentina. and they taxi by a tired Aero Commander, "Old, Battered, and worn out". and they park next to the Aero Commander. IT appears that they are in OZ and many other places. Tylor Hall ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BertBerry1(at)AOL.COM
Date: Jan 27, 2006
Subject: Re: Oz Commanders
Thanks for the info Russel. Bert ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Thanks Capt JB!!
From: "Bert Berry" <bertberry1(at)aol.com>
Date: Jan 27, 2006
Jim, How do I get on your mailing list? Bert -----Original Message----- From: Russell Legg <rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:21:32 To: Subject: Commander-List: Thanks Capt JB!! G'day Folks, The latest FGN arrived in my ("snail") mail box today in the remote Topend of Oz. I want to congratulate Jim on another great issue and my thanks to him for his ongoing efforts with the newsletter. Fantastic Jim...please keep them coming!! (Thanks to Sue as well) Cheers Russell (still looking for a nice mid-life Straight 500 or 560E...even a 680E, but no projects!) bertberry1(at)aol.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: WINGFLYER1(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 27, 2006
Subject: Re: Thanks Capt JB!!
I have a 680 with an up grade with 680-E engines in excelent condition that i might sell. I have an Aztec and really don~t need two airplanes. 320 Hours on the engines and o time on props with the Jim Metzer STC on the props. Good Avionics fresh annual in Oct. 05. Wingflyer1(at)aol.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 27, 2006
Subject: Re: Thanks Capt JB!!
In a message dated 1/27/2006 2:56:07 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au writes: Russell Thanks Russell. jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: Flap Settings explored
Date: Jan 27, 2006
Hello Commanderers, Just thought I'd throw a big "thanks" out to all who responded to my final approach issues & flap settings email. I flew for a bit today and did a few landings. I was able to end up far more stabilized on approach, and hit my target airspeed much easier, by using more flaps earlier. There appeared to be no penalty for going full flaps immediately upon turning final. Also, for kicks, I pushed up the throttles with the flaps all the way out, and the airplane actually started to climb (sort of a flat attitude, it probably wasn't pretty). Cheers, /John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 27, 2006
Subject: Re: Flap Settings explored
In a message dated 27-Jan-06 19:33:38 Pacific Standard Time, john(at)vormbaum.com writes: the airplane actually started to climb (sort of a flat attitude, it probably wasn't pretty). <><><><><><> John, How could it not be pretty? I'm glad you had a good time -- and it's especially nice to know that some of the advice on this forum gets used and to get the feed back on whether it worked or was totally useless. But then again, as I've been taught, "Useless advice is the essence of friendship." Wing Commander Gordon Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2006
Subject: Re: Flap Settings explored
From: Russell Legg <rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au>
Great Stuff John! On 28/1/06 12:56 PM, "John Vormbaum" wrote: > > Hello Commanderers, > > Just thought I'd throw a big "thanks" out to all who responded to my final > approach issues & flap settings email. I flew for a bit today and did a few > landings. I was able to end up far more stabilized on approach, and hit my > target airspeed much easier, by using more flaps earlier. There appeared to be > no penalty for going full flaps immediately upon turning final. Also, for > kicks, I pushed up the throttles with the flaps all the way out, and the > airplane actually started to climb (sort of a flat attitude, it probably > wasn't pretty). > > Cheers, > > /John > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "MASON Chevaillier" <kamala(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Flap Settings explored
Date: Jan 28, 2006
kg, you are our friend. mason >From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com >Reply-To: commander-list(at)matronics.com >To: commander-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flap Settings explored >Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:42:18 EST > > >In a message dated 27-Jan-06 19:33:38 Pacific Standard Time, >john(at)vormbaum.com writes: >the airplane actually started to climb (sort of a flat attitude, it >probably >wasn't pretty). ><><><><><><> >John, > >How could it not be pretty? > >I'm glad you had a good time -- and it's especially nice to know that some >of >the advice on this forum gets used and to get the feed back on whether it >worked or was totally useless. > >But then again, as I've been taught, "Useless advice is the essence of >friendship." > >Wing Commander Gordon > > >Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Tired Aero Commanders
From: "Carter Chapman" <carter(at)carterchapman.net>
Date: Jan 29, 2006
Hi Steve,

January 13, 2006 - January 29, 2006

Commander-Archive.digest.vol-bw