Commander-Archive.digest.vol-cb

May 22, 2006 - July 10, 2006



      positive contact is maintained between the driving face of the gears.
      
      This just isn't possible. As you note in idle, a vigorous wind gust can often "unload"
      the props as will every power reduction no matter how gentle or slowly
      it is made.
      
      These gears are case hardened primarily on the driving surface and less so on the
      "backside of each tooth. They are also lapped during manufacture so the drive
      surfaces in a set more closely match than the non drive side of the gear.
      
      This does NOT mean the non driving surface is soft nor is it fragile. It is just
      wears more quickly when used in an unloaded condition.
      
      Your props are going to unload when you reduce power just accept that as fact.
      Just limit the duration of these unloaded periods as much as possible and limit
      them to low power settings.
      
      Also consider moving your levers in the sequence opposite from what we have always
      learned   Reduce RPM then reduce MP. When making small adjustments advance
      MP then advance RPM.
      
      Abrupt reduction inMP will backlash (unload the props) for longer than is probably
      healthy. Gradual reductions unload the props briefly but they will quickly
      equilibrate.
      
      The time where loading is most prolonged and noticable is approach to landing,
      landing, and roll out. These are times of significantly reduced power and cause
      no real harm as long as you are smooth and gradual.
      Get out of the habit of advancing RPM on final approach if you are comfortable
      in the knowledge a go around will not be required.
      
      Next time you fly and are in cruise do a rapid 5"MP reduction or shove the props
      full forward. You will see and hear the "unloaded" condition. Useyour ears and
      butt as your torque meter.
      
      Damage is done based on total duration of the unloaded condition as well as the
      quantitative sum of effective horsepower during the time you are unloaded. Un
      loading rarely causes catastrophic failure mostly justv accelerated wear. Extensive
      wear increases backlash (the distance you can rotate the prop between contact
      with the front gear face to the rear gearface) and if this becomes large
      enough a drastic power deduction may result in abrupt failure but part of every
      annual involves measurement of backlash. 
      
      Use common sense, smooth control inputs and you have nothing to worry about. Do
      not sweat the approach to landing or Taxi phase. The gears are precision pieces
      of industrial metal they are not fragile.
      
      
      Did you get the info on the SBs?
      
      If you ever do find it necessary to make a rapid power reduction pull the RPM back
      1st as far as you are comfortable with.
      
      --------
      Milt
      N395V
      F1 Rocket
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=35816#35816
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Matronics BBS Forums
Hello Listers, I just wanted to send out a reminder to all of the Listers regarding the new-ish BBS (Bulletin Board System) Forums that are available at Matronics for the Email Lists. The BBS Forums give you Web-based access into the same email content that is generated by the Email Lists. When an email message is posted to any of the email lists, a copy of the message is also copied to the respective List forum section on in the BBS Forums. By the same token, when a message is posted within the BBS Forum interface context, it will also be posted to the respective email list. Basically, the BBS Forums give you yet another method of accessing the Matronics Email List content. Some people prefer email, some prefer web forums; now you can have it either way or both with the Matronics Lists! You'll have to register for a login/password on the BBS Forum to _post_ from the BBS, but you can view message content without registering for an account. To Register for an account, look for the link at the top of the main BBS Forum page entitled "Register". Click on it and follow the instructions. Site Administrator approval will be required (to keep spammers out), but I will try to get these approved in less than 24 hours. If you haven't yet taken a look at the Matronics Email List content over on the BBS Forum, surf on over and take a peek. Its pretty cool. The URL is: http://forums.matronics.com I want to stress that the BBS Forums are simply an adjunct to the existing Matronics Email Lists; another way of viewing and interacting with the Matronics List content. If you like Email, great. If you like Web Forums, great. If you like both, great. Its up to you how you view and create your content. You will also find a URL link at the bottom of this email called Matronics List Features Navigator. You can click on this link at any time to find URL links to all of the other great features available on the Matronics site like the Archive Search Engine, List Browse, List Download, FAQs, Wiki, and lots more. There is a specific Navigator for each Email List and the link for this specific List is shown below. Thanks for all the great list participation and support; it is greatly appreciated! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com>
Subject: Advice from Gear-Heads...
Date: May 22, 2006
WCG: No worries on the scans- they can wait until you have ABSOLUTELY nothing else to do some afternoon.... You and Milt have both taken time to find old records on this airplane- and the effort is greatly appreciated. Great community. So now- in order to have loaded props, based upon your definition- I should tear off the electric heating pads and use alcohol instead, right? :-p Who knew it would be so easy. hahahahahah Robert Randazzo -----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: Monday, May 22, 2006 11:37 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Advice from Gear-Heads... In a message dated 22-May-06 11:02:23 Pacific Daylight Time, rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com writes: -> In a few conversations, some fellows have referred to keeping the -> props loaded. In the conversation- they seem to infer that you can tell when you have unloaded the props. How can you tell? Obviously we don't have a Torque gauge- so I'm assuming it's an experience factor here- but what am I sensing-for/looking-for? A loaded prop has glassy, blood shot eyes, can't taxi in a straight line and is always hungry. The last two symptoms are very typical of Commanders with geared engines. Sorry ... couldn't resist. On the ground, with geared Lycomings, it's pretty obvious in that you can hear lots of clatter in the gear box. I don't think the Continental gear box clatters as much, but both engines like an idle of 1000 to 1200 RPMs, not 800 RPMs as with direct drive engines. In flight there is no way to tell if the crank is driving the prop and not vice versa (without a torque meter, you're correct) but by NOT bringing the props to high RPMs (or Fine Pitch if you're British), is how to keep them "loaded." You can keep your cruise RPMs set all the way from top of descent to touch down and you'll be fine. This rattles lots of pilots as it goes against the traditional wisdom and training done in direct drive powered aircraft. Look at the power curves of your geared Lycoming or Continental and you can see that with props at cruise, one can add MAP to about 60% power or more, to get the go-around or missed approach going and not have to worry about lots of lever management in those first few moments. Wing Commander Gordon PS:Robert, I have not forgotten about scanning the trends from N414C -- it's just that my day job has kept me from getting to them. Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere. __________ NOD32 1.1552 (20060522) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com>
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads...
Date: May 22, 2006
Milt- Okay- thanks- this is helpful information. Seems that the 520Ks are a bit like the garrets on the J31s I flew years ago when it comes to their dislike of negative torque... The 31 hated negative torque- and the engineers had developed this fancy negative torque sensing system that would tinker with the fuel flow in order to keep the prop from driving the engine- and it would cause the airplane to shudder like crazy if you loaded the props- so you because pretty proficient at avoiding it. The techniques learned there will be very easy to apply to the 520Ks... It isn't hard to avoid loading the props if you plan ahead and aren't afraid to tell ATC when their plan won't work. My experience with the N414C prior to putting it in the hangar for this overhaul was that the airplane was very capable of managing the first/second stage climbout of a go-around without adjusting the prop speeds on approach. The only area where I think it might be more urgent to get the prop speeds up is in a rejected landing.... But that is the rarest of of events, fortunately. Thanks for the comments, Milt- you are correct that it is easy to begin thinking that the gears were made of sub-standard material after reading all the "conventional wisdom" out there. Sure- these engines are more complicated than most- and they are at the outter limits of power production for this type of mechanical setup- but if flown procedurally with care to respect their limits- they will operate just like any other powerplant out there. Heck, most turboprop/jet engines will destroy themselves if you don't manage them effectively... It's all about procedures and minding the limits and capabilities. Difference is that you generally get some pretty intensive training before you get to tinker with stuff like that. Not so in GA- so I imagine it's easy for a new guy to get in over his head with some engines. I received the docs you sent and they have been married to all the rest of the information we have on the airplane. I'm embarrased that I neglected to send you a "thank you!" email.... You saved me a tremendous amount of hassle having to dredge up those items on my own. No doubt Felix had some headaches finding them for you- so please pass along our thanks to him as well! Robert Randazzo -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of N395V Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 12:02 Subject: Commander-List: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads... > keeping the props loaded A little truth, a little OWT, and a little knowledge frequently leads to perpetuated misunderstanding. #1 Let's define keeping the "props loaded" also known as keep the engine driving the prop and never let the prop drive the engine. This implies that the engine is always trying to turn faster than the prop and positive contact is maintained between the driving face of the gears. This just isn't possible. As you note in idle, a vigorous wind gust can often "unload" the props as will every power reduction no matter how gentle or slowly it is made. These gears are case hardened primarily on the driving surface and less so on the "backside of each tooth. They are also lapped during manufacture so the drive surfaces in a set more closely match than the non drive side of the gear. This does NOT mean the non driving surface is soft nor is it fragile. It is just wears more quickly when used in an unloaded condition. Your props are going to unload when you reduce power just accept that as fact. Just limit the duration of these unloaded periods as much as possible and limit them to low power settings. Also consider moving your levers in the sequence opposite from what we have always learned Reduce RPM then reduce MP. When making small adjustments advance MP then advance RPM. Abrupt reduction inMP will backlash (unload the props) for longer than is probably healthy. Gradual reductions unload the props briefly but they will quickly equilibrate. The time where loading is most prolonged and noticable is approach to landing, landing, and roll out. These are times of significantly reduced power and cause no real harm as long as you are smooth and gradual. Get out of the habit of advancing RPM on final approach if you are comfortable in the knowledge a go around will not be required. Next time you fly and are in cruise do a rapid 5"MP reduction or shove the props full forward. You will see and hear the "unloaded" condition. Useyour ears and butt as your torque meter. Damage is done based on total duration of the unloaded condition as well as the quantitative sum of effective horsepower during the time you are unloaded. Un loading rarely causes catastrophic failure mostly justv accelerated wear. Extensive wear increases backlash (the distance you can rotate the prop between contact with the front gear face to the rear gearface) and if this becomes large enough a drastic power deduction may result in abrupt failure but part of every annual involves measurement of backlash. Use common sense, smooth control inputs and you have nothing to worry about. Do not sweat the approach to landing or Taxi phase. The gears are precision pieces of industrial metal they are not fragile. Did you get the info on the SBs? If you ever do find it necessary to make a rapid power reduction pull the RPM back 1st as far as you are comfortable with. -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=35816#35816 __________ NOD32 1.1552 (20060522) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: May 22, 2006
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads...
In a message dated 5/22/2006 2:03:31 P.M. Central Standard Time, n395v(at)hughes.net writes: Get out of the habit of advancing RPM on final approach if you are comfortable in the knowledge a go around will not be required. Good Afternoon Milt, I agree with everything you say, but why not just keep the props back all of the time during the approach whether there is a go around planned or not? Any of the Continental and Lycoming engines are approved for a pretty healthy dose of MP at the very lowest cruising RPMs. Some of them are even approved for full throttle at minimum recommended cruising RPM. Since there is always a possibility that an emergency go around will have to be conducted, why not plan on adding half or three quarters of the MP available, then run the props up, followed by adding the rest of the MP. If that is trained to as the normal operation, an emergency becomes the same as any other go around and there is never any need to shove the props up before a considerable amount of power has been added. I don't know how any other airline handled it, but that is the way it was done at UAL and I carried that technique over to all my GA flying. It is the way I have taught and the way I have flown for most of the sixty years I have been flying. Works for me! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads...
From: "N395V" <n395v(at)hughes.net>
Date: May 22, 2006
> why not just keep the props back all of > the time during the approach whether there is a go around planned or not? No good reason to not do as you suggest. Just in the past have found it to convince those transitioning to geared enginse to view power management a little differently especially if they have never flown blown engines. They easily learn to move the levers differently, oversquare is difficult for them to embrace and the last thing they seem willing to give up is shoving the props forward and making that God awful noise on approach because they were afraid it would grow hair on their knuckles if they didn't. -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=35902#35902 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: May 22, 2006
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads...
The bottom line is that you never want to let the props drive the engine while in flight. That does not mean you can't close the throttles on touchdown. One of the best ways to tell when this is happening is by the sound of the props. They make a distinct sound as they start to push the engine. It is not a catastrophic condition but the damaging effects are cumulative. You can't set the idle to prevent it. I have flown at least half of the fleet or more of the 685's (including N414C) It is a great airplane but there is no substitute for proper training. One of my customers liked their 685 so well, they bought a second one! (please no jokes about having two because one is always in the shop)! They fly the heck out of them. Have fun Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 23, 2006
From: W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: regulators
Donnie, I have then on my 500A, last owner fitted them, not a problem in years. Cheers, Bill H. PS They are quite a popular retrofit under our version of a 337 approval. ---------- At 02:29 AM 23/05/2006, you wrote: > >Anyone out there have any expierience with >"Zeftronics" changeover regulators and relays on a >500B? >Need to repair a Regulator system ASAP. >Thank You > >Donnie Rose >205/492-8444 > >__________________________________________________ > > 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: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads...
Date: May 23, 2006
Just a quick comment, When I taxi by people on the ground in my 680FLP (Mr.RPM) I see them sticking their fingers in their ears due to my prop noise so at times I increase the pitch to a coarse setting (not letting it go into feather) until I am by them, any comments regarding stress on using this practice? Tom F. ----- Original Message ----- From: <BillLeff1(at)aol.com> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 20:24 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Advice from Gear-Heads... > > The bottom line is that you never want to let the props drive the engine > while in flight. That does not mean you can't close the throttles on touchdown. > > One of the best ways to tell when this is happening is by the sound of the > props. They make a distinct sound as they start to push the engine. It is not > a catastrophic condition but the damaging effects are cumulative. > > You can't set the idle to prevent it. > > I have flown at least half of the fleet or more of the 685's (including > N414C) It is a great airplane but there is no substitute for proper training. > > One of my customers liked their 685 so well, they bought a second one! > (please no jokes about having two because one is always in the shop)! They fly the > heck out of them. > > Have fun > > Bill Leff > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "nico css" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Advice from Gear-Heads...
Date: May 23, 2006
Tom, There is a solution to the hearing sensitivity of your audience, though. Get a Paris Jet and taxi by them a couple of times and they would wave in delight when you next taxi by in the Commander. Nico -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom Fisher Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:25 AM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Advice from Gear-Heads... Just a quick comment, When I taxi by people on the ground in my 680FLP (Mr.RPM) I see them sticking their fingers in their ears due to my prop noise so at times I increase the pitch to a coarse setting (not letting it go into feather) until I am by them, any comments regarding stress on using this practice? Tom F. ----- Original Message ----- From: <BillLeff1(at)aol.com> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 20:24 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Advice from Gear-Heads... > > The bottom line is that you never want to let the props drive the engine > while in flight. That does not mean you can't close the throttles on touchdown. > > One of the best ways to tell when this is happening is by the sound of the > props. They make a distinct sound as they start to push the engine. It is not > a catastrophic condition but the damaging effects are cumulative. > > You can't set the idle to prevent it. > > I have flown at least half of the fleet or more of the 685's (including > N414C) It is a great airplane but there is no substitute for proper training. > > One of my customers liked their 685 so well, they bought a second one! > (please no jokes about having two because one is always in the shop)! They fly the > heck out of them. > > Have fun > > Bill Leff > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads...
From: "N395V" <n395v(at)hughes.net>
Date: May 23, 2006
> any comments regarding stress on using this practice? > Tom, In my opinion the answer is no problem. You might read this thread for further opinion........... I also wouldn't worry about the audience your taxi by is of short duration, they are at an airport and noise happens. I never have seen corporate types worry about opthers ears when they let the APU run for an hour on the ramp to cool the plane irrespective of the fact that nobody withi 100yards can think because of the racket. -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=36021#36021 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads...
From: "N395V" <n395v(at)hughes.net>
Date: May 23, 2006
At the risk of generating spirited debate and controversy here is something for you big bore turboed gear heads to consider. [/img] I have never been a proponent of LOP solely for fuel savings but given $4/gal is probably here to stay it has moved up on my list of reasons to operate LOP. -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=36027#36027 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com
Date: May 23, 2006
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads... LOP
In a message dated 23-May-06 10:00:19 Pacific Daylight Time, n395v(at)hughes.net writes: At the risk of generating spirited debate and controversy here is something for you big bore turboed gear heads to consider. [/img] I have never been a proponent of LOP solely for fuel savings but given $4/gal is probably here to stay it has moved up on my list of reasons to operate LOP. <><><><><><><><><> Dr. Milt, you're a muck raker! I was (and in theory still am) a LOP guy but it was an interview I did last millennium with Suburban Air Freight of Omaha, Nebraska -- an AC-680-FL fleet operator -- who changed my mind. Their reason for running ROP was not about cylinder head temperature nor any of the usual heat or oil wash reasons: it was because of the low lead content in modern AvGas. They saw a problem with valve guide lubrication that lead was intended to provide in these engines. So, in the controversial spirit of cheapness, how much is one saving LOP vs. other engine wear costs? I don't know the answer and I think it depends on how many hours a year one operates. A recreational operator with one airplane has a different economic urge than a fleet operator who is trying to make money by flying a bunch of airplanes. Wing Commander Gordon Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: May 23, 2006
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads... LOP
Good Afternoon Commander Gordon, My understanding is that the FAA ran some tests of leaded against non leaded fuel. Rumor has it that it was some model of Aero Commander, but I do not know which one. In any case, one engine was ran on leaded fuel and the other on nonleaded fuel. The only difference at overhaul time was that the engine that was run on nonleaded fuel was a lot cleaner. There was no measurable difference in wear. There are just as many engine experts who will tell you that the idea of lead being needed by any of our engines to lubricate the valves, or anything else, is pure unadulterated rubbish, as there are ones who swear the lead is needed. The FAA may not have said it in just those words, but it was pretty strong statement. Most of the folks who claim the engine needs the lead tend to be old time mechanics and engine rebuilders rather than trained engineers. Do you know of any scientific evaluation that shows things differently than did the FAA tests? I once read an article by a gentleman who claimed to be the engineer who developed Ethyl gasoline. It was his statement that the lead was a necessary evil to get the octane up at low cost. It did nothing for the engine other than change the octane and it was detrimental other than that. If anyone is interested in reading one pilot's take on engine operations, they might want to check through John Deakin's article for his series on engine management. Try: _http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182146-1.html_ (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182146-1.html) 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 5/23/2006 12:38:26 P.M. Central Standard Time, CloudCraft(at)aol.com writes: Their reason for running ROP was not about cylinder head temperature nor any of the usual heat or oil wash reasons: it was because of the low lead content in modern AvGas. They saw a problem with valve guide lubrication that lead was intended to provide in these engines. So, in the controversial spirit of cheapness, how much is one saving LOP vs. other engine wear costs? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com
Date: May 23, 2006
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads... LOP
In a message dated 23-May-06 11:27:46 Pacific Daylight Time, BobsV35B(at)aol.com writes: Most of the folks who claim the engine needs the lead tend to be old time mechanics and engine rebuilders rather than trained engineers. Do you know of any scientific evaluation that shows things differently than did the FAA tests? <><><><><><><><><> Old Bob, As a friend of mine, since gone West, used to say, "It's either very loose science or very tight magic." The only science these guys had was operational experience on a fleet of Lycoming IGSO-540s over a long period of time, and their opinion on what kept the engines on the airplane and not in the shop. Their valve guide problems could have been something else entirely, but they had their belief in what caused and fixed it. The man I interviewed was Jay Armstrong (Jay Armstrong at 402-344-4100) and I just called him to make sure I either didn't misquote him or if he's changed his mind since 1999, but he's not in today. Rats! Wing Commander Gordon Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads... LOP
Date: May 23, 2006
Hi All, The FAA did indeed run some tests of leaded against non-leaded fuel. They were conducted, although I cannot say if it was exclusively, using their Aero Commander 680E, s/n 818-62, N50, in 1999. Very Best Regards, Barry C. ----- Original Message ----- From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 7:26 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads... LOP | | | | Good Afternoon Commander Gordon, | | My understanding is that the FAA ran some tests of leaded against non leaded | fuel. Rumor has it that it was some model of Aero Commander, but I do not | know which one. | | In any case, one engine was ran on leaded fuel and the other on nonleaded | fuel. The only difference at overhaul time was that the engine that was run on | nonleaded fuel was a lot cleaner. There was no measurable difference in | wear. | | There are just as many engine experts who will tell you that the idea of | lead being needed by any of our engines to lubricate the valves, or anything | else, is pure unadulterated rubbish, as there are ones who swear the lead is | needed. | | The FAA may not have said it in just those words, but it was pretty strong | statement. | | Most of the folks who claim the engine needs the lead tend to be old time | mechanics and engine rebuilders rather than trained engineers. | | Do you know of any scientific evaluation that shows things differently than | did the FAA tests? | | I once read an article by a gentleman who claimed to be the engineer who | developed Ethyl gasoline. It was his statement that the lead was a necessary | evil to get the octane up at low cost. It did nothing for the engine other than | change the octane and it was detrimental other than that. | | If anyone is interested in reading one pilot's take on engine operations, | they might want to check through John Deakin's article for his series on engine | management. | | Try: _http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182146-1.html_ | (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182146-1.html) | | 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 5/23/2006 12:38:26 P.M. Central Standard Time, | CloudCraft(at)aol.com writes: | | | Their reason for running ROP was not about cylinder head temperature nor any | of the usual heat or oil wash reasons: it was because of the low lead | content | in modern AvGas. | | They saw a problem with valve guide lubrication that lead was intended to | provide in these engines. | | So, in the controversial spirit of cheapness, how much is one saving LOP vs. | other engine wear costs? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: May 23, 2006
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads...
I think they think you are a Turbo Commander and are automatically expecting a lot of noise. The Mr RPM is very quiet on the ground except at lift off. Bill ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: May 23, 2006
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads... LOP
Charles F. Kettering (of Dayton Ohio) invented the use of Tetra Ethyl Lead in gasoline. He is long dead! Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: May 23, 2006
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads... LOP
I have been flying and maintaining IGSO-540's in Commanders since 1970. The only thing that keeps cylinders from failing is 50GPH at cuise! That generally works out to 50 deg. ROP. Heat is the issue. I do not have the same problem on my 560F with IGO-540's. I have been flying that specific airplane since 1973. Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com>
Subject: Advice from Gear-Heads...
Date: May 23, 2006
Bill- Well now... Sometimes I like having people confuse me with a turbo commander. All the mystique and half the fuel burn. ;-) Robert Randazzo -----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, May 23, 2006 13:07 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Advice from Gear-Heads... I think they think you are a Turbo Commander and are automatically expecting a lot of noise. The Mr RPM is very quiet on the ground except at lift off. Bill __________ NOD32 1.1553 (20060522) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com>
Subject: Advice from Gear-Heads...
Date: May 23, 2006
Bill- We put 414C in the shop for a pretty intensive inspection immediately after bringing her west. It was pretty clear that we had a gem- but she'd been subjected to "lowest bidder maintenance" for a while- a suspicion which is more-or-less confirmed now that I've exchanged email with Milt... The process has been slow- but it's beginning to accelerate toward the finish line. I'm fortunate that our maintenance team is also the team conducting the overhaul- so they are very well invested in the airplane. They've taken great pride in pointing out some of the little details that they have looked after "just because." Hope to have her flying again during the next few months... Parts are going back in- which is nice. Rob -----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: Monday, May 22, 2006 20:24 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Advice from Gear-Heads... The bottom line is that you never want to let the props drive the engine while in flight. That does not mean you can't close the throttles on touchdown. One of the best ways to tell when this is happening is by the sound of the props. They make a distinct sound as they start to push the engine. It is not a catastrophic condition but the damaging effects are cumulative. You can't set the idle to prevent it. I have flown at least half of the fleet or more of the 685's (including N414C) It is a great airplane but there is no substitute for proper training. One of my customers liked their 685 so well, they bought a second one! (please no jokes about having two because one is always in the shop)! They fly the heck out of them. Have fun Bill Leff __________ NOD32 1.1553 (20060522) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Advice from Gear-Heads...
Date: May 23, 2006
Perfect! bilbo -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of nico css Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:34 AM Subject: RE: Commander-List: Advice from Gear-Heads... Tom, There is a solution to the hearing sensitivity of your audience, though. Get a Paris Jet and taxi by them a couple of times and they would wave in delight when you next taxi by in the Commander. Nico -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom Fisher Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:25 AM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Advice from Gear-Heads... Just a quick comment, When I taxi by people on the ground in my 680FLP (Mr.RPM) I see them sticking their fingers in their ears due to my prop noise so at times I increase the pitch to a coarse setting (not letting it go into feather) until I am by them, any comments regarding stress on using this practice? Tom F. ----- Original Message ----- From: <BillLeff1(at)aol.com> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 20:24 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Advice from Gear-Heads... > > The bottom line is that you never want to let the props drive the engine > while in flight. That does not mean you can't close the throttles on touchdown. > > One of the best ways to tell when this is happening is by the sound of the > props. They make a distinct sound as they start to push the engine. It is not > a catastrophic condition but the damaging effects are cumulative. > > You can't set the idle to prevent it. > > I have flown at least half of the fleet or more of the 685's (including > N414C) It is a great airplane but there is no substitute for proper training. > > One of my customers liked their 685 so well, they bought a second one! > (please no jokes about having two because one is always in the shop)! They fly the > heck out of them. > > Have fun > > Bill Leff > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tylor Hall <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads...
Date: May 23, 2006
Gear Heads, I have a question about checking the props to see if they will go into feather. I have been flying with my boss in a 421 and he does not like it since he says he can not test the props to feather mode with out causing a problem with the gear box. In the 500B that I had access to, pulling the props back to feather for a brief moment was a standard thing, but it is a direct drive engine. My Boss is down on the 421, because he feels that if there is an engine problem and the prop does not go into feather, there will be an off airport landing since the aircraft can not maintain altitude unless the prop feathers. He feels that there is a 50-50 chance that the prop will not feather. He does cycle the prop, but not to feather. How does one test the props to feather on a geared engine with out causing damage to the gear box??? Does unloading the prop at low RPM cause a gear backlash?? Pondering minds would like to know. Tylor Hall On May 23, 2006, at 3:33 PM, Robert S. Randazzo wrote: > > > Bill- > > We put 414C in the shop for a pretty intensive inspection > immediately after > bringing her west. It was pretty clear that we had a gem- but > she'd been > subjected to "lowest bidder maintenance" for a while- a suspicion > which is > more-or-less confirmed now that I've exchanged email with Milt... > > The process has been slow- but it's beginning to accelerate toward the > finish line. > > I'm fortunate that our maintenance team is also the team conducting > the > overhaul- so they are very well invested in the airplane. They've > taken > great pride in pointing out some of the little details that they > have looked > after "just because." > > Hope to have her flying again during the next few months... Parts > are going > back in- which is nice. > > Rob > > > -----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: Monday, May 22, 2006 20:24 > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Advice from Gear-Heads... > > > The bottom line is that you never want to let the props drive the > engine > while in flight. That does not mean you can't close the throttles on > touchdown. > > One of the best ways to tell when this is happening is by the sound > of the > props. They make a distinct sound as they start to push the engine. > It is > not a catastrophic condition but the damaging effects are cumulative. > > You can't set the idle to prevent it. > > I have flown at least half of the fleet or more of the 685's > (including > N414C) It is a great airplane but there is no substitute for proper > training. > > One of my customers liked their 685 so well, they bought a second one! > (please no jokes about having two because one is always in the > shop)! They > fly the heck out of them. > > Have fun > > Bill Leff > > > __________ NOD32 1.1553 (20060522) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads...
From: "N395V" <n395v(at)hughes.net>
Date: May 23, 2006
Shut one down at a time in flight and feather it. -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=36126#36126 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com>
Subject: Advice from Gear-Heads...
Date: May 23, 2006
Tylor- What is it that makes him think feathering the prop on a GTSIO is a 50/50 proposition? I have read this supposition in a few less-informed discussion groups- but I have never seen anyone substantiate it with facts. A quick scan of NTSB findings doesn't provide any data that would appear to substantiate any concerns about feathering... (Aside from which- if there were an actual trend on this- we'd have half a dozen SB's and AD's to contend with on the issue and it would have been resolved by now.... I have enough faith in the FAA to believe in that- but not much more faith than that. ;-p ) I've NEVER found it to be a good idea to run a piston engine into feather just for the fun of it- generally a single swing of the prop pitch levers to ensure that you have control of prop pitch is sufficient. I can see the practical application of making a single test-to-feather after major engine work and/or hanging a new prop/engine combination- but once validate as working I'm not so certain there is value in this test whether the engine is geared or not... Just my opinion- and not based upon any specific engineering information... Robert Randazzo -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tylor Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 18:50 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Advice from Gear-Heads... --> Gear Heads, I have a question about checking the props to see if they will go into feather. I have been flying with my boss in a 421 and he does not like it since he says he can not test the props to feather mode with out causing a problem with the gear box. In the 500B that I had access to, pulling the props back to feather for a brief moment was a standard thing, but it is a direct drive engine. My Boss is down on the 421, because he feels that if there is an engine problem and the prop does not go into feather, there will be an off airport landing since the aircraft can not maintain altitude unless the prop feathers. He feels that there is a 50-50 chance that the prop will not feather. He does cycle the prop, but not to feather. How does one test the props to feather on a geared engine with out causing damage to the gear box??? Does unloading the prop at low RPM cause a gear backlash?? Pondering minds would like to know. Tylor Hall On May 23, 2006, at 3:33 PM, Robert S. Randazzo wrote: > > > Bill- > > We put 414C in the shop for a pretty intensive inspection immediately > after bringing her west. It was pretty clear that we had a gem- but > she'd been subjected to "lowest bidder maintenance" for a while- a > suspicion which is more-or-less confirmed now that I've exchanged > email with Milt... > > The process has been slow- but it's beginning to accelerate toward the > finish line. > > I'm fortunate that our maintenance team is also the team conducting > the > overhaul- so they are very well invested in the airplane. They've > taken great pride in pointing out some of the little details that they > have looked after "just because." > > Hope to have her flying again during the next few months... Parts are > going back in- which is nice. > > Rob > > > -----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: Monday, May 22, 2006 20:24 > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Advice from Gear-Heads... > > > The bottom line is that you never want to let the props drive the > engine while in flight. That does not mean you can't close the > throttles on touchdown. > > One of the best ways to tell when this is happening is by the sound of > the props. They make a distinct sound as they start to push the > engine. > It is > not a catastrophic condition but the damaging effects are cumulative. > > You can't set the idle to prevent it. > > I have flown at least half of the fleet or more of the 685's > (including > N414C) It is a great airplane but there is no substitute for proper > training. > > One of my customers liked their 685 so well, they bought a second one! > (please no jokes about having two because one is always in the shop)! > They fly the heck out of them. > > Have fun > > Bill Leff > > > __________ NOD32 1.1553 (20060522) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > __________ NOD32 1.1554 (20060524) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Girod" <dongirod(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads...
Date: May 23, 2006
Tylor; I am not an expert by any means, but logic tells me that probably the most 'positive prop pressure' you could inflict on a gear box is going to the feather position, that is ALL engine running prop. Don ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tylor Hall" <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:49 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Advice from Gear-Heads... > > > Gear Heads, > I have a question about checking the props to see if they will go > into feather. > > I have been flying with my boss in a 421 and he does not like it > since he says he can not test the props to feather mode with out > causing a problem with the gear box. > > In the 500B that I had access to, pulling the props back to feather > for a brief moment was a standard thing, but it is a direct drive > engine. > > My Boss is down on the 421, because he feels that if there is an > engine problem and the prop does not go into feather, there will be > an off airport landing since the aircraft can not maintain altitude > unless the prop feathers. He feels that there is a 50-50 chance that > the prop will not feather. He does cycle the prop, but not to feather. > > How does one test the props to feather on a geared engine with out > causing damage to the gear box??? > Does unloading the prop at low RPM cause a gear backlash?? > > Pondering minds would like to know. > Tylor Hall > > > On May 23, 2006, at 3:33 PM, Robert S. Randazzo wrote: > >> >> >> Bill- >> >> We put 414C in the shop for a pretty intensive inspection >> immediately after >> bringing her west. It was pretty clear that we had a gem- but >> she'd been >> subjected to "lowest bidder maintenance" for a while- a suspicion >> which is >> more-or-less confirmed now that I've exchanged email with Milt... >> >> The process has been slow- but it's beginning to accelerate toward the >> finish line. >> >> I'm fortunate that our maintenance team is also the team conducting >> the >> overhaul- so they are very well invested in the airplane. They've >> taken >> great pride in pointing out some of the little details that they >> have looked >> after "just because." >> >> Hope to have her flying again during the next few months... Parts >> are going >> back in- which is nice. >> >> Rob >> >> >> -----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: Monday, May 22, 2006 20:24 >> To: commander-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Advice from Gear-Heads... >> >> >> The bottom line is that you never want to let the props drive the >> engine >> while in flight. That does not mean you can't close the throttles on >> touchdown. >> >> One of the best ways to tell when this is happening is by the sound >> of the >> props. They make a distinct sound as they start to push the engine. >> It is >> not a catastrophic condition but the damaging effects are cumulative. >> >> You can't set the idle to prevent it. >> >> I have flown at least half of the fleet or more of the 685's >> (including >> N414C) It is a great airplane but there is no substitute for proper >> training. >> >> One of my customers liked their 685 so well, they bought a second one! >> (please no jokes about having two because one is always in the >> shop)! They >> fly the heck out of them. >> >> Have fun >> >> Bill Leff >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> __________ NOD32 1.1553 (20060522) Information __________ >> >> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. >> http://www.eset.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: STOLHorse(at)aol.com
Date: May 23, 2006
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads...
I check the feathering on the 685 at about 1200 - 1300 rpm. It's very gentle and you can practically hear the blades change pitch before you see any rpm drop. You can pull the prop lever back to the detent just before feather and all will stay the same because at that rpm the governor is still so far below its minimum governing speed the prop stays at low pitch. When you pull back below the detent, the governor dumps the oil pressure and the propeller will gently start to feather. You can hear it plain as day and then bring it back out of feather before the rpm decays too much. This proves that the feathering function of the governor is working and that the rigging is correct on that end. (I suppose there could be a mechanical defect in the propeller that would stop the blades from moving before they hit the feathering stop but I'm thinking that kind of problem would show itself in flight as poor constant speed governing or inability to maintain low rpm at high air speeds.) Anyway, I don't do this at every runup - only when the rigging needs to be checked or after replacement of some component. And, if you want to actually see it feather, you're practically at idle so you can just pull the prop lever into feather and then mixture to cutoff (I like to open the throttle too after the fuel is cutoff). The engine dies before the blades go all the way and you can just watch the nitrogen and spring do the rest. I let it feather on shut down for the oil changes, too. To unfeather it, you need to bleed all the nitrogen out and get a guy on each blade and turn them back towards low pitch until you hear the pitch stops click into place. Incidentally, the 685 the Commander maintenance manual is incorrect on nitrogen pressure. The book says something like 80psi but that is for a prop without the feathering spring. The props on the 685 DO have springs so the correct pressure for these props is right around 40 psi depending on temperature. The Hartzell book lists the pressure ranges. Anyway, try it at low rpm in your 421 tylor and see if you like it. In my opinion it is far less stressful on the engine than the average hot start! Aaargh. Best regards, David Maytag ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com>
Subject: Advice from Gear-Heads...
Date: May 23, 2006
David- Interesting info- wasn't my question but the detail is appreciated. Robert Randazzo -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of STOLHorse(at)aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 20:57 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Advice from Gear-Heads... I check the feathering on the 685 at about 1200 - 1300 rpm. It's very gentle and you can practically hear the blades change pitch before you see any rpm drop. You can pull the prop lever back to the detent just before feather and all will stay the same because at that rpm the governor is still so far below its minimum governing speed the prop stays at low pitch. When you pull back below the detent, the governor dumps the oil pressure and the propeller will gently start to feather. You can hear it plain as day and then bring it back out of feather before the rpm decays too much. This proves that the feathering function of the governor is working and that the rigging is correct on that end. (I suppose there could be a mechanical defect in the propeller that would stop the blades from moving before they hit the feathering stop but I'm thinking that kind of problem would show itself in flight as poor constant speed governing or inability to maintain low rpm at high air speeds.) Anyway, I don't do this at every runup - only when the rigging needs to be checked or after replacement of some component. And, if you want to actually see it feather, you're practically at idle so you can just pull the prop lever into feather and then mixture to cutoff (I like to open the throttle too after the fuel is cutoff). The engine dies before the blades go all the way and you can just watch the nitrogen and spring do the rest. I let it feather on shut down for the oil changes, too. To unfeather it, you need to bleed all the nitrogen out and get a guy on each blade and turn them back towards low pitch until you hear the pitch stops click into place. Incidentally, the 685 the Commander maintenance manual is incorrect on nitrogen pressure. The book says something like 80psi but that is for a prop without the feathering spring. The props on the 685 DO have springs so the correct pressure for these props is right around 40 psi depending on temperature. The Hartzell book lists the pressure ranges. Anyway, try it at low rpm in your 421 tylor and see if you like it. In my opinion it is far less stressful on the engine than the average hot start! Aaargh. Best regards, David Maytag __________ NOD32 1.1554 (20060524) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Prop feathering
Date: May 23, 2006
I sometimes feather when I shut down just to reseat the seals if nothing else. The IO 720's idle so nicely at 600 RPM that the blades come out of feather with what appears to be no stress at all. Tom F. ----- Original Message ----- From: <STOLHorse(at)aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 20:56 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Advice from Gear-Heads... > > I check the feathering on the 685 at about 1200 - 1300 rpm. It's very > gentle and you can practically hear the blades change pitch before you see any rpm > drop. > > You can pull the prop lever back to the detent just before feather and all > will stay the same because at that rpm the governor is still so far below its > minimum governing speed the prop stays at low pitch. When you pull back > below the detent, the governor dumps the oil pressure and the propeller will > gently start to feather. You can hear it plain as day and then bring it back out > of feather before the rpm decays too much. This proves that the feathering > function of the governor is working and that the rigging is correct on that > end. (I suppose there could be a mechanical defect in the propeller that > would stop the blades from moving before they hit the feathering stop but I'm > thinking that kind of problem would show itself in flight as poor constant speed > governing or inability to maintain low rpm at high air speeds.) > > Anyway, I don't do this at every runup - only when the rigging needs to be > checked or after replacement of some component. And, if you want to actually > see it feather, you're practically at idle so you can just pull the prop > lever into feather and then mixture to cutoff (I like to open the throttle too > after the fuel is cutoff). The engine dies before the blades go all the way > and you can just watch the nitrogen and spring do the rest. I let it feather > on shut down for the oil changes, too. > > To unfeather it, you need to bleed all the nitrogen out and get a guy on > each blade and turn them back towards low pitch until you hear the pitch stops > click into place. > > Incidentally, the 685 the Commander maintenance manual is incorrect on > nitrogen pressure. The book says something like 80psi but that is for a prop > without the feathering spring. The props on the 685 DO have springs so the > correct pressure for these props is right around 40 psi depending on temperature. > The Hartzell book lists the pressure ranges. > > Anyway, try it at low rpm in your 421 tylor and see if you like it. In my > opinion it is far less stressful on the engine than the average hot start! > Aaargh. > > Best regards, > > David Maytag > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 24, 2006
From: Brock Lorber <blorber(at)southwestcirrus.com>
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads... LOP [bcc][faked-from]
CloudCraft(at)aol.com wrote: >Their reason for running ROP was not about cylinder head temperature nor any >of the usual heat or oil wash reasons: it was because of the low lead content >in modern AvGas. > >They saw a problem with valve guide lubrication that lead was intended to >provide in these engines. > > I'm not a metallurgist or engine rebuilder (I'm just barely a pilot :) ) but, I would bet that the engines that still need the lead for valve guide lube have bigger needs. If an engine has been overhauled or topped in the last ~ 10 (20?) years, it doesn't need the lead for lubrication. At some point, even the air-cooled antiques that power these confounded machines received new valve guides that don't use the lead for lubrication. As pointed out, the lead is purely octane boost. God bless the old gear-heads that have been building and rebuilding these things since before I was born, but some have a built-in resistor to noticing there have been some changes since the 1960s. One of the best (and informative) conversations I've had with anyone dealing with engines is when I toured Pacific Continental Engines with the owner John Jackson (818-781-4947) in Van Nuys. John is a busy guy, so he doesn't spend a lot of time jawing, but he did explain to me the differences between the way his father (and other old gear-heads) did things, and the way they're done now. We were talking specifically overhaul considerations - used to be you could mic something like a connecting rod and re-use it if it was in specs, now it's a mandatory replacement per the FAA. His father's resistor basically forced him to hand the operation to John; he just couldn't see his way to replacing what, to him, was a perfectly good part. Add in technology that makes the magic even tighter (I love that phrase), and John's dad was ready to throw in the towel. Thank God he taught John the magic before departing the fix. I'm not buying the APS "red box" hocus that is based on a Continental graph from when Toby was a pup. Their logic contradicts itself when using this chart, thus making that part of their argument suspect. The science is sound, however, and I can provide real-world data from a Continental IO-550 over multiple flights where LOP does amazing things for temps and ease of operation (give me a bit to format and post the data). With almost 500 hours on this engine, I giggle like a school-girl every time I pull the plugs and read the serial numbers stamped into the face of the pistons like they are brand-spanking new. One last observation, and back to the original question about backlash, is that all the LOP, ROP, props forward for landing, ground-feathering, taxi discussions in the world are worthless with the props turning. The ONLY thing you can do to save an engine (and the rest of the airplane for that matter) has nothing to do with operating parameters. It has everything to do with staying in the same zip code as the airplane (or, even better, being one or two zip codes ahead of the airplane) especially in the descent and landing. Strive for a smooth, programmed reduction from cruise power at altitude to idle power on touchdown with the engine pulling the airplane at all times in between (geared and direct-drive). Use your brain and the airplane to hit the spot, not the engines. That's what keeps jugs and props attached to the engines. Brock Lorber 702-510-7728 http://www.southwestcirrus.com/n400ch ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 24, 2006
From: Donnie Rose <aquadiver99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: regulators
Thank you for your kind help Bill, I will order them today. --- W J R HAMILTON wrote: > > > Donnie, > I have then on my 500A, last owner fitted them, not > a problem in years. > Cheers, > Bill H. > > PS They are quite a popular retrofit under our > version of a 337 approval. > > ---------- > > > At 02:29 AM 23/05/2006, you wrote: > > > > >Anyone out there have any expierience with > >"Zeftronics" changeover regulators and relays on a > >500B? > >Need to repair a Regulator system ASAP. > >Thank You > > > >Donnie Rose > >205/492-8444 > > > >__________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List > > > Admin. > > > > > > > > > > > Donnie Rose 205/492-8444 __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Therock24(at)aol.com
Date: May 24, 2006
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads... LOP [bcc][faked-from]
In a message dated 5/24/2006 5:09:45 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, blorber(at)southwestcirrus.com writes: --> Commander-List message posted by: Brock Lorber CloudCraft(at)aol.com wrote: >Their reason for running ROP was not about cylinder head temperature nor any >of the usual heat or oil wash reasons: it was because of the low lead content >in modern AvGas. > >They saw a problem with valve guide lubrication that lead was intended to >provide in these engines. > > I'm not a metallurgist or engine rebuilder (I'm just barely a pilot :) ) but, I would bet that the engines that still need the lead for valve guide lube have bigger needs. If an engine has been overhauled or topped in the last ~ 10 (20?) years, it doesn't need the lead for lubrication. At some point, even the air-cooled antiques that power these confounded machines received new valve guides that don't use the lead for lubrication. As pointed out, the lead is purely octane boost. God bless the old gear-heads that have been building and rebuilding these things since before I was born, but some have a built-in resistor to noticing there have been some changes since the 1960s. One of the best (and informative) conversations I've had with anyone dealing with engines is when I toured Pacific Continental Engines with the owner John Jackson (818-781-4947) in Van Nuys. John is a busy guy, so he doesn't spend a lot of time jawing, but he did explain to me the differences between the way his father (and other old gear-heads) did things, and the way they're done now. We were talking specifically overhaul considerations - used to be you could mic something like a connecting rod and re-use it if it was in specs, now it's a mandatory replacement per the FAA. His father's resistor basically forced him to hand the operation to John; he just couldn't see his way to replacing what, to him, was a perfectly good part. Add in technology that makes the magic even tighter (I love that phrase), and John's dad was ready to throw in the towel. Thank God he taught John the magic before departing the fix. I'm not buying the APS "red box" hocus that is based on a Continental graph from when Toby was a pup. Their logic contradicts itself when using this chart, thus making that part of their argument suspect. The science is sound, however, and I can provide real-world data from a Continental IO-550 over multiple flights where LOP does amazing things for temps and ease of operation (give me a bit to format and post the data). With almost 500 hours on this engine, I giggle like a school-girl every time I pull the plugs and read the serial numbers stamped into the face of the pistons like they are brand-spanking new. One last observation, and back to the original question about backlash, is that all the LOP, ROP, props forward for landing, ground-feathering, taxi discussions in the world are worthless with the props turning. The ONLY thing you can do to save an engine (and the rest of the airplane for that matter) has nothing to do with operating parameters. It has everything to do with staying in the same zip code as the airplane (or, even better, being one or two zip codes ahead of the airplane) especially in the descent and landing. Strive for a smooth, programmed reduction from cruise power at altitude to idle power on touchdown with the engine pulling the airplane at all times in between (geared and direct-drive). Use your brain and the airplane to hit the spot, not the engines. That's what keeps jugs and props attached to the engines. Brock Lorber 702-510-7728 http://www.southwestcirrus.com/n400ch Great input Brock Rocky Magee Sierra Air Conditioning Inc. 4210 West Patrick Lane Las Vegas NV 89118 Office 702 798-1055 ex. 202 Mobile 702 498-7601 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: WINGFLYER1(at)aol.com
Date: May 24, 2006
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads...
+Hello Guys, I am a new 680 owner and very interested in prop and engine management. When I taxi at 12 to 15 and the props forward I hear the gears clanging on the left engine but not on the right side, I would appreciate any advise and have already learned a lot from your comments . Thanks Gil Walker ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: May 24, 2006
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads...
How true! However ,be careful what kind of fuel the line boys put in it!!! Some are not smart enough to tell the difference!! Bill ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: May 24, 2006
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads...
I am sur you baby will appreciate the TLC it is now getting! Keep up the good work. Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: May 24, 2006
Subject: Re: Advice from Gear-Heads...
Cycling the props to feather in the GTSIO-520 in the 421 and the 685 does not hurt the gear boxes. However, I recommend doing it at 1500 engine RPM to reduce the load on the gears. It accomplishes what is necessary. That is: will the prop feather. It is not necessary to have the prop go completely to feather. That unnecessarily loads up the gear train but should not hurt it. Once it starts to drop, return the prop control to full RPM. Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 24, 2006
From: Dave Phifer <dave@phifer-sys.com>
Subject: WA State CFI's Mike Floyd?
I'm new to the Commader list and looking for Washington State based CFI's who can provide initial transition training in the Commander (piston). I was given the name of Mike Floyd but was unable to find any contact information. I'm evaluating the purchase of a 500B and trying to determine the availability of transition instruction. If the purchase goes through, I'd also be interested in the availability and rates of Commander pilots willing to fly on some initial trips. I fly out of 15WA, which is 9nm NW of Arlington (KAWO). Thanks in advance for any and all input. Kind regards, -Dave Phifer (360)939-0123 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Date: May 24, 2006
Subject: Re: WA State CFI's Mike Floyd?
In a message dated 5/24/2006 10:47:18 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, dave@phifer-sys.com writes: I'm evaluating the purchase of a 500B and trying to determine the availability of transition instruction. If the purchase goes through, I'd also be interested in the availability and rates of Commander pilots willing to fly on some initial trips. Hello. I live in Washougal WA (1W!) and I fly a 680E. I dont know of any "local" Commander training but have a couple of other sources. Give me a call at 360-903-6901 Jim Metzger Direector, TCFG ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "mike floyd" <floydgm(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: WA State CFI's Mike Floyd
Date: May 24, 2006
Hi Dave, Welcome to Commander Land. I am a pilot but am not a CFI I am mainly a mechanic for Commander NW in Wenatchee WA. Mike Floyd ________________________________________________________________________________
From: WINGFLYER1(at)aol.com
Date: May 25, 2006
Subject: I owne a 680 commander and would like some advise from
you guys out their. When I taxi at about 12 to 15 props full forward I hear a lot of gears clanging in the left engine but not on the right with the same power settings. Can you offer me any advice . Thanks ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Addington" <jtaddington(at)charter.net>
Cc: "W Bilbow"
Subject:
Date: May 25, 2006
just got a call from the owner of the salvage company at the airport where I keep my 500A. He asked me to pass along some information to the list on N100PV a 1959 Aero Commander 500 sn 784 . He is taking possession of it and it will be scrapped. I understand it has been flown regularly and is being flown into the airport HOWEVER, it has not been in annual since 1992, I have no interest financial or otherwise in this and will pass along any info I can to interested parties. I imagine, time is of the essence. Bill Bow ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Date: May 25, 2006
Subject: Re:
In a message dated 5/25/2006 6:31:06 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jtaddington(at)charter.net writes: I have no interest financial or otherwise in this and will pass along any info I can to interested parties. I imagine, time is of the essence. Please send his contact info.asap. Thanks jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Date: May 25, 2006
Call Don at 352 429 9017. for info on the Commander. bb -----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: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:40 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: In a message dated 5/25/2006 6:31:06 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jtaddington(at)charter.net writes: I have no interest financial or otherwise in this and will pass along any info I can to interested parties. I imagine, time is of the essence. Please send his contact info.asap. Thanks jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: site
Date: May 25, 2006
I found this site the other day. It's kind of interesting. bilbo http://www.airport-data.com/search/search2.html?field=model <http://www.airport-data.com/search/search2.html?field=model&code=Aero+comma nder&search=Search> &code=Aero+commander&search=Search ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Date: May 25, 2006
This is interesting and self explanatory I think. Bilbo Click here http://tinyurl.com/q6hs9 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Test
Date: May 25, 2006
Test ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: 500
Date: May 25, 2006
I've been blocked by a spam filter again. ================================= Attention K Mart shoppers!!!! I just got a call from the owner of the salvage company at the airport where I keep my 500A. He asked me to pass along some information to the list on N100PV a 1959 Aero Commander 500 sn 784 . He is taking possession of it and it will be scrapped. I understand it has been flown regularly and is being flown into the airport HOWEVER, it has not been in annual since 1992, I have no interest financial or otherwise in this and will pass along any info I can to interested parties. I imagine, time is of the essence. Bill Bow ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Attention K Mart shoppers
Date: May 25, 2006
I just got a call from the owner of the salvage company at the airport where I keep my 500A. He asked me to pass along some information to the list on N100PV a 1959 Aero Commander 500 sn 784 . He is taking possession of it and it will be scrapped. I understand it has been flown regularly and is being flown into the airport HOWEVER, it has not been in annual since 1992, I have no interest financial or otherwise in this and will pass along any info I can to interested parties. I imagine, time is of the essence. Bill Bow ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Addington" <jtaddington(at)charter.net>
Subject: site
Date: May 25, 2006
Type in 4TX8 Jim -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bill Bow Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:47 PM Subject: Commander-List: site I found this site the other day. It's kind of interesting. bilbo http://www.airport-data.com/search/search2.html?field=model <http://www.airport-data.com/search/search2.html?field=model&code=Aero+comma nder&search=Search> &code=Aero+commander&search=Search ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com>
Subject: site
Date: May 26, 2006
Jim- I zoomed in the google earth photo- and I saw a little sign about half way down the runway that reads: "Free lunch for all commander owners." Too bad I can't get a balanced field length for the 685 on 2600' of turf.... ;-) Robert Randazzo -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Addington Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 20:48 Subject: RE: Commander-List: site --> Type in 4TX8 Jim -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bill Bow Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:47 PM Subject: Commander-List: site --> I found this site the other day. It's kind of interesting. bilbo http://www.airport-data.com/search/search2.html?field=model <http://www.airport-data.com/search/search2.html?field=model&code=Aero+comma nder&search=Search> &code=Aero+commander&search=Search __________ NOD32 1.1559 (20060525) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: May 26, 2006
Subject: site
Good Morning Robert, Even for a free lunch? Just as an observation, how important is a balanced field length? I certainly would prefer to have such available, but there are always Risk/Reward evaluations to be made. It has been a long time, but it is my recollection that the landing strip at Camp David was no where near 2600 feet long when President Eisenhower was using it with an Aero Commander. Admittedly, they no longer fly fixed wing airplanes into or out of Camp David and that is probably due to the lack of a balanced field length, but it is interesting that a balanced field length was not felt to be required at the time Ike (a licensed pilot) was Commander In Chief. If the flight into an airport that does not provide a balanced field length avoids an automobile drive across fifty miles of mountain roads, which is the safest? As Always, It All Depends! 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 5/26/2006 5:08:47 A.M. Central Standard Time, rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com writes: Jim- I zoomed in the google earth photo- and I saw a little sign about half way down the runway that reads: "Free lunch for all commander owners." Too bad I can't get a balanced field length for the 685 on 2600' of turf.... ;-) Robert Randazzo ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Balanced Field Length. Was: site
From: "N395V" <n395v(at)hughes.net>
Date: May 26, 2006
Crunk, who frequently flew a 520 and 560F in and out of a 2100' grass strip conveyed a really great philosophy to on of his neighbors who objected to his Twins at their little airpark. His neighbors objection was that if Jim lost an engine before he could fly say 1500' Jim would end up in the pond at the end of the strip. Jim smiled and said yes you are correct. I will be right there in the pond with you when you lose your single engine at the same spot in the takeoff. yes there are tradeoffs but we all used to and still do fly single engine planes knowing that if we lose one we are going off field. Having said that I do not think 2600' of grass is a good idea in a loaded 685. -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=36536#36536 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: May 26, 2006
Subject: Re: Balanced Field Length. Was: site
In a message dated 5/26/2006 6:27:35 A.M. Central Standard Time, n395v(at)hughes.net writes: Having said that I do not think 2600' of grass is a good idea in a loaded 685. Even for a free lunch? Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BertBerry1(at)aol.com
Date: May 26, 2006
Subject: Re: Attention K Mart shoppers
Bill, Would it be possible to get some photos of N100PV when she arrives? THanks, Bert ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Addington" <jtaddington(at)charter.net>
Subject: site
Date: May 26, 2006
That is what the sign said. Jim -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert S. Randazzo Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 5:07 AM Subject: RE: Commander-List: site Jim- I zoomed in the google earth photo- and I saw a little sign about half way down the runway that reads: "Free lunch for all commander owners." Too bad I can't get a balanced field length for the 685 on 2600' of turf.... ;-) Robert Randazzo -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Addington Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 20:48 Subject: RE: Commander-List: site --> Type in 4TX8 Jim -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bill Bow Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:47 PM Subject: Commander-List: site --> I found this site the other day. It's kind of interesting. bilbo http://www.airport-data.com/search/search2.html?field=model <http://www.airport-data.com/search/search2.html?field=model&code=Aero+comma nder&search=Search> &code=Aero+commander&search=Search __________ NOD32 1.1559 (20060525) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: Balanced Field Length. Was: site
Date: May 26, 2006
Bob, "There's no such thing as a free lunch!" I think that would be especially true of a loaded 685 on a 2,600-ft. runway. Unless, of course, you're talking about the scavengers at the end of the runway. They might even have a free BBQ. What Morris has always said about the 685 is, "if you can see the end of the runway, it's not long enough!" > Having said that I do not think 2600' of grass is a good idea in a loaded > 685. > > Even for a free lunch? > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: site
Date: May 26, 2006
Show-off! /John > > > Type in 4TX8 > > Jim > > I found this site the other day. It's kind of interesting. > > > bilbo > > > http://www.airport-data.com/search/search2.html?field=model > <http://www.airport-data.com/search/search2.html?field=model&code=Aero+comma > nder&search=Search> &code=Aero+commander&search=Search > > > __________ NOD32 1.1556 (20060525) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ NOD32 1.1556 (20060525) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Balanced Field Length. Was: site
From: "N395V" <n395v(at)hughes.net>
Date: May 26, 2006
[quote=Even for a free lunch?[/quote] Not even if lunch involved Nicole Kidman in a significant way. -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=36617#36617 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "nico css" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Re: Balanced Field Length. Was: site
Date: May 26, 2006
Now, wait a cotton-pickin' minute there, Milt. -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of N395V Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:30 AM Subject: Commander-List: Re: Balanced Field Length. Was: site [quote=Even for a free lunch?[/quote] Not even if lunch involved Nicole Kidman in a significant way. -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=36617#36617 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: May 26, 2006
Subject: Re: Balanced Field Length. Was: site
There was a guy who operated a 685 from an 1800 ft grass strip in Wisconsin. I still have some pieces of it from the crash site! It worked O)K until an engine quit! Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: 680 FLP heater intake scoop
Date: May 26, 2006
Gentlemen, Amongst the many deficiencies that I have had to rectify to bring this ship up to standard one of the items is the intake scoop that fits on the rectangular opening on top of the baggage compartment that feeds the heater/air conditioner system in the tail. Does anyone know where I could find one of these ? Tom F. C-GISS 680FLP (Mr.RPM) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com>
Subject: site
Date: May 26, 2006
O.B. Well- the word "FREE" is a very compelling one to the airline pilot side of my personality... UAL trained me well... In fact- one could argue that the logical extension of their training would be to have me fly for free- but I fell out of the nest before indoctrination was completed. (That's a discussion for another day. ;-) hehehe ) I joked about the BFL- and in actuality I never used one in my personal flying until this airplane. The 685 is a marvelously capable airplane- but I never lose sight of the fact that I have 435hp per side where the turbo commander version of this same airframe has 700.... Out here in Nevada- there isn't an airport to be found that doesn't have rising terrain in at least 2 quadrants- so I've upped the safety cushion on my flying to ensure I never find myself without any options. (Anyone ever notice that they always point the longest runway at the highest terrain? Why IS that????) I routinely fly the SNJ-6 into Quincy, CA for breakfast- and while that runway is *just* long enough for the 685- I shudder to think of my options in the event of a failure... Even in the SNJ I have to circle the valley a few times to climb about the surrounding ridges... I think all that airline training whipped the dare-devil right out of me. :-) Hows that stearman, Bob? That's an airplane I've never flown but always admired.... Robert Randazzo -----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, May 26, 2006 03:56 Subject: Balanced Field Length. Was: Commander-List: site Good Morning Robert, Even for a free lunch? Just as an observation, how important is a balanced field length? I certainly would prefer to have such available, but there are always Risk/Reward evaluations to be made. It has been a long time, but it is my recollection that the landing strip at Camp David was no where near 2600 feet long when President Eisenhower was using it with an Aero Commander. Admittedly, they no longer fly fixed wing airplanes into or out of Camp David and that is probably due to the lack of a balanced field length, but it is interesting that a balanced field length was not felt to be required at the time Ike (a licensed pilot) was Commander In Chief. If the flight into an airport that does not provide a balanced field length avoids an automobile drive across fifty miles of mountain roads, which is the safest? As Always, It All Depends! 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 5/26/2006 5:08:47 A.M. Central Standard Time, rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com writes: Jim- I zoomed in the google earth photo- and I saw a little sign about half way down the runway that reads: "Free lunch for all commander owners." Too bad I can't get a balanced field length for the 685 on 2600' of turf.... ;-) Robert Randazzo __________ NOD32 1.1561 (20060526) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com>
Subject: Re: Balanced Field Length. Was: site
Date: May 26, 2006
Free lunch AND Nicole? Hmmmm... It might work....... Rob -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of N395V Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 09:30 Subject: Commander-List: Re: Balanced Field Length. Was: site [quote=Even for a free lunch?[/quote] Not even if lunch involved Nicole Kidman in a significant way. -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=36617#36617 __________ NOD32 1.1561 (20060526) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com>
Subject: Re: Balanced Field Length. Was: site
Date: May 26, 2006
Hey Bill! I read that NTSB report when I first started looking at this airplane- and I think that one officially fell into the category of: "He did what????" For those who haven't read it: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI97LA011&rpt=fa (The runway was 1400 feet......OUCH) Rob -----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: Friday, May 26, 2006 09:46 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Balanced Field Length. Was: site There was a guy who operated a 685 from an 1800 ft grass strip in Wisconsin. I still have some pieces of it from the crash site! It worked O)K until an engine quit! Bill Leff __________ NOD32 1.1561 (20060526) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com>
Subject: 680 FLP heater intake scoop
Date: May 26, 2006
Tom- Try Oklahoma Air Parts... Ask for Joe (I think?) Popkin. I recently purchasd a turbo from him- and he mentioned that he has a significant number of parts "just about anything you'd need." He might be able to help... I can't find the number- its in the hangar. If you need it- let me know and I'll make it a point to stop there this weekend. Rob -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom Fisher Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:35 Subject: Commander-List: 680 FLP heater intake scoop --> Gentlemen, Amongst the many deficiencies that I have had to rectify to bring this ship up to standard one of the items is the intake scoop that fits on the rectangular opening on top of the baggage compartment that feeds the heater/air conditioner system in the tail. Does anyone know where I could find one of these ? Tom F. C-GISS 680FLP (Mr.RPM) __________ NOD32 1.1561 (20060526) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Addington" <jtaddington(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Balanced Field Length. Was: site
Date: May 26, 2006
I opened up 500' on the north end and 250' on the south end, but to get that on the map would have required an other study so they told me to just put it down as over run. It was never a problem for my 500A even with just 2600'. I rented my plane to an FAA airport inspector that said he went in and out of a 1000' strip in Alaska. I can get it down in a 1000' but getting off usually takes 1200', don't how he did it unless he had a good wind. Jim Addington N444BD 500A -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of N395V Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 6:27 AM Subject: Commander-List: Re: Balanced Field Length. Was: site Crunk, who frequently flew a 520 and 560F in and out of a 2100' grass strip conveyed a really great philosophy to on of his neighbors who objected to his Twins at their little airpark. His neighbors objection was that if Jim lost an engine before he could fly say 1500' Jim would end up in the pond at the end of the strip. Jim smiled and said yes you are correct. I will be right there in the pond with you when you lose your single engine at the same spot in the takeoff. yes there are tradeoffs but we all used to and still do fly single engine planes knowing that if we lose one we are going off field. Having said that I do not think 2600' of grass is a good idea in a loaded 685. -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=36536#36536 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "nico css" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Re: Balanced Field Length. Was: site
Date: May 26, 2006
It all depends on what he ate, I guess. -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Addington Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:50 PM Subject: RE: Commander-List: Re: Balanced Field Length. Was: site I opened up 500' on the north end and 250' on the south end, but to get that on the map would have required an other study so they told me to just put it down as over run. It was never a problem for my 500A even with just 2600'. I rented my plane to an FAA airport inspector that said he went in and out of a 1000' strip in Alaska. I can get it down in a 1000' but getting off usually takes 1200', don't how he did it unless he had a good wind. Jim Addington N444BD 500A -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of N395V Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 6:27 AM Subject: Commander-List: Re: Balanced Field Length. Was: site Crunk, who frequently flew a 520 and 560F in and out of a 2100' grass strip conveyed a really great philosophy to on of his neighbors who objected to his Twins at their little airpark. His neighbors objection was that if Jim lost an engine before he could fly say 1500' Jim would end up in the pond at the end of the strip. Jim smiled and said yes you are correct. I will be right there in the pond with you when you lose your single engine at the same spot in the takeoff. yes there are tradeoffs but we all used to and still do fly single engine planes knowing that if we lose one we are going off field. Having said that I do not think 2600' of grass is a good idea in a loaded 685. -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=36536#36536 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: spam
Date: May 26, 2006
Am I still spam? bb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Addington" <jtaddington(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Balanced Field Length. Was: site
Date: May 26, 2006
Had not thought about that, maybe he was getting a bean boost. Jim -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of nico css Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 3:30 PM Subject: RE: Commander-List: Re: Balanced Field Length. Was: site It all depends on what he ate, I guess. -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Addington Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:50 PM Subject: RE: Commander-List: Re: Balanced Field Length. Was: site I opened up 500' on the north end and 250' on the south end, but to get that on the map would have required an other study so they told me to just put it down as over run. It was never a problem for my 500A even with just 2600'. I rented my plane to an FAA airport inspector that said he went in and out of a 1000' strip in Alaska. I can get it down in a 1000' but getting off usually takes 1200', don't how he did it unless he had a good wind. Jim Addington N444BD 500A -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of N395V Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 6:27 AM Subject: Commander-List: Re: Balanced Field Length. Was: site Crunk, who frequently flew a 520 and 560F in and out of a 2100' grass strip conveyed a really great philosophy to on of his neighbors who objected to his Twins at their little airpark. His neighbors objection was that if Jim lost an engine before he could fly say 1500' Jim would end up in the pond at the end of the strip. Jim smiled and said yes you are correct. I will be right there in the pond with you when you lose your single engine at the same spot in the takeoff. yes there are tradeoffs but we all used to and still do fly single engine planes knowing that if we lose one we are going off field. Having said that I do not think 2600' of grass is a good idea in a loaded 685. -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=36536#36536 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Addington" <jtaddington(at)charter.net>
Subject: spam
Date: May 26, 2006
Any thing you need sent let me know. Jim -----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, May 26, 2006 4:22 PM Subject: Commander-List: spam Am I still spam? bb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: spam
Date: May 26, 2006
I am. Tom F. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 14:22 Subject: Commander-List: spam > > Am I still spam? > > > > bb > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: spam
Date: May 26, 2006
No. Thanks to Matt, I am no longer spam in the eyes of the list. I have been cleansed, Alleluia! I am still spam in the eyes of one cperry(at)subictel.com . They have earthlink on their spam list so I get crap from them. bilbo -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Addington Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 6:16 PM Subject: RE: Commander-List: spam Any thing you need sent let me know. Jim -----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, May 26, 2006 4:22 PM Subject: Commander-List: spam Am I still spam? bb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: spam
Date: May 26, 2006
That is the same site that tells me that my mail was not delivered because it was considered spam, I have no idea what to do about it. Tom F. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 15:31 Subject: RE: Commander-List: spam > > No. > Thanks to Matt, I am no longer spam in the eyes of the list. I have been > cleansed, Alleluia! > > I am still spam in the eyes of one cperry(at)subictel.com . They have > earthlink on their spam list so I get crap from them. > > bilbo > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim > Addington > Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 6:16 PM > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: Commander-List: spam > > > > Any thing you need sent let me know. > > Jim > > -----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, May 26, 2006 4:22 PM > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Commander-List: spam > > > Am I still spam? > > > bb > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Attention K Mart shoppers
Date: May 26, 2006
I'm at work and won't be able to get home until late next week. I would recommend calling Don at Don at 352 429 9017. He might be able to handle that. bb -----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: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:45 AM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Attention K Mart shoppers Bill, Would it be possible to get some photos of N100PV when she arrives? THanks, Bert ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "steve" <steveg(at)nternet.com>
Subject: AC500
Date: May 26, 2006
Does anyone know who owns AC500 N503RT? FAA shows D&B Services of Maricopa AZ. A selfish reason is that she is on the ramp here in Kerrville where I flew my Bo to be with the family for the holiday. Most of you will remember I was 1/2 owner of an AC500 N6291B. I would hope to meet the owner/pilot and maybe get a closer look before going home. Steve Gilson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Allen Reed" <allen_reed2(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: site
Date: May 26, 2006
Lucille made it in and out of our 1700 ft strip,with half a field to spare!= Big > From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com> Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 06:55:33 -0400> Subject: B= alanced Field Length. Was: Commander-List: site> To: commander-list@matroni= ood Morning Robert, > > Even for a free lunch?> > Just as an observation,= how important is a balanced field length? > > I certainly would prefer to= have such available, but there are always > Risk/Reward evaluations to be= made. > > It has been a long time, but it is my recollection that the lan= ding strip at > Camp David was no where near 2600 feet long when President= Eisenhower was > using it with an Aero Commander. > > Admittedly, they n= o longer fly fixed wing airplanes into or out of Camp > David and that is = probably due to the lack of a balanced field length, but it is > interesti= ng that a balanced field length was not felt to be required at the > time = Ike (a licensed pilot) was Commander In Chief.> > If the flight into an ai= rport that does not provide a balanced field length > avoids an automobile= drive across fifty miles of mountain roads, which is the > safest?> > As= Always, It All Depends!> > 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 5/26/2006 5:08:47 A.M. C= entral Standard Time, > rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com writes:> > Jim-> >= I zoomed in the google earth photo- and I saw a little sign about half wa= y> down the runway that reads: "Free lunch for all commander owners."> > = Too bad I can't get a balanced field length for the 685 on 2600' of turf..= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> > > = > > > > > > = ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Subject: Re: AC500
Date: May 27, 2006
Hi Steve, I do! It is indeed D&B Services, and that entity has Don Pew and Bruce A Stevens as partners. Hope you get to meet them and the chance to extol the virtues of joining the Flight Group!! Very Best Regards, Barry ----- Original Message ----- From: "steve" <steveg(at)nternet.com> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 3:48 AM Subject: Commander-List: AC500 | | Does anyone know who owns AC500 N503RT? FAA shows D&B Services of Maricopa | AZ. A selfish reason is that she is on the ramp here in Kerrville where I | flew my Bo to be with the family for the holiday. Most of you will remember | I was 1/2 owner of an AC500 N6291B. I would hope to meet the owner/pilot | and maybe get a closer look before going home. | | Steve Gilson | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 27, 2006
From: Donnie Rose <aquadiver99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: 500B
Happy Memorial Day weekend fellow Commanders! I am converting to alternators next week. I have elected to use Zeftronics controllers but am uncertain about which alternators to use. Sure would appreciate any advice you folks might have. Thank you and God Bless. Donnie Rose 205/492-8444 __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com
Date: May 28, 2006
Subject: Re: 500B
Donnie, I have Dennis Polito as a house guest this evening. He converted his 500B to the Zeftronics voltage regulators, but did not change to alternators from generators. He suggests you call Morris Kernick for advice. Wing Commander Gordon Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Another derelect
From: "N395V" <n395v(at)hughes.net>
Date: May 28, 2006
[Crying or Very sad] -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=36939#36939 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Another derelect
Date: May 28, 2006
You would look real sporty in that Alticruiser. bb -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of N395V Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 9:45 AM Subject: Commander-List: Another derelect [Crying or Very sad] -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=36939#36939 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Subject: Flight Manual - Model 500S
Date: May 28, 2006
Hi Guys, If somebody has a Flight Manual for the Model 500S, I wonder if I could ask a favor? The first few pages contain details covering Specifications and Performance, usually under headings such as Operating Limitations. Virtually all the information on those first few pages is readily obtainable from other sources, of course, but I do like to use them for cross-checking purposes. However, I find myself without any copies for the 500S. So, if somebody is able to scan them and email them thorough to me, I'll be extremely grateful, as I'm currently compiling an up-date to my 500S 'Fact File'. Very Best Regards, Barry ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 28, 2006
From: Chris Schuermann <cschuerm(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Another derelect
N395V wrote: > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=36939#36939 That's another one that'll be purchased by a clueless wonder who will find out that it's gonna take a fortune to fix it. Likely in the boneyard in another year or so.... very sad. BTW, just saw a new price list from Custom Airmotive. They've officially discontinued overhauls for all GSO 480 and 540 series engines due to lack of parts. They're still doing gearbox overhauls though. $10,000 each for just the nose case. They do still show overhauls available for GO-480's fortunately. chris ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tylor Hall <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Another derelect
Date: May 28, 2006
The future is near! What about hanging a pair of these on a Twin Commander? http://www.centurion-engines.com/c40/c40_start.htm They just flew a 206 with the 4.0 engine and are planning on doing a 414 next. The Duke is flying. 24 GPH for 350HP Tylor Hall On May 28, 2006, at 4:20 PM, Chris Schuermann wrote: > > > > N395V wrote: >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=36939#36939 > > > That's another one that'll be purchased by a clueless wonder who will > find out that it's gonna take a fortune to fix it. Likely in the > boneyard in another year or so.... very sad. > > BTW, just saw a new price list from Custom Airmotive. They've > officially discontinued overhauls for all GSO 480 and 540 series > engines > due to lack of parts. They're still doing gearbox overhauls though. > $10,000 each for just the nose case. They do still show overhauls > available for GO-480's fortunately. > > chris > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com>
Subject: Another derelect
Date: May 28, 2006
Hmmmmm....... Maybe if we arrange an elaborate kidnapping we could finally have a replacement for the GTSIO-520K? :-) Still dreaming- but a guy must always have a dream. Rob -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tylor Hall Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 17:28 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Another derelect --> The future is near! What about hanging a pair of these on a Twin Commander? http://www.centurion-engines.com/c40/c40_start.htm They just flew a 206 with the 4.0 engine and are planning on doing a 414 next. The Duke is flying. 24 GPH for 350HP Tylor Hall On May 28, 2006, at 4:20 PM, Chris Schuermann wrote: > > > > N395V wrote: >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=36939#36939 > > > That's another one that'll be purchased by a clueless wonder who will > find out that it's gonna take a fortune to fix it. Likely in the > boneyard in another year or so.... very sad. > > BTW, just saw a new price list from Custom Airmotive. They've > officially discontinued overhauls for all GSO 480 and 540 series > engines > due to lack of parts. They're still doing gearbox overhauls though. > $10,000 each for just the nose case. They do still show overhauls > available for GO-480's fortunately. > > chris > > __________ NOD32 1.1563 (20060528) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: Another derelect
Date: May 28, 2006
Tylor, There's a guy somewhere in AZ who has a Helio Courier with the 4.0 on it, and Morris & I are supposed to fly down to take a look. If AvGas really is not going to be available in the long run, maybe this is the solution we need! Hmm, 350hp of turbodiesel power on my 500B might make all the difference in the world. /J ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tylor Hall" <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net> Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 5:28 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Another derelect > > > > The future is near! > What about hanging a pair of these on a Twin Commander? > > http://www.centurion-engines.com/c40/c40_start.htm > > They just flew a 206 with the 4.0 engine and are planning on doing a > 414 next. > The Duke is flying. > 24 GPH for 350HP > Tylor Hall > > On May 28, 2006, at 4:20 PM, Chris Schuermann wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> N395V wrote: >>> Read this topic online here: >>> >>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=36939#36939 >> >> >> That's another one that'll be purchased by a clueless wonder who will >> find out that it's gonna take a fortune to fix it. Likely in the >> boneyard in another year or so.... very sad. >> >> BTW, just saw a new price list from Custom Airmotive. They've >> officially discontinued overhauls for all GSO 480 and 540 series >> engines >> due to lack of parts. They're still doing gearbox overhauls though. >> $10,000 each for just the nose case. They do still show overhauls >> available for GO-480's fortunately. >> >> chris >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > __________ NOD32 1.1562 (20060527) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ NOD32 1.1562 (20060527) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: May 28, 2006
Subject: Another derelect
In a message dated 5/28/2006 9:36:30 P.M. Central Standard Time, john(at)vormbaum.com writes: Tylor, There's a guy somewhere in AZ who has a Helio Courier with the 4.0 on it, and Morris & I are supposed to fly down to take a look. If AvGas really is not going to be available in the long run, maybe this is the solution we need! Hmm, 350hp of turbodiesel power on my 500B might make all the difference in the world. Good Evening John, It is great to se a new competitive engine on the scene, but the weight does appear a little high. If the fuel consumption is as low as quoted, the extra weight can be compensated for by the lower burn, but it is a shame to have to add weight at all. I am not at all familiar with the weights of the various Lycomings used on the Aero Commanders, but I am familiar with the weight of a Turbo Supercharged Continental IO-550-B. While it only develops 300 horsepower, it also weighs one hundred pounds less than the new diesel. Any comments? Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tylor Hall <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Another derelect
Date: May 28, 2006
Old Bob, On the web site, they say the weight in a 414 is about the same total install with prop. They also talked about not needing to change the cowling on the 206. I know in trucks, a diesel has a lot more torque that the same size gas engine. 575 ft lbs. They claim 45 liters/hr/eng. 12 gallons per hour in US terms. http://www.thielert.com/ I am sure someone like John Towner would be interested. Tylor Hall On May 28, 2006, at 9:17 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote: > > > In a message dated 5/28/2006 9:36:30 P.M. Central Standard Time, > john(at)vormbaum.com writes: > > Tylor, > > There's a guy somewhere in AZ who has a Helio Courier with the 4.0 > on it, > and Morris & I are supposed to fly down to take a look. If AvGas > really is > not going to be available in the long run, maybe this is the > solution we > need! > > Hmm, 350hp of turbodiesel power on my 500B might make all the > difference in > the world. > > > Good Evening John, > > It is great to se a new competitive engine on the scene, but the > weight does > appear a little high. If the fuel consumption is as low as quoted, > the extra > weight can be compensated for by the lower burn, but it is a shame > to have > to add weight at all. I am not at all familiar with the weights of > the various > Lycomings used on the Aero Commanders, but I am familiar with the > weight of a > Turbo Supercharged Continental IO-550-B. While it only develops 300 > horsepower, it also weighs one hundred pounds less than the new > diesel. > > Any comments? > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Ancient Aviator > Stearman N3977A > Brookeridge Air Park LL22 > Downers Grove, IL 60516 > 630 985-8503 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: Another derelect
Date: May 28, 2006
Hi Bob, Don't quote me, but I seem to recall that the kit will add about 60lbs. per side. That may not be prohibitive, considering the probable gross weight increase we'd get from the addition of extra horsepower. I'll bet that if/when it's approved as a replacement for the direct-drive Commanders, they'll specify 300 or 320 hp per engine vs. the original 290. Chris S. also addressed the cost. Considering that there are 2 aircraft I know of on the west coast who've paid a princely sum ($100-150k) to do the Merlyn conversion, which is still avgas-powered, I think the market for the diesel upgrade is viable. Just my $0.02, /J ----- Original Message ----- From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com> Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 8:17 PM Subject: Commander-List: Another derelect > > > In a message dated 5/28/2006 9:36:30 P.M. Central Standard Time, > john(at)vormbaum.com writes: > > Tylor, > > There's a guy somewhere in AZ who has a Helio Courier with the 4.0 on it, > and Morris & I are supposed to fly down to take a look. If AvGas really > is > not going to be available in the long run, maybe this is the solution we > need! > > Hmm, 350hp of turbodiesel power on my 500B might make all the difference > in > the world. > > > Good Evening John, > > It is great to se a new competitive engine on the scene, but the weight > does > appear a little high. If the fuel consumption is as low as quoted, the > extra > weight can be compensated for by the lower burn, but it is a shame to have > to add weight at all. I am not at all familiar with the weights of the > various > Lycomings used on the Aero Commanders, but I am familiar with the weight > of a > Turbo Supercharged Continental IO-550-B. While it only develops 300 > horsepower, it also weighs one hundred pounds less than the new diesel. > > Any comments? > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Ancient Aviator > Stearman N3977A > Brookeridge Air Park LL22 > Downers Grove, IL 60516 > 630 985-8503 > > > __________ NOD32 1.1562 (20060527) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ NOD32 1.1562 (20060527) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com>
Subject: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
Date: May 28, 2006
Commanders- I'm still in the process of compiling me general fund of knowledge- and thought you guys might be able to help with this mystery.... The Pilots Operating Handbook for the Commander 685 references conducting all takeoffs with the flaps UP. When I was checked out in N414C at purchase, the check pilot said that he conducts all of his takeoffs at flaps 10. I've used his advice- although for giggles I conducted one takeoff without them just to feel the difference. I found that performance (we are at 5200' MSL) was better with the flaps at 10, so this would seem to be my preference. I have not scientifically conducted any takeoff distance/climb performance measurements yet, obviously. Anyone have any hard-fast logic on this? Robert Randazzo ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "nico css" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
Date: May 29, 2006
I don't even take off a Cessna 150 without flaps set to at least 10. Although the Commanders don't have Fowler flaps, it still increases lift more than it increases drag at 10 deg. It just makes sense to increase lift on take-off. When flap settings will cause the plane to lift off before VMC, then I will take off without flaps, but Commanders will run off the end of the world if the pilot doesn't positively rotate. Moreover, if an engine fails immediately after take-off (who's paying attention to balanced fields?), I kinda like the spread between stall speed and airspeed with 10 deg flaps. It's my 2c worth. Nico -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert S. Randazzo Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 11:53 PM Subject: Commander-List: Any thoughts on FLAPS? Commanders- I'm still in the process of compiling me general fund of knowledge- and thought you guys might be able to help with this mystery.... The Pilots Operating Handbook for the Commander 685 references conducting all takeoffs with the flaps UP. When I was checked out in N414C at purchase, the check pilot said that he conducts all of his takeoffs at flaps 10. I've used his advice- although for giggles I conducted one takeoff without them just to feel the difference. I found that performance (we are at 5200' MSL) was better with the flaps at 10, so this would seem to be my preference. I have not scientifically conducted any takeoff distance/climb performance measurements yet, obviously. Anyone have any hard-fast logic on this? Robert Randazzo ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: May 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Another derelect
Good Morning John, The engine does sound very interesting. I wouldn't count on getting a gross weight approval. The problem is more one of meeting the noise requirements than the performance requirements. The increase in engine weight could be a problem due to the potential structural requirements to carry the engine (Mounts and attach points may need a beef up.) Assuming that the Commander structure IS strong enough to meet the requirements as is, the airplane will have to demonstrate that it can meet the new Part 36 (I think!) criteria to get a gross weight increase. One way that has been accomplished by other converters has been to show that the new power plant allowed a higher rate of climb which allowed the airplane to pass over the recording devices high enough to meet the new specifications. I doubt if the increase in power will be enough to meet that criteria. However, if the engine can meet the published fuel consumption figure, it should be able to carry a higher payload on any flight longer than a couple of hours by burning less fuel at any specified air speed that is above best L/D. I don't know if the market is large enough to justify the difficulties of getting an approval past the Friendly Aviation Attack dogs, but it does sound like an excellent way to go. I certainly wish them well! 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 5/29/2006 1:37:26 A.M. Central Standard Time, john(at)vormbaum.com writes: Don't quote me, but I seem to recall that the kit will add about 60lbs. per side. That may not be prohibitive, considering the probable gross weight increase we'd get from the addition of extra horsepower. I'll bet that if/when it's approved as a replacement for the direct-drive Commanders, they'll specify 300 or 320 hp per engine vs. the original 290. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 29, 2006
From: Donnie Rose <aquadiver99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
Hey Robert, I own a 500B but the differences are VERY little. My POH says the same. What I have found to be the most beneficial is flaps up or 10, no great diff, but as soon as you start rolling, maintain back pressure on the yoke so at 85 mph or so you are airborne. This technique reduces your ground roll and wear on the nose wheel. Otherwise, you will remain on the ground indefinitely until you finally pull back and shoot up in the air. --- "Robert S. Randazzo" wrote: > Randazzo" > > Commanders- > > I'm still in the process of compiling me general > fund of knowledge- and > thought you guys might be able to help with this > mystery.... > > The Pilots Operating Handbook for the Commander 685 > references conducting > all takeoffs with the flaps UP. > > When I was checked out in N414C at purchase, the > check pilot said that he > conducts all of his takeoffs at flaps 10. > > I've used his advice- although for giggles I > conducted one takeoff without > them just to feel the difference. > > I found that performance (we are at 5200' MSL) was > better with the flaps at > 10, so this would seem to be my preference. > > I have not scientifically conducted any takeoff > distance/climb performance > measurements yet, obviously. > > Anyone have any hard-fast logic on this? > > Robert Randazzo > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List > > > Admin. > > > > > > > > > > > Donnie Rose 205/492-8444 __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
Date: May 29, 2006
I like "shooting up in the air". bilbo -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Donnie Rose Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:18 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Any thoughts on FLAPS? Hey Robert, I own a 500B but the differences are VERY little. My POH says the same. What I have found to be the most beneficial is flaps up or 10, no great diff, but as soon as you start rolling, maintain back pressure on the yoke so at 85 mph or so you are airborne. This technique reduces your ground roll and wear on the nose wheel. Otherwise, you will remain on the ground indefinitely until you finally pull back and shoot up in the air. --- "Robert S. Randazzo" wrote: > Randazzo" > > Commanders- > > I'm still in the process of compiling me general > fund of knowledge- and > thought you guys might be able to help with this > mystery.... > > The Pilots Operating Handbook for the Commander 685 > references conducting > all takeoffs with the flaps UP. > > When I was checked out in N414C at purchase, the > check pilot said that he > conducts all of his takeoffs at flaps 10. > > I've used his advice- although for giggles I > conducted one takeoff without > them just to feel the difference. > > I found that performance (we are at 5200' MSL) was > better with the flaps at > 10, so this would seem to be my preference. > > I have not scientifically conducted any takeoff > distance/climb performance > measurements yet, obviously. > > Anyone have any hard-fast logic on this? > > Robert Randazzo > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List > > > Admin. > > > > > > > > > > > Donnie Rose 205/492-8444 __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: Diesel Daydreams
Date: May 29, 2006
Hi Bob, Food for thought... Merlyn products has a pair of approved conversions to go to a single-turbo version of the IO-540 Wide Deck engine. BOTH installs result in a gross weight increase. The kit adds weight, but less than 150 lbs. total (I think) and the GW increase is on the order of 400 lbs. The engines are rated at 320hp for the low-compression engine and 300hp for the high-compression conversion (the 300hp turbonormalized conversion adds less weight and gets a more modest 250lb. increase). Granted, it's still an avgas engine, still a Lycoming, and still 540ci.....but it is new, it does add HP, and you do get a GW increase. And it's still Commander Loud. 1) How might the Merlyn conversion be OK with the FAA, but the Centurion engine wouldn't? 2) The fuel consumption is greater on the Merlyn increase...wouldn't it be easier to plead your case for a conversion with a lower SFC? 3) The diesel props turn considerably slower than the avgas props (2000-2100 vs. 2575 I believe), which should make LESS noise, right? 4) Centurion has retrofitted a Duke with the 4.0 engine, and that's working out fine, but the diesels at 606 lbs. (with all accessories) weigh less than an IO-541. It's still a lot heavier than an IO-540....so I think a break-even GW would be a nice target, maybe. See the Duke at http://www.dukeb60.de/ under "news" 5) The Duke stats list the noise level as lower than they Lyc at 78db(A). This sounds pretty good to me (ewww...a pun). It sounds like the biggest sticking point might be the engine mounts & airframe attach points, although I'm pretty optimistic about the strength of the Commander airframe. The death knell might be the price. The Duke guy paid EUR 175,000 PER SIDE, which today is about $223,000 per side. For that price, I could just upgrade to a 690A. I just received this from John Towner (he can't post to the list for some funky technical reason): I read your message on the chat page about diesel engines. Two years ago we investigated the diesel for the Aero Commander. I think it would be a great mod but at the time the engine we looked at weighed about 600 lbs and that would cut down our usefuel load by about 400 lbs. The other thing I have learned over the years with the 690 and Learjet flying, unless you can get above 18,000 extra HP does really not make that much difference in TAS overall. I replied to him to ask if he was looking at the Thielert/Centurion conversion or if there are other players out there. Cheers, /John ----- Original Message ----- From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 5:32 AM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Another derelect > > > Good Morning John, > > The engine does sound very interesting. > > I wouldn't count on getting a gross weight approval. The problem is more > one > of meeting the noise requirements than the performance requirements. > > The increase in engine weight could be a problem due to the potential > structural requirements to carry the engine (Mounts and attach points may > need a > beef up.) > > Assuming that the Commander structure IS strong enough to meet the > requirements as is, the airplane will have to demonstrate that it can meet > the new > Part 36 (I think!) criteria to get a gross weight increase. One way that > has > been accomplished by other converters has been to show that the new power > plant > allowed a higher rate of climb which allowed the airplane to pass over the > recording devices high enough to meet the new specifications. > > I doubt if the increase in power will be enough to meet that criteria. > > However, if the engine can meet the published fuel consumption figure, it > should be able to carry a higher payload on any flight longer than a > couple of > hours by burning less fuel at any specified air speed that is above best > L/D. > > I don't know if the market is large enough to justify the difficulties of > getting an approval past the Friendly Aviation Attack dogs, but it does > sound > like an excellent way to go. > > I certainly wish them well! > > 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 5/29/2006 1:37:26 A.M. Central Standard Time, > john(at)vormbaum.com writes: > > Don't quote me, but I seem to recall that the kit will add about 60lbs. > per > side. That may not be prohibitive, considering the probable gross weight > increase we'd get from the addition of extra horsepower. I'll bet that > if/when it's approved as a replacement for the direct-drive Commanders, > they'll specify 300 or 320 hp per engine vs. the original 290. > > > __________ NOD32 1.1564 (20060529) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ NOD32 1.1564 (20060529) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: May 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
That is true. The aircraft performs better as far as getting off the ground with 1/4 flaps but it degrades single engine performance. Just be careful and get those flaps up as soon as you get the gear up. Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: May 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Diesel Daydreams
Good Afternoon John, My totally non fact based comments inserted as appropriate! In a message dated 5/29/2006 1:09:33 P.M. Central Standard Time, john(at)vormbaum.com writes: 1) How might the Merlyn conversion be OK with the FAA, but the Centurion engine wouldn't? OB --It All Depends! If the Merlyn Conversion was approved before the Part 36 standards were written, it would still be OK. Or maybe it does meet the Part 36 criteria! 2) The fuel consumption is greater on the Merlyn increase...wouldn't it be easier to plead your case for a conversion with a lower SFC? OB ---Fuel consumption and efficiency are not subject to FAA approval so it would have no bearing at all on any approval. However, I agree that the lower burn and greater efficiency would be a BIG selling point to the users. 3) The diesel props turn considerably slower than the avgas props (2000-2100 vs. 2575 I believe), which should make LESS noise, right? OB --- Good point. Actually, if there is no application for a gross weight increase, I don't think they have to meet the Part 36 criteria, but I am not sure of that. In any case, quiet is good! 4) Centurion has retrofitted a Duke with the 4.0 engine, and that's working out fine, but the diesels at 606 lbs. (with all accessories) weigh less than an IO-541. It's still a lot heavier than an IO-540....so I think a break-even GW would be a nice target, maybe. See the Duke at http://www.dukeb60.de/ under "news" OB --- Sounds good to me. 5) The Duke stats list the noise level as lower than they Lyc at 78db(A). This sounds pretty good to me (ewww...a pun). OB --- That's even better. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: Diesel Daydreams
Date: May 29, 2006
Hi Bob, I'm not familiar with Part 36 noise standards...I guess I should read up on my FARs. Thanks for the comments. I'd love to see a wealthy, intrepid Commander pilot (is that an oxymoron?) take the plunge and try the diesels. Personally I think it'll be a while before the costs & benefits balance each other. In the meantime I'll continue flying my avgas-powered 500B until a sweet deal on a 690-series airplane catches my attention. /John ----- Original Message ----- From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:43 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Diesel Daydreams > > > Good Afternoon John, > > My totally non fact based comments inserted as appropriate! > > In a message dated 5/29/2006 1:09:33 P.M. Central Standard Time, > john(at)vormbaum.com writes: > > 1) How might the Merlyn conversion be OK with the FAA, but the Centurion > engine wouldn't? > > > OB --It All Depends! > > If the Merlyn Conversion was approved before the Part 36 standards were > written, it would still be OK. Or maybe it does meet the Part 36 > criteria! > > > 2) The fuel consumption is greater on the Merlyn increase...wouldn't it > be > easier to plead your case for a conversion with a lower SFC? > > OB ---Fuel consumption and efficiency are not subject to FAA approval so > it > would have no bearing at all on any approval. However, I agree that the > lower > burn and greater efficiency would be a BIG selling point to the users. > > > 3) The diesel props turn considerably slower than the avgas props > (2000-2100 > vs. 2575 I believe), which should make LESS noise, right? > > OB --- Good point. > > Actually, if there is no application for a gross weight increase, I don't > think they have to meet the Part 36 criteria, but I am not sure of that. > > In any case, quiet is good! > > 4) Centurion has retrofitted a Duke with the 4.0 engine, and that's > working > out fine, but the diesels at 606 lbs. (with all accessories) weigh less > than > an IO-541. It's still a lot heavier than an IO-540....so I think a > break-even GW would be a nice target, maybe. See the Duke at > http://www.dukeb60.de/ under "news" > > OB --- Sounds good to me. > > 5) The Duke stats list the noise level as lower than they Lyc at 78db(A). > This sounds pretty good to me (ewww...a pun). > > OB --- That's even better. > > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Ancient Aviator > Stearman N3977A > Brookeridge Air Park LL22 > Downers Grove, IL 60516 > 630 985-8503 > > > __________ NOD32 1.1564 (20060529) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ NOD32 1.1564 (20060529) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 29, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Two New Email Lists at Matronics and Wiki Reminder!
Dear Listers, I have added two new email Lists to the Matronics Line up today. These include a Continental engine List and a Lightning aircraft List: =========== continental-list(at)matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Continental-List Everything related to the Continental aircraft engine. Sky's the limit on discussions here. =========== =========== lightning-list(at)matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List This is an exciting new design from Arion Aircraft LLC in Shelbyville Tennessee. Pete Krotje has a very nice web site on the aircraft that can be found here: http://www.arionaircraft.com/ =========== Also, if you haven't checked out the new Matronics Aircraft Wiki, swing by and have a look. Remember, a Wiki is only as good as the content that the members put into it. Have a look over some of the sections, and if you've got some interesting or useful, please add it to the Wiki! Its all about YOU! :-) The URL for the Matronics Wiki is: http://wiki.matronics.com Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "nico css" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Re: Diesel Daydreams
Date: May 29, 2006
Nice move to go diesel. As turbine costs come down it will come so close to the cost of recip powerplants that a large portion of recip prospects will prefer to upgrade. Pity that they couldn't find someone who speaks English to write their website content. Nico -----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: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:43 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Diesel Daydreams Good Afternoon John, My totally non fact based comments inserted as appropriate! In a message dated 5/29/2006 1:09:33 P.M. Central Standard Time, john(at)vormbaum.com writes: 1) How might the Merlyn conversion be OK with the FAA, but the Centurion engine wouldn't? OB --It All Depends! If the Merlyn Conversion was approved before the Part 36 standards were written, it would still be OK. Or maybe it does meet the Part 36 criteria! 2) The fuel consumption is greater on the Merlyn increase...wouldn't it be easier to plead your case for a conversion with a lower SFC? OB ---Fuel consumption and efficiency are not subject to FAA approval so it would have no bearing at all on any approval. However, I agree that the lower burn and greater efficiency would be a BIG selling point to the users. 3) The diesel props turn considerably slower than the avgas props (2000-2100 vs. 2575 I believe), which should make LESS noise, right? OB --- Good point. Actually, if there is no application for a gross weight increase, I don't think they have to meet the Part 36 criteria, but I am not sure of that. In any case, quiet is good! 4) Centurion has retrofitted a Duke with the 4.0 engine, and that's working out fine, but the diesels at 606 lbs. (with all accessories) weigh less than an IO-541. It's still a lot heavier than an IO-540....so I think a break-even GW would be a nice target, maybe. See the Duke at http://www.dukeb60.de/ under "news" OB --- Sounds good to me. 5) The Duke stats list the noise level as lower than they Lyc at 78db(A). This sounds pretty good to me (ewww...a pun). OB --- That's even better. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com
Date: May 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
In a message dated 28-May-06 23:54:44 Pacific Daylight Time, rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com writes: I found that performance (we are at 5200' MSL) was better with the flaps at 10, so this would seem to be my preference. I have not scientifically conducted any takeoff distance/climb performance measurements yet, obviously. Anyone have any hard-fast logic on this? <><><><><><><><> Robert, In the words of Donald Rumsfeld, "There are things we know, there are things we don't know and there are things we don't know that we don't know." I know a few things about Commanders, I know there are a few things I don't know about Commanders, and the rest is obvious. I have never been able to figure out why the 685/690 airframes are zero flap take-off models. I found 10 degrees of flaps to be really effective on the 685; I operated mostly out of Lee's Summit in Missouri (KXLT) at 1000' on a 4010' runway. I could see the end of it; it was too short. Things I know: 10 degrees of Commander flaps are lift. More than that is drag. More than half flaps is a lot of drag. Ted Smith airplanes (Commander, Aerostar, Jet Commander / Westwind) sit at a negative angle of attack on the ground. For the science fans in the crowd, this was something I intuited and was confirmed by Ron Smith, Ted Smith's son. The negative angle of attack stance serves you on a short field landing but is something you have to overcome on take-off. This explains the "leaping into the air" as Donnie has discovered. If one accelerates without back pressure on the yoke a Commander will pearl dive and then with a hefty pull at your preferred Vr, you'll overcome the negative AOA and leap. Try this: have a companion stand outside at the tail and yell to you when the elevator is streamlined. Make note of where the yoke is. Now hold the yoke there at the start of your next take-off roll. As you accelerate, the amount of back pressure to hold a streamlined elevator will become less and you'll smoothly fly off. (The bob weight for pitch feel will make you exercise a bit at each take-off; this counts towards your weekly gym time.) If anyone out there knows -- or has anyone they can reach back to, who was involved with the 690 airframe design and certification who can enlighten me as to why this is a zero flap take off (per the AFM) please do let me know. One theory I've heard is that the straight wing stub gave more lift than the continuous dihedral wings on other models and therefore flaps were not necessary. My experience in the 685 does not bear this out. On the Turbo Commanders, there's just so bloody much power and airflow over the inboard wing section that the take-off is a brief blur anyway and flaps would just be ... silly. David Maytag, do you have any insight into this mystery? You and your family have been around this model longer than a week. Wing Commander Gordon Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: May 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
Good Morning Wing Commander Gordon, I absolutely DO NOT have any personal knowledge as to why the later Aero Commanders do not recommend flaps for takeoff, but I DO have a little knowledge as to why the later Bonanzas do not recommend flaps for takeoff. The FAA told Beech that if they were going to show any data for flapped takeoffs, they had to run tests under the observation of FAA inspectors to verify the data in accordance with FAA specifications. The cost was high, but even beyond that, the Beech Lawyers told management to back off and leave it alone for liability reasons. There is no prohibition against using flaps, but there is no official encouragement either. I would not be at all surprised if Aero Commander encountered similar FAA and lawyer problems. One more comment. Ted Smith designed the airplane during the time when the industry was beginning to take advantage of the minimum, or negative, angle of attack on takeoff mode to aid acceleration on the ground. If any of you are old enough to remember the Convair 240 as against the Convair 340, you may remember that the 340 sat on the ground with the nose a bit lower than did the 240. The idea was to reduce the drag during the acceleration mode. It allowed for a slightly shorter accelerate stop number. Just to add more data about which I know very little, back in the olden days when I was flying Commanders a bit, I generally preferred the flapped takeoff, but I never did see any numbers developed that would have allowed me to estimate the effect it had on accelerate stop distance. 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 5/30/2006 12:52:59 A.M. Central Standard Time, CloudCraft(at)aol.com writes: If anyone out there knows -- or has anyone they can reach back to, who was involved with the 690 airframe design and certification who can enlighten me as to why this is a zero flap take off (per the AFM) please do let me know. One theory I've heard is that the straight wing stub gave more lift than the continuous dihedral wings on other models and therefore flaps were not necessary. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 30, 2006
From: "Joseph Menchetti" <menchettij(at)gmail.com>
Subject: aero commander 680E engines, props and engine mounts
Hello friends, i have for sale 2 GSO-480 engines from a 1956 680E commander, complete with all accesories, props and engine mounts, they are located in Venezuela, if anyone is interested let me know, also i have 3 IGSO-540-A1A from a queen air, one in perfect condition overhauled in switzerland and 2 other disassembled, regards pd email me regarding the price of the engines ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com>
Subject: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
Date: May 30, 2006
Bob- Following this observation: *** Just to add more data about which I know very little, back in the olden days when I was flying Commanders a bit, I generally preferred the flapped takeoff, but I never did see any numbers developed that would have allowed me to estimate the effect it had on accelerate stop distance. *** I noticed that the airplane leaves the runway more affirmatively at Flaps10 than Flaps0. At Flaps0, the airplane seemed to wallow for a moment when leaving ground effect. I didn't get the same impression at Flaps10.... Once N414C is flying again- I'll take some notes and see how performance differs. Even though we don't have any specific information it might make for some good knowledge all the same. Robert Randazzo ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "nico css" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
Date: May 30, 2006
With Flaps 0, one would have a steeper deck angle; the rotation would then be through more degrees. A steeper deck angle is also a scary part for me so close to the ground at minimums. (minima) -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert S. Randazzo Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 12:06 PM Subject: RE: Commander-List: Any thoughts on FLAPS? Bob- Following this observation: *** Just to add more data about which I know very little, back in the olden days when I was flying Commanders a bit, I generally preferred the flapped takeoff, but I never did see any numbers developed that would have allowed me to estimate the effect it had on accelerate stop distance. *** I noticed that the airplane leaves the runway more affirmatively at Flaps10 than Flaps0. At Flaps0, the airplane seemed to wallow for a moment when leaving ground effect. I didn't get the same impression at Flaps10.... Once N414C is flying again- I'll take some notes and see how performance differs. Even though we don't have any specific information it might make for some good knowledge all the same. Robert Randazzo ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: 500
Date: May 30, 2006
Hey JB, Did you buy that 500 I told you about? bilbo ________________________________________________________________________________
From: STOLHorse(at)aol.com
Date: May 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
This is one of those questions I've wondered about for a long time, too. Here's my thoughts on the subject: I think Old Bob is on the right track and they maybe just didn't test it because, as Keith said, the 690's have so much power that it just didn't make enough difference to justify the time and expense of the testing and approval of the data. As airplanes evolve, the manufacturers are all guilty of "evolving" the data and procedures along with it from previous models. Usually, this is no big deal but you can find examples of it everywhere, even on certain TC Data sheets. Perhaps this is the case with the 685 too. Since it came after the 690, maybe the culture was to change as little as possible and the flaps-up take off just came along. I don't know. Giving the engineers the benefit of the doubt, though, I just figured it had something to do with meeting single engine climb requirements so I take off with the flaps up in the 685. The technique I've been using to coax the 685 off the ground has been working well for me and I fly it at or very near gross weight and I go to high altitude airports. I will not take it to Aspen or Telluride, however. The places I go do have pretty good options should the airplane decide it just can't do it on one engine. I always seem to come up with about 120 to 200 fpm climb on one engine when I check the performance numbers. I just don't have a whole lot of confidence in those numbers in the real world with a scared-$%^*less me at the controls vs. the highly skilled and expecting it test pilot. I take off with full power and I take my time getting the engines to full power so I don't thermally shock them or cause the turbo to surge. If it's busy, I'll even ask for a momentary delay on takeoff so the controllers will know I'm not going to blast out of there like a 690. At brake release, I have my 8 year old son close the cowl flaps for me while I go in the back to get my lunch. (In my opinion, the cowl flaps affect takeoff performance much more than the difference in flap settings.) After I get back to the front seat with my sandwich, I see that we are approaching Vr. I like to leave the 685 on the ground about 8 to 10 knots above the book Vr of 92 kias. I rotate at about 95 and lift off about 100 or even a bit above that. It's about the same as the 690's. My theory here is that speed is my best friend right now because it seems to take forever to get from liftoff to 111kias Vyse. I don't want to pull it off way down around 90 (the short field technique calls for 83 indicated - yikes!) and double the speed that I need to gain to get to the best SE climb. I don't go to short runways so that is not a factor in this technique. Also, liftoff at 100 knots is very gentle and positive. That's one of my favorite things about Commanders: If you set the trim right, you can make the most effortless and smoothest transition from ground to air that I have experienced in any plane - something King Airs can only dream about. While the airplane accelerates, I watch the engine temps and adjust the cowlflaps accordingly. Usually in the winter they just stay closed but in summer, especially out of Bermuda Dunes, I need to open them halfway or so. You can see the temps rising on takeoff but as soon as you open the cowl flaps just a little they will stop rising almost immediately and I've never seen them go above 400 degrees even in the heat. There's just a ton of cooling drag on this plane and with the cowl flaps open you get 4 nifty little spoilers working against you too. Anyway, if you're still reading, that's my two cents worth. Bottom line is that I pick my airports very careful with this plane but I have found that the 685 has exceeded my expectations by a large margin. I think most of the badmouthing of the airplane is unfounded and a result of comparing it to the 690's. Let's compare it to a 421 or P-Navajo. Oh yeah, there's no comparison. David Maytag ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
Date: May 30, 2006
I had heard a friend talk about the effect of the cowl flaps on the Commander and never thought much about it until I was trying to figure out why my 500A wouldn't "Go". It wouldn't climb, hardly at all, and the speed at level off was just not there. Invariably I would look back and see the cowl flaps open. I found 2 things. 1 if I could see them the performance was going to be dramatically effected. 2 on the 500A it doesn't matter whether they are open of closed. The temps are always cold. So I will leave them closed. If I ever get it flying again. bilbo -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of STOLHorse(at)aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 8:06 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Any thoughts on FLAPS? This is one of those questions I've wondered about for a long time, too. Here's my thoughts on the subject: I think Old Bob is on the right track and they maybe just didn't test it because, as Keith said, the 690's have so much power that it just didn't make enough difference to justify the time and expense of the testing and approval of the data. As airplanes evolve, the manufacturers are all guilty of "evolving" the data and procedures along with it from previous models. Usually, this is no big deal but you can find examples of it everywhere, even on certain TC Data sheets. Perhaps this is the case with the 685 too. Since it came after the 690, maybe the culture was to change as little as possible and the flaps-up take off just came along. I don't know. Giving the engineers the benefit of the doubt, though, I just figured it had something to do with meeting single engine climb requirements so I take off with the flaps up in the 685. The technique I've been using to coax the 685 off the ground has been working well for me and I fly it at or very near gross weight and I go to high altitude airports. I will not take it to Aspen or Telluride, however. The places I go do have pretty good options should the airplane decide it just can't do it on one engine. I always seem to come up with about 120 to 200 fpm climb on one engine when I check the performance numbers. I just don't have a whole lot of confidence in those numbers in the real world with a scared-$%^*less me at the controls vs. the highly skilled and expecting it test pilot. I take off with full power and I take my time getting the engines to full power so I don't thermally shock them or cause the turbo to surge. If it's busy, I'll even ask for a momentary delay on takeoff so the controllers will know I'm not going to blast out of there like a 690. At brake release, I have my 8 year old son close the cowl flaps for me while I go in the back to get my lunch. (In my opinion, the cowl flaps affect takeoff performance much more than the difference in flap settings.) After I get back to the front seat with my sandwich, I see that we are approaching Vr. I like to leave the 685 on the ground about 8 to 10 knots above the book Vr of 92 kias. I rotate at about 95 and lift off about 100 or even a bit above that. It's about the same as the 690's. My theory here is that speed is my best friend right now because it seems to take forever to get from liftoff to 111kias Vyse. I don't want to pull it off way down around 90 (the short field technique calls for 83 indicated - yikes!) and double the speed that I need to gain to get to the best SE climb. I don't go to short runways so that is not a factor in this technique. Also, liftoff at 100 knots is very gentle and positive. That's one of my favorite things about Commanders: If you set the trim right, you can make the most effortless and smoothest transition from ground to air that I have experienced in any plane - something King Airs can only dream about. While the airplane accelerates, I watch the engine temps and adjust the cowlflaps accordingly. Usually in the winter they just stay closed but in summer, especially out of Bermuda Dunes, I need to open them halfway or so. You can see the temps rising on takeoff but as soon as you open the cowl flaps just a little they will stop rising almost immediately and I've never seen them go above 400 degrees even in the heat. There's just a ton of cooling drag on this plane and with the cowl flaps open you get 4 nifty little spoilers working against you too. Anyway, if you're still reading, that's my two cents worth. Bottom line is that I pick my airports very careful with this plane but I have found that the 685 has exceeded my expectations by a large margin. I think most of the badmouthing of the airplane is unfounded and a result of comparing it to the 690's. Let's compare it to a 421 or P-Navajo. Oh yeah, there's no comparison. David Maytag ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com>
Subject: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
Date: May 30, 2006
David- Thanks for the info! Apsen/Telluride.... I've flown Part 121 airplanes loaded with passengers in/out of those places and didn't feel comfortable with my options. I'd never conceive of taking the 685 there. The beauty of tossing a set of Chelton's into this airplane is that the Flight Path Vector becomes a very handy tool when navigating rising terrain with a climb performance problem. You mind sharing a bit of your experience on runway length and your "selection process?" (You mentioned that you pick your airports carefully... Thought I might gain from your experience...) I operate out of a field with 7000 and 9500' of runway- which provides me with plenty of opportunities. Generally speaking I'm headed to places with 11000+ in runway length- but I imagine that as I get more comfortable with the bird I'll be using it into some smaller spaces as well. I like to take my time getting used to new airplanes.... You get your props worked out, David? Both props on N414C overhauled with no problems- but I had my fingers crossed after hearing about yours... Robert Randazzo -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of STOLHorse(at)aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 17:06 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Any thoughts on FLAPS? This is one of those questions I've wondered about for a long time, too. Here's my thoughts on the subject: I think Old Bob is on the right track and they maybe just didn't test it because, as Keith said, the 690's have so much power that it just didn't make enough difference to justify the time and expense of the testing and approval of the data. As airplanes evolve, the manufacturers are all guilty of "evolving" the data and procedures along with it from previous models. Usually, this is no big deal but you can find examples of it everywhere, even on certain TC Data sheets. Perhaps this is the case with the 685 too. Since it came after the 690, maybe the culture was to change as little as possible and the flaps-up take off just came along. I don't know. Giving the engineers the benefit of the doubt, though, I just figured it had something to do with meeting single engine climb requirements so I take off with the flaps up in the 685. The technique I've been using to coax the 685 off the ground has been working well for me and I fly it at or very near gross weight and I go to high altitude airports. I will not take it to Aspen or Telluride, however. The places I go do have pretty good options should the airplane decide it just can't do it on one engine. I always seem to come up with about 120 to 200 fpm climb on one engine when I check the performance numbers. I just don't have a whole lot of confidence in those numbers in the real world with a scared-$%^*less me at the controls vs. the highly skilled and expecting it test pilot. I take off with full power and I take my time getting the engines to full power so I don't thermally shock them or cause the turbo to surge. If it's busy, I'll even ask for a momentary delay on takeoff so the controllers will know I'm not going to blast out of there like a 690. At brake release, I have my 8 year old son close the cowl flaps for me while I go in the back to get my lunch. (In my opinion, the cowl flaps affect takeoff performance much more than the difference in flap settings.) After I get back to the front seat with my sandwich, I see that we are approaching Vr. I like to leave the 685 on the ground about 8 to 10 knots above the book Vr of 92 kias. I rotate at about 95 and lift off about 100 or even a bit above that. It's about the same as the 690's. My theory here is that speed is my best friend right now because it seems to take forever to get from liftoff to 111kias Vyse. I don't want to pull it off way down around 90 (the short field technique calls for 83 indicated - yikes!) and double the speed that I need to gain to get to the best SE climb. I don't go to short runways so that is not a factor in this technique. Also, liftoff at 100 knots is very gentle and positive. That's one of my favorite things about Commanders: If you set the trim right, you can make the most effortless and smoothest transition from ground to air that I have experienced in any plane - something King Airs can only dream about. While the airplane accelerates, I watch the engine temps and adjust the cowlflaps accordingly. Usually in the winter they just stay closed but in summer, especially out of Bermuda Dunes, I need to open them halfway or so. You can see the temps rising on takeoff but as soon as you open the cowl flaps just a little they will stop rising almost immediately and I've never seen them go above 400 degrees even in the heat. There's just a ton of cooling drag on this plane and with the cowl flaps open you get 4 nifty little spoilers working against you too. Anyway, if you're still reading, that's my two cents worth. Bottom line is that I pick my airports very careful with this plane but I have found that the 685 has exceeded my expectations by a large margin. I think most of the badmouthing of the airplane is unfounded and a result of comparing it to the 690's. Let's compare it to a 421 or P-Navajo. Oh yeah, there's no comparison. David Maytag __________ NOD32 1.1568 (20060530) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <dfalik(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Flight Manual - Model 500S
Date: May 30, 2006
Exactly which pages do you need? I have 2 copies of the 55S manual and if it is easier for you, I could send you one and you can return it at your convenience. Don -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry Collman Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 11:49 AM Subject: Commander-List: Flight Manual - Model 500S <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk> Hi Guys, If somebody has a Flight Manual for the Model 500S, I wonder if I could ask a favor? The first few pages contain details covering Specifications and Performance, usually under headings such as Operating Limitations. Virtually all the information on those first few pages is readily obtainable from other sources, of course, but I do like to use them for cross-checking purposes. However, I find myself without any copies for the 500S. So, if somebody is able to scan them and email them thorough to me, I'll be extremely grateful, as I'm currently compiling an up-date to my 500S 'Fact File'. Very Best Regards, Barry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: STOLHorse(at)aol.com
Date: May 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
Yep, the Chelton system is awesome. I think it's the best system you can buy right now. I don't have any kind of scientific way I pick airports I just meant that I look at the surroundings and temperatures more than just runway length. Aspen's runway is long enough but the valley gets pretty narrow and highway 82 is dangerous enough without 9000 pound puddle jumpers skimming the rooftops of SUV's at 150 miles an hour. I like to see a lot of open space and flat or lowering terrain. I've noticed that the airplane will climb pretty well once it reaches 120 or so which is why I like to get it to that speed or more as fast as I can. At full power and gross weight, I see about 1200- 1300 fpm at gross weight coming off of a 5000' elevation airport. I just don't like to leave them at full power any longer than necessary (even though Continental says you can all day long) and at max recommended climb power I see around 700 fpm so mountain valleys are something I avoid. I'm also much more cautious about weather in this plane. I don't do low ceilings (as in less than a few thousand feet) or any moist winter cold fronts where the possibility of ice is obvious. I did finally get a pair of sharp looking overhauled propellers just last Friday. It was a challenge but with my spare prop and some careful searching by the good folks at Nevada Propeller/Executive Propeller, we finally came up with 6 real good blades and one hub. I was really worried though at first because the initial reaction from all the prop shops was one of complete futility. You know like "Oh, I haven't seen one of those props in 30 years" or "What model of prop did you say that was?" or "What model of Commander did you say those go on?" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: STOLHorse(at)aol.com
Date: May 31, 2006
Subject: Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
John, You've exposed my hypocrisy already! Actually, Bermuda Dunes is the shortest runway I've gone to but the airplane does just fine. I don't fly out of there heavy in the middle of the afternoon, though. I always plan the heavy departures for early morning but I have left there lightly loaded in 105 degrees. It's still not as scary as flying heavy 747-100's out of Ramstein on a hot afternoon! I'm sure most of you can appreciate the load hauling capability of Commanders, But I have to tell you what my "normal load" is when I go to Bermuda Dunes: Two dogs, Two cats, Two women, Two kids, and Me. Plus enough fuel to go 650 miles with reserves. Oh yeah, and I'm not talking about two lap dogs -- one is a Labrador and the other is a Great Dane. Luckily, they are good buddies. I need help. David Maytag ________________________________________________________________________________
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com
Date: May 31, 2006
Subject: Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
In a message dated 30-May-06 21:28:51 Pacific Daylight Time, STOLHorse(at)aol.com writes: Two dogs, Two cats, Two women, Two kids, and Me. ... I need help. Help? Sounds like you need a HAZMAT program! By the way, thanks for bringing up the matter of cowl flaps. That's an important piece of the take-off puzzle. Wing Commander Gordon Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
Date: May 30, 2006
My German Short Haired Pointer (75 Lbs.) has the bench seat to himself. I operate at gross weight all the time from 3500' sea level runways. I lighten my nose wheel at 80 mph and rotate at 105 mph with 10 deg. flaps. Tom F. C-GISS 680 FLP (Mr.RPM) ----- Original Message ----- From: <STOLHorse(at)aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 21:27 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Any thoughts on FLAPS? > > John, > > You've exposed my hypocrisy already! > > Actually, Bermuda Dunes is the shortest runway I've gone to but the airplane > does just fine. I don't fly out of there heavy in the middle of the > afternoon, though. I always plan the heavy departures for early morning but I have > left there lightly loaded in 105 degrees. It's still not as scary as flying > heavy 747-100's out of Ramstein on a hot afternoon! > > I'm sure most of you can appreciate the load hauling capability of > Commanders, But I have to tell you what my "normal load" is when I go to Bermuda Dunes: > > Two dogs, > Two cats, > Two women, > Two kids, > and Me. > Plus enough fuel to go 650 miles with reserves. Oh yeah, and I'm not > talking about two lap dogs -- one is a Labrador and the other is a Great Dane. > Luckily, they are good buddies. > > I need help. > > David Maytag > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
Date: May 31, 2006
Hi All, I've flown with an Iguana. Beat that!!!!! Barry C. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 7:30 AM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Any thoughts on FLAPS? | | My German Short Haired Pointer (75 Lbs.) has the bench seat to himself. | I operate at gross weight all the time from 3500' sea level runways. | I lighten my nose wheel at 80 mph and rotate at 105 mph with 10 deg. flaps. | Tom F. | C-GISS 680 FLP (Mr.RPM) | | ----- Original Message ----- | From: <STOLHorse(at)aol.com> | To: | Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 21:27 | Subject: Re: Commander-List: Any thoughts on FLAPS? | | | > | > John, | > | > You've exposed my hypocrisy already! | > | > Actually, Bermuda Dunes is the shortest runway I've gone to but the | airplane | > does just fine. I don't fly out of there heavy in the middle of the | > afternoon, though. I always plan the heavy departures for early morning | but I have | > left there lightly loaded in 105 degrees. It's still not as scary as | flying | > heavy 747-100's out of Ramstein on a hot afternoon! | > | > I'm sure most of you can appreciate the load hauling capability of | > Commanders, But I have to tell you what my "normal load" is when I go to | Bermuda Dunes: | > | > Two dogs, | > Two cats, | > Two women, | > Two kids, | > and Me. | > Plus enough fuel to go 650 miles with reserves. Oh yeah, and I'm not | > talking about two lap dogs -- one is a Labrador and the other is a Great | Dane. | > Luckily, they are good buddies. | > | > I need help. | > | > David Maytag | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy Dettmer, AIA" <rcdettmer(at)charter.net>
Subject: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
Date: May 31, 2006
I have been enjoying the discussion about flap settings on take-off, and short vs long runways at high and hot airports. Just want to share my experiences in my 680F. I have routinely been using 10 degrees of flaps for takeoff, with rotation at 80 kts, initial climb at 100 kts, and cruise climb (after about 800 feet asl) at 140 kts and 1000 fpm. Doesn't seem to change whether light or at gross weight (8,000 lbs)...always the same 140 kts and 1,000 fpm. If the air temp isn't too hot, I will take off with cowl flaps in trail (about half open)...desn't seem to affect climb performance, but would probably make a difference on one engine. I remember coming out of Carson City and Las Vegas at near gross weight (7 persons and lots of baggage) in summer with air temps well above 90...airplane jumped off the runway and performed as if it was wintertime. Of course, those runways have plenty of length and flat land around if one engine quits. Thanks for the good discussions Randy Dettmer, AIA 680F / N6253X DettmerArchitecture 805 541 4864 / Fax 805 541 4865 www.dettmerarchitecture.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tom Fisher Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:31 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Any thoughts on FLAPS? My German Short Haired Pointer (75 Lbs.) has the bench seat to himself. I operate at gross weight all the time from 3500' sea level runways. I lighten my nose wheel at 80 mph and rotate at 105 mph with 10 deg. flaps. Tom F. C-GISS 680 FLP (Mr.RPM) ----- Original Message ----- From: <STOLHorse(at)aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 21:27 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Any thoughts on FLAPS? > > John, > > You've exposed my hypocrisy already! > > Actually, Bermuda Dunes is the shortest runway I've gone to but the airplane > does just fine. I don't fly out of there heavy in the middle of the > afternoon, though. I always plan the heavy departures for early morning but I have > left there lightly loaded in 105 degrees. It's still not as scary as flying > heavy 747-100's out of Ramstein on a hot afternoon! > > I'm sure most of you can appreciate the load hauling capability of > Commanders, But I have to tell you what my "normal load" is when I go to Bermuda Dunes: > > Two dogs, > Two cats, > Two women, > Two kids, > and Me. > Plus enough fuel to go 650 miles with reserves. Oh yeah, and I'm not > talking about two lap dogs -- one is a Labrador and the other is a Great Dane. > Luckily, they are good buddies. > > I need help. > > David Maytag > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
Date: May 31, 2006
Seeing your grandmother naked is not as scary as taking off in a heavy 747-100 on a hot afternoon, anywhere! bilbo -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of STOLHorse(at)aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 12:27 AM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Any thoughts on FLAPS? John, You've exposed my hypocrisy already! Actually, Bermuda Dunes is the shortest runway I've gone to but the airplane does just fine. I don't fly out of there heavy in the middle of the afternoon, though. I always plan the heavy departures for early morning but I have left there lightly loaded in 105 degrees. It's still not as scary as flying heavy 747-100's out of Ramstein on a hot afternoon! I'm sure most of you can appreciate the load hauling capability of Commanders, But I have to tell you what my "normal load" is when I go to Bermuda Dunes: Two dogs, Two cats, Two women, Two kids, and Me. Plus enough fuel to go 650 miles with reserves. Oh yeah, and I'm not talking about two lap dogs -- one is a Labrador and the other is a Great Dane. Luckily, they are good buddies. I need help. David Maytag ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BertBerry1(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 02, 2006
Subject: Re: SCARY?
Now there is a man living on the edge!!! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 02, 2006
From: Dave Phifer <dave(at)phifersystems.com>
Subject: Paint and Interior
Being new to "Commander land", who are the paint and interior shops that are thought of in high regard by Commander owners? As I contemplate the purchase of a Commander, I'd like to speak with an experienced shop or two to get an idea of what interior refurbishment and paint would cost. I realize you can pretty much spend as much as you want and repairs can be at "who knows what cost", but I'm really looking for "very nice but not extravagant" pricing to build a realistic financial model. Thanks in advance for your help. -Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Girod" <dongirod(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Paint and Interior
Date: Jun 02, 2006
Dave; I have a 560E, two years ago, I had it stripped, joints sealed, a few wing dents removed, new cowling screws and all the other things that go along with a nice paint job. Then the quoted price was about $12,500 for the basic strip and paint, but the extras usually add a couple extra thousand dollars. This was done in the Atlanta area. Where do you live? Don ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Phifer" <dave(at)phifersystems.com> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 12:05 PM Subject: Commander-List: Paint and Interior > > Being new to "Commander land", who are the paint and interior shops that > are thought of in high regard by Commander owners? As I contemplate the > purchase of a Commander, I'd like to speak with an experienced shop or two > to get an idea of what interior refurbishment and paint would cost. > > I realize you can pretty much spend as much as you want and repairs can be > at "who knows what cost", but I'm really looking for "very nice but not > extravagant" pricing to build a realistic financial model. > > Thanks in advance for your help. > > -Dave > > > -- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stan" <swperk(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Paint and Interior
Date: Jun 02, 2006
Hi Dave, Premier Aviation in Tucson repainted my 681 last summer and their process was to strip, buff with ScotchBrite, acid etch, alodine, primer, and paint with two base coats of JetGlo and then apply the color striping. They also took care of some minor dents and replaced the exterior hardware with stainless. The original quote was around $16K (IIRC) but with the "extras" (like the seam sealing I asked them to do after the original quote), the final price was just north of $20K. The quality and durability is excellent. Donny, their painter, has been painting planes for over thirty years. I would recommend Premier without hesitation. Stan -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Phifer Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 9:05 AM Subject: Commander-List: Paint and Interior --> Being new to "Commander land", who are the paint and interior shops that are thought of in high regard by Commander owners? As I contemplate the purchase of a Commander, I'd like to speak with an experienced shop or two to get an idea of what interior refurbishment and paint would cost. I realize you can pretty much spend as much as you want and repairs can be at "who knows what cost", but I'm really looking for "very nice but not extravagant" pricing to build a realistic financial model. Thanks in advance for your help. -Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: 680 FLP heater intake scoop
Date: Jun 02, 2006
Someone responded to my request (below) but I must have mistakenly deleted the Email, would they (oe someone) be kind enough to help me out again? Thanks. ************************************************************* Gentlemen, Amongst the many deficiencies that I have had to rectify to bring this ship up to standard one of the items is the intake scoop that fits on the rectangular opening on top of the baggage compartment that feeds the heater/air conditioner system in the tail. Does anyone know where I could find one of these ? Tom F. C-GISS 680FLP (Mr.RPM) ************************************************************* ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com>
Subject: Paint and Interior
Date: Jun 02, 2006
Hi Dave! I am searching for same- so be sure to share your findings! I am about 12 months from interior/repaint- so I'm not taking that part of the search too seriously yet.... Rob -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Phifer Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 09:05 Subject: Commander-List: Paint and Interior --> Being new to "Commander land", who are the paint and interior shops that are thought of in high regard by Commander owners? As I contemplate the purchase of a Commander, I'd like to speak with an experienced shop or two to get an idea of what interior refurbishment and paint would cost. I realize you can pretty much spend as much as you want and repairs can be at "who knows what cost", but I'm really looking for "very nice but not extravagant" pricing to build a realistic financial model. Thanks in advance for your help. -Dave __________ NOD32 1.1576 (20060602) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "MASON Chevaillier" <kamala(at)msn.com>
Subject: Paint and Interior
Date: Jun 02, 2006
for paint i can recommend Texas AeroColor in Brady, texas. they do a lot of war birds and unlimited racers. hanger set up just for painting. plexiglass doors on both ends for natural light. uses hydrogen peroxide to strip a/c non corrosive. all epa set up. has done a queen air for me and a duke for a friend. $15,000. quote for my 680 fp. mason >From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com> >Reply-To: commander-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RE: Commander-List: Paint and Interior >Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:28:24 -0700 > > > >Hi Dave! > >I am searching for same- so be sure to share your findings! > >I am about 12 months from interior/repaint- so I'm not taking that part of >the search too seriously yet.... > >Rob > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Phifer >Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 09:05 >To: commander-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Commander-List: Paint and Interior > >--> > >Being new to "Commander land", who are the paint and interior shops that >are >thought of in high regard by Commander owners? As I contemplate the >purchase of a Commander, I'd like to speak with an experienced shop or two >to get an idea of what interior refurbishment and paint would cost. > >I realize you can pretty much spend as much as you want and repairs can be >at "who knows what cost", but I'm really looking for "very nice but not >extravagant" pricing to build a realistic financial model. > >Thanks in advance for your help. > >-Dave > > >__________ NOD32 1.1576 (20060602) Information __________ > >This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. >http://www.eset.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 03, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: List Enclosure Support
Dear Listers, Over the years, I have resisted the urge to enable enclosure support on the Matronics Lists for a number of reasons relating to performance, capacity, capability, and security. However, its now 2006 and most everyone using email these days is on an email client that, at some level, supports the viewing and handling of enclosures. I get a fair amount of email each month from people on the various Lists asking why their posts of this or that picture didn't go through. Back quite a while ago by popular request, I enabled enclosure support for a few Lists such as the RV10-List, Kolb-List, and the Tailwind-List. Contrary to my fears, there really hasn't been any significant issues on these Lists relating to the advent of enclosure support and for the most part, members have policed themselves well with respect to the size of things they have posted. Having enclosures enabled on some Lists and not others has given me a fair amount of headaches with respect to filtering messages and content since the formats are often quite different between a typical MIME encoded message and a generic plain-text message. The spammers are getting more cleaver all the time and are constantly trying to thwart my best efforts at keeping them from posting to the Lists. So, for these reasons, I've have decided to go ahead and enable limited enclosure posting on all of the email Lists at Matronics. This will not only increase the utility of the Lists, but will afford me a better opportunity to filter out the chaff. Here are some of the features and limits of enclosures on the Matronics Lists: 1) Enclosures will only be posted to the Real Time version of the Lists. 2) Enclosures will NOT be included in the Daily Digest version of the Lists. 3) Enclosures WILL BE forwarded on to the BBS Forum Web site. 4) Enclosures will NOT be appended to the Archives. 5) Enclosures will NOT be available in the List Browse feature. 6) Only the following file types and extensions will be allowed: jpg, bmp, gif, txt, xls, pdf, and doc All other enclosures types will be rejected and email returned to sender. The enclosure types listed above are relatively safe from a virus standpoint and don't pose a particularly large security risk. 7) !! All incoming enclosures will be scanned for viruses prior to posting to the List. This is done in real time and will not slow down the process of posting the message !! Here are some rules for posting enclosures. Failure to abide by these rules could result in the removal of a subscriber's email address from the Lists. 1) Pay attention to what you are posting!! Make sure that the files you are enclosing aren't HUGE (greater that 1MB). Remember that there are still people checking they're email via dial up modem. If you post 30MB worth of pictures, you are placing an unnecessary burden on these folks and the rest of us, for that matter. 2) SCALE YOUR PICTURES DOWN!!! I don't want to see huge 3000 x 2000 pictures getting posted that are 3 or 4MB each. This is just unacceptable. Use a program such as Photoshop to scale the picture down to something on the order of 800 x 600 and try to keep the file size to less-than 200KB, preferably much less. Microsoft has a really awesome utility available for free that allows you to Right-Click on a picture in Explorer and automatically scale it down and resave it. This is a great utility - get it, use it! http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx Look for the link "Image Resizer" 3) !! This would seem to go without saying, but I'll say it anyway. Do not post anything that would be considered offensive by your grandmother. And you know what I'm saying; I don't want to see anything even questionable. !! 4) REMEMBER THIS: If you post a 1MB enclosure to a List with 1000 members subscribed, your 1MB enclosure must be resent 1000 times amounting to 1MB X 1000 = 1 Gigabyte of network traffic!! BE CAREFUL and BE COURTEOUS! I hope everyone will enjoy the added functionality of enclosures. Please police yourself and use good judgement when posting messages with enclosures using the guidelines I've outlined above. Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 06, 2006
Subject: Fwd: Hyd. Accumulator
In a message dated 6/2/2006 4:51:59 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, byronmcc(at)sbcglobal.net writes: Jim, I have a newly overhauled 5606 Hyd. Accumulator for sale p/n EA1563 if any of your members need one. Thanks........Byron McCluskey Return-Path: Received: from rly-xa04.mx.aol.com (rly-xa04.mail.aol.com [172.20.64.40]) by air-xa03.mail.aol.com (v109.13) with ESMTP id MAILINXA32-6a4480cf0c1e9; Fri, 02 Received: from mr302.mail.mud.yahoo.com (mr302.mail.mud.yahoo.com [209.191.88.238]) by rly-xa04.mx.aol.com (v109.13) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXA46-6a4480cf0c1e9; Received: from smtp107.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com (68.142.198.206) Received: from unknown (HELO towernb) (byronmcc(at)sbcglobal.net@71.133.93.130 with login) From: "Byron McCluskey" <byronmcc(at)sbcglobal.net> Subject: Hyd. Accumulator Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 07:52:15 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0002_01C68619.76F4FFF0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-AOL-IP: 209.191.88.238 ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C68619.76F4FFF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim, I have a newly overhauled 5606 Hyd. Accumulator for sale p/n EA1563 if any of your members need one. Thanks........Byron McCluskey ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C68619.76F4FFF0 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; name="Byron McCluskey.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Byron McCluskey.vcf" BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:McCluskey;Byron FN:Byron McCluskey ORG:Tower Aviation Services, LLC TITLE:Chief Pilot-DOO TEL;WORK;VOICE:+1 (916) 428-2188 TEL;CELL;VOICE:+1 (916) 531-7693 TEL;WORK;FAX:+1 (916) 428-4481 ADR;WORK:;;6133 Freeport Blvd.;Sacramento;Ca;95822;United States of America LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:6133 Freeport Blvd.=0ASacramen to, Ca 95822=0AUnited States of America URL;WORK:http://www.toweraviation.com EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:byronmcc(at)sbcglobal.net REV:20050311T220147Z END:VCARD ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C68619.76F4FFF0-- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 09, 2006
From: Dan Farmer <daniellfarmer(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 06/08/06
I have gone about 4 days with zero messages, I find that hard to believe. anyone out there or is something wrong. Commander-List Digest Server wrote: * ================================================= Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive ================================================= Today's complete Commander-List Digest can also be found in either of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version of the Commander-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser. HTML Version: http://www.matronics.com/digest/commander-list/Digest.Commander-List.2006-06-08.html Text Version: http://www.matronics.com/digest/commander-list/Digest.Commander-List.2006-06-08.txt =============================================== EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive =============================================== ---------------------------------------------------------- Commander-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 06/08/06: 0 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 06/08/06
Date: Jun 09, 2006
Everybody else is at the airport. bilbo _____ From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Farmer Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 8:18 AM Subject: Commander-List: Re: Commander-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 06/08/06 I have gone about 4 days with zero messages, I find that hard to believe. anyone out there or is something wrong. Commander-List Digest Server wrote: * ================================================= Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive ================================================= Today's complete Commander-List Digest can also be found in either of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version of the Commander-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser. HTML ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Owens" <dowens(at)aerialviewpoint.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 06/08/06
Date: Jun 09, 2006
I am here... had a few but not too many ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Farmer To: commander-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 7:17 AM Subject: Commander-List: Re: Commander-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 06/08/06 I have gone about 4 days with zero messages, I find that hard to believe. anyone out there or is something wrong. Commander-List Digest Server wrote: * ========================= ========================= Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive ========================= ========================= Today's complete Commander-List Digest can also be found in either of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version of the Commander-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser. HTML ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Inlet scoop
Date: Jun 09, 2006
I have not seen much either. I am still looking for the inlet scoop for the top of a 680FLP. Tom F. C-GISS ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Farmer To: commander-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 05:17 Subject: Commander-List: Re: Commander-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 06/08/06 I have gone about 4 days with zero messages, I find that hard to believe. anyone out there or is something wrong. Commander-List Digest Server wrote: * ========================= ========================= Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive ========================= ========================= Today's complete Commander-List Digest can also be found in either of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version of the Commander-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser. HTML ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 09, 2006
Subject: Re: Inlet scoop
MR.RPM used a flush scoop like a Turbo Commander. You might try one of those and modify it to fit. Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "MASON Chevaillier" <kamala(at)msn.com>
Subject: Inlet scoop
Date: Jun 09, 2006
tf, there is a whole airplane in florida for parts. mason >From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> >Reply-To: commander-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: Commander-List: Inlet scoop >Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:00:45 -0700 > >I have not seen much either. >I am still looking for the inlet scoop for the top of a 680FLP. > >Tom F. >C-GISS > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dan Farmer > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 05:17 > Subject: Commander-List: Re: Commander-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 06/08/06 > > > I have gone about 4 days with zero messages, I find that hard to >believe. anyone out there or is something wrong. > > Commander-List Digest Server wrote: > * > > ================================================= > Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive > ================================================= > > Today's complete Commander-List Digest can also be found in either of >the > two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest >formatted > in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked >Indexes > and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version > of the Commander-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text >editor > such as Notepad or with a web browser. > > HTML ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Inlet scoop
Date: Jun 09, 2006
Are you telling me that the Mr.RPM only have a rectangular hole in the roof and do not need the scoop? Tom F. C-GISS 680FLP (Mr.RPM) ----- Original Message ----- From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com To: commander-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 10:06 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Inlet scoop MR.RPM used a flush scoop like a Turbo Commander. You might try one of those and modify it to fit. Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Inlet scoop
Date: Jun 09, 2006
Mason, would you gave a name and telephone number for the Florida plane? Tom F. ----- Original Message ----- From: "MASON Chevaillier" <kamala(at)msn.com> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 10:47 Subject: RE: Commander-List: Inlet scoop > > tf, there is a whole airplane in florida for parts. mason > > > >From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> > >Reply-To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > >To: > >Subject: Commander-List: Inlet scoop > >Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:00:45 -0700 > > > >I have not seen much either. > >I am still looking for the inlet scoop for the top of a 680FLP. > > > >Tom F. > >C-GISS > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Dan Farmer > > To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 05:17 > > Subject: Commander-List: Re: Commander-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 06/08/06 > > > > > > I have gone about 4 days with zero messages, I find that hard to > >believe. anyone out there or is something wrong. > > > > Commander-List Digest Server wrote: > > * > > > > ================================================= > > Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive > > ================================================= > > > > Today's complete Commander-List Digest can also be found in either of > >the > > two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest > >formatted > > in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked > >Indexes > > and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version > > of the Commander-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text > >editor > > such as Notepad or with a web browser. > > > > HTML > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Owens" <dowens(at)aerialviewpoint.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 06/08/06
Date: Jun 09, 2006
hehehehehehe ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Bow To: commander-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 8:12 AM Subject: RE: Commander-List: Re: Commander-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 06/08/06 Everybody else is at the airport. bilbo ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Farmer Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 8:18 AM To: commander-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Commander-List: Re: Commander-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 06/08/06 I have gone about 4 days with zero messages, I find that hard to believe. anyone out there or is something wrong. Commander-List Digest Server wrote: * ========================= ========================= Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive ========================= ========================= Today's complete Commander-List Digest can also be found in either of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version of the Commander-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser. HTML ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 10, 2006
Subject: Re: Inlet scoop
No. it has a scoop. But it is flush with the top of the fuselage. Maybe I can get a picture for you. It shoot to the bottom was eliminated but must be left open for exhausting the air that comes in from the top. The top scoop went to the inter-cooler for the bleed air. It was 1/2 of the original inter-cooler for the air cycle machine. Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Inlet scoop
Date: Jun 11, 2006
I must be getting dense with my advancing years, now that this site has the ability to include small attachments I would love to have my mind set straight. Tom F. ----- Original Message ----- From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com To: commander-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 20:32 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Inlet scoop No. it has a scoop. But it is flush with the top of the fuselage. Maybe I can get a picture for you. It shoot to the bottom was eliminated but must be left open for exhausting the air that comes in from the top. The top scoop went to the inter-cooler for the bleed air. It was 1/2 of the original inter-cooler for the air cycle machine. Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Subject: 680FL Grand Commander
Date: Jun 12, 2006
Hi Guys, I'm trying to help the family of someone who was on a Grand Commander that crashed in Greenland in 1967. The guy is asking if I have a photo of the cockpit area of a 680FL. I haven't, but if anyone does have one, preferably 1967 vintage, please let me know. Very Best Regards, Barry ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 12, 2006
From: cloudcraft(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: 680FL Grand Commander
Sir Barry, I just might have some panel shots. Anything in particular or just the whole flight deck? Wing Commander Gordon -----Original Message----- From: Barry Collman <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk> Subject: Commander-List: 680FL Grand Commander Hi Guys, I'm trying to help the family of someone who was on a Grand Commander that crashed in Greenland in 1967. The guy is asking if I have a photo of the cockpit area of a 680FL. I haven't, but if anyone does have one, preferably 1967 vintage, please let me know. Very Best Regards, Barry ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Absolutely precious...
Date: Jun 12, 2006
Absolutely precious... http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/ajc/swf/blueangels/blueangels_lite.swf Nico ________________________________________________________________________________
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 12, 2006
Subject: Happy (Belated) Anniversary
Rats! 09 May was the 55 year anniversary of the Aero Commander's singe engine flight from Oklahoma to Washington, D.C. I forgot to send out cards. My apologies to all. Wing Commander Gordon Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Subject: Re: 680FL Grand Commander
Date: Jun 13, 2006
Hi Keith, Anything for a 680FL will be great. Sincere thanks for helping! Very Best Regards, Barry ----- Original Message ----- From: <cloudcraft(at)aol.com> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 5:53 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: 680FL Grand Commander | | Sir Barry, | | I just might have some panel shots. Anything in particular or just the | whole flight deck? | | Wing Commander Gordon | | -----Original Message----- | From: Barry Collman <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk> | To: commander-list(at)matronics.com | Subject: Commander-List: 680FL Grand Commander | | Hi Guys, | | I'm trying to help the family of someone who was on a Grand Commander | that crashed in Greenland in 1967. | | The guy is asking if I have a photo of the cockpit area of a 680FL. | | I haven't, but if anyone does have one, preferably 1967 vintage, | please let me know. | | Very Best Regards, | Barry | | | ________________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2006
Subject: Re: Happy (Belated) Anniversary
From: Russell Legg <rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au>
Dear WC Gordon, Thankyou so much for your belated birthday wishes and graphics! Caution...looks like it is that time of the year when you have to dive deep into that impressive Corporate diary and blank out Flyin time. Sept 21/22/23. You have got to get there this year...will be great to catch up with Greg Wartinger and the good folks at Commander Aero! Late summer in Miamisburg is just great! Cheers from Oz Russell On 13/6/06 8:52 AM, "CloudCraft(at)aol.com" wrote: > Rats! 09 May was the 55 year anniversary of the Aero Commander's singe engine > flight from Oklahoma to Washington, D.C. > > I forgot to send out cards. My apologies to all. > > Wing Commander Gordon > > > > > Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 14, 2006
Subject: Re: Happy (Belated) Anniversary
In a message dated 14-Jun-06 06:08:14 Pacific Daylight Time, rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au writes: Caution...looks like it is that time of the year when you have to dive deep into that impressive Corporate diary and blank out Flyin time. Sept 21/22/23. <><><><><><><> G'Day Russell, Impressive corporate diary? I never thought of it that way; don't know that I ever will. Thank you for a dose of public shame. I shall do my best to make this year's Fly-In. There just isn't enough Aero Commander in my life these days. Wing Commander Gordon Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Happy (Belated) Anniversary
Date: Jun 15, 2006
G'day WC Gordon, Well...the list is not really a public forum...and just consider that you have been gently nudged in front of friends who also wish they had more Commander in their lives! Many thanks also for introducing us to the new Matronics "attachment" option. We should plan to use this. Cheers Russell PS Still searching for a mid-life Twin Commander (560E/500/680E) to fly in the US for a while and then across the pond just once! ---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:03:32 EDT >From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com >Subject: Re: Commander-List: Happy (Belated) Anniversary >To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > > In a message dated 14-Jun-06 06:08:14 Pacific > Daylight Time, rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au writes: > > Caution...looks like it is that time of the year > when you have to dive deep into that impressive > Corporate diary and blank out Flyin time. Sept > 21/22/23. > > <><><><><><><> > > G'Day Russell, > > Impressive corporate diary? I never thought of it > that way; don't know that I ever will. > > Thank you for a dose of public shame. I shall do my > best to make this year's Fly-In. There just isn't > enough Aero Commander in my life these days. > > Wing Commander Gordon > > Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so > elsewhere. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Barry Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net>
Subject: Gratitude
Date: Jun 16, 2006
At the urging of several people, I have decided to post this. It is a patriotic post only loosely related to aviation.... ++++++++ Recently, I watched with much interest and trepidation the NBC Dateline 2 hour special on Operation Anaconda -a major offensive in Afghanistan in 2002 (I apologize in advance for any typos, etc.). I was admittedly worried that this piece would have the usual left wing agenda of magnifying failures of our armed forces and minimizing the successes. While mistakes were made and 7 Special Forces soldiers died (6 fighting to recover the body of the first) during the "Rescue on Roberts Ridge," it was a story of heroic valor and distinction that is at the very core of what makes this nation great. It is a story of human beings with families, some of which will go the rest of their lives here on earth without seeing their husband, brother, dad, or son again because they died fighting for me, for you, for them. I have always felt an extreme level of appreciation and gratitude for our men and women of the armed forces who have stood in harms way to protect divine freedoms and privileges given this great country. While reflecting on the sacrifice of grunts on the ground and airmen alike - and the families they've left - to do a duty not because they were forced to do it, but because they felt obligated to serve a righteous cause, I am, without fail, filled with emotions. Emotions such as thankfulness for their sacrifice and professional discipline, awe at their courage, pride in my association as a fellow american, and even a bit of jealousy and humility that I did not take the opportunity to serve and give back to my great nation as they have. I'm a sucker for the National Anthem or a missing man fly-by. As I sat there tonight watching Stone Phillips narrate the story of the soldiers and airmen that got unwittingly dropped into a meat grinder on a remote mountain top, I could feel their fear, their anger, their desperation as things turned from bad to worse, and their sorrow of watching the guys they had grown closest to get hit and die right before their eyes. Most importantly I saw their honor and commitment to their creed of letting no fallen solider end up in the hands of the enemy - a creed that distinguishes the American soldier and embodies what makes this nation great. In the end, tears rolled down my cheeks at the sight of stars and stripes draped caskets being taken from transport planes and put into hearses. I wept at the dignity and pride evident in the eyes and words of Captain Nathan Self's wife, even when her husband still struggles to find peace and accept that his is a hero. I smiled at the wisdom of Specialist Oscar Escano's willingness to use his experience to motivate him to fulfill his life's dream of becoming a doctor so that his fallen comrades sacrifice would not be in vain. The story was not what I had feared, it was what I would have hoped it could have been. We did not ask for this war on terror, just as we have not asked for the vast majorities of conflicts we've engage in over the past two and a quarter centuries. All we ask for in the long run is a place to bury our dead. The seven men who gave the ultimate sacrifice for my freedoms, and yours, were thankfully returned home to rest in the soil they died to protect. Ultimately, my heart was filled with joy, pride, and gratitude for the uncommon dedication and service that these men, and countless other men and women have made over the last 200+ years that allow me to sit here tonight and freely express my feelings. The preceding sentence describes many of you I'm sending this to...and for those it doesn't describe, like myself, I hope you feel as I do - for without their willingness to fight and die for our country - for us - the simple freedoms afforded by our divinely inspired constitution would cease to exist. I am grateful for a balanced story on a not so balanced network. I am grateful to be an American. I am grateful for the the American soldier...the few who have given so much to so many. Barry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: Gratitude
Date: Jun 16, 2006
I watched the Dateline special as well, and feel the same. I was overcome when I saw our men leave the downed chopper, and under heavy fire, assume an assault formation and move TOWARDS the enemy. It is a testament to their training, dedication and trust in each other that they were able to maneuver under those circumstances. I am grateful that Americans such as those are out at the sharp end, protecting us. /John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Hancock" <radialpower(at)cox.net> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 9:51 AM Subject: Commander-List: Gratitude > > At the urging of several people, I have decided to post this. It is a > patriotic post only loosely related to aviation.... > > ++++++++ > > Recently, I watched with much interest and trepidation the NBC Dateline 2 > hour special on Operation Anaconda -a major offensive in Afghanistan in > 2002 (I apologize in advance for any typos, etc.). I was admittedly > worried that this piece would have the usual left wing agenda of > magnifying failures of our armed forces and minimizing the successes. > While mistakes were made and 7 Special Forces soldiers died (6 fighting > to recover the body of the first) during the "Rescue on Roberts Ridge," > it was a story of heroic valor and distinction that is at the very core > of what makes this nation great. It is a story of human beings with > families, some of which will go the rest of their lives here on earth > without seeing their husband, brother, dad, or son again because they > died fighting for me, for you, for them. > > I have always felt an extreme level of appreciation and gratitude for our > men and women of the armed forces who have stood in harms way to protect > divine freedoms and privileges given this great country. While > reflecting on the sacrifice of grunts on the ground and airmen alike - > and the families they've left - to do a duty not because they were forced > to do it, but because they felt obligated to serve a righteous cause, I > am, without fail, filled with emotions. Emotions such as thankfulness > for their sacrifice and professional discipline, awe at their courage, > pride in my association as a fellow american, and even a bit of jealousy > and humility that I did not take the opportunity to serve and give back > to my great nation as they have. I'm a sucker for the National Anthem or > a missing man fly-by. > > As I sat there tonight watching Stone Phillips narrate the story of the > soldiers and airmen that got unwittingly dropped into a meat grinder on a > remote mountain top, I could feel their fear, their anger, their > desperation as things turned from bad to worse, and their sorrow of > watching the guys they had grown closest to get hit and die right before > their eyes. Most importantly I saw their honor and commitment to their > creed of letting no fallen solider end up in the hands of the enemy - a > creed that distinguishes the American soldier and embodies what makes > this nation great. > > In the end, tears rolled down my cheeks at the sight of stars and stripes > draped caskets being taken from transport planes and put into hearses. I > wept at the dignity and pride evident in the eyes and words of Captain > Nathan Self's wife, even when her husband still struggles to find peace > and accept that his is a hero. I smiled at the wisdom of Specialist > Oscar Escano's willingness to use his experience to motivate him to > fulfill his life's dream of becoming a doctor so that his fallen comrades > sacrifice would not be in vain. The story was not what I had feared, it > was what I would have hoped it could have been. > > We did not ask for this war on terror, just as we have not asked for the > vast majorities of conflicts we've engage in over the past two and a > quarter centuries. All we ask for in the long run is a place to bury our > dead. The seven men who gave the ultimate sacrifice for my freedoms, and > yours, were thankfully returned home to rest in the soil they died to > protect. > > Ultimately, my heart was filled with joy, pride, and gratitude for the > uncommon dedication and service that these men, and countless other men > and women have made over the last 200+ years that allow me to sit here > tonight and freely express my feelings. The preceding sentence describes > many of you I'm sending this to...and for those it doesn't describe, like > myself, I hope you feel as I do - for without their willingness to fight > and die for our country - for us - the simple freedoms afforded by our > divinely inspired constitution would cease to exist. > > I am grateful for a balanced story on a not so balanced network. I am > grateful to be an American. I am grateful for the the American > soldier...the few who have given so much to so many. > > Barry > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List > http://wiki.matronics.com > > > __________ NOD32 1.1600 (20060615) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ NOD32 1.1600 (20060615) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tylor Hall <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Jun 16, 2006
Subject: EBay 680FL N4998E-SN1739-141
this twin Commander is on Ebay. It appears that it lost several cylinders after only 141 hours SMOH. It appears that it is current Lic. It would take a overhauled engine. How does a cylinder separate at the top of the piston travel? See notes. Tylor Hall ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 16, 2006
Subject: Re: EBay 680FL N4998E-SN1739-141
Good Evening Tylor, A cylinder head splitting at the top of the piston travel is not at all unusual. That is also the top of the threads on the steel cylinder barrel where it screws into the aluminum head. Any idea if the cylinders had been rebarreled? If the engine encountered detonation that could cause the head to split at that point. Detonation could be caused by (among other things) too low a fuel flow at takeoff power or bad ignition timing. 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 6/16/2006 10:34:36 P.M. Central Standard Time, tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net writes: How does a cylinder separate at the top of the piston travel? See notes. Tylor Hall ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tylor Hall <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Jun 16, 2006
Subject: Re: EBay 680FL N4998E-SN1739-141
Bob, At the bottom of the Ebay listing are some questions and answers. They talk about replacing 3 cylinders just before loosing the #4. The engine was overhauled in 2000 with only 146.3 hours. This engine has the Simmons fuel flow controller on it. I wonder if this might be the cause of the problem? There is not much the pilot can due other than control MP with the throttle. But if it is too lean on takeoff? I hope someone can get a deal on that aircraft. Tylor Hall On Jun 16, 2006, at 9:48 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote: > Good Evening Tylor, > > A cylinder head splitting at the top of the piston travel is not at > all unusual. That is also the top of the threads on the steel > cylinder barrel where it screws into the aluminum head. > > Any idea if the cylinders had been rebarreled? > > If the engine encountered detonation that could cause the head to > split at that point. Detonation could be caused by (among other > things) too low a fuel flow at takeoff power or bad ignition timing. > > 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 6/16/2006 10:34:36 P.M. Central Standard Time, > tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net writes: > How does a cylinder separate at the top of the piston travel? > See notes. > > Tylor Hall ________________________________________________________________________________
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 17, 2006
Subject: Re: EBay 680FL N4998E-SN1739-141
In a message dated 16-Jun-06 21:33:10 Pacific Daylight Time, tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net writes: This engine has the Simmons fuel flow controller on it. I wonder if this might be the cause of the problem? There is not much the pilot can due other than control MP with the throttle. But if it is too lean on takeoff? Anything is possible, but I can't recall a Simmonds providing too lean a mixture. Usually it's too rich and the engine "fogs" smoke at idle / low power settings. To remedy this the pilot can lean (too much) in climb or cruise. But let's not forget that the IGSO-540 can be over-boosted beyond its redline of 47" MAP. Old Bob has a point about where cylinders fail. Don't know about buying an airplane on eBay, but I did come across some very cool Commander memorabilia on there after looking at the airplane in question. There's a set of martini glasses that should be a must-have item, except for the red neck Commander owners who drink any/everything out of a Styrofoam cup left over from last week's stop at the Circle K. Wing Commander Gordon Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 17, 2006
Subject: Re: EBay 680FL N4998E-SN1739-141
Good Morning All, I received the very interesting comment from John this morning. He gave me permission to share this. Here goes! (Thanks John!) Bob & Tylor, I read your comments on the TCFG web page. For some reason with my computer I cannot respond to the web page. I thought I would give you a little information about the 680FL's we had. In 1986 we purchased 2 680FL's and sold them in 1989, they were used for UPS cargo and at the time we had 20 500B's. We changed more cylinders in the 680FL's than all of the 500B's combined. It was a fun aircraft to fly but the engines were just a nightmare for us in our operation. The last straw was one morning coming out of ICT deadheading home 1,500 lbs under gross we lost an engine right after takeoff after raising the landing gear and our very experienced 680FL pilot was only able to get the aircraft to about 300 agl and returned to ICT and landed safely. I called UPS and said we just cannot fly the 680FL's for you anymore, we can provide 2 500B's at the same price but we cannot fly the 680FL's anymore. UPS is a very hard company to fly for but the management knew I was serious and they took our 2 plane offer. I could go on about all of the things we looked into to try to get the aircraft to work (changing to 8 cylinder engines etc) but it still was not going to solve the single engine performance problems that existed. I think if a 680FL owner could only be the one that flies his/her aircraft a person would have the best chance with the 680FL engines and aircraft. PS-If you want to share the above info with the TCFG group feel free. RESPECTFULLY, John Towner Central Air Kansas City Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 18, 2006
Subject: Re: EBay 680FL N4998E-SN1739-141
I have worked on the Simmons injectors for many years. All Simmons injectors come from overhaul set 10% richer than originally designed. This was done to improve single engine performance along with adding the large intake scoop. When installing the injector many mechanics adjust the idle mixture to take out that 10% and they do it with the engine hot. The Simmons injector uses engine oil in its metering circuit to control fuel flow. So, if you adjust it to not run rich with the engine hot it will be too lean when the engine is cold or the oil is not at normal operating temperature. A properly adjusted engine will run ok at idle when cold but must be leaned for operation on the ground when the oil is warm. In the air it takes nearly 300 pph in climb to keep the cylinders cool (215 deg C max continuous - without hurting it) and 150 pph (25 gph) to make the cylinders last (Per Engine). Any less and you might as well carry extra cylinders with you. By the way, there are long and short propellers. The short props were an attempt to increase cruise speed. this was done at the expense of take off and climb, including single engine climb (this was not the best of ideas). If you have a plane with small air scoops (ie 680FP or an 8000 lb. 680FL)this rich running problem is worse because you have more fuel and less air. Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BertBerry1(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 22, 2006
Subject: Funny Story
Since its been pretty quite here lately, I thought I'd share a story with you. Many years ago my Father purchased the first 681 Hawk built, serial number 6001, N9051N it was the demo unit and used in most of the advertisements. While refueling at Denver Beechcraft shortly after it was purchased, our Pilot ran across two King Air pilots who smugly asked him, "Zack, don't you find that Commander to be awful noisy?" To which Zack smiled and replied, "You know, when you pull it back to King Air speed, you can hardly hear it running." Have a Good Day, Bert ________________________________________________________________________________
From: skyhawkc-172(at)comcast.net
Date: Jun 22, 2006
Subject: Re: Funny Story
Bert, Great story!...I like it... Brent - N224HA -------------- Original message -------------- > > Since its been pretty quite here lately, I thought I'd share a story with you. > > Many years ago my Father purchased the first 681 Hawk built, serial number > 6001, N9051N it was the demo unit and used in most of the advertisements. > > While refueling at Denver Beechcraft shortly after it was purchased, our > Pilot ran across two King Air pilots who smugly asked him, "Zack, don't you find > that Commander to be awful noisy?" > > To which Zack smiled and replied, "You know, when you pull it back to King > Air speed, you can hardly hear it running." > > Have a Good Day, > > Bert > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Owens" <dowens(at)aerialviewpoint.com>
Date: Jun 22, 2006
Subject: Re: Funny Story
Here Here... ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:13 PM > > Bert, > Great story!...I like it... > Brent - N224HA > -------------- Original message -------------- > > > > > Since its been pretty quite here lately, I thought I'd share a story with you. > > > > Many years ago my Father purchased the first 681 Hawk built, serial number > > 6001, N9051N it was the demo unit and used in most of the advertisements. > > > > While refueling at Denver Beechcraft shortly after it was purchased, our > > Pilot ran across two King Air pilots who smugly asked him, "Zack, don't you find > > that Commander to be awful noisy?" > > > > To which Zack smiled and replied, "You know, when you pull it back to King > > Air speed, you can hardly hear it running." > > > > Have a Good Day, > > > > Bert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stan" <swperk(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Jun 22, 2006
Subject: Funny Story
Hi Bert, Thanks for the great story! Do you know if there was any significance to the N-number? Stan N681SP -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BertBerry1(at)aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 9:37 AM Since its been pretty quite here lately, I thought I'd share a story with you. Many years ago my Father purchased the first 681 Hawk built, serial number 6001, N9051N it was the demo unit and used in most of the advertisements. While refueling at Denver Beechcraft shortly after it was purchased, our Pilot ran across two King Air pilots who smugly asked him, "Zack, don't you find that Commander to be awful noisy?" To which Zack smiled and replied, "You know, when you pull it back to King Air speed, you can hardly hear it running." Have a Good Day, Bert ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ray Mansfield" <hcourier(at)cox.net>
Date: Jun 22, 2006
Subject: Oil Cooler baffle
Hello, I'm in need of two oil cooler baffles for an Aero Commander 680 FLP with the Mr. RPM Conversion. The fiberglass baffle presently attached is getting worn and has been strengthened by maintenance a couple times. Couldn't find one through normal channels. This is the baffle that directs air over the oil cooler on the front under side of the engine. Does anyone know who might have one. I've been fortunate in the past in finding parts through this website. Any help will be appreciated. Thank you, Ray Mansfield N91ES (Picture of the plane on the picture website) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "mike floyd" <floydgm(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jun 22, 2006
Subject: Oil Cooler baffle
Hey Ray, I have a mold for fabricating that baffle and would lend it to you. It is our busy season so no time to fabricate them for you send your shipping address. Mike Commander NW LTD ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ray Mansfield" <hcourier(at)cox.net>
Date: Jun 22, 2006
Subject: Re: Oil Cooler baffle
Thanks Mike. I'll see who else responds and also talk to maintenance folks and see if they could make one with the mold. Sounds like a good idea. I'll let you know. Ray M. ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 5:40 PM > > Hey Ray, > I have a mold for fabricating that baffle and would lend it to you. It is > our busy season so no time to fabricate them for you send your shipping > address. > > Mike > Commander NW LTD > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List > http://wiki.matronics.com > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bertberry1(at)aol.com>
Date: Jun 22, 2006
Subject: Funny Story
You know i'm not sure, but I don't think so. Bert ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 23, 2006
Subject: Re: Funny Story
I have been flying Turbo Commanders since 1972 starting with 681's(N9020N SN6024 and N9129N SN6056) and an still flying them. In fact I flew every model including 695A SN96096. In fact I just flew a 690A today. For all of those years I have had to listen to all for the BS from the King Air pilots about what a great airplane a King Air is vs. a Turbo Commander. This year I started flying a King Air 300. After going through the Type rating training I have to say: A King Air is a nice comfortable airplane but, it does not hold a candle to a Turbo Commander when it comes quality of design, manufacture, flying qualities, efficiency and well designed systems! Viva Turbo Commanders! Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Addington" <jtaddington(at)charter.net>
Date: Jun 22, 2006
Subject: Funny Story
Bill, A friend of mine teaches both airplanes and he will tell you the same thing. Jim Addington N444BD -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of BillLeff1(at)aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:04 PM I have been flying Turbo Commanders since 1972 starting with 681's(N9020N SN6024 and N9129N SN6056) and an still flying them. In fact I flew every model including 695A SN96096. In fact I just flew a 690A today. For all of those years I have had to listen to all for the BS from the King Air pilots about what a great airplane a King Air is vs. a Turbo Commander. This year I started flying a King Air 300. After going through the Type rating training I have to say: A King Air is a nice comfortable airplane but, it does not hold a candle to a Turbo Commander when it comes quality of design, manufacture, flying qualities, efficiency and well designed systems! Viva Turbo Commanders! Bill Leff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "mike floyd" <floydgm(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jun 23, 2006
Subject: Funny Story
Yes and as one wag put it, Turbo Commanders don't get bird strikes from behind. Mike Commander NW ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Date: Jun 23, 2006
Subject: Re: Funny Story
Hi Stan! There is no significance to the 'N' number, N9051N, for the 681 that Bert mentioned. It was one from a batch of 'N' numbers in the N90xxN range, allocated to the Aero Commander Division of North American Rockwell by the FAA. These batches usually consisted of 100 'N' numbers, provided none in the batch were in use at the time. It was then up to the Manufacturer to assign any one of these 'N' numbers to any particular airframe. Very Best Regards, Barry ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:39 PM | | Hi Bert, | | Thanks for the great story! | | Do you know if there was any significance to the N-number? | | Stan | N681SP | | -----Original Message----- | [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of | BertBerry1(at)aol.com | Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 9:37 AM | | | | Since its been pretty quite here lately, I thought I'd share a story | with you. | | Many years ago my Father purchased the first 681 Hawk built, serial | number | 6001, N9051N it was the demo unit and used in most of the | advertisements. | | While refueling at Denver Beechcraft shortly after it was purchased, our | | Pilot ran across two King Air pilots who smugly asked him, "Zack, don't | you find | that Commander to be awful noisy?" | | To which Zack smiled and replied, "You know, when you pull it back to | King | Air speed, you can hardly hear it running." | | Have a Good Day, | | Bert | ________________________________________________________________________________
From: bertberry1(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 23, 2006
Subject: 681 Hawk N22RT
I'm wondering if anyone here has scene either of these two old commanders, N2DB which is a 690, or that old Hawk which is now N22RT? Just wondering if they are still flying or if they have been scrapped. Bert ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stan" <swperk(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Jun 23, 2006
Subject: Funny Story
Hi Barry, Thanks for the info. I figured if anyone knew, it would be you! I have in a display case a promotional model of a 681 with the N-number N9228N. Any significance there? And while we're on the topic, I have one other promotional model with a Canadian registration number. It looks like it might be a 695 and it has a registration of C-GPDX. Regards, Stan -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry Collman Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 6:43 AM --> <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk> Hi Stan! There is no significance to the 'N' number, N9051N, for the 681 that Bert mentioned. It was one from a batch of 'N' numbers in the N90xxN range, allocated to the Aero Commander Division of North American Rockwell by the FAA. These batches usually consisted of 100 'N' numbers, provided none in the batch were in use at the time. It was then up to the Manufacturer to assign any one of these 'N' numbers to any particular airframe. Very Best Regards, Barry ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:39 PM | | Hi Bert, | | Thanks for the great story! | | Do you know if there was any significance to the N-number? | | Stan | N681SP | | -----Original Message----- | [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of | BertBerry1(at)aol.com | Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 9:37 AM | | | | Since its been pretty quite here lately, I thought I'd share a story | with you. | | Many years ago my Father purchased the first 681 Hawk built, serial | number 6001, N9051N it was the demo unit and used in most of the | advertisements. | | While refueling at Denver Beechcraft shortly after it was purchased, | our | | Pilot ran across two King Air pilots who smugly asked him, "Zack, | don't you find that Commander to be awful noisy?" | | To which Zack smiled and replied, "You know, when you pull it back to | King Air speed, you can hardly hear it running." | | Have a Good Day, | | Bert | ________________________________________________________________________________
From: bertberry1(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 23, 2006
Subject: Re: Funny Story
Hey Stan, N9228N was one of my father's 690's that later became N12BU and then N2DB. I'd like to see a photo of it if possible. I'll send you one when we owned it. Bert -----Original Message----- Hi Barry, Thanks for the info. I figured if anyone knew, it would be you! I have in a display case a promotional model of a 681 with the N-number N9228N. Any significance there? And while we're on the topic, I have one other promotional model with a Canadian registration number. It looks like it might be a 695 and it has a registration of C-GPDX. Regards, Stan -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry Collman Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 6:43 AM --> <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk> Hi Stan! There is no significance to the 'N' number, N9051N, for the 681 that Bert mentioned. It was one from a batch of 'N' numbers in the N90xxN range, allocated to the Aero Commander Division of North American Rockwell by the FAA. These batches usually consisted of 100 'N' numbers, provided none in the batch were in use at the time. It was then up to the Manufacturer to assign any one of these 'N' numbers to any particular airframe. Very Best Regards, Barry ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:39 PM | | Hi Bert, | | Thanks for the great story! | | Do you know if there was any significance to the N-number? | | Stan | N681SP | | -----Original Message----- | [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of | BertBerry1(at)aol.com | Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 9:37 AM | | | | Since its been pretty quite here lately, I thought I'd share a story | with you. | | Many years ago my Father purchased the first 681 Hawk built, serial | number 6001, N9051N it was the demo unit and used in most of the | advertisements. | | While refueling at Denver Beechcraft shortly after it was purchased, | our | | Pilot ran across two King Air pilots who smugly asked him, "Zack, | don't you find that Commander to be awful noisy?" | | To which Zack smiled and replied, "You know, when you pull it back to | King Air speed, you can hardly hear it running." | | Have a Good Day, | | Bert | ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Date: Jun 23, 2006
Subject: Re: Funny Story
Hi Stan, N9228N was another of the batches allocated by the FAA to the Aero Commander Division of North American Rockwell. It was assigned by them to a Model 690, s/n 11028 and it's one that Bert Berry will know as it was purchased by Berry Brothers General Contractors Inc! C-GPDX was a 690A, s/n 11319 from December 1995, to March 2002, when it returned to the USA as N690AJ, now N690GZ. Very Best Regards, Barry ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 9:10 PM | | Hi Barry, | | Thanks for the info. I figured if anyone knew, it would be you! | | I have in a display case a promotional model of a 681 with the N-number | N9228N. Any significance there? And while we're on the topic, I have one | other promotional model with a Canadian registration number. It looks | like it might be a 695 and it has a registration of C-GPDX. | | Regards, | Stan | | -----Original Message----- | [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry | Collman | Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 6:43 AM | | | --> <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk> | | Hi Stan! | | There is no significance to the 'N' number, N9051N, for the 681 that | Bert | mentioned. | | It was one from a batch of 'N' numbers in the N90xxN range, allocated to | the | Aero Commander Division of North American Rockwell by the FAA. | | These batches usually consisted of 100 'N' numbers, provided none in the | batch | were in use at the time. It was then up to the Manufacturer to assign | any one of | these 'N' numbers to any particular airframe. | | Very Best Regards, | Barry | | ----- Original Message ----- | Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:39 PM | | || || Hi Bert, || || Thanks for the great story! || || Do you know if there was any significance to the N-number? || || Stan || N681SP || || -----Original Message----- || [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of || BertBerry1(at)aol.com || Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 9:37 AM || || || || Since its been pretty quite here lately, I thought I'd share a story || with you. || || Many years ago my Father purchased the first 681 Hawk built, serial || number 6001, N9051N it was the demo unit and used in most of the || advertisements. || || While refueling at Denver Beechcraft shortly after it was purchased, || our || || Pilot ran across two King Air pilots who smugly asked him, "Zack, || don't you find that Commander to be awful noisy?" || || To which Zack smiled and replied, "You know, when you pull it back to || King Air speed, you can hardly hear it running." || || Have a Good Day, || || Bert || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Date: Jun 25, 2006
Subject: Fw: King Arthur and the Witch
King Arthur and the Witch: Young King Arthur was ambushed and imprisoned by the monarch of a neighboring kingdom. The monarch could have killed him but was moved by Arthur's youth and ideals. So, the monarch offered him his freedom, as long as he could answer a very difficult question. Arthur would have a year to figure out the answer and, if after a year, he still had no answer, he would be put to death. The question?....What do women really want? Such a question would perplex even the most knowledgeable man, and to young Arthur, it seemed an impossible query. But, since it was better than death, he accepted the monarch's proposition to have an answer by year's end. He returned to his kingdom and began to poll everyone: the princess, the priests, the wise men and even the court jester. He spoke with everyone, but no one could give him a satisfactory answer. Many people advised him to consult the old witch, for only she would have the answer. But the price would be high; as the witch was famous throughout the kingdom for the exorbitant prices she charged. The last day of the year arrived and Arthur had no choice but to talk to the witch. She agreed to answer the question, but he would have to agree to her price first. The old witch wanted to marry Sir Lancelot, the most noble of the Knights of the Round Table and Arthur's closest friend! Young Arthur was horrified. She was hunchbacked and hideous, had only one tooth, smelled like sewage, made obscene farty noises, etc. He had never encountered such a repugnant creature in all his life. He refused to force his friend to marry her and endure such a terrible burden; but Lancelot, learning of the proposal, spoke with Arthur. He said nothing was too big of a sacrifice compared to Arthur's life and the preservation of the Round Table. Hence, a wedding was proclaimed and the witch answered Arthur's question thus: What a woman really wants, she answered....is to be in charge of her own life , and eveybody elses too . Everyone in the kingdom instantly knew that the witch had uttered a great truth and that Arthur's life would be spared. And so it was, the neighboring monarch granted Arthur his freedom and Lancelot and the witch had a wonderful wedding. The honeymoon hour approached and Lancelot, steeling himself for a horrific experience, entered the bedroom. But, what a sight awaited him. The most beautiful woman he had ever seen lay before him on the bed. The astounded Lancelot asked what had happened The beauty replied that since he had been so kind to her when she appeared as a witch, she would henceforth, be her horrible deformed self only half the time and the beautiful maiden the other half. Which would he prefer? Beautiful during the day....or night? Lancelot pondered the predicament. During the day, a beautiful woman to show off to his friends, but at night, in the privacy of his castle, an old witch? Or, would he prefer having a hideous witch during the day, but by night, a beautiful woman for him to enjoy wondrous intimate moments? What would YOU do? What Lancelot chose is below. BUT....make YOUR choice before you scroll down below. OKAY? Noble Lancelot said that he would allow HER to make the choice herself. Upon hearing this, she announced that she would be beautiful all the time because he had respected her enough to let her be in charge of her own life. Now....what is the moral to this story? Scroll down The moral is..... If you don't let a woman have her own way.... Things are going to get ugly! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: skyhawkc-172(at)comcast.net
Date: Jun 27, 2006
Subject: Re: Fw: King Arthur and the Witch
If that ain't the truth, I don't know what is. Great story Nico... -------------- Original message -------------- King Arthur and the Witch: Young King Arthur was ambushed and imprisoned by the monarch of a neighboring kingdom. The monarch could have killed him but was moved by Arthur's youth and ideals. So, the monarch offered him his freedom, as long as he could answer a very difficult question. Arthur would have a year to figure out the answer and, if after a year, he still had no answer, he would be put to death. The question?....What do women really want? Such a question would perplex even the most knowledgeable man, and to young Arthur, it seemed an impossible query. But, since it was better than death, he accepted the monarch's proposition to have an answer by year's end. He returned to his kingdom and began to poll everyone: the princess, the priests, the wise men and even the court jester. He spoke with everyone, but no one could give him a satisfactory answer. Many people advised him to consult the old witch, for only she would have the answer. But the price would be high; as the witch was famous throughout the kingdom for the exorbitant prices she charged. The last day of the year arrived and Arthur had no choice but to talk to the witch. She agreed to answer the question, but he would have to agree to her price first. The old witch wanted to marry Sir Lancelot, the most noble of the Knights of the Round Table and Arthur's closest friend! Young Arthur was horrified. She was hunchbacked and hideous, had only one tooth, smelled like sewage, made obscene farty noises, etc. He had never encountered such a repugnant creature in all his life. He refused to force his friend to marry her and endure such a terrible burden; but Lancelot, learning of the proposal, spoke with Arthur. He said nothing was too big of a sacrifice compared to Arthur's life and the preservation of the Round Table. Hence, a wedding was proclaimed and the witch answered Arthur's question thus: What a woman really wants, she answered....is to be in charge of her own life , and eveybody elses too . Everyone in the kingdom instantly knew that the witch had uttered a great truth and that Arthur's life would be spared. And so it was, the neighboring monarch granted Arthur his freedom and Lancelot and the witch had a wonderful wedding. The honeymoon hour approached and Lancelot, steeling himself for a horrific experience, entered the bedroom. But, what a sight awaited him. The most beautiful woman he had ever seen lay before him on the bed. The astounded Lancelot asked what had happened The beauty replied that since he had been so kind to her when she appeared as a witch, she would henceforth, be her horrible deformed self only half the time and the beautiful maiden the other half. Which would he prefer? Beautiful during the day....or night? Lancelot pondered the predicament. During the day, a beautiful woman to show off to his friends, but at night, in the privacy of his castle, an old witch? Or, would he prefer having a hideous witch during the day, but by night, a beautiful woman for him to enjoy wondrous intimate moments? What would YOU do? What Lancelot chose is below. BUT....make YOUR choice before you scroll down below. OKAY? Noble Lancelot said that he would allow HER to make the choice herself. Upon hearing this, she announced that she would be beautiful all the time because he had respected her enough to let her be in charge of her own life. Now....what is the moral to this story? Scroll down The moral is..... If you don't let a woman have her own way.... Things are going to get ugly! Checked by AVG Date: 05/06/07
If that ain't the truth, I don't know what is.
Great story Nico...
 

King  Arthur and the Witch:

Young  King Arthur was ambushed and imprisoned by the monarch of a neighboring  kingdom. The monarch could have killed him but was moved by Arthur's youth  and ideals. So, the monarch offered him his freedom, as long as he could  answer a very difficult question. Arthur would have a year to figure out  the answer and, if after a year, he still had no answer, he would be put  to death.

The question?....What do women really want? Such a  question would perplex even the most knowledgeable man, and to young  Arthur, it seemed an impossible query. But, since it was better than  death, he accepted the monarch's proposition to have an answer by year's  end.


He returned to his kingdom and began to poll everyone: the  princess, the priests, the wise men and even the court jester. He spoke  with everyone, but no one could give him a satisfactory answer.  

Many people advised him to consult the old witch, for only she  would have the answer.

But the price would be high; as the witch  was famous throughout the king dom fo r the exorbitant prices she charged.  

The last day of the year arrived and Arthur had no choice but to  talk to the witch. She agreed to answer the question, but he would have to  agree to her price first.

The old witch wanted to marry Sir  Lancelot, the most noble of the Knights of the Round Table and Arthur's  closest friend!

Young Arthur was horrified. She was hunchbacked  and hideous, had only one tooth, smelled like sewage, made obscene farty
 noises,  etc. He had never encountered such a repugnant creature in all his life.  

He refused to force his friend to marry her and endure such a  terrible burden; but Lancelot, learning of the proposal, spoke with  Arthur.

He said nothing was too big of a sacrifice compared to  Arthur's life and the preservation of the Round Table.

Hence, a  wedding was proclaimed and the witch answered Arthur's question thus:  

What a woman really wants, she answered....is to be in charg e of  her own life
 , and eveybody elses too .

Everyone in the kingdom instantly knew that the  witch had uttered a great truth and that Arthur's life would be spared.  

< B>And so it was, the neighboring monarch granted Arthur his freedom  and Lancelot and the witch had a wonderful wedding.


The honeymoon  hour approached and Lancelot, steeling himself for a horrific experience,  entered the bedroom. But, what a sight awaited him. The most beautiful  woman he had ever seen lay before him on the bed. The astounded Lancelot  asked what had happened

The beauty replied that since he had been  so kind to her when she appeared as a witch, she would henceforth, be her  horrible deformed self only half the time and the beautiful maiden the  other half.

Which would he prefer? Beautiful during the day....or  night? < BR>
Lancelot pondered the predicament. During the day, a  beautiful woman to show off to his friends, but at night, in the privacy  of his castle, an old witch? Or, would he prefer having a hideous witch  during the day, but by night, a beautiful woman for him to enjoy wondrous  intimate moments?

What would YOU do?

What Lancelot chose  is below. BUT....make YOUR choice before you scroll down below. OKAY?  








Noble  Lancelot said that he would allow HER to make the choice herself.  

Upon hearing this, she announced that she w ould be beautiful all  the time because he had respected her enough to let her be in charge of  her own life.

Now....what is the moral to this  story?

 

 



Scroll  down






The  moral is.....
If  you don't let a woman have her own way....
Things are  going to get 
  ugly!

 


Content-Type: Multipart/mixed; boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_14484_1151430147_2" --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_14484_1151430147_2 Content-Type: text/plain; name="_AVGcert.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="_AVGcert.txt" Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_14484_1151430147_2-- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 28, 2006
Subject: ALASKA TRIP
HI KIDS. I thought I would share a recent adventure. A coupe weeks ago, Morris Kernick headed up to a little town in Alaska to get a Commander. I have a contract to supply 2 Commanders to an A&P school in SE Alabama. After looking for several months and at 13 derelict Commanders, the first usable airplane, a 680, was found in Galena Alaska, about 100 nm from the Arctic Circle. With the help of TCFG member Steve Willis, we were successful if moving the airplane 1700nm to my home here in Washougal WA. It took 3 days to ready the airplane for the ferry flight. The airplane had not flown in many years but was in pretty good shape. All the avionics had been unceremoniously remove with what looked like a sawsall!! The trip to Washougla was completely uneventful and the airplane ran like a Swiss watch. After some additional work , I flew the airplane the remaining 1900nm to Enterprise Alabama, again without any trouble. The legs were Galena to Wasilla (Anchorage) AK. Than, direct to Ketchcan, with a stop in Sitka due to weather. From Kechican we flew direct to my home (Portland OR) none stop. The last legs were Washougal direct to Lamar CO (987nm) then direct to Enterprise (925nm). Coast to coast with one fuel stop!! Had a bit of excitement coming into the states. The FSS at Ketchican failed to activate our flight plan. We were intercepted by a couple of F-16s from the Oregon Air Guard. After a difficult conversation on 121.5 with a hand held radio, we were escorted to our destination. I haven't heard any more from the FAA, so I am keeping my fingers crossed that this is the end of the incident but who knows. The next airplane, a 560A is in San Diego and I plan to pick it up next week, if the FAA ever gives us the ferry permit. Hope all is well in your Commanderland!! PS Barry Collman. The A&P school is the Ozark-Enterprise Community College and they now have 4 Commanders in there ownership. N800NE, a 560A, S/N267(?) complete and could fly again, another 560A, S/N252 was in military paint with no engines and cut off wings & tail, and a 680 S/N 466-136 also will never fly again. It was converted to an "E" in 1974 and has a front door. The airplane I delivered was N6814S S/N 680-14 a 680. It will remain intact and could fly again. jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "steve" <steveg(at)nternet.com>
Date: Jun 28, 2006
Subject: ALASKA TRIP
Jb, You might want to file a NASA report real quick. http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/forms_nf.htm ...... Had a bit of excitement coming into the states. The FSS at Ketchican failed to activate our flight plan. We were intercepted by a couple of F-16s from the Oregon Air Guard. After a difficult conversation on 121.5 with a hand held radio, we were escorted to our destination. I haven't heard any more from the FAA, so I am keeping my fingers crossed that this is the end of the incident but who knows. Steve Gilson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Date: Jun 28, 2006
Subject: Re: ALASKA TRIP
Hi JimBob, Thanks for sharing the details of that trip with us all. Some people get all the fun!!! A quick note on those 4 Commanders at the Ozark-Enterprise Community College: 560A-252. Is ex N23041, N4988B and originally 55-4640, another of the 15 ordered. 560A(HC)-267. Is ex N800NE, N23FC and originally USAF 55-4645, one of the 15 ordered in 1955. I believe it was modified from a 560A to 560A(HC), with the original GO-480-D1A engines being replaced by GO-480-G1B6, but the date isn't known. If you are able to confirm that on your next visit there, I'll be eternally grateful. If they have the logs, perhaps you could get a date for me? 680-319-14, N6814S. 680-466-136, ex 57-6183 one ordered by the USAF on behalf on the US Army. Converted to 680E on October 8th 1974. My database indicates that it had a forward cabin door installed on the co-pilot's side. If you can check that out when you deliver the next one, I'll again be grateful. I have already made a note to re-check the records at TCAC. Sistership 680-471-141, 57-6184 also had the same installation. Did it still have a large 'bulbous' nose, that used to house special radar equipment? Was designated as an RL-26D, later re-designated as RU-9D. Very Best Regards, Barry C. ----- Original Message ----- From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com To: commander-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 6:43 AM Subject: Commander-List: ALASKA TRIP HI KIDS. I thought I would share a recent adventure. A coupe weeks ago, Morris Kernick headed up to a little town in Alaska to get a Commander. I have a contract to supply 2 Commanders to an A&P school in SE Alabama. After looking for several months and at 13 derelict Commanders, the first usable airplane, a 680, was found in Galena Alaska, about 100 nm from the Arctic Circle. With the help of TCFG member Steve Willis, we were successful if moving the airplane 1700nm to my home here in Washougal WA. It took 3 days to ready the airplane for the ferry flight. The airplane had not flown in many years but was in pretty good shape. All the avionics had been unceremoniously remove with what looked like a sawsall!! The trip to Washougla was completely uneventful and the airplane ran like a Swiss watch. After some additional work , I flew the airplane the remaining 1900nm to Enterprise Alabama, again without any trouble. The legs were Galena to Wasilla (Anchorage) AK. Than, direct to Ketchcan, with a stop in Sitka due to weather. From Kechican we flew direct to my home (Portland OR) none stop. The last legs were Washougal direct to Lamar CO (987nm) then direct to Enterprise (925nm). Coast to coast with one fuel stop!! Had a bit of excitement coming into the states. The FSS at Ketchican failed to activate our flight plan. We were intercepted by a couple of F-16s from the Oregon Air Guard. After a difficult conversation on 121.5 with a hand held radio, we were escorted to our destination. I haven't heard any more from the FAA, so I am keeping my fingers crossed that this is the end of the incident but who knows. The next airplane, a 560A is in San Diego and I plan to pick it up next week, if the FAA ever gives us the ferry permit. Hope all is well in your Commanderland!! PS Barry Collman. The A&P school is the Ozark-Enterprise Community College and they now have 4 Commanders in there ownership. N800NE, a 560A, S/N267(?) complete and could fly again, another 560A, S/N252 was in military paint with no engines and cut off wings & tail, and a 680 S/N 466-136 also will never fly again. It was converted to an "E" in 1974 and has a front door. The airplane I delivered was N6814S S/N 680-14 a 680. It will remain intact and could fly again. jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Re: ALASKA TRIP
In a message dated 6/28/2006 4:49:10 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, steveg(at)nternet.com writes: You might want to file a NASA report real quick. Did it, thanks!! jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Re: ALASKA TRIP
In a message dated 6/28/2006 5:02:19 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk writes: co-pilot's side Nope, it was on the pilots side. I did not however look to see if a second door was on the copilot side, but I doubt it. I'll check when I return. jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Re: ALASKA TRIP
Thanks JimBob. The RU-9D had the SLAR antennas mounted each side of the aircraft. The forward door was installed as an emergency escape means, as the antenna blocked the main cabin door. I'm now wondering whether the military specifically requested a co-pilot door for emergency escape. It might have been difficult to get across quickly to the other door? If you can check it out for me, I'll be grateful, of course. Sincere Best Regards, Barry ----- Original Message ----- From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com To: commander-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 5:56 AM Subject: Re: Commander-List: ALASKA TRIP In a message dated 6/28/2006 5:02:19 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk writes: co-pilot's side Nope, it was on the pilots side. I did not however look to see if a second door was on the copilot side, but I doubt it. I'll check when I return. jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Kirkwood" <bkirkwoo(at)elp.rr.com>
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Mixture Control 560E
I am looking for a replacement push-pull cable for the mixture control on my 1959 560E. This is a push-pull cable in an 'S' shaped tube that spans the 2 foot distance from the firewall to the carburetor. 1. Does anyone know where I could find one? Or two? (the other side is probably just as bad) 2. Does anyone know who could replace the cable in this one? (I sent it to Aircraft Spruce and they sent it back.) 3. Does anyone know what happened to "Commander Doc"? The number I have for them is no longer a working number. Thanks for any help you can give me. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Test
Test ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com>
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Test
5 x 5 Bob! Robert _____ [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B(at)aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 21:19 Test __________ NOD32 1.1633 (20060629) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Test
In a message dated 6/29/2006 11:32:19 P.M. Central Standard Time, rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com writes: 5 x 5 Bob! Robert Thank You Sir!! Happy Skies, Old Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <avtec2(at)bellsouth.net>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Mixture Control 560E
I have two Harry 321 267-3141 ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Kirkwood To: commander-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 8:59 PM Subject: Commander-List: Mixture Control 560E I am looking for a replacement push-pull cable for the mixture control on my 1959 560E. This is a push-pull cable in an 'S' shaped tube that spans the 2 foot distance from the firewall to the carburetor. 1. Does anyone know where I could find one? Or two? (the other side is probably just as bad) 2. Does anyone know who could replace the cable in this one? (I sent it to Aircraft Spruce and they sent it back.) 3. Does anyone know what happened to "Commander Doc"? The number I have for them is no longer a working number. Thanks for any help you can give me. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Kirkwood" <bkirkwoo(at)elp.rr.com>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Mixture Control 560E
I am interesting in purchasing the two mixture cables. Let me know how much and type of payment required. Thank you very much! Bill Kirkwood 614 Turney Dr El Paso, TX 79902 915 861-6723 ----- Original Message ----- From: avtec2(at)bellsouth.net To: commander-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 4:05 AM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Mixture Control 560E I have two Harry 321 267-3141 ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Kirkwood To: commander-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 8:59 PM Subject: Commander-List: Mixture Control 560E I am looking for a replacement push-pull cable for the mixture control on my 1959 560E. This is a push-pull cable in an 'S' shaped tube that spans the 2 foot distance from the firewall to the carburetor. 1. Does anyone know where I could find one? Or two? (the other side is probably just as bad) 2. Does anyone know who could replace the cable in this one? (I sent it to Aircraft Spruce and they sent it back.) 3. Does anyone know what happened to "Commander Doc"? The number I have for them is no longer a working number. Thanks for any help you can give me. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: ALASKA TRIP
In a message dated 6/29/2006 4:16:03 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk writes: If you can check it out for me, I'll be grateful, of course. will do!! jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Moe" <moe(at)rosspistons.com>
Date: Jul 06, 2006
Subject: OSHKOSH
Is anyone other than me taking their Commander to Oshkosh? If so let's try to get togeather for a few minutes. Regards, Moe Mills N680RR 680F(p) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy Dettmer, AIA" <rcdettmer(at)charter.net>
Date: Jul 06, 2006
Subject: OSHKOSH
Hey Moe, I took my 680F to OSH last year with 3 buddiescamped under the wing for the whole week. Had a great time. Tried to hook up with other Commanders, but no luck. Hope you are more successful than I was. Good luck, and have lots of fun..!! Randy Dettmer 680F/N6253X DettmerArchitecture 663 Hill Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 805 541 4864 / Fax 805 541 4865 www.dettmerarchitecture.com -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Moe Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 12:06 PM Is anyone other than me taking their Commander to Oshkosh? If so let's try to get togeather for a few minutes. Regards, Moe Mills N680RR 680F(p) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "alh1(at)juno.com" <alh1(at)juno.com>
Date: Jul 06, 2006
Subject: OSHKOSH
i will be in appleton on the 24 and probably stay until the 26th. tell me where to me and i will try to make it. allan hoffman ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Moe" <moe(at)rosspistons.com>
Date: Jul 06, 2006
Subject: Re: OSHKOSH
Allan, What seems to work the best is if you maybe call my cell phone while you are there. I have been several times, and it seems that I never wind up parking where I think I will. Cell phone # (310) 350.4594 Hope to see you there! Moe N680RR 680F(p) ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 1:56 PM > > i will be in appleton on the 24 and probably stay until the 26th. > tell me where to me and i will try to make it. allan hoffman > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Moe" <moe(at)rosspistons.com>
Date: Jul 06, 2006
Subject: Re: OSHKOSH
Hi Randy, I have always camped out there also. Didn't go last year (went to Sturgis, ND for the Harley event). Am going to Johnson City, TN. first and pick up a couple of business associates who want to go to OSH. Regards, Moe ----- Original Message ----- From: Randy Dettmer, AIA To: commander-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 12:20 PM Subject: RE: Commander-List: OSHKOSH Hey Moe, I took my 680F to OSH last year with 3 buddies.camped under the wing for the whole week. Had a great time. Tried to hook up with other Commanders, but no luck. Hope you are more successful than I was. Good luck, and have lots of fun..!! Randy Dettmer 680F/N6253X DettmerArchitecture 663 Hill Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 805 541 4864 / Fax 805 541 4865 www.dettmerarchitecture.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Moe Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 12:06 PM To: commander-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Commander-List: OSHKOSH Is anyone other than me taking their Commander to Oshkosh? If so let's try to get togeather for a few minutes. Regards, Moe Mills N680RR 680F(p) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "alh1(at)juno.com" <alh1(at)juno.com>
Date: Jul 07, 2006
Subject: Re: OSHKOSH
moe and anyone else headed to osh. sounds good. my cell is 561-379-4774. i have a blue and white 500. maybe we will fly it up to osh one day, but when the field closes for the air show and then the ceiling goes down, i prefer appleton. allan hoffman, N628AH. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <dfalik(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Jul 06, 2006
Subject: OSHKOSH
I'm heading to osh. on Sat. the 29 th. Red and white 500S. Usually go to Fond du Lac and shuttle to Osh. I have done it like that for several years and it goes seamlessly. -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of alh1(at)juno.com Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 10:18 PM moe and anyone else headed to osh. sounds good. my cell is 561-379-4774. i have a blue and white 500. maybe we will fly it up to osh one day, but when the field closes for the air show and then the ceiling goes down, i prefer appleton. allan hoffman, N628AH. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 09, 2006
Subject: N900RA's Final Flight
All, I was asked to give my opinion about N900RA's last flight. For those of you who don't know or don't remember, it involved an Aero Commander Shrike that crashed in high terrain near the Nevada/Oregon/California border on 21 November, 2001, flying between Reno (KRNO) and Wenatchee (KEAT). The operator was a very experienced Commander operator by reputation. I did not personally know the pilot. My opinion was asked for (as were a few of you, I believe) as part of an article that is being written for Aviation Safety. There are few accidents that I can point to and say, "What a dork! He should have ____________," and so, I am very conservative when it comes to placing blame, which is what accident investigations and articles want to do. Follows is my response, after reading the full NTSB report. I'm broadcasting this to you so you know my stance on this, just in case a "sound byte" appears in publication, in or out of context. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ After reading the NTSB report, it's pretty clear that the pilot and passengers were in the wrong place at the right time. Severe down drafts, saturated air with icing and turbulence reported by various aircraft in the vicinity, a company (turbocharged, MR RPM conversion) Aero Commander 680FL(P) flying the same route, but in IFR at IFR altitudes having to use full power to climb against a downdraft and deviate from course to avoid mountain wave ... The question that only speculation can answer is why fly VFR on that route, on that day? One answer may be that the pilot thought that flying IFR at IFR altitudes may have been beyond the capability of the aircraft, given the conditions he was encountering. (Normally aspirated AC-500S; status of oxygen quantity and equipment; I don't know if N900RA was certified known ice) A strategy of flying VFR and remaining clear of clouds may have been the idea, and a possible good decision, if downdrafts did not exits at the magnitude they were at that time and place. Given the nature of the operator and their area of operations (Pacific Northwest and Alaska, U.S. Forest Service contractor), they were no strangers to mountain weather phenomena and were strong instrument and Aero Commander pilots. Maybe the pilot used his best strategy for the conditions of the day and that strategy didn't work. To say the flight should not have been conducted that day is the easy analysis. I've made those decisions -- and I've also pressed on in the face of special missions. I'm a former U.S. Forest Service Air Attack pilot in an Aero Commander, and have flown in severe mountain wave conditions and my strategies worked. Maybe my strategies were marginal and I was on the razor's edge of failure the whole mission. Maybe I have been lucky enough to retreat a nanosecond prior to each catastrophe. Flights for critical missions require a different risk assumption than flight for business or pleasure. If one were to be critical of the chain of events and decisions for N900RA's last flight one has to know if the trip was truly essential or not. Keith S. Gordon aka "Wing Commander Gordon" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "nico css" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Date: Jul 09, 2006
Subject: N900RA's Final Flight
Perhaps a lecture on mountain flying, especially mountain waves, would be a valuable piece of reading to all. It would be to me, I know. Thanks Nico _____ [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of CloudCraft(at)aol.com Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 2:06 PM All, I was asked to give my opinion about N900RA's last flight. For those of you who don't know or don't remember, it involved an Aero Commander Shrike that crashed in high terrain near the Nevada/Oregon/California border on 21 November, 2001, flying between Reno (KRNO) and Wenatchee (KEAT). The operator was a very experienced Commander operator by reputation. I did not personally know the pilot. My opinion was asked for (as were a few of you, I believe) as part of an article that is being written for Aviation Safety. There are few accidents that I can point to and say, "What a dork! He should have ____________," and so, I am very conservative when it comes to placing blame, which is what accident investigations and articles want to do. Follows is my response, after reading the full NTSB report. I'm broadcasting this to you so you know my stance on this, just in case a "sound byte" appears in publication, in or out of context. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ After reading the NTSB report, it's pretty clear that the pilot and passengers were in the wrong place at the right time. Severe down drafts, saturated air with icing and turbulence reported by various aircraft in the vicinity, a company (turbocharged, MR RPM conversion) Aero Commander 680FL(P) flying the same route, but in IFR at IFR altitudes having to use full power to climb against a downdraft and deviate from course to avoid mountain wave ... The question that only speculation can answer is why fly VFR on that route, on that day? One answer may be that the pilot thought that flying IFR at IFR altitudes may have been beyond the capability of the aircraft, given the conditions he was encountering. (Normally aspirated AC-500S; status of oxygen quantity and equipment; I don't know if N900RA was certified known ice) A strategy of flying VFR and remaining clear of clouds may have been the idea, and a possible good decision, if downdrafts did not exits at the magnitude they were at that time and place. Given the nature of the operator and their area of operations (Pacific Northwest and Alaska, U.S. Forest Service contractor), they were no strangers to mountain weather phenomena and were strong instrument and Aero Commander pilots. Maybe the pilot used his best strategy for the conditions of the day and that strategy didn't work. To say the flight should not have been conducted that day is the easy analysis. I've made those decisions -- and I've also pressed on in the face of special missions. I'm a former U.S. Forest Service Air Attack pilot in an Aero Commander, and have flown in severe mountain wave conditions and my strategies worked. Maybe my strategies were marginal and I was on the razor's edge of failure the whole mission. Maybe I have been lucky enough to retreat a nanosecond prior to each catastrophe. Flights for critical missions require a different risk assumption than flight for business or pleasure. If one were to be critical of the chain of events and decisions for N900RA's last flight one has to know if the trip was truly essential or not. Keith S. Gordon aka "Wing Commander Gordon" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "MASON CHEVAILLIER" <kamala(at)msn.com>
Date: Jul 09, 2006
Subject: Re: N900RA's Final Flight
kg, concur. mason ----- Original Message ----- From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com<mailto:CloudCraft(at)aol.com> To: commander-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 4:05 PM Subject: Commander-List: N900RA's Final Flight All, I was asked to give my opinion about N900RA's last flight. For those of you who don't know or don't remember, it involved an Aero Commander Shrike that crashed in high terrain near the Nevada/Oregon/California border on 21 November, 2001, flying between Reno (KRNO) and Wenatchee (KEAT). The operator was a very experienced Commander operator by reputation. I did not personally know the pilot. My opinion was asked for (as were a few of you, I believe) as part of an article that is being written for Aviation Safety. There are few accidents that I can point to and say, "What a dork! He should have ____________," and so, I am very conservative when it comes to placing blame, which is what accident investigations and articles want to do. Follows is my response, after reading the full NTSB report. I'm broadcasting this to you so you know my stance on this, just in case a "sound byte" appears in publication, in or out of context. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ After reading the NTSB report, it's pretty clear that the pilot and passengers were in the wrong place at the right time. Severe down drafts, saturated air with icing and turbulence reported by various aircraft in the vicinity, a company (turbocharged, MR RPM conversion) Aero Commander 680FL(P) flying the same route, but in IFR at IFR altitudes having to use full power to climb against a downdraft and deviate from course to avoid mountain wave ... The question that only speculation can answer is why fly VFR on that route, on that day? One answer may be that the pilot thought that flying IFR at IFR altitudes may have been beyond the capability of the aircraft, given the conditions he was encountering. (Normally aspirated AC-500S; status of oxygen quantity and equipment; I don't know if N900RA was certified known ice) A strategy of flying VFR and remaining clear of clouds may have been the idea, and a possible good decision, if downdrafts did not exits at the magnitude they were at that time and place. Given the nature of the operator and their area of operations (Pacific Northwest and Alaska, U.S. Forest Service contractor), they were no strangers to mountain weather phenomena and were strong instrument and Aero Commander pilots. Maybe the pilot used his best strategy for the conditions of the day and that strategy didn't work. To say the flight should not have been conducted that day is the easy analysis. I've made those decisions -- and I've also pressed on in the face of special missions. I'm a former U.S. Forest Service Air Attack pilot in an Aero Commander, and have flown in severe mountain wave conditions and my strategies worked. Maybe my strategies were marginal and I was on the razor's edge of failure the whole mission. Maybe I have been lucky enough to retreat a nanosecond prior to each catastrophe. Flights for critical missions require a different risk assumption than flight for business or pleasure. If one were to be critical of the chain of events and decisions for N900RA's last flight one has to know if the trip was truly essential or not. Keith S. Gordon aka "Wing Commander Gordon" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 09, 2006
Subject: Re: N900RA's Final Flight
In a message dated 7/9/2006 4:07:20 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, CloudCraft(at)aol.com writes: A strategy of flying VFR and remaining clear of clouds may have been the idea, and a possible good decision, if downdrafts did not exits at the magnitude they were at that time and place. That is true and I don't think could have been done that day. I ws in triple two, that day ant the time of this tragic accident. I to was flying VFR from 1W1 to S67. I was about 300nm north of the impact area. The weather to the south that day was in my opinion impassible in all but the most robust, tubocharged, fully dieced equipment. I flew only a few miles north of the leading edge of this lager weather front and if I even got close to any cloud, Ice immediately formed. I believe WCG last comment was the most telling, how essential is any flight we make. jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 09, 2006
Subject: FLY-IN DATE
HI KIDS. It has come to my attention that several prominent attendees of past flyins will not be able to make this years event because of the current date. I am asking those on the list , who plan to attend this years event, if there is a preference fore an alterative date, possibly a week earlier (conflicts with the Reno Air Races) or two weeks later, the first week of Oct?? I know that not everyone can always attend these things and conflicts will always arise, still, if moving it to one of these dates will not adversely effect anyone else, It would help several others. Your thoughts. jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: swperk(at)earthlink.net
Date: Jul 09, 2006
Subject: Re: FLY-IN DATE
Hi JB, I have already arranged time off based on the originally proposed dates (September 22nd through the 24th). If a change is going to be made, I'll need as much advance notice as possible to try to get coverage. For the record, a week earlier won't work for me, but two weeks later (which I am assuming will be October 6th through the 8th) would be the best alternative for me. Regards, Stan N681SP -----Original Message----- >From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com >Sent: Jul 9, 2006 7:55 PM >To: commander-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Commander-List: FLY-IN DATE > >HI KIDS. > > It has come to my attention that several prominent attendees of past >flyins will not be able to make this years event because of the current >date. I am asking those on the list , who plan to attend this years event, if >there is a preference fore an alterative date, possibly a week earlier >(conflicts with the Reno Air Races) or two weeks later, the first week of Oct?? I >know that not everyone can always attend these things and conflicts will always >arise, still, if moving it to one of these dates will not adversely effect >anyone else, It would help several others. Your thoughts. jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au>
Date: Jul 10, 2006
Subject: Re: FLY-IN DATE
G'day Jim, First week in October is fine by me and I am definitely planning to be there...as much lead time as possible is always appreciated with the need to lock in international travel from Oz! Moving the dates to 'capture as many as possible' seems like a sensible way to go. Cheers from Oz Russell ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 22:55:16 EDT >From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com >Subject: Commander-List: FLY-IN DATE >To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > > HI KIDS. > > It has come to my attention that several > prominent attendees of past flyins will not be able > to make this years event because of the current > date. I am asking those on the list , who plan to > attend this years event, if there is a preference > fore an alterative date, possibly a week earlier > (conflicts with the Reno Air Races) or two weeks > later, the first week of Oct?? I know that not > everyone can always attend these things and > conflicts will always arise, still, if moving it to > one of these dates will not adversely effect anyone > else, It would help several others. Your thoughts. > jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 09, 2006
Subject: ANOTHER ONE
HI KIDS. I just returned from delivering another Commander to the A&P school in Alabama. This was a 560A, S/N 264 (N2764B). It was an uneventful flight. I picked the airplane up in San Diego (SEE) and flew it to Commander Services in Stockton (CSK). Morris Kernick and I worked a couple of days addressing some issues (the airplane had not flown in at least 8 years). We found no major problems, except advanced surface corrosion that made a restoration unlikely. Mechanically she was sound. I left SCK on Fri morning and stopped in Cortez Co. for fuel. Then to MacCalister OK for the night. The next morning I flew on to the destination, Ozark-Enterprise Community College (71J). A total of about 15 hours. The airplane ran great and could easily have been fueled and flown back across the US!! The school will keep this airplane and the last one I delivered together to teach students about hydraulics. They call it a "full system" approach as the airplanes remain intact and students get to work on "real" airplanes as opposed to mock-ups. Maybe someday they will be retired and sold as surplus and restored?? At least for now they are safe and secure in a new hangar. jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "nico css" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Date: Jul 09, 2006
Subject: FLY-IN DATE
Beginning October might be a better alternative because 'high season' as far as airlines are concerned, would be over by then. -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 8:19 PM G'day Jim, First week in October is fine by me and I am definitely planning to be there...as much lead time as possible is always appreciated with the need to lock in international travel from Oz! Moving the dates to 'capture as many as possible' seems like a sensible way to go. Cheers from Oz Russell ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 22:55:16 EDT >From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com >Subject: Commander-List: FLY-IN DATE >To: commander-list(at)matronics.com > > HI KIDS. > > It has come to my attention that several > prominent attendees of past flyins will not be able > to make this years event because of the current > date. I am asking those on the list , who plan to > attend this years event, if there is a preference > fore an alterative date, possibly a week earlier > (conflicts with the Reno Air Races) or two weeks > later, the first week of Oct?? I know that not > everyone can always attend these things and > conflicts will always arise, still, if moving it to > one of these dates will not adversely effect anyone > else, It would help several others. Your thoughts. > jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tylor Hall <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Jul 09, 2006
Subject: Re: N900RA's Final Flight
I remember when the accident happened as well. I had just moved to Incline, NM at Lake Tahoe. I got a real education of how bad the weather can get by living at 7600' in the mountains. I always wondered how one of my favorite aircraft went down. It has been a habit of mine to read the accident reports or the "never again" type of stories, to understand what went wrong and how can I apply it to my flying. I do not want to make the same mistake that someone did before me. There is weather that is un-flyable and we should go tomorrow. I have heard of reports of mountain waves that can cause 3000'/min down and up drafts along mountain ridges. Here is my "There I was story". I had just departed alone from Pagos Springs, CO in a 500B and was heading east over Wolf Creek Pass Ski Area. The pass is 10600' with mountains to the north and south over 13000'. It was morning and perfectly clear day. There was a breeze out of the west. I crossed the pass on a 45 degree angle, planed a route to return if required, and was climbing to 13000. Over the pass and on the east side I hit a clear air bump. Every thing ended on the ceiling, charts, headsets, bumped by head, with out any warning. It was very startling, but nothing else happened. No additional bumps, Just smooth. Quick check of all the gauges, and a visual look out both sides. Every thing was fine. The Mountains will try and get you any time. It is not a big exciting story, but it did get my attention. Tylor Hall On Jul 9, 2006, at 8:50 PM, YOURTCFG(at)aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 7/9/2006 4:07:20 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > CloudCraft(at)aol.com writes: > A strategy of flying VFR and remaining clear of clouds may have > been the idea, and a possible good decision, if downdrafts did not > exits at the magnitude they were at that time and place. > That is true and I don't think could have been done that day. I ws > in triple two, that day ant the time of this tragic accident. I to > was flying VFR from 1W1 to S67. I was about 300nm north of the > impact area. The weather to the south that day was in my opinion > impassible in all but the most robust, tubocharged, fully dieced > equipment. I flew only a few miles north of the leading edge of > this lager weather front and if I even got close to any cloud, Ice > immediately formed. I believe WCG last comment was the most > telling, how essential is any flight we make. jb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Date: Jul 09, 2006
Subject: Re: FLY-IN DATE
Hi JB, The OCT dates would work fine for me. I will probably attend the Reno air races, so I'd hope the fly in isn't that weekend. /J ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 8:17 PM > > Hi JB, > > I have already arranged time off based on the originally proposed dates > (September 22nd through the 24th). If a change is going to be made, I'll > need as much advance notice as possible to try to get coverage. > > For the record, a week earlier won't work for me, but two weeks later > (which I am assuming will be October 6th through the 8th) would be the > best alternative for me. > > Regards, > Stan > N681SP > > -----Original Message----- >>From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com >>Sent: Jul 9, 2006 7:55 PM >>To: commander-list(at)matronics.com >>Subject: Commander-List: FLY-IN DATE >> >>HI KIDS. >> >> It has come to my attention that several prominent attendees of >> past >>flyins will not be able to make this years event because of the current >>date. I am asking those on the list , who plan to attend this years >>event, if >>there is a preference fore an alterative date, possibly a week earlier >>(conflicts with the Reno Air Races) or two weeks later, the first week of >>Oct?? I >>know that not everyone can always attend these things and conflicts will >>always >>arise, still, if moving it to one of these dates will not adversely >>effect >>anyone else, It would help several others. Your thoughts. jb > > > __________ NOD32 1.1651 (20060708) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ NOD32 1.1651 (20060708) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com>
Date: Jul 10, 2006
Subject: FLY-IN DATE
John- If you attend Reno- (and any other commanders) we should make arrangements for you to stop by the south end of the field and see our AC685 restoration.... They keep telling me she'll be done by then- but I doubt it. ;-) Robert Randazzo -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Vormbaum Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 23:53 --> Hi JB, The OCT dates would work fine for me. I will probably attend the Reno air races, so I'd hope the fly in isn't that weekend. /J ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 8:17 PM > > Hi JB, > > I have already arranged time off based on the originally proposed dates > (September 22nd through the 24th). If a change is going to be made, I'll > need as much advance notice as possible to try to get coverage. > > For the record, a week earlier won't work for me, but two weeks later


May 22, 2006 - July 10, 2006

Commander-Archive.digest.vol-cb