Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:20 AM - Re: 681 Century Conversion (Nico van Niekerk)
2. 01:00 PM - Re: 681 Century Conversion (CloudCraft@aol.com)
3. 04:47 PM - Re: 681 Century Conversion VS 680FLP 800 Conversion (Tylor Hall)
4. 05:44 PM - Re: 681 Century Conversion VS 680FLP 800 Conversion (CloudCraft@aol.com)
5. 06:25 PM - Re: 681 Century Conversion VS 680FLP 800 Conversion (Tylor Hall)
6. 07:37 PM - Re: 681 Century Conversion VS 680FLP 800 Conversion (CloudCraft@aol.com)
7. 08:04 PM - Re: 681 Century Conversion VS 680FLP 800 Conversion (Tylor Hall)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 681 Century Conversion |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Nico van Niekerk" <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
It's good to have you back, Dave.
I am fascinated with the 681, but I have never heard of it. Could someone
put a short resume of this ship up on the list, so that I have something new
to drool about? My dream acquisition would be a -10, of course, but where
does the 681 fit in the pecking order?
Thanks
Nico
----- Original Message -----
From: <STOLHorse@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: 681 Century Conversion
> --> Commander-List message posted by: STOLHorse@aol.com
>
> Hi gang,
>
> This is my first post since rejoining the list. I got off when all the
virus
> stuff was out of control and I have been lurking for just the past couple
of
> weeks.
>
> Well, if you're going to start talking about my airplane, I guess I'll
have
> to join in the discussion. The 681 Century is a great buy for the money
in
> my opinion. (Compare it to the twin-Cessnas you can get for the same
money.)
> Morris was close but, in my experience, I plan on about 242 kts if it is
> warm out (like plus 15 or more) and about 247-250 knots this time of year.
> It burns about 64 gals per hour at those speeds between 18 and 21
thousand.
> It doesn't pay to fly it much higher because the speeds will start to come
> down - especially if it is warm out. It will go 250 or better in the mid
> teens all year round but the fuel burn is up in the 70's. The -1's are
> really good engines and they are still supported by Honeywell. I've heard
> that the -6 or super Dave mod will make the plane go 280 or so but it
costs
> about $40,000 each if you do it at overhaul.
>
> Randy and Kerry, I'd be happy to answer any questions about my airplane if
> you want to call or email me. I just don't use it near enough to justify
it.
> And I thought I could justify anything!
>
> It's good to be back on the list.
>
> Regards,
>
> David
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 681 Century Conversion |
--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
In a message dated 01/09/03 08:22:05 Pacific Standard Time,
nico@cybersuperstore.com writes:
> I am fascinated with the 681, but I have never heard of it. Could someone
> put a short resume of this ship up on the list, so that I have something
> new
> to drool about?
On the fly, without Sir Barry's data, or my own notes, I'll run through the
680 turbine evolution. I don't want Nico having an accident involving drool
and computer power supplies. You may want to get a snorkel out and ready.
First was the 680-T. If any of you get to see one, you'll immediately see
that it's an AC-680-FLP with the then state-of-the-art Garrett TPE 331-43
engines. Just about everything on this airplane is pure FLP, down to panel,
pressurization, etc. The Skydrol tank is pressurized, however, and the cabin
is a 4.2 psi delta P.
This (and the -V, W) are really best kept to flying in the high teens and
depending on rigging and engine state, offer 190 to 210 kts. The -43 engines
had a flat 2000 hour TBO life span.
Next up is the 680-V. Some electrical changes. Still a Skydrol airplane.
The 680-W was the all-Weather version with all the Known Ice options
standard. The -43BL engine appears and gives (slighlty)better hot/high
power.
The 681 begins to show refinement towards the 690 series, bleed air
pressurization and 5606 hydraulic fluid. I believe this is the first picture
window as well, for the cabin.
The Century Conversion that you've heard us talk about takes the -43 engine
off and replaces it with the TPE-331-1-151K engine. This conversion is
available for the 681 and 680W.
The problem with the -43 series was that as soon as you leave sea level or
standard temperature conditions, the 500 shp power begins to fall off -- and
fast. The Century is, in essence, flat-rated, (being part of the Garrett
800 shp family) and flings the 680 turbines right along.
All had the 44' wing, 280-something gallon fuel capacity which brings full
fuel up to 1900 lbs or so leaving nearly another 1800 lbs for payload on the
average V, W, 681 airplane
Hamilton Standard props are used which is very nice as they don't have much
in the way of ADs and are an on-condition maintenance unit.
Speaking of that, the 680 series are turbine airplanes that are on an annual
inspection schedule (unless you choose otherwise) versus the 690 series
which has a manufacturer mandated phase inspection interval. I hope I
described that correctly ...
A note on engines. Again. The -43BL was fitted to some V and I imange T
airplanes either via STC or 337 and in one case that I know of, no paper work
at all. I think everyone saw my bit on -43 support yesterday. The
non-Century T, V, W airframes still depend on the New York Airbrake 3000 psi
hydraulic pump for the cabin supercharger.
Sir Barry and a few others, I'm sure, can add some refined info including
dates and numbers built.
Wing Commander Gordon
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 681 Century Conversion VS 680FLP 800 Conversion |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Tylor Hall" <winddancer@centurytel.net>
Wing Commander<
What about Ben Clark's 680FLP with the Mr. RPM 800 conversion as a
compairson to the 681?
I have been working with Hartzel on a new compact hub prop to eliminate the
500 hr rebuilt. You know the aircraft. What is its' performance in
compairson?
Just for the sake of discussion.
Regards,
Tylor Hall
Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc.
2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO
970-731-2127
> I am fascinated with the 681, but I have never heard of it. Could someone
> put a short resume of this ship up on the list, so that I have something
> new
> to drool about?
On the fly, without Sir Barry's data, or my own notes, I'll run through the
680 turbine evolution. I don't want Nico having an accident involving drool
and computer power supplies. You may want to get a snorkel out and ready.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 681 Century Conversion VS 680FLP 800 Conversion |
--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
In a message dated 01/09/03 16:48:21 Pacific Standard Time,
winddancer@centurytel.net writes:
> What about Ben Clark's 680FLP with the Mr. RPM 800 conversion as a
> compairson to the 681?
> I have been working with Hartzel on a new compact hub prop to eliminate the
> 500 hr rebuilt. You know the aircraft. What is its' performance in
> compairson?
>
I don't know the price tag on N400CH so it's difficult to make a
straight-line bang for the buck comparison.
Of course, being a Mr. RPM conversion, it's similar systems-wise to the 681
with bleed air pressurization. Also, Ben converted to 5606 hydraulic fluid
and has done tons of other enhancements. (Check out his 4 point shoulder
belts!!)
I'd like to see a longer prop blade go on the Mr. RPMs to restore the
acceleration on take off. Is this, by chance, part of what you're working
on?
Performance? The 681 Century will out perform in almost every category. If
you were to compare to a Garrett -43 powered 680-T, V,W or 681, I'd take
Ben's Mr. RPM due to mx and operating costs.
Wing Commander Gordon
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 681 Century Conversion VS 680FLP 800 Conversion |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Tylor Hall" <winddancer@centurytel.net>
Ben is asking $265,000 for 400HC. It is listed on Controller. He has been
wanting to sell it for a long time.
Yes, the whole discussion with Hartzell has been about the new hub and a
different blade design that is 86" long. They are calling it a wide cord.
We have not been able to try it with out an airframe.
Will it cruse at about 210Kts at 18,000 ft? What would be the fuel flow?
Regards,
Tylor Hall
Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc.
2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO
970-731-2127
> What about Ben Clark's 680FLP with the Mr. RPM 800 conversion as a
> compairson to the 681?
> I have been working with Hartzel on a new compact hub prop to eliminate
the
> 500 hr rebuilt. You know the aircraft. What is its' performance in
> compairson?
>
I don't know the price tag on N400CH so it's difficult to make a
straight-line bang for the buck comparison.
Of course, being a Mr. RPM conversion, it's similar systems-wise to the 681
with bleed air pressurization. Also, Ben converted to 5606 hydraulic fluid
and has done tons of other enhancements. (Check out his 4 point shoulder
belts!!)
I'd like to see a longer prop blade go on the Mr. RPMs to restore the
acceleration on take off. Is this, by chance, part of what you're working
on?
Performance? The 681 Century will out perform in almost every category. If
you were to compare to a Garrett -43 powered 680-T, V,W or 681, I'd take
Ben's Mr. RPM due to mx and operating costs.
Wing Commander Gordon
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 681 Century Conversion VS 680FLP 800 Conversion |
--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
In a message dated 01/09/03 18:26:13 Pacific Standard Time,
winddancer@centurytel.net writes:
> Will it cruse at about 210Kts at 18,000 ft? What would be the fuel flow?
In theory, but not in practice. I think 190-200 KTAS is what Ben's been
getting and 38-40 GPH. Of course, I don't know that he's going up to
FL180; probably flying in the 15-16,000 foot range as he and I did on most of
the trips we did in N400CH.
It's my opinion (and that only) that the power in the IO-720 isn't getting
turned into thrust. Either inter coolers and/or different prop blades are
required to get the Mr. RPM to fly to its full potential.
Wing Commander Gordon
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 681 Century Conversion VS 680FLP 800 Conversion |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Tylor Hall" <winddancer@centurytel.net>
The intercoolers that Dick MacCoon designed for the Rajay 500 are supposed
to fit on the 800 conversions including the air scoop and remote oil cooler.
We are going up to see Dick in the near future to talk about a lot of
things.
I would like to both props and intercoolers with the remote oil cooler.
200 Knots at 40 GPH with what that aircraft will haul is not bad.
Regards,
Tylor Hall
Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc.
2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO
970-731-2127
> Will it cruse at about 210Kts at 18,000 ft? What would be the fuel flow?
In theory, but not in practice. I think 190-200 KTAS is what Ben's been
getting and 38-40 GPH. Of course, I don't know that he's going up to
FL180; probably flying in the 15-16,000 foot range as he and I did on most
of
the trips we did in N400CH.
It's my opinion (and that only) that the power in the IO-720 isn't getting
turned into thrust. Either inter coolers and/or different prop blades are
required to get the Mr. RPM to fly to its full potential.
Wing Commander Gordon
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|