Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:15 AM - Speedbird Concord (Bill Bow)
2. 05:39 AM - High airframe hours a problem??? (Patrick Nickles)
3. 06:48 AM - Re: High airframe hours a problem??? (ProgSearch@aol.com)
4. 10:05 AM - Re: High airframe hours a problem??? (John Vormbaum)
5. 12:05 PM - Hydraulic Accumulator (Lowell Girod)
6. 02:01 PM - Re: Hydraulic Accumulator (YOURTCFG@aol.com)
7. 02:06 PM - Re: Hydraulic Accumulator (YOURTCFG@aol.com)
8. 02:07 PM - Re: High airframe hours a problem??? (CloudCraft@aol.com)
9. 02:45 PM - Re: Hydraulic Accumulator (RnJThompson@aol.com)
10. 04:03 PM - Re: Hydraulic Accumulator (Lowell Girod)
11. 10:02 PM - Re: Hydraulic Accumulator (Jim Addington)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Speedbird Concord |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Bill Bow" <bowing74@earthlink.net>
This is not a Commander entry but it is an entry about another dying breed.
www.ba-concordecollection.com
bilbo
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: | High airframe hours a problem??? |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Patrick Nickles" <aerocommander@nickles.cc>
I'm currently looking @ several different planes (690's, 840's, etc.) most
of which have 8,000-10,000 hours TT. In the past I would have likely not
even looked @ a plane with this many hours, but is the Twin Commander
different/more sturdy than other planes?
I've been told by a few people that the Twin Commander is the ONLY airframe
they'd be comfortable flying in with that many hours. Does anyone have any
major reservations about these aircraft?
I suppose the question is this - Should I buy a high quality high-time Twin
Commander that suits my "profile" or should I buy a medium-time TC that
would require a lot of TLC?
Also, am I going to lose my shirt when it's time to resell an airplane w/
12,000 hrs?
Any/all feedback would be appreciated.
Pat Nickles
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: | Re: High airframe hours a problem??? |
--> Commander-List message posted by: ProgSearch@aol.com
Pat,
I have flown 500B Commanders with more than 20,000 hrs TTAF. I know your not
looking at piston models, but I thought I would tell you about my experience
with the 500B. They are safe and solid machines.
Kevin Coons
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: High airframe hours a problem??? |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "John Vormbaum" <john@vormbaum.com>
Hi Pat,
My 500B has over 21,000 hours on the airframe. There are Commanders out
there flying freight with higher times than mine. I've also flown several
Commanders with <3,000 TT, and I can't tell the difference. Mine still feels
solid as a rock.
I have been told by many Commander authorities that the useful *economic*
lifespan of an Aero Commander airframe is greater than 35,000 hours. Also
keep in mind that Twin Commander Corp. is Grand-Renaissancing turbine
commmanders and reselling them as "new" (zero-time) airframes.
Someone like Wing Commander Gordon can probably give you better info than me
on the turbines, but I would imagine that a high-time turbine would be a
great value. I'm sure the pressurization system might need a little TLC in
an airplane of that age, but the rest of it should still be a-one.
Good luck,
/John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Nickles" <aerocommander@nickles.cc>
Subject: Commander-List: High airframe hours a problem???
> --> Commander-List message posted by: "Patrick Nickles"
<aerocommander@nickles.cc>
>
> I'm currently looking @ several different planes (690's, 840's, etc.) most
> of which have 8,000-10,000 hours TT. In the past I would have likely not
> even looked @ a plane with this many hours, but is the Twin Commander
> different/more sturdy than other planes?
>
>
> I've been told by a few people that the Twin Commander is the ONLY
airframe
> they'd be comfortable flying in with that many hours. Does anyone have
any
> major reservations about these aircraft?
>
>
> I suppose the question is this - Should I buy a high quality high-time
Twin
> Commander that suits my "profile" or should I buy a medium-time TC that
> would require a lot of TLC?
>
>
> Also, am I going to lose my shirt when it's time to resell an airplane w/
> 12,000 hrs?
>
>
> Any/all feedback would be appreciated.
>
>
> Pat Nickles
>
>
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 |
|
"Commander-List Digest Server" <commander-list-digest@matronics.com>
| Subject: | Hydraulic Accumulator |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Lowell Girod" <dongirod@earthlink.net>
Bilbo;
My 560E has a hydraulic accumulator diaphragm leak, it doesn't hold pressure.
Also this makes, so I am told by my mechanic, the hyd. gage fluctuate between
1000 - 1200 psi.. and this he says is bad for the pumps and the lines and
seals. I tend to agree on a 3000 PSI hyd. system, but not sure about on our
Commanders. Believe you has some problems with yours awhile back, so would like
your opinion, cost to fix it is between $ 500 and a thousand, so I am told.
Thanks, Don
Lowell Girod
dongirod@earthlink.net
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: Hydraulic Accumulator |
--> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com
In a message dated 7/17/2003 12:06:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
dongirod@earthlink.net writes:
> My 560E has a hydraulic accumulator diaphragm leak
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: | Re: Hydraulic Accumulator |
--> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com
In a message dated 7/17/2003 12:06:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
dongirod@earthlink.net writes:
> My 560E has a hydraulic accumulator diaphragm leak
HI DON.
I would recommend fixing the diaphragm (assuming you can find
one) It will cause the unloading valve to do the work of the accumulator and
it will be the next to go. I have flow Commanders with blow accumulators for
extended time, not knowing any better. The airplane eventually broke a hard
line in the belly of the airplane that I attributed to the constant "bang" of
the unloading valve. It caused the brake system to fail, and I ran of the end
of the runway (no damage) "You can pay me now, or pay me latter" jb
Message 8
| 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: High airframe hours a problem??? |
--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
In a message dated 07/17/03 05:39:40 Pacific Daylight Time,
aerocommander@nickles.cc writes:
> I suppose the question is this - Should I buy a high quality high-time Twin
> Commander that suits my "profile" or should I buy a medium-time TC that
> would require a lot of TLC?
>
Pat,
Lots of material here to cover, but I'll try to keep my free advice short.
Oh -- and my free advice is worth every penny, so pay attention.
Do not fear a well maintained, high time Commander airframe. Are they
different than other products? I'm inclined to say yes, but so are the proud
Cessna, Beech and Piper owners who want to believe in thier airframes.
I will tell you that a sheet metal mechanic from United Air Lines was
moonlighting at Morris Kernick's and the first time he crawled under a Commander
to
repair damage on a belly of piston model, he was "astonished" at the
construction methods used. I was there to hear him rave about the Commander structure.
Also remember that this line of aircraft was designed by Ted Smith and his
buddies at Douglas Aircraft at the close of WW II. This team had designed the
A-20 Havoc and the A-26. This was the design mindset.
It's true that Rockwell was the entity that developed the AC-690 and handed
the type certificate on to Gulfstream for the AC-840, 980, 900 and 1000, but I
don't think the parts count or construction technique dropped off in the
evolution.
I digress. You ask a more interesting question about finding an airplane
that fits your profile. Yes, Man! Buy what you want. If you want a project
airplane to putter with on weekends, get one.
If you want high quality, turn key transportation and can afford it, get on
with it. People buy airplanes for different reasons; decide what it is you
really want.
It's not unique to Commanders, but very true: Commanders like to be flown.
The more they fly, the better they remain.
This presumes proper maintenance and not a previous owner who brags about how
cheap it is to operate his airplane while passing the legacy of his "thrift"
on to the next owner. (I know who is shaking his head right now ...)
I'm going to guess that you're looking at a high time Turbo Commander being
offered by a Twin Commander service center. Negotiate a warranty in to the
purchase and spend more time researching cycle times and life limited parts in
the engines that will cost you money in the near term.
By that, I'm pointing out things like stators and turbine wheels that are
subject to ADs limiting cycles or times on the (Honeywell AlliedSignal) Garrette
engines.
As it's been said of any turbo prop, "The value of the airplane is hanging on
the wing in the form of the time remaining on the engines." (Time remaining
to O/H, hot section, life limited components, etc.)
It's a buyer's market, so you have some strength going if you're a serious
customer.
Go get her!
Wing Commander Gordon
Message 9
| 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: Hydraulic Accumulator |
--> Commander-List message posted by: RnJThompson@aol.com
Hi Don,
Diaphrams for the origional style accumulators are very hard to find. The
last one I saw had a cure date of 1967. I have replaced mine with a two piece one
that was used extensively in WW2 aircraft like P47. It is dimensionally the
same size and diaphrms are easily and cheaply availiable. I can not remember
the make or P/N but will look today and mail the numbers later. Do not use the
plane for any length of time without it as your control/unloader valve will
take a hammering. I would imagine a new or O/H Vickers unloader valve would cost
a pretty penny.
Have a great day,
Richard
Message 10
| 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: Hydraulic Accumulator |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Lowell Girod" <dongirod@earthlink.net>
Capt. Jimbob;
I'm convinced, will await Richard's answer on the two piece diaphragm.
I
was a little more fortunate than you, I had a cylinder head temp. gage go
out and was fixing it, then the other one got erratic and needed cleaned,
next I had a puddle of red fluid on the ground, running off the nose gear
door. A pin hole in the right brake line, probably would not have found it
if not parked running the engines for the cyl. head gage. That is the way
I like my problems, parked on the ground!
Thanks, Don
> [Original Message]
> From: <YOURTCFG@aol.com>
> To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 7/17/2003 2:06:15 PM
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Hydraulic Accumulator
>
> --> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 7/17/2003 12:06:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> dongirod@earthlink.net writes:
>
> > My 560E has a hydraulic accumulator diaphragm leak
>
> HI DON.
>
> I would recommend fixing the diaphragm (assuming you can
find
> one) It will cause the unloading valve to do the work of the accumulator
and
> it will be the next to go. I have flow Commanders with blow accumulators
for
> extended time, not knowing any better. The airplane eventually broke a
hard
> line in the belly of the airplane that I attributed to the constant
"bang" of
> the unloading valve. It caused the brake system to fail, and I ran of
the end
> of the runway (no damage) "You can pay me now, or pay me latter" jb
>
>
Message 11
| 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: | Hydraulic Accumulator |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Jim Addington" <jtaddington@charter.net>
I don't know if the system is the same but I lost all hydraulic fluid four
times before we finally discovered what it was. that is not on the approved
list of fun things to do. We thought it was a line the first time, then we
thought we had overheated the pumps and had them resealed, then we replaced
all the lines in and out of the pumps, then finally settled on the
accumulator and that stoped the fluid loss. I think there is a different
system that will replace the old style but we had already replaced mine with
the old type.
Jim Addington (500A)
N444BD
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
YOURTCFG@aol.com
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Hydraulic Accumulator
--> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com
In a message dated 7/17/2003 12:06:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
dongirod@earthlink.net writes:
> My 560E has a hydraulic accumulator diaphragm leak
HI DON.
I would recommend fixing the diaphragm (assuming you can
find
one) It will cause the unloading valve to do the work of the accumulator and
it will be the next to go. I have flow Commanders with blow accumulators
for
extended time, not knowing any better. The airplane eventually broke a hard
line in the belly of the airplane that I attributed to the constant "bang"
of
the unloading valve. It caused the brake system to fail, and I ran of the
end
of the runway (no damage) "You can pay me now, or pay me latter" jb
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! --
|