---------------------------------------------------------- Commander-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 07/17/03: 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:15:14 AM PST US From: "Bill Bow" Subject: Commander-List: Speedbird Concord --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bill Bow" This is not a Commander entry but it is an entry about another dying breed. www.ba-concordecollection.com bilbo ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:39:20 AM PST US From: "Patrick Nickles" Subject: Commander-List: High airframe hours a problem??? --> Commander-List message posted by: "Patrick Nickles" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:48:05 AM PST US From: ProgSearch@aol.com Subject: Re: Commander-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:05:18 AM PST US From: "John Vormbaum" Subject: Re: Commander-List: High airframe hours a problem??? --> Commander-List message posted by: "John Vormbaum" 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" Subject: Commander-List: High airframe hours a problem??? > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Patrick Nickles" > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:05:30 PM PST US From: "Lowell Girod" "Commander-List Digest Server" Subject: Commander-List: Hydraulic Accumulator --> Commander-List message posted by: "Lowell Girod" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:01:18 PM PST US From: 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 ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 02:06:18 PM PST US From: 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 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 02:07:04 PM PST US From: CloudCraft@aol.com Subject: Re: Commander-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:45:33 PM PST US From: RnJThompson@aol.com Subject: Re: Commander-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:03:20 PM PST US From: "Lowell Girod" Subject: Re: Commander-List: Hydraulic Accumulator --> Commander-List message posted by: "Lowell Girod" 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: > To: > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:02:29 PM PST US From: "Jim Addington" Subject: RE: Commander-List: Hydraulic Accumulator --> Commander-List message posted by: "Jim Addington" 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