Commander-List Digest Archive

Tue 05/30/06


Total Messages Posted: 15



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 02:15 AM - Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS? (BobsV35B@aol.com)
     2. 11:55 AM - aero commander 680E engines, props and engine mounts (Joseph Menchetti)
     3. 12:05 PM - Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS? (Robert S. Randazzo)
     4. 12:10 PM - Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS? (Robert S. Randazzo)
     5. 01:00 PM - Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS? (nico css)
     6. 04:46 PM - 500 (Bill Bow)
     7. 05:05 PM - Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS? (STOLHorse@aol.com)
     8. 05:26 PM - Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS? (Bill Bow)
     9. 05:28 PM - Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS? (Robert S. Randazzo)
    10. 06:42 PM - Re: Flight Manual - Model 500S ()
    11. 06:56 PM - Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS? (John Vormbaum)
    12. 07:43 PM - Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS? (STOLHorse@aol.com)
    13. 09:28 PM - Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS? (STOLHorse@aol.com)
    14. 09:33 PM - Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS? (CloudCraft@aol.com)
    15. 11:35 PM - Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS? (Tom Fisher)
 
 
 


Message 1


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:15:35 AM PST US
    From: BobsV35B@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
    --> Commander-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com 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@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.


    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
    Time: 11:55:54 AM PST US
    From: "Joseph Menchetti" <menchettij@gmail.com>
    Subject: aero commander 680E engines, props and engine mounts
    --> Commander-List message posted by: "Joseph Menchetti" <menchettij@gmail.com> 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


    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
    Time: 12:05:54 PM PST US
    From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo@precisionmanuals.com>
    Subject: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
    --> Commander-List message posted by: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo@precisionmanuals.com> 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


    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
    Time: 12:10:03 PM PST US
    From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo@precisionmanuals.com>
    Subject: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
    --> Commander-List message posted by: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo@precisionmanuals.com> WCG- Interesting notes on the neutral position. Filed away for future use. I'll post my feedback at that time. Robert Randazzo Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of CloudCraft@aol.com Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 22:49 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Any thoughts on FLAPS? --> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com In a message dated 28-May-06 23:54:44 Pacific Daylight Time, rsrandazzo@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. __________ NOD32 1.1566 (20060530) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com


    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
    Time: 01:00:38 PM PST US
    From: "nico css" <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
    Subject: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
    --> Commander-List message posted by: "nico css" <nico@cybersuperstore.com> 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@matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert S. Randazzo Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 12:06 PM Subject: RE: Commander-List: Any thoughts on FLAPS? --> Commander-List message posted by: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo@precisionmanuals.com> 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


    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
    Time: 04:46:45 PM PST US
    From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74@earthlink.net>
    Subject: 500
    --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bill Bow" <bowing74@earthlink.net> Hey JB, Did you buy that 500 I told you about? bilbo


    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
    Time: 05:05:56 PM PST US
    From: STOLHorse@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
    --> Commander-List message posted by: STOLHorse@aol.com 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


    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
    Time: 05:26:31 PM PST US
    From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74@earthlink.net>
    Subject: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
    --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bill Bow" <bowing74@earthlink.net> 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@matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of STOLHorse@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 8:06 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Any thoughts on FLAPS? --> Commander-List message posted by: STOLHorse@aol.com 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


    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
    Time: 05:28:30 PM PST US
    From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo@precisionmanuals.com>
    Subject: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
    --> Commander-List message posted by: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo@precisionmanuals.com> 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@matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of STOLHorse@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 17:06 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Any thoughts on FLAPS? --> Commander-List message posted by: STOLHorse@aol.com 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


    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
    Time: 06:42:31 PM PST US
    From: <dfalik@sbcglobal.net>
    Subject: Flight Manual - Model 500S
    --> Commander-List message posted by: <dfalik@sbcglobal.net> 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@matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry Collman Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 11:49 AM Subject: Commander-List: Flight Manual - Model 500S --> Commander-List message posted by: "Barry Collman" <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


    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
    Time: 06:56:03 PM PST US
    From: "John Vormbaum" <john@vormbaum.com>
    Subject: Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
    --> Commander-List message posted by: "John Vormbaum" <john@vormbaum.com> David, Bermuda Dunes!!!!! On a balmy 105-degree Palm Desert day, that runway seems awful short to me. You're a brave man to be flying a 685 out of there. /John Do Not Archive ----- Original Message ----- From: <STOLHorse@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:05 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Any thoughts on FLAPS? > --> Commander-List message posted by: STOLHorse@aol.com > > 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 1.1567 (20060530) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ NOD32 1.1567 (20060530) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > >


    Message 12


  • 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
    Time: 07:43:15 PM PST US
    From: STOLHorse@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
    --> Commander-List message posted by: STOLHorse@aol.com 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?"


    Message 13


  • 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
    Time: 09:28:15 PM PST US
    From: STOLHorse@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
    --> Commander-List message posted by: STOLHorse@aol.com 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


    Message 14


  • 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
    Time: 09:33:50 PM PST US
    From: CloudCraft@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
    --> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com In a message dated 30-May-06 21:28:51 Pacific Daylight Time, STOLHorse@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.


    Message 15


  • 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
    Time: 11:35:49 PM PST US
    From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher@commandergroup.bc.ca>
    Subject: Re: Any thoughts on FLAPS?
    --> Commander-List message posted by: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher@commandergroup.bc.ca> 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@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 21:27 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Any thoughts on FLAPS? > --> Commander-List message posted by: STOLHorse@aol.com > > 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 > >




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   commander-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Commander-List.htm
  • Full Archive Search Engine
  •   http://www.matronics.com/search
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/commander-list
  • Browse Commander-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/commander-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contributions

    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! --