Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:54 AM - Message for Dan (Steve W)
2. 08:03 AM - Re: Message for Dan (nico css)
3. 08:54 AM - Re: Message for Dan (Steve W)
4. 10:33 AM - Re: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue (yourtcfg@aol.com)
5. 01:17 PM - Re: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue (willis robison)
6. 01:33 PM - Re: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue (John Vormbaum)
7. 05:07 PM - Re: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue (willis robison)
8. 05:17 PM - Re: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue (craigk391@sbcglobal.net)
9. 07:04 PM - Re: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue (yourtcfg@aol.com)
10. 08:36 PM - Re: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue (John Vormbaum)
11. 09:40 PM - Re: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue (nico css)
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 |
|
Mr. Dan Farmer,
Two things:
What you said was decent. (One could argue the point that the kind of
hatred a party exhibited toward a sitting President HAS been seen
before, and quite recently, but let's not!)
No one on this list has stated or implied your (or anyone's) belief in
God makes you stupid, dumb, or ignorant.
Most of the fall color is past peak in New England. My wife got to ride
shotgun in the right seat, down to Rhode Island, up to some work in the
Boston Class B, then up through the White Mountains. Mt Washington
already snow capped, with small streamers of clouds tearing off the
peak. A smooth and fast downwind run back home.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Farmer
To: commander-list-digest@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:47 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Obama
Gentlemen and Ladies,
One more opinion and we have all heard about them. As anyone
who knows me might guess--I did not vote for Obama. However I think we
should give him an opportunity to lead and hope that he can lead and
deliver as he has promised. I believe he will be as leftist as his
record but I can hope to be wrong.
The Democrats and far left hated Bush and constantly belittled
him from the first hanging chad. From the beginning they acted and
spoke in the most despicable terms. That sank into the crap far deeper
than I have ever seen in this country when speaking of a sitting
President. I truly believe they acted on the verge of treason as to
their actions on the Iraq war after voting for it. I believe they did
it all for their own selfish benefit. I also believe there actions and
speak cost soldiers their lives.
I do not think that anyone should be so rude and crude to Obama.
Let us see what is in store. I hope for the sake of the nation that he
can lead and deliver what is best for the nation. I hope his idea and
philosophy is to teach people to fish, not give them fish. If throwing
money at the problem was or is the answer God knows we would have no
national problems in this country.
As to you people that think I am stupid, dumb or ignorant just
because I believe in God, so did Einstein. Can your IQ top that?
"If you are a conservative when you are 21 you have no heart, If
you are a liberal when you are 40 you have no brain" Winston Churchill.
dan farmer
do not archive
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
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 |
|
Steve,
What a nice response.
You obviously don't "fear" Christians as the anti-Christian activists say
they do (there aren't any on this list). I am not denying that there are
some pretty scary characters posing as Christians (because of power, money
and/or sex) but, unless they break the law, they pose no threat to anyone.
Like one's TV, one can easily avoid them or tune them out. Usually one can
easily identify them as frauds if one is that interested or so inclined. The
others may display their different perceptions of what the Bible teaches but
nothing more. To the unbeliever, it is a non issue and sometimes even a
frustration.
Sometimes I, too, impose on the listers by posting religious material
without knowing whether I require some to "tune out," which is a burden that
should not be forced onto any one. The motive is to speak to similar minded
listers and not to impose on the others (which is hardly possible). Such
impositions have mostly been tolerated gracefully for which I am personally
grateful. Some events, such as the recent election, will unavoidably spill
over into the list with religion getting in by extension, or vice versa, but
this list appears to always return to the crux of the matter, which is
Commanders - and a nice verbal picture of Steve's day in the office,
especially on bring-the-spouse-to-work days.
Nico
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve W
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 5:54 AM
Subject: Commander-List: Message for Dan
Mr. Dan Farmer,
Two things:
What you said was decent. (One could argue the point that the kind of hatred
a party exhibited toward a sitting President HAS been seen before, and quite
recently, but let's not!)
No one on this list has stated or implied your (or anyone's) belief in God
makes you stupid, dumb, or ignorant.
Most of the fall color is past peak in New England. My wife got to ride
shotgun in the right seat, down to Rhode Island, up to some work in the
Boston Class B, then up through the White Mountains. Mt Washington already
snow capped, with small streamers of clouds tearing off the peak. A smooth
and fast downwind run back home.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan <mailto:daniellfarmer@yahoo.com> Farmer
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:47 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Obama
Gentlemen and Ladies,
One more opinion and we have all heard about them. As anyone who knows me
might guess--I did not vote for Obama. However I think we should give him
an opportunity to lead and hope that he can lead and deliver as he has
promised. I believe he will be as leftist as his record but I can hope to
be wrong.
The Democrats and far left hated Bush and constantly belittled him from the
first hanging chad. From the beginning they acted and spoke in the most
despicable terms. That sank into the crap far deeper than I have ever seen
in this country when speaking of a sitting President. I truly believe they
acted on the verge of treason as to their actions on the Iraq war after
voting for it. I believe they did it all for their own selfish benefit. I
also believe there actions and speak cost soldiers their lives.
I do not think that anyone should be so rude and crude to Obama. Let us see
what is in store. I hope for the sake of the nation that he can lead and
deliver what is best for the nation. I hope his idea and philosophy is to
teach people to fish, not give them fish. If throwing money at the problem
was or is the answer God knows we would have no national problems in this
country.
As to you people that think I am stupid, dumb or ignorant just because I
believe in God, so did Einstein. Can your IQ top that?
"If you are a conservative when you are 21 you have no heart, If you are a
liberal when you are 40 you have no brain" Winston Churchill.
dan farmer
do not archive
3D=========================3
D===================
href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"'>http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution
3D=========================3
D===================
href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List"'>http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
3D=========================3
D===================
href='3D"http://forums.matronics.com"'>http://forums.matronics.com
3D=========================3
D===================
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: Message for Dan |
Hi Nico,
I may differ with your perspective and beliefs, but I have no fear of
you. Of the active posters on this list, I believe you follow most
closely the precepts of Christianity (and perhaps more importantly of
Jesus, as I've come to understand them.)
Ironically (but as is so often true among immigrants) I think you are
also one of the most American in spirit.
Now let's cut this out before this too degenerates into something nasty.
I was just bothered by what I had read in Dan's post. (Plus if we get
too warm and fuzzy, Milt will get suspicious.)
Nascar and Budweiser still suck.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: nico css
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 10:58 AM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: Message for Dan
Steve,
What a nice response.
You obviously don't "fear" Christians as the anti-Christian activists
say they do (there aren't any on this list). I am not denying that there
are some pretty scary characters posing as Christians (because of power,
money and/or sex) but, unless they break the law, they pose no threat to
anyone. Like one's TV, one can easily avoid them or tune them out.
Usually one can easily identify them as frauds if one is that interested
or so inclined. The others may display their different perceptions of
what the Bible teaches but nothing more. To the unbeliever, it is a non
issue and sometimes even a frustration.
Sometimes I, too, impose on the listers by posting religious material
without knowing whether I require some to "tune out," which is a burden
that should not be forced onto any one. The motive is to speak to
similar minded listers and not to impose on the others (which is hardly
possible). Such impositions have mostly been tolerated gracefully for
which I am personally grateful. Some events, such as the recent
election, will unavoidably spill over into the list with religion
getting in by extension, or vice versa, but this list appears to always
return to the crux of the matter, which is Commanders - and a nice
verbal picture of Steve's day in the office, especially on
bring-the-spouse-to-work days.
Nico
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve W
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 5:54 AM
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Subject: Commander-List: Message for Dan
Mr. Dan Farmer,
Two things:
What you said was decent. (One could argue the point that the kind of
hatred a party exhibited toward a sitting President HAS been seen
before, and quite recently, but let's not!)
No one on this list has stated or implied your (or anyone's) belief in
God makes you stupid, dumb, or ignorant.
Most of the fall color is past peak in New England. My wife got to
ride shotgun in the right seat, down to Rhode Island, up to some work in
the Boston Class B, then up through the White Mountains. Mt Washington
already snow capped, with small streamers of clouds tearing off the
peak. A smooth and fast downwind run back home.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Farmer
To: commander-list-digest@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:47 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Obama
Gentlemen and Ladies,
One more opinion and we have all heard about them. As anyone
who knows me might guess--I did not vote for Obama. However I think we
should give him an opportunity to lead and hope that he can lead and
deliver as he has promised. I believe he will be as leftist as his
record but I can hope to be wrong.
The Democrats and far left hated Bush and constantly belittled
him from the first hanging chad. From the beginning they acted and
spoke in the most despicable terms. That sank into the crap far deeper
than I have ever seen in this country when speaking of a sitting
President. I truly believe they acted on the verge of treason as to
their actions on the Iraq war after voting for it. I believe they did
it all for their own selfish benefit. I also believe there actions and
speak cost soldiers their lives.
I do not think that anyone should be so rude and crude to
Obama. Let us see what is in store. I hope for the sake of the nation
that he can lead and deliver what is best for the nation. I hope his
idea and philosophy is to teach people to fish, not give them fish. If
throwing money at the problem was or is the answer God knows we would
have no national problems in this country.
As to you people that think I am stupid, dumb or ignorant just
because I believe in God, so did Einstein. Can your IQ top that?
"If you are a conservative when you are 21 you have no heart,
If you are a liberal when you are 40 you have no brain" Winston
Churchill.
dan farmer
do not archive
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"'>http://www.matronics.c
om/contribution
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List"'>http://www
.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href='3D"http://forums.matronics.com"'>http://forums.matronics.com
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue |
Over designed I think.? The same airframe wing structure can carry as much as 8500
pounds, thought some Commanders are limited to 6000 gross.? The gross weight
is determined by the FAA mandated single engine climb performance.? A model
680 has the same power as a 680E but a 500 pound lower gross.? Some 680s were
extended to the?"E" wingspan and the gross went up to 7500 pounds.? jb
Which was it and at what HP/gross is the maximum?
-----Original Message-----
From: willis robison <drwer2@yahoo.com>
Sent: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 6:55 pm
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
Well, if "ome" has 520 ci then they would produce 2x380x520/435 = 908 hp.? Wow,
I wonder what the GTOW?would be!?
?
I've always been curious about the wing/loading for these AC.? They all have relatively
the same wing structure. (longer wingtip for the 680/560's) yet with
bigger engines, the FAA allowed higher gross weights.?? Was Aero Design able to
argue that the original design was (under powered) or over designed?? Which
was it and at what HP/gross is the maximum?
?
?
?
--- On Fri, 11/7/08, yourtcfg@aol.com <yourtcfg@aol.com> wrote:
From: yourtcfg@aol.com <yourtcfg@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
Yep, I saw that too.? Maybe they should have you proof the next ome!!? jb
The text says it's powered by "a pair of geared Lycoming 520-cubic-inch GO-435-C2B
engines".
-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Collman <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Sent: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 9:08 am
Subject: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
Hi Guys,
?
On page 7 of the subject magazine there's a photo of N2621B, a Commander 520 s/n
133.
?
The text says it's powered by "a pair of geared Lycoming 520-cubic-inch GO-435-C2B
engines".
?
Has anyone else spotted the (not deliberate) error?
?
Best Regards,
Barry
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: | Re: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue |
I think so too.
-
I was a spectator at a few "ultimate" load tests.- One for the A380.-
-I was told that it-took 10x the "rated" load before failing.- They s
aid they were pleased with the results so I guess it made it past FAA and J
AR.
--- On Sat, 11/8/08, yourtcfg@aol.com <yourtcfg@aol.com> wrote:
From: yourtcfg@aol.com <yourtcfg@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
Over designed I think.- The same airframe wing structure can carry as muc
h as 8500 pounds, thought some Commanders are limited to 6000 gross.- The
gross weight is determined by the FAA mandated single engine climb perform
ance.- A model 680 has the same power as a 680E but a 500 pound lower gro
ss.- Some 680s were extended to the-"E" wingspan and the gross went up
to 7500 pounds.- jb
Which was it and at what HP/gross is the maximum?
-----Original Message-----
From: willis robison <drwer2@yahoo.com>
Sent: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 6:55 pm
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
Well, if "ome" has 520 ci then they would produce 2x380x520/435 = 908 hp.
- Wow, I wonder what the GTOW-would be!?
-
I've always been curious about the wing/loading for these AC.- They all h
ave relatively the same wing structure. (longer wingtip for the 680/560's)
yet with bigger engines, the FAA allowed higher gross weights.-- Was Ae
ro Design able to argue that the original design was (under powered) or ove
r designed?- Which was it and at what HP/gross is the maximum?
-
-
-
--- On Fri, 11/7/08, yourtcfg@aol.com <yourtcfg@aol.com> wrote:
From: yourtcfg@aol.com <yourtcfg@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
Yep, I saw that too.- Maybe they should have you proof the next ome!!-
jb
The text says it's powered by "a pair of geared Lycoming 520-cubic-inch GO-
435-C2B engines".
-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Collman <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Sent: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 9:08 am
Subject: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
Hi Guys,
-
On page 7 of the subject magazine there's a photo of N2621B, a Commander 52
0 s/n 133.
-
The text says it's powered by "a pair of geared Lycoming 520-cubic-inch GO-
435-C2B engines".
-
Has anyone else spotted the (not deliberate) error?
-
Best Regards,
Barry
>
================= =0A=0A=0A
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: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue |
Jim,
I thought the wing & spar structures were the same on all the
Commanders. They're not? I know the turbines are easily a 12,000-lb.
wing, but I've been under the illusion that the wing on my 500B is
essentially the same thing...
/John
willis robison wrote:
> I think so too.
>
> I was a spectator at a few "ultimate" load tests. One for the
> A380. I was told that it took 10x the "rated" load before failing.
> They said they were pleased with the results so I guess it made it
> past FAA and JAR.
>
> --- On *Sat, 11/8/08, yourtcfg@aol.com /<yourtcfg@aol.com>/* wrote:
>
> From: yourtcfg@aol.com <yourtcfg@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> Date: Saturday, November 8, 2008, 10:33 AM
>
> Over designed I think. The same airframe wing structure can carry
> as much as 8500 pounds, thought some Commanders are limited to
> 6000 gross. The gross weight is determined by the FAA mandated
> single engine climb performance. A model 680 has the same power
> as a 680E but a 500 pound lower gross. Some 680s were extended to
> the "E" wingspan and the gross went up to 7500 pounds. jb
>
> Which was it and at what HP/gross is the maximum?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: willis robison <drwer2@yahoo.com>
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 6:55 pm
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
>
> Well, if "ome" has 520 ci then they would produce 2x380x520/435
> 908 hp. Wow, I wonder what the GTOW would be!?
>
> I've always been curious about the wing/loading for these AC.
> They all have relatively the same wing structure. (longer wingtip
> for the 680/560's) yet with bigger engines, the FAA allowed higher
> gross weights. Was Aero Design able to argue that the original
> design was (under powered) or over designed? Which was it and at
> what HP/gross is the maximum?
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On *Fri, 11/7/08, yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>
> /<yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>>/* wrote:
>
> From: yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>
> <yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>>
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall
> 2008 issue
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com>
> Date: Friday, November 7, 2008, 5:12 PM
>
> Yep, I saw that too. Maybe they should have you proof the
> next ome!! jb
>
> The text says it's powered by "a pair of geared Lycoming
> 520-cubic-inch GO-435-C2B engines".
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barry Collman <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk
> <mailto:barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>>
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 9:08 am
> Subject: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> On page 7 of the subject magazine there's a photo of N2621B, a
> Commander 520 s/n 133.
>
> The text says it's powered by "a pair of geared Lycoming
> 520-cubic-inch GO-435-C2B engines".
>
> Has anyone else spotted the (not deliberate) error?
>
> Best Regards,
> Barry
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *
>
> *
>
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: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue |
Gents,
-
The following was gleaned from the production data on the commander website
and from the NACA archives.
-
There appears to be two variants of the commander wing; a- 44=92 and a 49
=92- Both variants use the NACA 23012 airfoil from root to tip.-- Thi
s particular airfoil is know for its docile behavior and was widely used by
other aircraft.- Most notably the Beech Staggerwing uses this airfoil as
do other Beech Aircraft, but only in the outboard sections near the ailero
ns.- The Commanders use a single airfoil from root to tip.- This was ch
osen likely for its ease of manufacture.- From a manufacturing standpoint
, adding 5=92 to the wingspan is easier to do by either lengthening the tip
s outboard of the ailerons or increasing the engine/nacelle truss section.
This could mean adding just one or two rib sections
-
The 49=92 wing is the archetype and is featured on all the piston twin comm
anders except the so-called =93straight=94 560 and 680 models.- The 560 w
as produced from 1954 to 1957 and the 680 ran from =9255 to =9258.
-
There is also a notable difference in the fuel capacity for the 44=92 560 w
hich has 145 gals compared to the 500s which have 156 gallons normally.-
All the Long range models of 560E, F and 680F, L,P have 223 gallons- appa
rently using all the available bays inboard of the ailerons.
-
As for weight. It looks like the early models (round nacelle) had usefull l
oads around 2100 lbs with variations trading up or down depending on HP and
Service ceiling.- Twin Commander corporation has mentioned that they don
=92t have model years, per-se; so this has allowed them to make production
runs of a particular type using the same production space.
-
When the Streamlined Nacell was introduced, there was also a notable increa
se in useful load. To about 2300 -to 3200 lbs.- This also improved thei
r service ceiling from an average of 22 kft. To 28kft in the E and F models
.
-
I/ve been chasing this trail during my search for the =93Right=94 Commander
to buy.- Ive focused on a 680F for a lot of reasons, but mostly it has t
he widest range of operating capability, short field, high(er) altitude and
still have a modicum of efficiency for its type. (if you can keep your han
d off the throttle).
-
wer
--- On Sat, 11/8/08, John Vormbaum <john@vormbaum.com> wrote:
From: John Vormbaum <john@vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
Jim,
I thought the wing & spar structures were the same on all the Commanders.
They're not? I know the turbines are easily a 12,000-lb. wing, but I've
been under the illusion that the wing on my 500B is essentially the same
thing...
/John
willis robison wrote:
> I think so too.
> I was a spectator at a few "ultimate" load tests. One for the
A380. I was told that it took 10x the "rated" load before failing.
They said they were pleased with the results so I guess it made it past FAA
and
JAR.
>
> --- On *Sat, 11/8/08, yourtcfg@aol.com /<yourtcfg@aol.com>/* wrote:
>
> From: yourtcfg@aol.com <yourtcfg@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> Date: Saturday, November 8, 2008, 10:33 AM
>
> Over designed I think. The same airframe wing structure can carry
> as much as 8500 pounds, thought some Commanders are limited to
> 6000 gross. The gross weight is determined by the FAA mandated
> single engine climb performance. A model 680 has the same power
> as a 680E but a 500 pound lower gross. Some 680s were extended to
> the "E" wingspan and the gross went up to 7500 pounds. jb
>
> Which was it and at what HP/gross is the maximum?
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: willis robison <drwer2@yahoo.com>
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 6:55 pm
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
>
> Well, if "ome" has 520 ci then they would produce
2x380x520/435
> 908 hp. Wow, I wonder what the GTOW would be!?
> I've always been curious about the wing/loading for these AC.
They all have relatively the same wing structure. (longer wingtip
> for the 680/560's) yet with bigger engines, the FAA allowed higher
> gross weights. Was Aero Design able to argue that the original
> design was (under powered) or over designed? Which was it and at
> what HP/gross is the maximum?
>
>
> --- On *Fri, 11/7/08, yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>
> /<yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>>/* wrote:
>
> From: yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>
> <yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>>
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall
> 2008 issue
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com>
> Date: Friday, November 7, 2008, 5:12 PM
>
> Yep, I saw that too. Maybe they should have you proof the
> next ome!! jb
>
> The text says it's powered by "a pair of geared
Lycoming
> 520-cubic-inch GO-435-C2B engines".
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barry Collman <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk
> <mailto:barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>>
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 9:08 am
> Subject: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
>
> Hi Guys,
> On page 7 of the subject magazine there's a photo of
N2621B, a
> Commander 520 s/n 133.
> The text says it's powered by "a pair of geared
Lycoming
> 520-cubic-inch GO-435-C2B engines".
> Has anyone else spotted the (not deliberate) error?
> Best Regards,
> Barry
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *
>
> *
>
=0A=0A=0A
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: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue |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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: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue |
HI JOHN...
Nope, when Commander built the first 690 series airplane, the used a completely
different wing structure.? You can easily tell the change by looking at the airplane
from the nose,?the higher gross turbines have a short center section that
extends straight out?from the cabin, then the dihedral.? It is in effect a
"gull wing". ? Lower gross airplanes, like yours and mine, have the dihedral
at the center of the wing.? The reason for the change was to move the turbines
out further from the cabin and allow for larger diameter propellers.? jb
?
I thought the wing & spar structures were the same on all the Commanders. They're
not? I know the turbines are easily a 12,000-lb. wing, but I've been under
the illusion that the wing on my 500B is essentially the same thing...?
?
-----Original Message-----
From: John Vormbaum <john@vormbaum.com>
Sent: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 1:29 pm
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
?
Jim,?
?
I thought the wing & spar structures were the same on all the Commanders. They're
not? I know the turbines are easily a 12,000-lb. wing, but I've been under
the illusion that the wing on my 500B is essentially the same thing...?
?
/John?
?
willis robison wrote:?
> I think so too.?
> > I was a spectator at a few "ultimate" load tests. One for the > A380. I was
told that it took 10x the "rated" load before failing. > They said they were
pleased with the results so I guess it made it > past FAA and JAR.?
>?
> --- On *Sat, 11/8/08, yourtcfg@aol.com /<yourtcfg@aol.com>/* wrote:?
>?
> From: yourtcfg@aol.com <yourtcfg@aol.com>?
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue?
> To: commander-list@matronics.com?
> Date: Saturday, November 8, 2008, 10:33 AM?
>?
> Over designed I think. The same airframe wing structure can carry?
> as much as 8500 pounds, thought some Commanders are limited to?
> 6000 gross. The gross weight is determined by the FAA mandated?
> single engine climb performance. A model 680 has the same power?
> as a 680E but a 500 pound lower gross. Some 680s were extended to?
> the "E" wingspan and the gross went up to 7500 pounds. jb?
>?
> Which was it and at what HP/gross is the maximum??
>?
>?
>?
>?
> -----Original Message-----?
> From: willis robison <drwer2@yahoo.com>?
> To: commander-list@matronics.com?
> Sent: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 6:55 pm?
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue?
>?
> Well, if "ome" has 520 ci then they would produce 2x380x520/435 =?
> 908 hp. Wow, I wonder what the GTOW would be!??
> > I've always been curious about the wing/loading for these AC. > They all have
relatively the same wing structure. (longer wingtip?
> for the 680/560's) yet with bigger engines, the FAA allowed higher?
> gross weights. Was Aero Design able to argue that the original?
> design was (under powered) or over designed? Which was it and at?
> what HP/gross is the maximum??
> > > >?
>?
> --- On *Fri, 11/7/08, yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>?
> /<yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>>/* wrote:?
>?
> From: yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>?
> <yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>>?
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall?
> 2008 issue?
> To: commander-list@matronics.com?
> <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com>?
> Date: Friday, November 7, 2008, 5:12 PM?
>?
> Yep, I saw that too. Maybe they should have you proof the?
> next ome!! jb?
>?
> The text says it's powered by "a pair of geared Lycoming?
> 520-cubic-inch GO-435-C2B engines".?
>?
>?
>?
>?
> -----Original Message-----?
> From: Barry Collman <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk?
> <mailto:barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>>?
> To: commander-list@matronics.com?
> <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com>?
> Sent: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 9:08 am?
> Subject: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue?
>?
> Hi Guys,?
> > On page 7 of the subject magazine there's a photo of N2621B, a?
> Commander 520 s/n 133.?
> > The text says it's powered by "a pair of geared Lycoming?
> 520-cubic-inch GO-435-C2B engines".?
> > Has anyone else spotted the (not deliberate) error??
> > Best Regards,?
> Barry?
>?
> *?
>?
> *?
>?
> *?
>?
> *?
>?
>?
> >?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------?
>?
> *?
>?
> *?
>?
?
?
?
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: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue |
I'll definitely take a close look the next time I see a 500-series and a
690-series airplane side by side!
Thanks for the clarification & education on the particulars of Commander
wings.
/J
yourtcfg@aol.com wrote:
> HI JOHN...
> Nope, when Commander built the first 690 series airplane, the used a
> completely different wing structure. You can easily tell the change
> by looking at the airplane from the nose, the higher gross turbines
> have a short center section that extends straight out from the cabin,
> then the dihedral. It is in effect a "gull wing". Lower gross
> airplanes, like yours and mine, have the dihedral at the center of the
> wing. The reason for the change was to move the turbines out further
> from the cabin and allow for larger diameter propellers. jb
>
>
> I thought the wing & spar structures were the same on all the
> Commanders. They're not? I know the turbines are easily a
> 12,000-lb. wing, but I've been under the illusion that the wing on
> my 500B is essentially the same thing...
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Vormbaum <john@vormbaum.com>
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 1:29 pm
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
>
> <mailto:john@vormbaum.com>>
>
> Jim,
>
> I thought the wing & spar structures were the same on all the
> Commanders. They're not? I know the turbines are easily a 12,000-lb.
> wing, but I've been under the illusion that the wing on my 500B is
> essentially the same thing...
>
> /John
>
> willis robison wrote:
> > I think so too.
> > > I was a spectator at a few "ultimate" load tests. One for the >
> A380. I was told that it took 10x the "rated" load before failing. >
> They said they were pleased with the results so I guess it made it >
> past FAA and JAR.
> >
> > --- On *Sat, 11/8/08, yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>
> /<yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>>/* wrote:
> >
> > From: yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com> <yourtcfg@aol.com
> <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>>
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
> > To: commander-list@matronics.com <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com>
> > Date: Saturday, November 8, 2008, 10:33 AM
> >
> > Over designed I think. The same airframe wing structure can carry
> > as much as 8500 pounds, thought some Commanders are limited to
> > 6000 gross. The gross weight is determined by the FAA mandated
> > single engine climb performance. A model 680 has the same power
> > as a 680E but a 500 pound lower gross. Some 680s were extended to
> > the "E" wingspan and the gross went up to 7500 pounds. jb
> >
> > Which was it and at what HP/gross is the maximum?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: willis robison <drwer2@yahoo.com <mailto:drwer2@yahoo.com>>
> > To: commander-list@matronics.com <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com>
> > Sent: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 6:55 pm
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
> >
> > Well, if "ome" has 520 ci then they would produce 2x380x520/435 =
> > 908 hp. Wow, I wonder what the GTOW would be!?
> > > I've always been curious about the wing/loading for these AC. >
> They all have relatively the same wing structure. (longer wingtip
> > for the 680/560's) yet with bigger engines, the FAA allowed higher
> > gross weights. Was Aero Design able to argue that the original
> > design was (under powered) or over designed? Which was it and at
> > what HP/gross is the maximum?
> > > > >
> >
> > --- On *Fri, 11/7/08, yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>
> <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com?>>
> > /<yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>
> <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>>/* <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com%3E%3E/*?> wrote:
> >
> > From: yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>
> <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com?>>
> > <yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com> <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com
> <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com?>>>
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall
> > 2008 issue
> > To: commander-list@matronics.com <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com>
> > <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com
> <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com?>>
> > Date: Friday, November 7, 2008, 5:12 PM
> >
> > Yep, I saw that too. Maybe they should have you proof the
> > next ome!! jb
> >
> > The text says it's powered by "a pair of geared Lycoming
> > 520-cubic-inch GO-435-C2B engines".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Barry Collman <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk
> <mailto:barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
> > <mailto:barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk
> <mailto:barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk?>>>
> > To: commander-list@matronics.com <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com>
> > <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com
> <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com?>>
> > Sent: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 9:08 am
> > Subject: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
> >
> > Hi Guys,
> > > On page 7 of the subject magazine there's a photo of N2621B, a
> > Commander 520 s/n 133.
> > > The text says it's powered by "a pair of geared Lycoming
> > 520-cubic-inch GO-435-C2B engines".
> > > Has anyone else spotted the (not deliberate) error?
> > > 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 |
|
| Subject: | Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue |
I didn't know that. I'll be looking out for that too.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Vormbaum
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
I'll definitely take a close look the next time I see a 500-series and a
690-series airplane side by side!
Thanks for the clarification & education on the particulars of Commander
wings.
/J
yourtcfg@aol.com wrote:
> HI JOHN...
> Nope, when Commander built the first 690 series airplane, the used a
> completely different wing structure. You can easily tell the change
> by looking at the airplane from the nose, the higher gross turbines
> have a short center section that extends straight out from the cabin,
> then the dihedral. It is in effect a "gull wing". Lower gross
> airplanes, like yours and mine, have the dihedral at the center of the
> wing. The reason for the change was to move the turbines out further
> from the cabin and allow for larger diameter propellers. jb
>
>
> I thought the wing & spar structures were the same on all the
> Commanders. They're not? I know the turbines are easily a
> 12,000-lb. wing, but I've been under the illusion that the wing on
> my 500B is essentially the same thing...
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Vormbaum <john@vormbaum.com>
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 1:29 pm
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
>
> <mailto:john@vormbaum.com>>
>
> Jim,
>
> I thought the wing & spar structures were the same on all the
> Commanders. They're not? I know the turbines are easily a 12,000-lb.
> wing, but I've been under the illusion that the wing on my 500B is
> essentially the same thing...
>
> /John
>
> willis robison wrote:
> > I think so too.
> > > I was a spectator at a few "ultimate" load tests. One for the >
> A380. I was told that it took 10x the "rated" load before failing. >
> They said they were pleased with the results so I guess it made it >
> past FAA and JAR.
> >
> > --- On *Sat, 11/8/08, yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>
> /<yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>>/* wrote:
> >
> > From: yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com> <yourtcfg@aol.com
> <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>>
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008
> > issue
> > To: commander-list@matronics.com
> > <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com>
> > Date: Saturday, November 8, 2008, 10:33 AM
> >
> > Over designed I think. The same airframe wing structure can carry as
> > much as 8500 pounds, thought some Commanders are limited to 6000
> > gross. The gross weight is determined by the FAA mandated single
> > engine climb performance. A model 680 has the same power as a 680E
> > but a 500 pound lower gross. Some 680s were extended to the "E"
> > wingspan and the gross went up to 7500 pounds. jb
> >
> > Which was it and at what HP/gross is the maximum?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: willis robison <drwer2@yahoo.com <mailto:drwer2@yahoo.com>>
> > To: commander-list@matronics.com
> > <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com>
> > Sent: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 6:55 pm
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008
> > issue
> >
> > Well, if "ome" has 520 ci then they would produce 2x380x520/435
> > 908 hp. Wow, I wonder what the GTOW would be!?
> > > I've always been curious about the wing/loading for these AC. >
> They all have relatively the same wing structure. (longer wingtip
> > for the 680/560's) yet with bigger engines, the FAA allowed higher
> > gross weights. Was Aero Design able to argue that the original
> > design was (under powered) or over designed? Which was it and at
> > what HP/gross is the maximum?
> > > > >
> >
> > --- On *Fri, 11/7/08, yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>
> <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com?>>
> > /<yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>
> <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>>/* <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com%3E%3E/*?> wrote:
> >
> > From: yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com>
> <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com?>>
> > <yourtcfg@aol.com <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com> <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com
> <mailto:yourtcfg@aol.com?>>>
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall
> > 2008 issue
> > To: commander-list@matronics.com
> > <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com>
> > <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com
> <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com?>>
> > Date: Friday, November 7, 2008, 5:12 PM
> >
> > Yep, I saw that too. Maybe they should have you proof the next ome!!
> > jb
> >
> > The text says it's powered by "a pair of geared Lycoming
> > 520-cubic-inch GO-435-C2B engines".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Barry Collman <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk
> <mailto:barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
> > <mailto:barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk
> <mailto:barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk?>>>
> > To: commander-list@matronics.com
> > <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com>
> > <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com
> <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com?>>
> > Sent: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 9:08 am
> > Subject: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
> >
> > Hi Guys,
> > > On page 7 of the subject magazine there's a photo of N2621B, a
> > Commander 520 s/n 133.
> > > The text says it's powered by "a pair of geared Lycoming
> > 520-cubic-inch GO-435-C2B engines".
> > > Has anyone else spotted the (not deliberate) error?
> > > Best Regards,
> > Barry
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
>
>
>
> *
>
> *
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! --
|