Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:13 AM - Re: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue (Barry Collman)
2. 04:50 AM - Re: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue (Steve W)
3. 05:02 AM - Re: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue (Barry Collman)
4. 05:41 AM - Re: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue (BobsV35B@aol.com)
5. 07:10 AM - Re: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue (Chris)
6. 07:51 AM - Re: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue (Barry Collman)
7. 08:51 AM - Re: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue (willis robison)
8. 09:09 AM - Re: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue (John Vormbaum)
9. 10:01 AM - Re: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue (willis robison)
10. 02:42 PM - Re: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue (Steve W)
11. 05:52 PM - CARIBBEAN COMMANDER (yourtcfg@aol.com)
12. 06:07 PM - Re: CARIBBEAN COMMANDER (Jim Addington)
13. 08:02 PM - Re: CARIBBEAN COMMANDER (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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue |
Hi All,
A factory document in my collection titled "Aircraft Evolution", tells
us the following about the Commander wings:
Wing Drawing 5170000 - Models L-3805, 520 & 560.
Wing Drawing 5170023 - Models 560A & 680.
With the 32-inch wing tip extension - Models 560E, 680E, 720 & 500.
Wing Drawing 5170045 - Models 500A, 500B, 680F, 680F(P) & 560F.
Modified 5170045 for "8500lb" Wing - Models 500U & 500S. (Hence
Certified in Utility & Standard category).
Removed 32-inch wing tip extension - Models 680T, 680V, 680W & 681.
Added 30 inches at wing center section - Models 690, 685, 690A & 690B.
Added 30-inch wing tip extension - Models 690C, 695, 690D, 695A & 695B.
I think the basic wing structure remained the same, the factory "simply"
adding extensions either inboard or outboard.
Capt. JimBob is, of course, right.
The 15" inboard extension each side for the 685 and from the early 690
series did not have any dihedral.
Very Best Regards,
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: yourtcfg@aol.com
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 3:04 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: 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>
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 1:29 pm
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
<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 /<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 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue |
WER,
Barry this morning has added some drawing number detail to the wing
history.
I 'know' enough to perhaps comment, but not so much that I might not get
it completely right..... So hopefully somebody will correct me where I'm
in error.....
Because of early problems with spars cracking caps the factory took
different approaches to effecting a repair. Some of this I believe is
also partly responsible for some changes in gross. The 500 series is a
good case study. Our 500B has external heavy aluminum spar straps. They
look like leaf springs. We have a lower gross than the 500U and 500S,
which has longer internal strapping of the cap in stainless steel. The
'fix' created its own problem of galvanic corrosion between dissimilar
metals, which remains an issue to this day. So we have a lower gross,
but don't have the corrosion problem of the models with the higher
gross. (The 500B is better looking too, in a full-figured kind of way!)
Somebody correct me where I'm wrong. (And on this list, I can't imagine
not being corrected if anyone thinks I'm wrong!)
The wings are beautiful in a way books and figures can't convey. Take a
look at the twist in the wing on its way outboard.
My Dad spent a lot of time is mainly 680E's all over the world. He loved
them, but I believe he thought the 680F the best of breed.
Ok, now to see if I can get the bulldozer fixed. Sigh........
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: willis robison
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: 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.
This 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 ailerons. The Commanders use a single airfoil from root to
tip. This was chosen likely for its ease of manufacture. From a
manufacturing standpoint, adding 5=92 to the wingspan is easier to do by
either lengthening the tips 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 commanders except the so-called =93straight=94 560 and 680
models. The 560 was 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 which 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 apparently using all the available bays inboard of the
ailerons.
As for weight. It looks like the early models (round nacelle)
had usefull loads 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 increase in useful load. To about 2300 to 3200 lbs. This also
improved their 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 the 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 hand 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
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Date: Saturday, November 8, 2008, 1:29 PM
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 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: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue |
Hi All,
The typical wing twist aspect is indeed interesting.
Looking at the 560E, for example, the incidence at the wing root was 3
degrees. while that at the tip was minus 3.5 degrees.
Looking at the 560A, for example, the incidence at the wing root was 3
degrees. while that at the tip was minus 1 degree.
Best Regards,
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve W
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
WER,
Barry this morning has added some drawing number detail to the wing
history.
I 'know' enough to perhaps comment, but not so much that I might not
get it completely right..... So hopefully somebody will correct me where
I'm in error.....
Because of early problems with spars cracking caps the factory took
different approaches to effecting a repair. Some of this I believe is
also partly responsible for some changes in gross. The 500 series is a
good case study. Our 500B has external heavy aluminum spar straps. They
look like leaf springs. We have a lower gross than the 500U and 500S,
which has longer internal strapping of the cap in stainless steel. The
'fix' created its own problem of galvanic corrosion between dissimilar
metals, which remains an issue to this day. So we have a lower gross,
but don't have the corrosion problem of the models with the higher
gross. (The 500B is better looking too, in a full-figured kind of way!)
Somebody correct me where I'm wrong. (And on this list, I can't
imagine not being corrected if anyone thinks I'm wrong!)
The wings are beautiful in a way books and figures can't convey. Take
a look at the twist in the wing on its way outboard.
My Dad spent a lot of time is mainly 680E's all over the world. He
loved them, but I believe he thought the 680F the best of breed.
Ok, now to see if I can get the bulldozer fixed. Sigh........
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: willis robison
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: 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. This 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 ailerons. The Commanders use a single airfoil from
root to tip. This was chosen likely for its ease of manufacture. From
a manufacturing standpoint, adding 5=92 to the wingspan is easier to do
by either lengthening the tips 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 commanders except the so-called =93straight=94 560 and 680
models. The 560 was 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 which 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 apparently using all the available bays inboard of the
ailerons.
As for weight. It looks like the early models (round nacelle)
had usefull loads 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 increase in useful load. To about 2300 to 3200 lbs. This also
improved their 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 the 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 hand 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
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Date: Saturday, November 8, 2008, 1:29 PM
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
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *
>
> *
>
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 |
Good Morning Steve,
While I had the pleasure of flying several of the early model Aero
Commanders forty-five to fifty years ago, I have NEVER worked on one and have
absolutely NO knowledge as to how they are built.
Nevertheless, may I make a comment?
Just because the wing on two different models happens to look the same does
not mean the strength is the same. Adding a full web to a spar that previously
used a Warren or Pratt truss can makes a major difference as can increasing
the skin thickness of a rib or a D-tube leading edge. The very earliest,
lightest weight, and weakest Bonanza wing can be physically bolted on to a Twin
Bonanza. All control surfaces will hook up properly with no problems at all.
The only thing that won't work is the landing gear. Some method would have to
be devised to keep the landing gear doors closed, but the airplane could be
flown. The wing would not be as strong as is needed to meet the FAA
requirements, but it would fly and only a close examination of the wing would
reveal
that there were small visible changes.
May I not assume that the engineers who designed the Aero Commander used
similar techniques to both lighten the structure where high loads were not
required and beef the structure where high loads were to be carried?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 11/9/2008 6:51:44 A.M. Central Standard Time,
steve2@sover.net writes:
Because of early problems with spars cracking caps the factory took
different approaches to effecting a repair. Some of this I believe is also partly
responsible for some changes in gross. The 500 series is a good case study. Our
500B has external heavy aluminum spar straps. They look like leaf springs. We
have a lower gross than the 500U and 500S, which has longer internal
strapping of the cap in stainless steel. The 'fix' created its own problem of
galvanic corrosion between dissimilar metals, which remains an issue to this day.
So we have a lower gross, but don't have the corrosion problem of the models
with the higher gross. (The 500B is better looking too, in a full-figured kind
of way!)
**************AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other
Holiday needs. Search Now.
-aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)
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 |
Barry Collman wrote:
> I think the basic wing structure remained the same, the factory
> "simply" adding extensions either inboard or outboard.
Barry,
Do the drawings you have show the internal structure in detail? If so,
I'd love to see them. Although the Commander wings appear to be
virtually identical externally, I believe there are many structural
differences internally. I certainly have not had the opportunity to
compare the wings closely, but from my casual viewing through inspection
holes, I believe there are very substantial and subtle upgrades in the
strength of the structure as the line progressed.
Chris
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 |
Chris,
I don't have the actual Drawings, just a document detailing the basic changes
from one Model to another, grouped by the wing detail.
Best Regards,
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris" <cschuerm@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
|
| Barry Collman wrote:
| > I think the basic wing structure remained the same, the factory
| > "simply" adding extensions either inboard or outboard.
|
| Barry,
| Do the drawings you have show the internal structure in detail? If so,
| I'd love to see them. Although the Commander wings appear to be
| virtually identical externally, I believe there are many structural
| differences internally. I certainly have not had the opportunity to
| compare the wings closely, but from my casual viewing through inspection
| holes, I believe there are very substantial and subtle upgrades in the
| strength of the structure as the line progressed.
|
| Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
Now,thats interesting.- The effect of increasing the "washout" is to (a).
move the center of lift inboard, (b.) decrease overall lift and (c) improv
e slow speed handling and stall characteristics.-These are subtle changes
. -This change would not have a major effect on-MTOW but would place th
e stress where the wing was stronger.-
-
I'd give anything to see any production drawings.
-
Thanks again Barry for being our Nexus.
-
Willis
-
--- On Sun, 11/9/08, Barry Collman <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk> wrote:
From: Barry Collman <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
Hi All,
-
The typical wing twist aspect is indeed interesting.
-
Looking at the 560E, for example, the-incidence at the wing root-was 3
degrees. while that at the tip was minus 3.5 degrees.
-
Looking at the 560A, for example, the-incidence at the wing root-was 3
degrees. while that at the tip was minus-1 degree.
-
Best Regards,
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve W
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
WER,
-
Barry this morning has added some drawing number detail to the wing history
.
-
I 'know' enough to perhaps comment, but not so much that I might not get it
completely right..... So hopefully somebody will correct me where I'm in e
rror.....
-
Because of early problems with spars cracking caps the factory took differe
nt approaches to effecting a repair. Some of this I believe is also partly
responsible for some changes in gross. The 500 series is a good case study.
Our 500B has external heavy aluminum spar straps. They look like leaf spri
ngs. We have a lower gross than the 500U and 500S, which has longer interna
l strapping of the cap in stainless steel. The 'fix' created its own proble
m of galvanic corrosion between dissimilar metals, which remains an issue t
o this day. So we have a lower gross, but don't have the corrosion problem
of the models with the higher gross. (The 500B is better looking too, in a
full-figured kind of way!)
-
Somebody correct me where I'm wrong. (And on this list, I can't imagine not
being corrected if anyone thinks I'm wrong!)
-
The wings are beautiful-in a way-books and figures-can't convey. Take
a look at the twist in the wing on its way outboard.
-
My Dad spent a lot of time is mainly 680E's all over the world. He loved th
em, but I believe he thought the 680F the best of breed.
-
Ok, now to see if I can get the bulldozer fixed. Sigh........
-
Steve-
----- Original Message -----
From: willis robison
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: 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
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *
>
> *
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chr
ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?Commander-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chr
ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?Commander-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
=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 |
Willis,
My money is on reason "c". The washout on the Commanders was primarily
to aid in low-speed handling; you want the wing root to stall before the
tip so that you can maintain directional control. I've heard it cited
that this is the reason that during his famous routine Bob Hoover was
able to fly the airplane vertically to near-zero airspeed, but still
have aileron authority and not drop a wing. I don't know if that's the
honest truth, but we all know how well these airplanes do at low speed.
I would think that using washout to decrease overall lift is
inefficient; you could just use less wing and get better performance
numbers, right? I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong!
/John
willis robison wrote:
> Now,thats interesting. The effect of increasing the "washout" is to
> (a). move the center of lift inboard, (b.) decrease overall lift and
> (c) improve slow speed handling and stall characteristics. These are
> subtle changes. This change would not have a major effect on MTOW but
> would place the stress where the wing was stronger.
>
> I'd give anything to see any production drawings.
>
> Thanks again Barry for being our Nexus.
>
> Willis
>
>
>
> --- On *Sun, 11/9/08, Barry Collman
> /<barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>/* wrote:
>
> From: Barry Collman <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, November 9, 2008, 5:00 AM
>
> Hi All,
>
> The typical wing twist aspect is indeed interesting.
>
> Looking at the 560E, for example, the incidence at the wing
> root was 3 degrees. while that at the tip was minus 3.5 degrees.
>
> Looking at the 560A, for example, the incidence at the wing
> root was 3 degrees. while that at the tip was minus 1 degree.
>
> Best Regards,
> Barry
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Steve W <mailto:steve2@sover.net>
> *To:* commander-list@matronics.com
> <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 09, 2008 12:50 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall
> 2008 issue
>
> WER,
>
> Barry this morning has added some drawing number detail to the
> wing history.
>
> I 'know' enough to perhaps comment, but not so much that I
> might not get it completely right..... So hopefully somebody
> will correct me where I'm in error.....
>
> Because of early problems with spars cracking caps the factory
> took different approaches to effecting a repair. Some of this
> I believe is also partly responsible for some changes in
> gross. The 500 series is a good case study. Our 500B has
> external heavy aluminum spar straps. They look like leaf
> springs. We have a lower gross than the 500U and 500S, which
> has longer internal strapping of the cap in stainless steel.
> The 'fix' created its own problem of galvanic corrosion
> between dissimilar metals, which remains an issue to this day.
> So we have a lower gross, but don't have the corrosion problem
> of the models with the higher gross. (The 500B is better
> looking too, in a full-figured kind of way!)
>
> Somebody correct me where I'm wrong. (And on this list, I
> can't imagine not being corrected if anyone thinks I'm wrong!)
>
> The wings are beautiful in a way books and figures can't
> convey. Take a look at the twist in the wing on its way outboard.
>
> My Dad spent a lot of time is mainly 680E's all over the
> world. He loved them, but I believe he thought the 680F the
> best of breed.
>
> Ok, now to see if I can get the bulldozer fixed. Sigh........
>
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* willis robison <mailto:drwer2@yahoo.com>
> *To:* commander-list@matronics.com
> <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 08, 2008 8:06 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Commander-List: 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 and a 49 Both variants use the NACA 23012 airfoil
> from root to tip. This 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 ailerons. The Commanders use a
> single airfoil from root to tip. This was chosen likely
> for its ease of manufacture. From a manufacturing
> standpoint, adding 5 to the wingspan is easier to do by
> either lengthening the tips outboard of the ailerons or
> increasing the engine/nacelle truss section. This could
> mean adding just one or two rib sections
>
>
>
> The 49 wing is the archetype and is featured on all the
> piston twin commanders except the so-called straight 560
> and 680 models. The 560 was produced from 1954 to 1957
> and the 680 ran from 55 to 58.
>
>
>
> There is also a notable difference in the fuel capacity
> for the 44 560 which 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
> apparently using all the available bays inboard of the
> ailerons.
>
>
>
> As for weight. It looks like the early models (round
> nacelle) had usefull loads around 2100 lbs with variations
> trading up or down depending on HP and Service ceiling.
> Twin Commander corporation has mentioned that they dont
> 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 increase in useful load. To about 2300 to 3200
> lbs. This also improved their 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
> Right Commander to buy. Ive focused on a 680F for a lot
> of reasons, but mostly it has the 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 hand 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
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> Date: Saturday, November 8, 2008, 1:29 PM
>
>
> 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
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> *
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> *
>
> *
>
> blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> " target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
> =nofollow>http://forums.matronics.com
> *
>
>
> *
>
> *
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 |
I think you're right on the money John. Ill bet that was the intent and the
other effects-were-probably insignificant-and- just trade offs.
-
wer.
--- On Sun, 11/9/08, John Vormbaum <john@vormbaum.com> wrote:
From: John Vormbaum <john@vormbaum.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
Willis,
My money is on reason "c". The washout on the Commanders was
primarily to aid in low-speed handling; you want the wing root to stall bef
ore
the tip so that you can maintain directional control. I've heard it cited
that this is the reason that during his famous routine Bob Hoover was able
to
fly the airplane vertically to near-zero airspeed, but still have aileron
authority and not drop a wing. I don't know if that's the honest truth,
but we all know how well these airplanes do at low speed.
I would think that using washout to decrease overall lift is inefficient; y
ou
could just use less wing and get better performance numbers, right? I'm sur
e
someone will correct me if I'm wrong!
/John
willis robison wrote:
> Now,thats interesting. The effect of increasing the "washout"
is to (a). move the center of lift inboard, (b.) decrease overall lift and
(c)
improve slow speed handling and stall characteristics. These are subtle cha
nges.
This change would not have a major effect on MTOW but would place the stre
ss
where the wing was stronger. I'd give anything to see any production
drawings.
> Thanks again Barry for being our Nexus.
> Willis
>
>
> --- On *Sun, 11/9/08, Barry Collman
/<barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>/* wrote:
>
> From: Barry Collman <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, November 9, 2008, 5:00 AM
>
> Hi All,
> The typical wing twist aspect is indeed interesting.
> Looking at the 560E, for example, the incidence at the wing
> root was 3 degrees. while that at the tip was minus 3.5 degrees.
> Looking at the 560A, for example, the incidence at the wing
> root was 3 degrees. while that at the tip was minus 1 degree.
> Best Regards,
> Barry
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Steve W <mailto:steve2@sover.net>
> *To:* commander-list@matronics.com
> <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 09, 2008 12:50 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall
> 2008 issue
>
> WER,
> Barry this morning has added some drawing number detail
to the
> wing history.
> I 'know' enough to perhaps comment, but not so
much that I
> might not get it completely right..... So hopefully somebody
> will correct me where I'm in error.....
> Because of early problems with spars cracking caps the
factory
> took different approaches to effecting a repair. Some of this
> I believe is also partly responsible for some changes in
> gross. The 500 series is a good case study. Our 500B has
> external heavy aluminum spar straps. They look like leaf
> springs. We have a lower gross than the 500U and 500S, which
> has longer internal strapping of the cap in stainless steel.
> The 'fix' created its own problem of galvanic corrosion
> between dissimilar metals, which remains an issue to this day.
> So we have a lower gross, but don't have the corrosion problem
> of the models with the higher gross. (The 500B is better
> looking too, in a full-figured kind of way!)
> Somebody correct me where I'm wrong. (And on this
list, I
> can't imagine not being corrected if anyone thinks I'm
wrong!)
> The wings are beautiful in a way books and figures
can't
> convey. Take a look at the twist in the wing on its way outboard.
> My Dad spent a lot of time is mainly 680E's all over
the
> world. He loved them, but I believe he thought the 680F the
> best of breed.
> Ok, now to see if I can get the bulldozer fixed.
Sigh........
> Steve
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* willis robison <mailto:drwer2@yahoo.com>
> *To:* commander-list@matronics.com
> <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 08, 2008 8:06 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Commander-List: 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. This 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 ailerons. The Commanders use a
> single airfoil from root to tip. This was chosen likely
> for its ease of manufacture. From a manufacturing
> standpoint, adding 5=92 to the wingspan is easier to do by
> either lengthening the tips 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 commanders except the so-called =93straight=94 56
0
> and 680 models. The 560 was 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 which 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
apparently using all the available bays inboard of the
> ailerons.
>
>
> As for weight. It looks like the early models (round
> nacelle) had usefull loads 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 increase in useful load. To about 2300 to 3200
> lbs. This also improved their 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 lo
t
> of reasons, but mostly it has the 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 hand 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
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> Date: Saturday, November 8, 2008, 1:29 PM
>
<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 /<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
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > > >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > *
> > > *
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> *
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chr
ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?Commander-List
>
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> *
>
> *
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chr
ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?Commander-List
>
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> *
>
> *
>
> blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> " target=_blank
rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
> =nofollow>http://forums.matronics.com
> *
>
>
> *
>
> *
=0A=0A=0A
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 |
Dozer fixed...... Whew.
John, seems like there might be more factors at play with the washout? You
could 'tune' a wing for best efficiency to fit anticipated speed, load and
altitude, yes? At speed and low angles of attack, negative a couple degrees
must be close to lift neutral (and less drag).
Forgetting my book learning. Too tired to remember, too lazy to look it up.
All things being equal, is the angle of attack increasing per altitude?
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Vormbaum" <john@vormbaum.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
>
> Willis,
>
> My money is on reason "c". The washout on the Commanders was primarily to
> aid in low-speed handling; you want the wing root to stall before the tip
> so that you can maintain directional control. I've heard it cited that
> this is the reason that during his famous routine Bob Hoover was able to
> fly the airplane vertically to near-zero airspeed, but still have aileron
> authority and not drop a wing. I don't know if that's the honest truth,
> but we all know how well these airplanes do at low speed.
>
> I would think that using washout to decrease overall lift is inefficient;
> you could just use less wing and get better performance numbers, right?
> I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong!
>
> /John
>
> willis robison wrote:
>> Now,thats interesting. The effect of increasing the "washout" is to (a).
>> move the center of lift inboard, (b.) decrease overall lift and (c)
>> improve slow speed handling and stall characteristics. These are subtle
>> changes. This change would not have a major effect on MTOW but would
>> place the stress where the wing was stronger. I'd give anything to see
>> any production drawings.
>> Thanks again Barry for being our Nexus.
>> Willis
>>
>>
>> --- On *Sun, 11/9/08, Barry Collman /<barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>/*
>> wrote:
>>
>> From: Barry Collman <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
>> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall 2008 issue
>> To: commander-list@matronics.com
>> Date: Sunday, November 9, 2008, 5:00 AM
>>
>> Hi All,
>> The typical wing twist aspect is indeed interesting.
>> Looking at the 560E, for example, the incidence at the wing
>> root was 3 degrees. while that at the tip was minus 3.5 degrees.
>> Looking at the 560A, for example, the incidence at the wing
>> root was 3 degrees. while that at the tip was minus 1 degree.
>> Best Regards,
>> Barry
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Steve W <mailto:steve2@sover.net>
>> *To:* commander-list@matronics.com
>> <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 09, 2008 12:50 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: Commander-List: Flight Levels magazine - Fall
>> 2008 issue
>>
>> WER,
>> Barry this morning has added some drawing number detail to the
>> wing history.
>> I 'know' enough to perhaps comment, but not so much that I
>> might not get it completely right..... So hopefully somebody
>> will correct me where I'm in error.....
>> Because of early problems with spars cracking caps the factory
>> took different approaches to effecting a repair. Some of this
>> I believe is also partly responsible for some changes in
>> gross. The 500 series is a good case study. Our 500B has
>> external heavy aluminum spar straps. They look like leaf
>> springs. We have a lower gross than the 500U and 500S, which
>> has longer internal strapping of the cap in stainless steel.
>> The 'fix' created its own problem of galvanic corrosion
>> between dissimilar metals, which remains an issue to this day.
>> So we have a lower gross, but don't have the corrosion problem
>> of the models with the higher gross. (The 500B is better
>> looking too, in a full-figured kind of way!)
>> Somebody correct me where I'm wrong. (And on this list, I
>> can't imagine not being corrected if anyone thinks I'm wrong!)
>> The wings are beautiful in a way books and figures can't
>> convey. Take a look at the twist in the wing on its way outboard.
>> My Dad spent a lot of time is mainly 680E's all over the
>> world. He loved them, but I believe he thought the 680F the
>> best of breed.
>> Ok, now to see if I can get the bulldozer fixed. Sigh........
>> Steve
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* willis robison <mailto:drwer2@yahoo.com>
>> *To:* commander-list@matronics.com
>> <mailto:commander-list@matronics.com>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, November 08, 2008 8:06 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: Commander-List: 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
>> and a 49 Both variants use the NACA 23012 airfoil
>> from root to tip. This 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 ailerons. The Commanders use a
>> single airfoil from root to tip. This was chosen likely
>> for its ease of manufacture. From a manufacturing
>> standpoint, adding 5 to the wingspan is easier to do by
>> either lengthening the tips outboard of the ailerons or
>> increasing the engine/nacelle truss section. This could
>> mean adding just one or two rib sections
>>
>>
>> The 49 wing is the archetype and is featured on all the
>> piston twin commanders except the so-called straight 560
>> and 680 models. The 560 was produced from 1954 to 1957
>> and the 680 ran from 55 to 58.
>>
>>
>> There is also a notable difference in the fuel capacity
>> for the 44 560 which 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 apparently
>> using all the available bays inboard of the
>> ailerons.
>>
>>
>> As for weight. It looks like the early models (round
>> nacelle) had usefull loads around 2100 lbs with variations
>> trading up or down depending on HP and Service ceiling. Twin
>> Commander corporation has mentioned that they dont
>> 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 increase in useful load. To about 2300 to 3200
>> lbs. This also improved their 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
>> Right Commander to buy. Ive focused on a 680F for a lot
>> of reasons, but mostly it has the 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 hand 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
>> To: commander-list@matronics.com
>> Date: Saturday, November 8, 2008, 1:29 PM
>>
>> <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
>> /<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
>> > > *
>> > > *
>> > > *
>> > > *
>> > > > >
>>
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > *
>> > > *
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
>>
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> " target=_blank
>> rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
>> =nofollow>http://forums.matronics.com
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>
>
>
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: | CARIBBEAN COMMANDER |
HI KIDS..
I will be off line for a couple of weeks.? I am leaving in the AM to fly to San
Juan PR to do an annual inspection on a TCFG members airplane, N107VC, a 500B,
S/N 001.? It is great airplane with new paint and air conditioning.? When I
am finished, My wife Sue and I along with two other couples will depart for an?
aerial?tour of? PR and then off to the island of vieques and on the St Thomas.?
We will then head for the Island of Culebra.? There is the most wonderful
beach in all of the Caribbean there.? After a swim and a snack on the water we
will return to?the?Isla Grande airport.? The next day we will all board a cruse
ship for a week in the Eastern Caribbean.? It should be a great time,? jb
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 |
|
| Subject: | CARIBBEAN COMMANDER |
That sounds like a good time, have fun.
JimA
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
yourtcfg@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 7:52 PM
Subject: Commander-List: CARIBBEAN COMMANDER
HI KIDS..
I will be off line for a couple of weeks. I am leaving in the AM to fly to
San Juan PR to do an annual inspection on a TCFG members airplane, N107VC, a
500B, S/N 001. It is great airplane with new paint and air conditioning.
When I am finished, My wife Sue and I along with two other couples will
depart for an aerial tour of PR and then off to the island of vieques and
on the St Thomas. We will then head for the Island of Culebra. There is
the most wonderful beach in all of the Caribbean there. After a swim and a
snack on the water we will return to the Isla Grande airport. The next day
we will all board a cruse ship for a week in the Eastern Caribbean. It
should be a great time, jb
_____
Instant access to the latest & most popular FREE games
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 |
|
| Subject: | CARIBBEAN COMMANDER |
Take a lot of pictures and video, if you can, especially the flight parts.
Work, work, work; it never ends, right?
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
yourtcfg@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 5:52 PM
Subject: Commander-List: CARIBBEAN COMMANDER
HI KIDS..
I will be off line for a couple of weeks. I am leaving in the AM to fly to
San Juan PR to do an annual inspection on a TCFG members airplane, N107VC, a
500B, S/N 001. It is great airplane with new paint and air conditioning.
When I am finished, My wife Sue and I along with two other couples will
depart for an aerial tour of PR and then off to the island of vieques and
on the St Thomas. We will then head for the Island of Culebra. There is
the most wonderful beach in all of the Caribbean there. After a swim and a
snack on the water we will return to the Isla Grande airport. The next day
we will all board a cruse ship for a week in the Eastern Caribbean. It
should be a great time, jb
_____
Instant access to the latest & most popular FREE games
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! --
|