I've been set on a 441 but am intrigued by the Commander.

Which would you choose and why?

What are the maintenance/inspection differences?

Is turbulence an issue in the Commander?

Which interior layout do you prefer?

Other thoughts?

(Side notes: not interested in a jet; would like 2,000nm theoretical range; want RVSM; need year-around 3,500' runway capability; maintenance shops are nearby for both)

My choice would be the 441. It would be my first choice if downsizing from the jet.

It will be nicer in turbulence.

The Commanders have more structural issues in their history.

The 441 suffers from the SIDs, though.


I did extensive modeling of 441 range. My prototype mission was KEVV to KBFI, 1622 nm.

What I found was that RVSM actually wasn't that useful for the 441 on that mission. If you had neutral or tailwinds, then FL280 was adequate to go non stop. If you had strong headwinds, typical for winter, they got so strong in the mid 30s that you had no range increase from flying up that high, so you couldn't make it non stop either at FL270 or FL350 with RVSM, so you had a fuel stop either way.

RVSM would help on a neutral or tailwind day to do a super long leg, but that's so rare and so many hours in the air as to be kind of tortuous for passengers.

The other aspect is that the 441 cabin at FL350 is 11,000 ft. Spending 6 hours at 11,000 ft cabin is tiring. At FL280, 6.3 PSI cabin is 7600 ft, a far more tolerable experience. Having a pressurized plane should mean less fatigue, but not if you need to fly 6 hours at 11,000 ft cabin. If you don't need to fly that long, then you have the range at FL280.

I'd expect the Commander has similar issues since it has similar capabilities, if maybe a little slower.

RVSM costs more to maintain, and I was sure I wanted to have it, until I did the analysis. It just doesn't come into play as often as you might think.

The only true value would be ability to get over weather that FL280 can't top and FL350 could. That usually means convection, and those storms almost always poke up through the mid 30s anyway, so it wasn't clear to me how often that would come into play.


The 441 will make those distances on a normal takeoff and landing. Those numbers, however, are with a dry level paved runway. There are no numbers in the AFM for wet, snow, or ice on the runway.

The 441 will sometimes not meet accel stop or accel go distances on that runway. It will need to be cool, or light weight, to get that. You said no jet, but all jet numbers are including an engine failure, just to be fair.


Spend time talking to the shops who maintain each type and see how their guidance fits your expectations. Better yet, talk to the owners.

Mike C.

The disinformation is already strong, as expected.

About five years ago, I bought a 441 for a customer and managed it for a while. It's coming back to me in the next few days. I narrowed down the search to the 441 and the Jet Commander series. Bruce hooked me up with one to look at the customer's concern with the cabin (specifically the lav configuration). In the end, we bought a 441 only based on my customer liked the look of the 441 over the Commander and he figured if we exchanged the 421C for the 441 none of his employees would know of the change. Everyone knew before the airplane arrived.

From what I remember, the Commander had a much simpler maintenance program. However, the SID program for the 441 is not as complex as it looks on first look. For the most part, it simply breaks down most inspections with a phase number. I will say, the 441 is maintained to a much higher level than any piston airplane I have been involved in.

With either airplane, find a good shop that understands the airframe. We do small work in house on the 441, but due to staffing (i.e., part time shop) we sent it to another shop for larger inspections. They maintain multiple 441's and know the airframes inside and out.

As far as RVSM, I wouldn't own an airplane of that class unless it was RVSM approved. While you may not top all of the weather, you can certainly pick your way around most cells most of the time.

There are two people I would talk to if you were seriously looking at either, Bruce for the Commanders and Chad at Kubick Aviation for the 441's.

I was hoping you would notice the thread and would appreciate your input.

It's hard to get good info on the Commanders.

I've heard this rumor...what does the comparison look like in real life?

Coming up on 200 hours and a little over a year in a Commander 980. I can’t speak to the 441, but I have read about their impressive performance. My understanding is that much of that comes from a “lightly built” airframe which has resulted in some maintenance headaches 40 years on. Great plane though, and really like the trailing link gear.

Not sure about structural issues (I think one broke up when it flew into a thunderstorm, so not a great data point) in the Commander fleet. Moderate turbulence is no greater than 180 KIAS which is right around cruise speed at FL270/280. I definitely agree that it doesn’t ride turbulence that well, but not noticeably worse than a King Air or PC-12. The long wing can be a pain for turbulence or hangaring, but it’s what makes the Jetprop Commanders great perfomers.

I personally prefer the layout of the 980/840/690 better than the 900 and 1000. I think the back cabin is odd and takes away baggage space. The bench seat is really great too for napping, or so I’m told. But the PSID is better in the 900/1000 and they win on range. The toilet/bench is actually decently comfortable (my wife sat on it for 3.5 hours when we had seven total pax in the plane and she didn’t complain at all). I really like the mid-cabin entry (easily a tie breaker for me). It makes it feel like a real plane, no ass-in-face. Oh and the baggage space is unreal.

Maintenance is pretty simple. 150 hr and/or annual. There are additional items (like gear inspections), but overall the maintenance regime isn’t too difficult. The airplane is well supported with top notch service centers and factory parts. No real issues beyond standard supply chain woes. I’d love it if the company was still making planes (like Cessna), but nobody has accused them of loving having to support out of production planes.

Overall a great performing plane (again 980 w/ 5-bladed props, but I can do 6 hrs ~280 KTAS) that feels like a well built aircraft. I’m fairly confident (without looking at a POH) that your runway requirements wouldn’t be an issue. It’s almost comical seeing how much gas I have left when I land or what the fuel flow is at FL280. Mine was previously RVSM’d before the avionics upgrade, but I really wouldn’t want to fly up there with cabin altitude that high (less of an issue for the 1000s). My only qualms are that they aren’t great in a crosswind, feel stiff when you land, and I wish it wasn’t built in the Reagan adminsitration. Those wouldn’t stop me from owning the plane until it becomes a parts bird.

Here's a good side-by-side of all the Jetprops. As you can see, the 1000 has the most useful load. You can fill that thing up, go 2000nm and still fit 800lbs of people in there. It's the Escalade/Suburban of aviation.

Thanks Jason!

Jack,

Having flown, maintained and modified both, I would offer the following perspective with the qualifier that they are both fun and capable and you really should buy what makes you happy:
To your questions from my perspective;
1) Turbulence is an issue with any light wing loading plane. Is it a factor that favors one or the other? No, of course not, their wing loadings are within rounding and loading errors. I will say that the CG vs seating position and extremely good longitudinal stability of the Commander is inherent and favorable in rough air. A Commander requires no yaw damp up to FL350, not so much with King Airs, jets, etc.
2) Interior layout, well, the 441 cabin is nice for sure, the Commander is easy to load and has private potty, 6 of one, half dozen of the other. 441 is a natural step up from 421 and it has the right engines.
3) Personally, when flying a 441, I love the trailing link gear and despise the fuel computers and 2000 rpm engines. The Commander tells you when you get it wrong on landing. The 441 you can’t screw up.
Other thoughts: the Commander is fun in and out of short and unimproved strips with the big mains, amazing brakes and ample prop clearance. Large external baggage, great handling plane you can fly 5-7 hours. RVSM is not as easy as the 441 thanks to the Garmin 950 panel debacle. That said, I really don’t miss RVSM much and go to 270/280 almost exclusively. At that altitude I fly over 5 hours at 300 knots and land with 800 lbs fuel. Thus far, my 1,300 mile trip to Portsmouth is comfortably non-stop in about any winds I’ve seen even if it means 75 knots on the nose for much of it. Chock to chock is 460 lbs/hr with TAS at 297-304 at 96-97% ISA plus some to a lot.

Grant, I'm not sure I agree on the crosswind part. I've never flown a plane that has the crosswind capability of a Commander. Independent flight controls without interconnects, high wing for wingtip clearance, awesome rudder authority, and a nosewheel that tracks straight with full rudder input. Plus, they land better on one wheel than 2.

edit: if you would like to see and fly Commanders, come to Naples and fly one with me. I am blessed to have full access to a basic -10 840, N840DR, which, despite its steam panel, gets around the countryside just fine. Plus I even have a Shrike, you know, for historical perspective

You should use the actual empty weight of the candidate airplane, and not the brochure number. Have the seller/broker send you the W&B so you can check loading profiles. Be wary if they won't send you the numbers.

The brochure empty weights are generally quite optimistic and will mislead you.

Mike C.

Yes, yes it is.

As u say as expected.

Andrew

Yes, yes it is.

As u say as expected.

Andrew

Mike C - have you flown a long trip in a 441? I found the cabin noise and vibration much higher than MU2 or commander.

I have done a few long commander trips. I thought it was a fantastic experience. Quiet and smooth. I like the cockpit ergonomics more than 441 too.

I think they both crush short runways. I thought commander was more fun to hand fly.

Amazing to me no one makes a Garrett twin TP anymore. Such great platforms.

Bruce my crosswind comments are honestly probably an indication that I’m due for recurrent (which I am). I’ve definitely seen the one wheel trait you alluded to. Every time I’ve gone into EYE there seems to be a strong crosswind. A seriously great plane.

I wonder why this is. P&W is so dominant in the TP space. It would be great to see Honeywell make a run for that market. The fact that the Garrett is less desireable for a SETP is a definite downside considering the strength and growth of that market.