10 Jul 2025, 13:36 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 06 Mar 2017, 23:18 |
|
 |

|

|
Joined: 05/23/13 Posts: 8160 Post Likes: +10519 Company: Jet Acquisitions Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The Commander is an airplane loved by many and hated by few... the Mits is an airplane hated by many and loved by a few.
Just because a few people love the dang thing it doesn't mean it is special. You're in 'rare form' tonight...and about to be decimated. As someone looking towards the next 'step', I appreciate your insight.
My wife doesn't let me argue politics on Facebook... so I come here and tease my Mits loving friends!
_________________ Winners don’t whine.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 06 Mar 2017, 23:21 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 07/24/14 Posts: 1910 Post Likes: +2629
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The Commander is an airplane loved by many and hated by few... the Mits is an airplane hated by many and loved by a few.
Just because a few people love the dang thing it doesn't mean it is special. Wow, pretty strong opinion of which you are certainly entitled. But as a former owner and having been around a lot of aviation people, the ONLY people that I have heard speak ill of the MU2 hadn't had any significant experience with them, as a pilot or as an owner. And those who did have a personal history with the MU2, universally loved it. And since most mechanics that work on MU2s specialize in them, I'm pretty confident that a large percentage of them enjoy working on them. The Commander is a fine plane and I don't have anything negative to comment about it. We'll be sure and put you down as the Commander Fanboy. Jay
_________________ Jay
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 06 Mar 2017, 23:24 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/03/10 Posts: 1561 Post Likes: +1809 Company: D&M Leasing Houston Location: Katy, TX (KTME)
Aircraft: CitationV/C180
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The -10 turbo commanders are faster than the Marquise You got apples to apples observations? Mike C.
No but I haven't heard about the long body MU2 busting 300knots consistently unless really light or winter. The -10 Commanders make 300knots or better from what I've read. Is this inaccurate?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 06 Mar 2017, 23:26 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 03/03/11 Posts: 2024 Post Likes: +2072
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The Commander is an airplane loved by many and hated by few... the Mits is an airplane hated by many and loved by a few.
Just because a few people love the dang thing it doesn't mean it is special. You're in 'rare form' tonight...and about to be decimated. As someone looking towards the next 'step', I appreciate your insight.[/quote] My wife doesn't let me argue politics on Facebook... so I come here and tease my Mits loving friends![/quote] Chip, refresh my memory on what ratings you have again?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 06 Mar 2017, 23:30 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 07/24/14 Posts: 1910 Post Likes: +2629
|
|
Username Protected wrote: You got apples to apples observations?
Mike C. No but I haven't heard about the long body MU2 busting 300knots consistently unless really light or winter. The -10 Commanders make 300knots or better from what I've read. Is this inaccurate? My -10 Marquise was a 280-290 KTAS airplane. I may have seen 300 true once or twice when I was light and the temps were favorable.
I am of the impression, but don't know the measurements and therefore won't state as fact, that the Marquise cabin is considerably bigger than the standard body Commander. Yes, the stretch body Commanders' cabins are similar in size, but the cost difference is very significant.
Jay
_________________ Jay
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 06 Mar 2017, 23:33 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/04/09 Posts: 356 Post Likes: +149
Aircraft: Dakota
|
|
As Patrick (an owner) said above, Commanders have a poor use of space problem. I would advise anyone looking to buy to sit up front for 4-5 hours and see if you can stomach it. I can't. The pax seats are smallish too unless you have one with the couch in the rear but most of us sit up front.
Commanders are performers though and have decent margins.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 06 Mar 2017, 23:35 |
|
 |

|

|
 |
Joined: 12/10/07 Posts: 14701 Post Likes: +4381 Location: St. Pete, FL
Aircraft: BE 58
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I used a 690B and the Marquise in the charter business I had years ago.
For a personal plane, I'd take the Commander any time. The Marquise is kind of big for a personal plane. So is the PC12Quote: The Commander couldn't do that, and was tight with more than 6 on board. That makes it a short body competitor. The MU2 short body will go faster than the Commander. Can't say as I flew the -5 but I'd be the -10 would be very close.Quote: I didn't like the ADs on the Commander, so getting into the later ones with the -10 is a huge advantage. With a price tag to match, over $1M. Yes expensive to get away from the ADs. I wish I had more time in the short Mitz. The Marquise was fun to fly, but the Commander was much better. If I needed seats, the Marquise would be great, but I don't, so my choice would clearly be the Commander. Even the -5 is a great plane.Mike C.
_________________ Larry
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 06 Mar 2017, 23:54 |
|
 |

|

|
Joined: 05/23/13 Posts: 8160 Post Likes: +10519 Company: Jet Acquisitions Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Chip, refresh my memory on what ratings you have again? Anthony, I do not have a single type rating. I look at aircraft for what they are, I have no bias based on my own personal feelings or experience. For many aviation is a job... for some it is a passion. For me it is a career. I am not a professional pilot, I realized a long time ago that I could not be both a pilot and a professional salesperson. I will be the first to admit that if your career is selling piston aircraft you need to be a pilot. But, in the words of a great aviation icon, Johnny Gantt, "if you are selling turbines, it's a full time job, you have to choose one or the other" Having said that, I have some friends that do both well.. they work a lot of hours. I personally ascribe to the adage of "do one thing and do it very well" I could not be the best pilot and be the best salesperson... maybe someone else could, but I could not... so I chose. All these years later I'm no longer on the sales side... I'm a buyer's rep. I can tell you for an absolute fact that I could not do both! When my clients call, they expect to talk to me... saying I was on a trip won't work. So, I don't have any type ratings. I don't need any. It's not what I do. I do help people make good decisions when it comes to buying airplanes... depending on your needs... a Mits can be a great decision... but it comes with a lot of disclaimers. The Turbo Commander is an NO excuses AWESOME airplane!!!!
_________________ Winners don’t whine.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 07 Mar 2017, 00:11 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20445 Post Likes: +25728 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: where was the Mits built? Mostly in San Angelo, TX. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 07 Mar 2017, 00:21 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/26/08 Posts: 3412 Post Likes: +1053 Location: --------- Charlotte, NC (KEQY) Alva, OK (KAVK)
Aircraft: 70 A36TN, Build RV8
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Chip, refresh my memory on what ratings you have again? Anthony, I do not have a single type rating. I look at aircraft for what they are, I have no bias based on my own personal feelings or experience. For many aviation is a job... for some it is a passion. For me it is a career. I am not a professional pilot, I realized a long time ago that I could not be both a pilot and a professional salesperson. I will be the first to admit that if your career is selling piston aircraft you need to be a pilot. But, in the words of a great aviation icon, Johnny Gantt, "if you are selling turbines, it's a full time job, you have to choose one or the other" Having said that, I have some friends that do both well.. they work a lot of hours. I personally ascribe to the adage of "do one thing and do it very well" I could not be the best pilot and be the best salesperson... maybe someone else could, but I could not... so I chose. All these years later I'm no longer on the sales side... I'm a buyer's rep. I can tell you for an absolute fact that I could not do both! When my clients call, they expect to talk to me... saying I was on a trip won't work. So, I don't have any type ratings. I don't need any. It's not what I do. I do help people make good decisions when it comes to buying airplanes... depending on your needs... a Mits can be a great decision... but it comes with a lot of disclaimers. The Turbo Commander is an NO excuses AWESOME airplane!!!! Chip, I enjoy your posts, but am curious, Are you a pilot? I have always presumed so but based on this post now wondering?
_________________ I had my patience tested. I'm negative.
Last edited on 07 Mar 2017, 00:24, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 07 Mar 2017, 00:21 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20445 Post Likes: +25728 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The components of the airplane were shipped from Japan and assembled in San Angelo... by Mooney! The Mooney part of the plan didn't last very long, only a few years. Mitsubishi then built them themselves starting in 1970 forming a new corporation based in Texas. The only thing that came from Japan were aluminum structures, most of the value was with US provided and installed systems and parts, like the engines and avionics. (Note that some "made in the USA" airplanes have imported structures, for example, wings on Eclipse were made by Fuji). Quote: The Mits is a PAIN in the arse... and any mechanic will tell you that. That's what you get when you only ask King Air mechanics, or you don't really mind spreading ignorance. The MU2 is quite easy to work on, robust systems, connectors and disconnects in the right places, etc. For example, engine off the airframe takes less than an hour, back on in another hour. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 07 Mar 2017, 00:27 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20445 Post Likes: +25728 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: No but I haven't heard about the long body MU2 busting 300knots consistently unless really light or winter. Long body airplanes will top out around 300 knots. Short bodies can be noticeably faster. The fastest I've done in level flight is 318 KTAS. Cabin size, the long body MU2 is way more than a Commander, which seems to have a very large ratio of airplane size to usable cabin size. Quote: The -10 Commanders make 300knots or better from what I've read. Is this inaccurate? My assessment is the -10 Commanders also top out around 300 knots, similar to the long body MU2s. It would be neck and neck. Meanwhile, the short body MU2 pulls away from both of them. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 07 Mar 2017, 00:40 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 01/11/16 Posts: 462 Post Likes: +361
Aircraft: Bonanza G36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: You probably know more mechanics than me... but I can promise you most mechanics do not want to work on Mits. That's why everyone takes them to a handful of shops.
IMO, You're mistaken. Mechanics don't want to work on the Mits because they don't know the Mits. Pull up to a Beechcraft mechanic with a Malibu, and he'll tell you the same thing .. don't want to work on it, no manuals, etc.
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|