Little bit of incorrect info in this thread:

a) the Commander and the Mitts are virtually identical if you lose one AT ROTATION. Both planes are going to climb like a dog until the prop is fully feathered. NTS is not autofeather on any Garrett powered plane. I am not touching the flaps for a long time in the Mitts so they saying that having them is an 'issue' is dumb. You center the ball with your feet, level the wings with your hands then start trimming things out. Spoilers vs ailerons are not that relevant. You pick up a little bit of climb in the Mitts by trimming out the spoilers, however, if you have flown the plane for more than 5 minutes (or actually flown it, unlike most of the people on BT who opine about it) (oh, I have actually flown both Commander and Mitts btw), you automatically trim out aileron when the yoke is lopsided. It is not hard, it is not a memory item, it is just a reaction to what the control wheel is doing. It doesn't impact controllability of the plane at all. Anyone who wants to chime in about how 'different' spoilers are has probably not flown the Mitts. Further, in every twin I have flown, you pick up a little climb by turning into the dead engine a little. Every plane has some sort of 'feel' you adapt to.

b) so lets say, in my Solitaire, I lose one at rotation. I rotate at 105 most days. See attached chart for positive climb gradient with my gear out.

OMFG, the Mitts can actually climb on one with the gear out in many instances!

I have a full fuel payload of over 900 lbs and in approx 300 hours have never been above 10300 on the ramp, which means I am about 10200 by the time my wheels left the runway. Astute readers will note that at sea level, I can be at about 25 degree C and still climb away just fine at 113kts. So I needed to accelerate 8 knots.

I actually tried this configuration recently and compared to the chart, at altitude of course. Turns out the plane climbs better than the chart. In fact, at 8000 feet, 113KCAS airspeed, gear out, flaps 20, 5 degree C, I was climbing at 150fpm and we weighed about 9000lbs at that point. Hit the gear switch and I started going uphill at close to 500fpm. Go to flaps 5 at any point and you gain maybe 100fpm. The plane accelerates easily from 113 to 130 once you pull the gear up, even if you don't adjust your pitch. You can easily trim it fly this profile with your feet flat on the floor and hands in your lap. What makes a Mitts different is that trim matters. If it feels heavy, your trim is probably not right.

ARE THERE TIMES WHEN IT WON'T CLIMB WITH THE GEAR OUT?? YES. AND THOSE ARE WHAT THE SFAR IS REFERRING TO. Per videoing myself taking off in the plane, from rotation to my hand hitting the gear lever is about 2 sec. So if the engine fails before those two secs, I am probably putting it back on the ground it is high, hot and I am heavy. Otherwise, away we go. I have a simple chart my instructor gave me showing when I will have a positive rate with the gear out and when I will not and I brief it before every departure.

The commander climbs better one engine for sure, but when I reviewed the charts, it was not THAT much better than a Solitaire at similar weights. The oft quoted climbs at 1000fpm on one is a narrow set of circumstances, at least on the 690B charts I saw. Quite possible Gulfstream ones are better, however, if I am climbing at 700fpm vs 1000fpm on one, I don't think I am going to run into anything.

Once I am climbing, I eventually will get sick of going slow like a king air and I put the nose over and accelerate, while still climbing of course. If I am on one, I go to flaps 5 around 135 kias, then fly around all day at flaps 5 and 150 knots. I touch nothing config wise other than gear between that point and landing. Works great. At some point I am pulling the power back because I am going too fast.

c) the commander rides like dog poop compared to the Mitts. All of the people making idiotic statements about small wings being a bad thing have either not flown a Mitts or need to go back to engineering school. I like Commanders (came darn close to buying one from the folks at Eagle Creek), but this is fact, supported by my personal experience and every person I have ever spoken to who has flown both. TO BE CLEAR, I HAVE FLOWN BOTH. I also posted a video of my micro winged MU2 doing accelerated stalls and behaving better than a 172. I did slow flight in a Commander. The dreaded spoilers on the MU2 make the plane much easier to control at slow speeds than the commander.

d) claiming the Commander is a sports car handling wise is like saying a PC12 is nimble. Planes this big are not light on their feet. They all have heavy control feel. I find the Commander, the the PC12, much more tail happy than the Mitts. I love all three and would be happy to fly any of them, but this is just what they felt like as a pilot and passenger. I never got out of any large plane and thought I had left a sports car. And before someone chimes in, a turbine commander is not a shrike. Much bigger and slower responding. Hoover wasn't doing his routine in a gross weight 690 for a reason.

e) The ergonomics of the Commander are an acquired taste I think. The Mitts is very straightforward. One involves the ceiling (commander) for various engine related tasks, the other doesn't (mitts). I didn't fly the Commander enough to every like the ergonomics. In the one I flew, the GNS 430 was on the floor pointing upwards between the seats. I would say that is a much bigger human factors debacle in an emergency vs remembering to go to flaps 5 at some point in the climb.

f) The cabin of the Commander is not bad, though it is TBM narrow (which doesn't bother some folks) and the extended ones have a strange setup in the rear that I didn't think would be comfy for anyone other than kids. I sat on the sideways potty seat for a 4 hour flight once. It was horrible. If you are using that seat regularly ,it is probably for a short flight or a short person.

g) I see zero way any commander is less to maintain than an MU2, even a Gulfstream one. I could believe parity, though Mitts part prices are strangely low and even the folks at Eagle Creek told me the Mitts was cheaper to run. That said, they are probably not that far apart. In fact, I think all the Garrett planes are within 15% of each other maint wise assuming you get one without a bunch of odd calendar items (non-gulfstream commander wing spar, conquest SIDS).

h) all these planes are awesome in person. I would fly any turbine over any piston. It is a different world. That said, the information on BT, while at times useful, is often filled with opinions of folks who have not flown the birds in question. Every person reacts different to the planes in person. I think the back bench seat in my Solitaire is the most comfortable seat in GA (midsize jets included). I am sure someone else would disagree. Nit picking on the differences in how one versus the other handles an engine out is dumb. For a well trained pilot having a good day, all these planes do well. Poorly trained pilot or bad day, we all know what can happen. It is very rarely the planes fault in this class of hardware.

i) it was easier to get insurance for an MU2 than when I called around for -10 690 commanders. I have no idea why, but with 100 hours twin time, and 1000 hours TT, I was able to get insured in the MU2 with 30 hours with an instructor total. For the Commander they wanted 50 hours dual AFTER the training.

Given that the SFAR takes around 20, this left 10 hours of flying around with someone in the MU2. It took that long for me to get comfortable in the plane. Mike C has mentioned many times, but it is really fast and that takes some getting used to. A high time Commander pilot flew with me recently (he has a 690B) and his comment, on a flight that never went above 10k, was 'wow, this thing is fast'. It is slow jet more than it is a fast turboprop.

j) my hanger is paid for by the SF. The commander was noticeable more per month.

k) Don't all Garrett powered Commanders have the fuel controller that fails high - e.g. - your bad engine might not be your dead foot?

l) Thomas's comment on the MU2 not being quick after landing (3 min cool down, spinning props) applies to all Garrett planes I have been in. This is not airframe related. I have timed this before, it takes me 2.5 minutes to spin the props and put all my covers on the inlets and pitots once I shut things down.

m) The biggest Commander advantages are RSVM and they can carry more fuel over other planes in the category. Living in Denver, a Commander 1000 can get anywhere in the US non stop, both directions 99% of the time too. That is a way bigger safety feature than the difference between what happens when you lose an engine. Less approaches, descending through weather, etc.

EDIT: you will note the charts say 'bleeds off'. In the Solitaire, I make 100% torque even on a 95 degree day in Denver, so I am torque limited in the climb vs temp limited so this has never applied to me. Further, if I lost one and wasn't climbing on a hot day, I can easily go to 105% torque on the good engine and still be making less power than the same engine and gearbox make in the Marquee. For those in the thread who seem to know so much about the lack of Mitts rudder, trust me, it has plenty for this maneuver :-)

Commanders do!

I was trying to understand your comment about being established single engine.



My rotate speed is straight out if the POH. Maybe you are taking off too slow?

Anthony, your last chart shows a chart that determines what weight you can be at during a engine failure at rotation and have a positive rate of climb!

Good grief if you take off at gross or even 750 lbs less than gross and have an engine failure you can't climb at all.

Am I reading that right?

Get a commander they can climb away at GW And have a nice positive rate of climb.

That gradient is for gear out. Your commander chart compares to my first two (gear up).

How well does the commander climb on one with the gear out? The SFAR language acknowledges that there are situations where you may not have a positive climb gradient with the gear out if it is high/hot/heavy. So if you lost one BEFORE you cycled the gear, you are heading downhill. Hence the SFAR language of put it back on the ground if a positive rate is not achieved.

Interestingly enough, someone once tested how much altitude you lost during the gear cycling in this situation and IIRC it was around 10 feet.

So basically, once you hit the gear lever, you are flying just fine on one, albeit at a lower climb rate than the Commander!

Commanders that show how they perform with the gear OUT. Do you have that? Looking at this chart, it appears that there are situations in the Commander where the gear out would probably preclude a climb before you started uphill (Steamboat in the summer, for example).

Also, is 10,325 the gross weight of a 695? Thought they had a higher gross weight than that.
Edit: if I wasn't clear, I fully acknowledge the commander is better on one than the mu2 or any other twin! Its OEI performance is truly great!

Ok, curiosity is killing me... who on here has not flown a Turbo Commander?

No offense, but you, given that you are not a rated pilot, right?

By fly, I generally mean sole control of aircraft from takeoff to touchdown, or at least more than holding the stick for a few min in level cruise (climb, descent, etc)

Anthony is right about the downside of that big wing, it isn't near as smooth as a wing with higher loading. It's another area where the Commander is more of a pilot's airplane than a passenger's airplane.

And, in the 1000 that round seating area, the one that use to be baggage is odd. Kids do love it.

The airplane is narrow, reminds me a lot of the Aerostar, I guess it's a Ted Smith trade-off.

It's also important to acknowledge that when he designed the Aero Commander, people were smaller! This was a long time ago and there was nothing else in its class. No Twin Cessnas... not a 310... or 421... there was no King Air, not even a Queen. No Navajo... nada.

The Commanders have been around so long that two of them were Air Force One for President Dwight Eisenhower!

It truly is an iconic airplane.

No where on that diagram does it say you must return if you are below 50 ft.

You appear to be promoting an unsupported interpretation.

Mike C.

No where on that diagram does it say you must return if you are below 50 ft.

You appear to be promoting an unsupported interpretation.

Mike C.

Having just flown out west in windy weather, this is a huge benefit.


Me, too. This saves $6K/year on hangar alone. The big wing and long tail come at a price.


One, the fail high is preferred. I have two fail high FCUs and I am keeping it that way.

Two, Commanders may have fail high or fail low depending on whether the owner did the AD or AMOC. It relates to having a Woodward FCU and not to the type of airplane.

I was involved in the AD and AMOC, but that's a topic for another day.


Except Conquest II. Caries same fuel, flies same max altitude (with RVSM), flies 10-20 knots faster, so more real range.

IMO, the 441 is the best of the bunch. I have an MU2 because it is way cheaper to get and low cost to operate.

Mike C.

I actually doubt that.

But just in case, I mean that the engine is feathered, the plane is trimmed, power is set on the good engine, and you are established in the configuration for best climb.

Mike C.

No offense, but you, given that you are not a rated pilot, right?

By fly, I generally mean sole control of aircraft from takeoff to touchdown, or at least more than holding the stick for a few min in level cruise (climb, descent, etc)

a) I am not a pro pilot. I just play one on BT. The rest of the time I am trying to run two businesses in an attempt to fund my jet fuel habit. BT is an excellent way to pass the time while on conference calls :-)

b) no offense was meant, so I am glad you did not take! i do think it is hard to be an expert on the market of the owner flown types if you are piloting them yourself. having shopped in that space for a while, it is different than what you wrote about in previous posts. Having flown many of the types that are getting constantly debated on BT, the market makes sense to me. t The misinformation that flies around about types like the mu2 was great for me - it allowed me to buy a plane for very little that does a lot

In an early post in order to present a balanced opinion of the plane I'm flying, I mentioned the shortfalls of the Turbo Commander cabin if you are looking to fit more than four adults in the back of the plane and we seem to have a good deal of piling on of the criticism by MU2 aficionados... but I would really enjoy hearing something about the MU2 cabin. Is it spacious? Several MU2 owners seem to rubbish the long body performance and sing the praises of the short body but I don't hear a lot about the cabin. I have briefly had a look at the inside of one and I wasn't blown away. Am I missing something?

In terms of comparison to the alternatives, I didn't mention how nice the large rectangular picture window is with the high wing and the resultant view is as feature on the the 5.2 psi differential planes, it is very nice.

The passenger cabin is much less cramped than a TBM, which it has just been compared to... there is no aisle in a TBM and overall it isn't even a bit comparable for passenger transport. My only complaint, is that it is cozy if you try to put more than 4 adults in the back for a long flight, not that those 4 adults would be uncomfortable IMHO. The KA90 cabin isn't much better, to me, just different.

It seems to me that you need to move up to a KA200, PC12, CJ3 (maybe a CJ2, maybe another legacy Citation...) or a Premier Jet (I don't know how big a 441 is...) to get a much better cabin in terms of more humans to be comfortably transported for comparable trips - and all these are some multiple of the 690 TC or MU2 to buy. I'm pretty sure this whole thread started due to James looking for a larger cabin, possibly better range...

How many people can comfortably transported in the short body MU2 which James is discussing upgrading from?

Hasn't this MU2 versus TC, little wing with lift flaps and spoilers versus big wing debate has been very well really, really well articulated multiple times in the last couple years and I'm getting a serious, possibly terminal case of the deja vu....

Patrick, I agree completely.

I have done this dance before. Anybody interested can search the forum and find them.

I had the same deja-Vu feeling.