BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Apr 2015, 09:38

Quote:

Only weak point that I recall is the payload. Other than that - a great aircraft.

_________________
Sven

I seem to remember 900 pounds of useful.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Apr 2015, 09:46

The 200 looks like a swell bird for sure, but the Interceptor 400! :eek:

http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepInterceptor400.html

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Apr 2015, 10:55

Username Protected wrote:

Aero Commander learned that the design was not "manufacturing friendly." IIRC, almost 10,000 hours per airframe.

> Hell for stout

Yessiree! In the early 1970's a hailstorm ripped thru MGY - baseball-sized. The only airframe sitting outside that was not totaled, was a Meyers/AC 200.

Around 1967, Commander looked like they were going to compete in the market space. They had the Commander 200 (the Meyers) and the Commander 100 (the Lark/Darter), which was a high wing Cessna 172 look-a-like. Some pictures I've seen have a Mooney-esqe tail, but I'm not sure if that's the same airplane or a misidentified pic.

Along with the Commander twin line, they had a whole line up.

Some say that 1978 was the pinnacle for the GA industry. I think I disagree...it seems to have been some 10 years earlier. There were all kinds of wacky things going on, and you still had a multitude of big name players in the business. Everyone was on an upward trend.

I think the late 70's were simply the top of the ballistic arc. A lot of major players had dropped out, and I think the sales that the big three enjoyed were a case of industry consolidation.

Best,
Rich

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Apr 2015, 13:12

Tracy, whats the name of that insurance adjuster up in Reno or KVGT? he has or had a 200 with a 550 as I recall. Its a really neat looking plane that intrigues me. I tend to like things slightly off the beaten path (hence my lingering fascination with the Rushmeyer R230RG)

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Apr 2015, 13:46

Username Protected wrote:

Tracy, whats the name of that insurance adjuster up in Reno or KVGT? he has or had a 200 with a 550 as I recall. Its a really neat looking plane that intrigues me. I tend to like things slightly off the beaten path (hence my lingering fascination with the Rushmeyer R230RG)

Marv Rogge at KVGT. He's a beaut, still firing on all cylinders at an advanced age. Just make sure you set aside an hour of time if you ask him about his Meyers.

http://www.meyersaircraftowners.org/ind ... &Itemid=15

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 May 2015, 14:08

Username Protected wrote:

Around 1967, Commander looked like they were going to compete in the market space. They had the Commander 200 (the Meyers) and the Commander 100 (the Lark/Darter), which was a high wing Cessna 172 look-a-like. Some pictures I've seen have a Mooney-esqe tail, but I'm not sure if that's the same airplane or a misidentified pic.

Best,
Rich

You are correct regarding the Commander 100 description... The Lark and the Darter were 172 look-a-likes (but the 172 IMHO was and is a much better looking plane) and they do have a Mooney-esqe vertical stabilizer.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 May 2015, 14:16

Username Protected wrote:

Around 1967, Commander looked like they were going to compete in the market space. They had the Commander 200 (the Meyers) and the Commander 100 (the Lark/Darter), which was a high wing Cessna 172 look-a-like. Some pictures I've seen have a Mooney-esqe tail, but I'm not sure if that's the same airplane or a misidentified pic.

Best,
Rich

You are correct regarding the Commander 100 description... The Lark and the Darter were 172 look-a-likes (but the 172 IMHO was and is a much better looking plane) and they do have a Mooney-esqe vertical stabilizer.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 May 2015, 15:05

The door on the Meyers 200 was awful. Anyone who has/had one can tell stories on how theirs had been modified to make a better fit/seal. It is a great flying airplane; built like a tractor.