That wasn't the point. The point was to give a reference for parts or maintenance costs.

In any case, I'm pretty convinced you can run a MU-2 and Commander very close in cost. I'll quote owner Don V (a Jetprop 980 owner) from the Commander Forum:

Last year was a little over $30k-- maybe $35k at most. And that actually included upgrading the landing lights to LEDs, which I didn't need to do. However, I didn't have any gear or prop overhauls last year.

I try to fly under 150 hours per year so that I only do one inspection each year-- I think I flew around 100 hours last year.

It would be interesting to know where the money went. Is it mostly base inspection rates, or is the squawk list long every year, or are there particular high dollar things that need chronic attention?

If my worst year is $25K and his best is $35K, that is a qualitative difference.

Mike C.

I don't think it was said that was his best year only his most recent year, which included upgrades.

For those interested, here's a pictorial of a recent trip I did in my friends 1969 681 from Montgomry Field to Stockton. You can view as guest.

http://www.twincommandergroup.com/index.php?topic=81.0

Any ideas on how to get ahold of a 690A POH in PDF form? I've looked pretty extensively for one on the Internet....

Patrick - don't think there is one online, but sometimes you can get one on Ebay. Or buy from Twin Commander Inc, of course.

If you need the performance data, that can be found on the TCFG website. Here's the performance data on the 690B:

http://twincommander.org/aircraft-models/turbo/model-690b/

Test flight today of a 690a and it was pretty impressive. Made my Baron 58 seem like an altitude restricted little plane for my trip home.

Patrick, was it a -10 airplane or -5, sounds fun

Adam - just came across this post. Great photos; Stan's 681 looks like one great plane.

Patrick - good to hear you liked it!

In what budget range would you like to be? A's with -5's are normally the cheapest way in. Both the A and B models have the shorter wings and come with max 384gal internal fuel. You can add the slipper tanks on the wings (see image), bringing capacity up to 484gal, but they rob about 7kts of speed.

From the 840 model and upwards, all that fuel is internal. They have longer wings and can also climb higher. But they're more costly to get into.



Thanks! The 681 is a good choice for the budget conscious. Not quite as fast, not quite as good cabin diff, but lighter and simpler systems and less mandatory inspections.

It was a 690A with -5 engines. Impressive machine. I've made an offer on it, we'll see what happens.
It looks like there are some nice ones publicly on the market and who knows how many potentially for sale but not currently with the brokers. Also, looks like the -10s on the market at higher price point may be actually "cheaper" if you give the appropriate value to the upgrade... believe Bruce pointed this as weighing on prices a bit.
Having just been through an avionics upgrade on the Baron and the post installation dialing it in, my preference is to have my goal panel already installed rather than dealing with the downtime and energy of overseeing an upgrade myself.
Given what I would be getting in terms of performance upgrade relative to what I'm in today, I think I will be perfectly happy with the -5 engines, for now...

I was certainly wishing I had been in the 690A rather than the Baron yesterday afternoon between the Palm Springs area and Camarillo with the Santa Ana winds funneling through the Banning Pass - I ended up aborting the trip on my way into the pass due to the turbulence. I returned to the airport and regained my composure, re-planning my route and then setting off again. This time doing some circling climbing east of the airport up to 10,500 and then heading over the mountains in the smoother air on a more southern route. L.A. and the Valley were socked in with what looked benign clouds but ended up being quite messy upon my descent into them. It was a rough ride and had me wishing I was in a bigger aircraft.

I believe that. The -10 engine is cheaper to run, gives more performance, and will be more valued at sale. The only downside is that you pay more to acquire it.


The Commanders are not the best for turbulence (low wing loading) and there will be days you can't out climb it, particularly in the west.

Mike C.

I believe that. The -10 engine is cheaper to run, gives more performance, and will be more valued at sale. The only downside is that you pay more to acquire it.


The Commanders are not the best for turbulence (low wing loading) and there will be days you can't out climb it, particularly in the west.

Mike C.

That's the tradeoff.

Don't push the Commander into heavy turbulence going fast. Slow down. There have been breakups from that.

A great way to slow down is to climb. Sometimes there is turbulence at altitude (like strong wave) and they only thing you can do is slow down.


Yeah, them is piston numbers. You will get 2500 FPM, 10K in ~4 minutes.

You don't fly at 10K ft in a turboprop. With the -5 and big wing, you are probably aiming for FL200 generally. Get a -10 and FL250+ is on the menu, and you can get close to 300 knots.

Mike C.

The -5'airplanes awesome values. You give up 25 to 30 knots but you save 250 to 300k.