09 Jul 2025, 19:17 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane  Posted: 07 Mar 2017, 12:03 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 01/11/16
Posts: 462
Post Likes: +361
Aircraft: Bonanza G36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The Commander... WOW!
From Ted Smith to Bob Hoover... the TC is iconic!
The Shrike Commander is a thing of essential beauty.
Owning a TC doesn't make you fly like Bob Hoover any more than buying a baseball glove and bat would make you a Babe Ruth.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 07 Mar 2017, 12:06 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/11/09
Posts: 5959
Post Likes: +5219
Company: Middle of the country company
Location: Tulsa, Ok
Aircraft: Rebooting.......
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Owning a TC doesn't make you fly like Bob Hoover any more than buying a baseball glove and bat would make you a Babe Ruth.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to take up baseball......... 
_________________
Three things tell the truth:
Little kids
Drunks
Yoga pants
Actually, four things.....
Cycling kit..
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 07 Mar 2017, 12:08 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/11/16
Posts: 462
Post Likes: +361
Aircraft: Bonanza G36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: BTW... one of my favorite jets is the Mitsubishi Beechjet 400A... but we'll save that for another thread. I'd love to hear why. Especially since many consider the 400A to be one of the biggest duds ever produced. Unreliable, underpowered, ultra sensitive to fuel icing, heavy flight controls, difficult to do maintenance on, poor runway performance, etc.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 07 Mar 2017, 12:16 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 03/23/08
Posts: 7357
Post Likes: +4088
Company: AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx.
Location: KDVT, 46U
Aircraft: IAR823, LrJet, 240Z
|
|
Username Protected wrote: About those cabin dimensions . . .  Tc is about the same as a short body right? Half of a 200 or Long body? They are all mostly comparable in width and height. Biggest difference noticeable is length.
_________________
Tom Johnson-Az/Wy
AssuredPartners Aerospace Insurance
Tj.Johnson@AssuredPartners.com
C: 602-628-2701
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 07 Mar 2017, 12:34 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/21/09
Posts: 693
Post Likes: +40
Location: KBJC
Aircraft: MU-2B-60
|
|
Username Protected wrote: About those cabin dimensions . . . AC95: 4' 2" wide 4' 8" tall 17' 3" long (not sure what this includes) MU2: 4' 11" wide 4' 3" tall 21' 6" long (including cockpit) 16' 0" excluding cockpit KA200: 4' 6" wide 4' 9" tall 16' 8" long (not sure what this includes)
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 07 Mar 2017, 13:51 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/08/12
Posts: 1445
Post Likes: +940
|
|
Username Protected wrote: BTW... one of my favorite jets is the Mitsubishi Beechjet 400A... but we'll save that for another thread. I'd love to hear why. Especially since many consider the 400A to be one of the biggest duds ever produced. Unreliable, underpowered, ultra sensitive to fuel icing, heavy flight controls, difficult to do maintenance on, poor runway performance, etc.
Unreliable - Not true. Just like any other airplane, if it is well maintained, a B400A is uber reliable.
Underpowered - Compared to most Lears, yes. It comes off the runway at 3000-4000 fpm and before I received my RVSM LOA, I was regularly going to FL430. The JT15D-5 does get a bit wheezy up there, but it will do it, and it will catch up to .74 - .78M depending on temps. Now with RVSM, I am reducing power in the high 30's and low 40's to not overspeed.
Ultra sensitive to fuel icing - I have never heard that one.
Heavy flight controls - Ok, I will give you that one, but I have never found it to be an issue. It is lighter on the controls to me compared to the MU2.
Difficult to do maintenance on - That must be coming from the same King Air and Citation mechanics that Chip talks to. 
Poor runway performance - Compared to most small cabin Citations, yes. I have operated them since the mid 1990's out of a 5100' runway right in the middle of the snow belt. Never gave it much thought unless breaking action was poor-nil. I have had them into KTEX as well. Sure, we had to adjust fuel loads to make 2nd segment or SID climb gradients, but many other types do as well.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 07 Mar 2017, 14:11 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 8160
Post Likes: +10517
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
The fact is I say potato and someone else says potatoe... that is the case with the 400A just like the MU2. All airplanes have their strengths and weaknesses... if there are no other issues... price will be the issue. The Beechjet is a great airplane, it's fast, reliable, maybe more maintenance than a Citation... but it's more airplane in many ways than a Citation. It does get some of it's speed and performance the same way the Mits does, small wing. So yes compared to a big wing Citation it does use more runway and flies like a real jet. It is also much smoother in rough air. The cabin is awesome, the flat floor design is brilliant. It is range limited, but all small jets are. It does require two pilots... and that is the biggest objection I see in regards to market acceptance. Dollar for dollar there's nothing that competes. I talked to a big shop, that if I said their name you would all be familiar... they welcome the Beechjet... but would prefer that we take the MU2's somewhere else. 
_________________
Winners don’t whine.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 07 Mar 2017, 14:29 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/07/13
Posts: 1207
Post Likes: +1197
Company: Tupelo Aero, Inc
Location: Pontotoc , MS (22M)
Aircraft: 1959 Twin Beech 18
|
|
Username Protected wrote: BTW... one of my favorite jets is the Mitsubishi Beechjet 400A... but we'll save that for another thread. I'd love to hear why. Especially since many consider the 400A to be one of the biggest duds ever produced. Unreliable, underpowered, ultra sensitive to fuel icing, heavy flight controls, difficult to do maintenance on, poor runway performance, etc.
I have personally owned one straight 400 and currently operate an early 400A and a 400XP. The 400XP has missed 3 trips in 11 years flying 200-300 hours a year.
Huge Production numbers for a dud 616 RK Serial numbers, 65 RJ serial numbers, 92 MU 300s, and 200 T1As. If the Airforce can't kill it, who can?
_________________
I shop at Lane Bryant....Because that’s where they sell “Big Girl Panties” !
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 07 Mar 2017, 14:42 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/09/09
Posts: 4438
Post Likes: +3304
Aircraft: C182P, Merlin IIIC
|
|
Username Protected wrote: About those cabin dimensions . . . AC95: 4' 2" wide 4' 8" tall 17' 3" long (not sure what this includes) MU2: 4' 11" wide 4' 3" tall 21' 6" long (including cockpit) 16' 0" excluding cockpit KA200: 4' 6" wide 4' 9" tall 16' 8" long (not sure what this includes)
Merlin III line
cabin width 5'-0"
cabin height 4'-9"
pressurized fuselage length 29'-6"
cockpit & cabin length 22'-9"
cabin length 17'-5"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 07 Mar 2017, 14:49 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 8160
Post Likes: +10517
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Merlin III line
cabin width 5'-0"
cabin height 4'-9"
pressurized fuselage length 29'-6"
cockpit & cabin length 22'-9"
cabin length 17'-5" And there's an airplane with a big nice cabin, 7.0 psi! Plus, more ramp presence than most any turboprop... it makes a King Air look weak. And the IIIB is a 300kt airplane. All of this from a salesperson's perspective of course. Even though I've manhandled that thing from the right seat plenty.
_________________
Winners don’t whine.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 07 Mar 2017, 14:52 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/05/15
Posts: 381
Post Likes: +104
Location: KSLC
Aircraft: Divorced: AC690A-10
|
|
Username Protected wrote: BTW... one of my favorite jets is the Mitsubishi Beechjet 400A... but we'll save that for another thread. I'd love to hear why. Especially since many consider the 400A to be one of the biggest duds ever produced. Unreliable, underpowered, ultra sensitive to fuel icing, heavy flight controls, difficult to do maintenance on, poor runway performance, etc.
Myron,
Is it possible you're thinking of the Diamond 1A with the -4 engines?
Stewart
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 07 Mar 2017, 15:13 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/11/09
Posts: 5959
Post Likes: +5219
Company: Middle of the country company
Location: Tulsa, Ok
Aircraft: Rebooting.......
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I talked to a big shop, that if I said their name you would all be familiar... they welcome the Beechjet... but would prefer that we take the MU2's somewhere else.  Pretty sure that statement applies to all the former/existing ASC's!!!
_________________
Three things tell the truth:
Little kids
Drunks
Yoga pants
Actually, four things.....
Cycling kit..
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane Posted: 07 Mar 2017, 15:15 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/09/09
Posts: 4438
Post Likes: +3304
Aircraft: C182P, Merlin IIIC
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Merlin III line
cabin width 5'-0"
cabin height 4'-9"
pressurized fuselage length 29'-6"
cockpit & cabin length 22'-9"
cabin length 17'-5" And there's an airplane with a big nice cabin, 7.0 psi! Plus, more ramp presence than most any turboprop... it makes a King Air look weak. And the IIIB is a 300kt airplane. All of this from a salesperson's perspective of course. Even though I've manhandled that thing from the right seat plenty.
Chip, you have got to be the brightest aircraft sales and adquisitions guy I have ever encountered! 
Gannt had about the nicest IIIB in the country back in about 2012 or so. Gannt sold it to a guy up close to Chicago who was later told (by his instructor) that he would never fly it solo. Thats when JA had it and was selling it for the guy. I was torn between that plane and the IIIC I ended up buying. JA ended up selling it to Mexico as I recall.
Aviation is a small world. And a downright serious one at times.
Last edited on 07 Mar 2017, 15:44, edited 2 times in total.
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
