14 Mar 2025, 09:13 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Commander 840 or better Posted: 15 Feb 2025, 22:04 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 11/30/12 Posts: 4561 Post Likes: +5103 Location: Santa Fe, NM (KSAF)
Aircraft: B200, 500B
|
|
Username Protected wrote: A pic of the byzantine bladder fuel system of the early 690 series: Attachment: commander-690-bladders-1.png I'd guess that is 200 lbs heavier than a wet wing would be, which is less than 10 lbs per tank. Do all bladders have fuel senders in them? Probably not, but I bet there are lot of those, too, since you have lost of dihedral to account for. Mike C. You got that drawing from an article that also says this: "When gassing up, fill the center tank first, then alternate filling the wing tanks so that the fuel load is balanced. If you top off one wing while the other is low on fuel, a big gotcha can kick in: the airplane can tip over on the heavy wing." That is laughably false, on multiple counts. What numbnut designs a plane that can be damaged by simply putting fuel in it? That sounds like a horrible idea.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Commander 840 or better Posted: 15 Feb 2025, 22:40 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19727 Post Likes: +24846 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: What numbnut designs a plane that can be damaged by simply putting fuel in it? That sounds like a horrible idea. There are a number of planes that require fuel be kept within some balance limits. MU2 was one, Some tip tank Lears are another. The Commander gear is so wide that it surely doesn't have this issue. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Commander 840 or better Posted: 17 Feb 2025, 23:27 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/09/11 Posts: 1893 Post Likes: +2546 Company: Naples Jet Center Location: KAPF KPIA
Aircraft: EMB500 AC95 AEST
|
|
Username Protected wrote: A pic of the byzantine bladder fuel system of the early 690 series: Attachment: commander-690-bladders-1.png I'd guess that is 200 lbs heavier than a wet wing would be, which is less than 10 lbs per tank. Do all bladders have fuel senders in them? Probably not, but I bet there are lot of those, too, since you have lost of dihedral to account for. Mike C. You got that drawing from an article that also says this: "When gassing up, fill the center tank first, then alternate filling the wing tanks so that the fuel load is balanced. If you top off one wing while the other is low on fuel, a big gotcha can kick in: the airplane can tip over on the heavy wing." That is laughably false, on multiple counts. What numbnut designs a plane that can be damaged by simply putting fuel in it? That sounds like a horrible idea.
The trolls without any Commander experience are many. It’s better to ignore them Jim.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Commander 840 or better Posted: 17 Feb 2025, 23:46 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/09/11 Posts: 1893 Post Likes: +2546 Company: Naples Jet Center Location: KAPF KPIA
Aircraft: EMB500 AC95 AEST
|
|
Username Protected wrote: -5 at FL 260 this week 274 knots true.
And the nose wheel system is not gimmicky - it’s really a genius design by Ted Smith which gives the plane likely the best crosswind capability in GA. One has to understand it as it’s different, but it works great. The brakes on the fat tires are also about the most effective in the business with soft field capability as a bonus. Downside is it’s not trailing link and it will tell you when you get it wrong. Bruce, it’s funny you posted this picture. The value on this particular 840 seems really hard to beat! I have been eyeballing this plane on controller for some time now.
I agree. Great flying plane and that panel is a joy. However, plane going to contract this week. Same plane I flew back from Munich years ago and then into the craziest ice I’ve seen before or since descending into Kallispell, MT. Then there were the lobsters I picked up in Portland, Maine that got loose in the cabin and which I had to block from the cockpit with a stack of NOS approach plates. I digress, but N48BA saved my butt a couple of times!
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Commander 840 or better Posted: 18 Feb 2025, 06:35 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 09/22/21 Posts: 29 Post Likes: +113
Aircraft: SF50
|
|
Username Protected wrote: What numbnut designs a plane that can be damaged by simply putting fuel in it? That sounds like a horrible idea. There are a number of planes that require fuel be kept within some balance limits. MU2 was one, Some tip tank Lears are another. The Commander gear is so wide that it surely doesn't have this issue. Mike C.
The Cirrus SF50 also has such a limitation:
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
_________________ Mark Woglom
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Commander 840 or better Posted: 18 Feb 2025, 13:02 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 09/28/11 Posts: 870 Post Likes: +509 Location: KLWM, Lawrence Municipal, North Andover,Ma
Aircraft: A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: What numbnut designs a plane that can be damaged by simply putting fuel in it? That sounds like a horrible idea. There are a number of planes that require fuel be kept within some balance limits. MU2 was one, Some tip tank Lears are another. The Commander gear is so wide that it surely doesn't have this issue. Mike C. When I was a lineboy in the 80's an MU2 arrival had you in hiding. 6 tanks, Prist. And, although it never happened to me trapping the ladder under a tip tank was a possibility if incorrectly positioned because the tank would drop feet , not inches as you added fuel.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Commander 840 or better Posted: 18 Feb 2025, 17:16 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19727 Post Likes: +24846 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: When I was a lineboy in the 80's an MU2 arrival had you in hiding. Fueling an MU2 was no fun. I've done it myself a few times. You also had to be sure the line person knew how to do it or you had to help/watch. It could take 20-30 minutes sometimes with single hose. Two hose was a lot better. My Citation is a dream to fuel, no ladders, just two holes, no balance limits, etc. Even so, some desire the single point, but I see that as extra weight and maintenance versus the over the wing ports. The only downside to the Citation is that it takes a long time just for flow rate. On the other hand, oil was a dream on the TPE331, never used any. The JT15D is not like that at all, which is annoying. But I have gotten used to it. Fueling a Commander would be no fun due to ladders and multiple ports, but not as bad as an MU2. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Commander 840 or better Posted: 18 Feb 2025, 17:39 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 11/25/16 Posts: 1885 Post Likes: +1557 Location: 2IS
Aircraft: C501
|
|
Username Protected wrote: On the other hand, oil was a dream on the TPE331, never used any. The JT15D is not like that at all, which is annoying. But I have gotten used to it. I was also a little surprised by this. What's your consumption rate Mike?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Commander 840 or better Posted: 18 Feb 2025, 20:56 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19727 Post Likes: +24846 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I was also a little surprised by this. What's your consumption rate Mike? Hard to say exactly since I having trouble knowing what the oil level is in the engine. This is another annoying thing that I haven't figured out quite yet. The TPE331 was easy, the dip stick reading was the same every time I looked at it, the JT15D not so much. I figure I am around 25 hours/qt, but I'll have to review my notes to be sure. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Commander 840 or better Posted: 18 Feb 2025, 23:21 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19727 Post Likes: +24846 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I have not put oil in a TPE331 in 35 years and way over 8000 hours. The largest usage of oil in the TPE331 is for SOAP (oil analysis) kits. The mechanic usually put a tiny bit back in to bring the level back up after that. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Commander 840 or better Posted: 19 Feb 2025, 00:00 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 03/22/14 Posts: 110 Post Likes: +67 Location: KMYF/ Kamiah, ID
Aircraft: C525, AC90
|
|
Same here Bruce, I didn’t add oil to the TPE 331 ever. The chain was always wet. I think I added hydraulic fluid maybe once in 3 years. Commanders are awesome if they fit your mission. Never had a fuel bladder leak. No issues fueling one wing first. Easy to fly. Great choice for a new multi-pilot. Loss of engine on take-off not much different than a citation. Awesome rudder.
I did add nitrogen and oxygen and changed a good share of light bulbs but a 60 year old turboprop is going to need some attention. Hopefully Garmin will implement the txi engine gauge for TPE-331 for Commanders. Garmin already had the Garmin G950 for commanders with Garmin engine gauges. Should be a no-brainer.
_________________ MEL, Comm. Instr. C525(S) type
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Commander 840 or better Posted: 19 Feb 2025, 12:31 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 11/25/16 Posts: 1885 Post Likes: +1557 Location: 2IS
Aircraft: C501
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I have not put oil in a TPE331 in 35 years and way over 8000 hours. Someone may have, and then we probably had to drain it, I don’t know. Oil level is for inspections, unlike any Pratt or jet. TFE's are the same way...if you're adding oil to a TFE731; there's a leak.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Commander 840 or better Posted: 19 Feb 2025, 12:34 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 11/25/16 Posts: 1885 Post Likes: +1557 Location: 2IS
Aircraft: C501
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I was also a little surprised by this. What's your consumption rate Mike? Hard to say exactly since I having trouble knowing what the oil level is in the engine. This is another annoying thing that I haven't figured out quite yet. The TPE331 was easy, the dip stick reading was the same every time I looked at it, the JT15D not so much. I figure I am around 25 hours/qt, but I'll have to review my notes to be sure. Mike C. I'm probably slightly more than that, but I also have 2 Garloc seals to change.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Commander 840 or better Posted: 19 Feb 2025, 13:50 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19727 Post Likes: +24846 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: TFE's are the same way...if you're adding oil to a TFE731; there's a leak. Nice. I think the JT15D, PT6 oil usage is corporate policy for Pratt. After all, they built radial engines at one time, so that's just the way engines should work. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
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
|
|
|
|