Twin Commander
General Category => Buying A Twin Commander => Topic started by: JimC on March 21, 2022, 01:20:51 pm
-
I'm looking for a 500 that's in flying condition. Panel and interior can both be in need of TLC but I need a good airframe & engines.
No, I didn't buy a Turbine commander in 2020 - I ended up buying a King Air B200! I was under contract for a Commander, but we couldn't make it work and I had an end-of-year tax deadline.
I'd like to refine the piston end of the fleet and I think a 500 is the plane I'm looking for.
I'm in tire kicking mode and will transition to a cash-in-hand buyer in about 30 days.
Yes, I'll be calling Bruce soon if he doesn't call me first.
-
Exciting stuff, I would be interested in how the market is for the 500 models. Just curious I don’t fly my 980 enough. I certainly don’t need two machines
Tell us about your king air.
-
There aren't many 500s on the market. Controller has 3 in the US right now. They seem to be in very nice shape or ready to part out - not a lot of in between. Bruce has already located one that's off market but I haven't gone to see it yet.
The King Air is a Raisbeck Platinum B200 - that means it's about the same as a factory B250. The PT6-42 engines are on the MORE program so I have no full HSIs or OHs for the next few thousand hours unless data indicates it to be necessary. It's lighter than most - when I remove the refreshment center that I don't use, it should drop under 8,000 lbs. That will give me 4,600 lbs useful load, or over 1,000 lbs with full tanks. The max legal seating is 13 but I'm going to settle at 9 or 10. It's RVSM under section 9 and I've had it to FL330, but FL310 is the sweet spot - that's where I hit the Carson speed at normal power. I have a temp limit (-47C) that makes FL350 rarely a good option - it's either too cold, or the winds aren't high enough to trade off for the higher cabin altitude. I cruise at about 280kts at about 500-550 lbs/hr depending on altitude. Time to climb unrestricted to FL280 is about 16 minutes.
Passengers love the plane, but I do wish it burned less fuel. Nobody wears headsets in the back. I'm incredibly comfortable in the pilot seat. I'm flying enough that the calendar items aren't killing me but the MORE intervals (150 hr) don't line up with the Beech intervals (200 hr) and that's annoying.
It handles short strips well enough - like most twins, it lands shorter than it takes off. My shortest has been 2440, but not at gross weight. I haven't had it on grass yet except for taxing and parking. It does have the high float gear that gets the tire pressure down to near 60 psi. It hand flies as well as anything I've owned.
I really like the high pressurization (6.4 psi) - it makes the flights at 310 much easier. It holds pressurization well. My longest flight to date has been 6 hours (1,400 nm westbound into the wind) and my longest distance has been 1,600 nm (eastbound with the jet stream averaging over 350 kts door to door.)
If I was offered a swap for a 1000 I'd consider it, but would probably stick with the B200 out of inertia if nothing else.
-
Reading that just boggles my mind, in thinking of how good the 1000 is-- especially the 695B. Basically, the ONLY thing the King Air does better is carry more people. If you have six or fewer passengers (not counting crew), the 1000 is faster, goes higher, farther, has a lower cabin altitude, and burns significantly less fuel.
It is really sad that they aren't making 1000s any more... what a fantastic airplane.
-
Also, I'm glad to hear that the market for 500s has picked up. For a long time, it seemed like they were really cheap-- especially when the Forest Service and the fire contractors were dumping them. 500s are a great airplane as well.
-
I double checked the pressurization limit - it's 6.6, not 6.4. My valve is set at 6.5 although 6.6 is legal. The 1000 has a 6.7 relief valve. The 1000 has about 12% more range (using less fuel!) at any given altitude. The ceiling is the same at FL350, and I was wrong about that -47C limit - it's -57C. (I need to go back to recurrent!) The 1000 limit is -54 C. But no, I haven't been at FL350 yet. For the really LR solo pilot flights, I like a little less cabin altitude.
There are a few other things:
The King Air cabin is definitely quieter and I think the cockpit is quieter. Part of that is running the Raisbeck props at the slowest speed possible - I can gain 4-6 knots by running them at 1800 vs 1600 RPM. Running them slower makes for a much more comfortable long distance flight for only a few minutes of time.
I show both planes using 2100 feet to clear a 50 ft obstacle with an ISA sea level takeoff at gross.
The B200 has better hot & high performance. Seriously, it does. Check the manuals for gross weight takeoffs to clear 50ft at 6000 ft & 30 degrees C. I get about 4,000 ft for the Raisbeck B200 and 4,300 for the 1000. That may not matter to everyone, but that's where I live. It's a small difference, but I gotta claim my victories where I find them. ;)
I have not figured out how to load a B200 out of cg with anything other than lead bricks.
There are B200 mechanics and pilots everywhere.
The B200 is VERY well built. It's a super solid airplane. Nothing breaks.
The B200 seats can easily convert into lie-almost-flat lounges if you have 4 or fewer people. I don't know if the Commander seats will do this, but they should - there's enough space.
The B200 turbulent air penetration speed is higher, and Va is higher. Va isn't as important (it's a direct function of flaps up stall speed, period) but a higher turbulent air penetration speed is nicer. The 1000 has a higher Mmo of 0.60 vs 0.52. The Raisbeck B200 has a significantly lower Vmca (78 vs 95.) Flap and gear speeds are almost identical.
As far as speeds - when I look in the 1000 POH, I see the same speeds that I see in my cockpit. 11,000 lb, FL310, ISA, 98% shows 281 kts for the 1000 - I can get 280 at that altitude at gross. I am burning more fuel, of course. The 1000 seems to be more weight sensitive - the speed comes up faster as fuel is burned.
The Commander baggage compartment wins hands down, period, full stop, no contest. Beech likes to say the baggage is "accessible in flight" - but that's what your carryon is for. Only a few bags are accessible anyway - the top of the pile. Schlepping bags up the steps and throwing it in a big pile behind the net is a pain. Bikes are a pain. Anything awkwardly shaped is a pain. Finding your toolbox is a pain. It's got a 410 lb limit, but I can't figure out how you can fit 410 lb of normal baggage in that space. Did I mention I don't like the baggage setup? There are some aftermarket baggage lockers for $80k.
There just aren't enough 695Bs - weren't there only 8 made? I'd probably trade for one of those, but they never show up.
Looking at the POH, it seems that the 1000 is really overusing the wing at 10,500+ lbs. All performance drops significantly at that weight. One other way to look at it is to say performance really improves as you burn fuel! The B200 is used by the army as the C12 at 14,000 lbs and the same wing is used in the B350 special missions in the 16,000 lbs range. The B200 can lift a LOT more without getting into higher-drag AoAs.
Anyone who wants to convince me that I should be in a Commander 1000 - let's go! I'll trade rides anytime. So far I've only flown a 690B-10, and it was nice but I really want 6.x pressurization and long range tanks.
-
Where the 695B makes a difference is if you need the higher takeoff, and especially the higher landing weights.
I have heard that the 5 blade props make a big difference in cabin noise level and vibration, but I haven't tried it. Also, if you have never been in a 1000, it is already significantly quieter than a 690. That said, I would guess it is noisier than the King Air.
Lastly, good luck finding a 1000! Jim at Eagle Creek told me the last one he sold went for well over $2 million.
-
And that's the problem - the year I bought the B200, there was just one decent 1000 for sale. I got it under contract but we couldn't get through the prebuy. I had to get a plane in service by the end of the year, so I went to the B200 market and I made my first working flight in November.
Both planes are miles ahead of all the other turboprops in the hot & high category. The P180 has a balanced field length longer than my longest runway on a hot July day. The accelerate-go distance is almost 4 miles! The long body MU-2s are fairly anemic up high and any early shortbody Mu-2 is also barely climbing on one. The MU-2 Solitaire with -10s is tempting but doesn't have the range - and there are currently zero for sale. The 441 is competitive with a -10 upgrade. There's a Merlin IIIB in my shared hangar but it sure is a runway hog at this altitude.
I've had cold calls offering to buy my B200 for much more than I paid, but my response is - what else am I going to buy? Like I said the 1000 may be a better plane for me but it's not a zero-cost or zero-effort switch.
And back to topic....anyone got a 500 just sitting around? :)
-
One last post-- since you mentioned the Merlin IIIB, it is a fantastic airplane if you are flying at sea level and long runways. Fast, quiet, efficient, lots of room, fantastic environmental system, but not a hot and high airplane, nor a short runway airplane. Nor an easy airplane to fly single pilot, although it certainly can be done.
-
Great thread. Thanks for the details on the King Air. I used to fly a -41. We rarely climbed above 25,000’ or burned less than about 680 in cruise. Best of both worlds to get the good useful load along with -42 performance bump.
From the 1000 fan club it is worth mentioning that along with lower fuel burns, the maintenance costs on the Garrets are 1/3 to 1/2 that of the Pratts.
Jim our Shrike may prove to be more than we can justify in 6 months or so. I hope we are able to keep it for the long term. But in case we do not please make contact via steeldrivincrew@yahoo.com
-
Once I decided on the KA 200 series, it was pretty obvious to me that I wanted an early B200. The B200 gets a pressurization bump over the straight 200 and it also has the -42 engines installed. Those two things (plus winglets) are what allow me to get up to FL310 without difficulty. I'm still climbing at 1000+ fpm when I pass FL300 on an ISA day. No matter the altitude, I'm allergic to burning more than 600/hr in cruise. At FL270 and higher, I'm under that. If I'm lower on a really short leg (I did a 35 minute VFR leg yesterday) I just pull it back to 600 or less. It makes only five minutes difference on a flight that short.
I wanted an early model to keep it light. Newer planes are almost universally fatter. If you buy a B260 from the Beech factory today, your full fuel payload is....182 lbs! I weight more than that just by my lonesome. I think by the time I'm done my full fuel payload will be 1,050. Obviously there are a lot of B260s flying over gross.
I'm hoping the MORE program will keep my engine costs down closer to Garret levels. The only way I'll know is to fly 2,000 hours and check my wallet.
-
Congrats on the king air, they are great airplanes. Their cabin beats the commander particularly the 1000. The 980s have that window that give it an open airy feeling. Cargo is so easy to load on the commander and the compartment is over six feet long. Plus the 695s have auto start which I find crazy. Even the new pt-6 airplanes are still throwing the fuel on manually during a start.
I flew a king air 250 for a little while and the performance was similar to the 695 commanders, except for the fuel burn. The full fuel weight is an issue as you pointed out.
King airs just look like a classic. The commander is more unique and brings out comments wherever you go. That’s one of the nice fun things about the commanders. They usually draw out the old owner/pilots. That never happened the little time I flew the king air.
-
I'm sorry to have distracted from your 500 search, but... I have to say that of the 1000s I have flown, I have not noticed a big difference in cruise performance based on weight. That may be what the book says, but I never noticed that. That said, it has been about 8-9 years since I have flown a 1000.
One reason I really like the 980 is that it is always operated at light weights, relative to the 1000, which makes the performance really great. The higher MMO and pressurization would be nice, but that's the price you pay for the light weight performance.
-
Coming back to your 500 search, there are always a bunch of rough ones around. You might have to accept one that has been sitting for a while.
-
I have no problem with rough. Rough is OK, especially the interior - as long as the price matches reality.
I'm looking at two now - one ex USFS w/ 10,000+ hrs but low time engines and a panel from this century. The other is very low time, but hasn't had a new instrument in decades. It has a LORAN but no autopilot. What's the most reasonable 2-axis autopilot available today?
The dream plane is a 500B with a Merlyn TN package (I live over 6000 ft) and a crew door (I'll be loaded with stuff.)
-
Are there any gotchas with very early 500Bs? I'm looking at one of the first ones (serial number < 10) and it's LIGHT - 4450 lbs. My research shows that the corrugated skins were lighter but slower, and the switch was made during 500B production at serial number 197 to go to thicker smooth skins. Does this sound right?
It seems that average 500Bs are about 4850 lbs and fat ones are over 5000 lbs. 400 lbs is a LOT of weight to leave behind - is it all skins or were there other structural changes?
Edit: I've found other 500Bs with serial numbers under 197 that have corrugated skins, and they're not this light. Does anyone know where the 400 lbs was added?
-
Three weeks and I'm done. That was fast, even for me.
-
So? What did you get?
-
It's under contract but hasn't closed. I'd rate closing as "very likely" but it's not a 100% done deal yet. I'll share when I'm the owner.
-
My brand new 1963 Commander 500B is in its new hangar. Unfortunately, it blew an o-ring in the Cleveland caliper right at the end of training my CFI, so I'm down for a few days.
It's a AirCenter conversion with almost all the mods. It's missing the co-pilot's frameless window, flap gap seals, and front door. I'll be adding the first two quickly, and the door later this summer.
It needs some work but we put almost 20 hours on it over the last two days bringing it home and doing as much training with Gary as possible.
-
I assume the door adds even more forward weight?
-
Also, pictures? I know they exist because I saw one on FaceBook!
-
Yep, the door will be more forward weight. I'm holding off for now. Removing the nose would be impractical without a donor nose - too much is missing and/or glued to new parts.
I think the cg is accurate - my trim lives at the end of the range in the nose up position and I need serious muscle to prevent a nose slam on landing.
Pictures: (not much has changed; they aren't old)
https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/200803711/n151lt-1963-aero-commander-500b
I'll put up some of my own when I have something noteworthy to show.