Twin Commander

General Category => Airframe => Twin Commander Turbine => Topic started by: JMA on November 14, 2017, 02:50:19 pm

Title: Unsure
Post by: JMA on November 14, 2017, 02:50:19 pm
980 with a 96010 CN?
Seems like a waste either way sitting at a museum.
Too much to fix up????


https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8630616
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: donv on November 14, 2017, 06:10:28 pm
Typo. Should be 95010.

https://www.planelogger.com/Aircraft/Registration/3963/607487

I wouldn't describe it as "preserved"-- I wonder if it was stolen and confiscated by the Mexican police?

PJ is Netherlands Antilles, and HK is Colombia...

980 with a 96010 CN?
Seems like a waste either way sitting at a museum.
Too much to fix up????


https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8630616
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: SKYFLYER on November 14, 2017, 06:39:43 pm
EL CHAPPO'S backup aircraft 8)
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: donv on November 14, 2017, 06:47:34 pm
Okay, curiouser and curiouser. My mistake-- this is 95010:

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/7940195

Looks much better!

But the airplane in the picture doesn't look like a 1000, to me (in addition to the fact it says "980" on the winglet).

Lots of Commanders were stolen down there, and games were certainly played with the registration numbers. I imagine Bruce has some stories to tell!
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: JMA on November 15, 2017, 08:52:33 am
Just like me Don- peaks my interest.
Hard to imagine thats the same plane!   Radio antenna on the tail added?




Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: donv on November 16, 2017, 12:33:59 am
You can see it in the background in this picture, and it is unquestionably not a 1000... Almost certainly a 980, but which one?

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Mexico-Air-Force/Rockwell-690A-Turbo-Commander/2353583/L
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: JMA on November 16, 2017, 12:14:56 pm
I show x3 980's stolen through the years:
Fun trying to guess Don!

695-95029 Jetprop 980         N9782S - N700MM - N600MM - stolen 16Dec87 Vero Beach, FL, USA; never recovered

695-95048 Jetprop 980         N9800S - N980DT - [stolen 11Dec88 Lebanon, MO, USA; never recovered; canx 02Apr98]

695-95067 Jetprop 980         N9819S - YV-407CP [stolen 13Jan87 Caracas-Oscar Machado Zuloaga International, Venezuela; possibly since seized by Colombian AF
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: Bruce Byerly on November 16, 2017, 09:45:52 pm
I show x3 980's stolen through the years:
Fun trying to guess Don!

695-95029 Jetprop 980         N9782S - N700MM - N600MM - stolen 16Dec87 Vero Beach, FL, USA; never recovered

695-95048 Jetprop 980         N9800S - N980DT - [stolen 11Dec88 Lebanon, MO, USA; never recovered; canx 02Apr98]

695-95067 Jetprop 980         N9819S - YV-407CP [stolen 13Jan87 Caracas-Oscar Machado Zuloaga International, Venezuela; possibly since seized by Colombian AF

980DT - I remember that one. Detroit Tool.  Nice people. They had a 690B that used to belong to Collins and was a equipped with APS 65 and Efis. I thought I was in tall cotton flying that thing.  Then I think they sold out and the new owner ran it into the ground. The plane sat for a few years and I went down, dusted it off, a flew it out without much trouble.  I sold the plane but can?t recall where it ended up.
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: JMA on November 21, 2017, 12:03:24 pm
Love the knowledge and history Bruce.  Im always fascinated by the Commander stories I hear.
Never seen a cargo door like this?
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: donv on November 21, 2017, 06:57:49 pm
That was the factory cargo door for the 900. I don't know how many were made, but I've seen one in real life.
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: donv on December 01, 2017, 04:27:00 pm
Here is one with it...

http://jetav.com/portfolio/1985-turbo-commander-900-with-dash-10-conversion/
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: Steve binnette on December 02, 2017, 12:30:59 pm
That?s crazy I have never seen that.  Was there a specific use besides just a general cargo door?

  Wonder if it made it noisier in the cabin.
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: donv on December 02, 2017, 03:52:37 pm
I saw it mostly used for air ambulance-- it was supposed to make loading a stretcher much easier.

Then Aero Air came up with the mod which allowed the cabin door to open all the way, and LifePort made their stretcher which slides in along a track, and it really became less of a big deal. I did a lot of air ambulance with the Aero Air system, and never had an issue loading a patient into the Commander.
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: Bruce Byerly on December 06, 2017, 02:19:43 am
I have one in the shop now for Garmin TXi install, paint, interior, etc.  Nice door if you need it to haul an engine or a cow. There were around a half dozen done IIRC.  One with 18,000 hours of Med Evac use out of gravel strips in Canada is now in Bolivia, one in Texas, one in IL now.
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: donv on December 06, 2017, 09:11:55 pm
Bruce, were those done at the factory when the airplanes were new, or were they done afterwards?
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: Bruce Byerly on December 08, 2017, 12:50:20 am
Bruce, were those done at the factory when the airplanes were new, or were they done afterwards?

Factory option Don.  It?s a huge door and structural mod.
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: donv on December 08, 2017, 02:02:42 am
That's what I remembered. We looked at using one in the early air ambulance days, but it was just too expensive to buy at the time.

And those doors are only on 900s, right? No 1000s?
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: Bruce Byerly on December 09, 2017, 01:22:29 am
That's what I remembered. We looked at using one in the early air ambulance days, but it was just too expensive to buy at the time.

And those doors are only on 900s, right? No 1000s?

No 1000?s that I know of - but no reason that a 1000 couldn?t have been done or a 900 converted. Same plane. Seems like it would have made more sense to do 1000?s given the gross weight. A well equipped 900 with a door might carry a skinny pilot and and an iPad with max fuel by the book but we all know how much attention was paid to the limitations ...
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: Adam Frisch on December 09, 2017, 02:16:47 pm
Bruce - does the increased MTOW of the 900/1000 models get eaten up by the heavier empty weight, or do they actually have the biggest useful load?
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: Bruce Byerly on December 10, 2017, 01:23:26 am
Bruce - does the increased MTOW of the 900/1000 models get eaten up by the heavier empty weight, or do they actually have the biggest useful load?

Adam - They seem to weigh between 7,250 and 7,750 empty so they have higher useful, well, the 1000 anyway. SN 208 is close to 4,400 lbs useful but it?s a B model.  The 900 we operated most frequently was 7360 empty on a 10,775 ramp weight.  Proper Garminizing with full wiring harness streamlining gains a couple hundred pounds of useful, or about the amount of the soundproofing, etc that most have gained over the years.   :) Of course they don?t seem to complain much about what you haul.

I had someone last week tell me that they knew someone who had a cousin who had a friend who ferried with 525 gallons of fuel and another 700 lbs or so of stuff in a Shrike and it climbed about the same as it did empty.  ;D Maybe a slight exaggeration on the performance but the point was made.
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: Adam Frisch on December 10, 2017, 09:06:27 am
That's impressive. That's 1200lbs with full tanks. Enough to fill the whole cabin with skinny supermodels or about 3 Midwesterners ;)
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: donv on December 10, 2017, 12:27:30 pm
The 695B is really impressive. You can basically fill it up and go without worrying about it. The one I used to fly had the heavy CRT EFIS, so it was pretty heavy empty, but even it was never an issue.

Bruce, are there any mods to increase the gross weight of the 900? It was pushing the envelope a bit with the dash 5s, but with the dash 10 it wouldn't be an issue.

 
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: donv on December 10, 2017, 12:34:35 pm
Incidentally, one thing I've often heard is "Well sure, we might be a bit overgross, but look at what the 1000 can do-- and it's the same landing gear!"

Which is only mostly true...
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: Bruce Byerly on December 11, 2017, 06:11:54 pm
With a couple SRL boxes and some misc parts along with the higher power 511k engines (not -10T?s), and a wheelbarrow full of cash, you can put a 1000 data plate on a 900.  I have never found anyone willing to spend the money to do it.  But some were done. There are no structural changes that I know of.  The 695B models had some changes including  a couple thicker stringers, a coupe fuel cells to accommodate the thicker stringers, and some gear parts but several were converted in the field after production. 
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: Bruce Byerly on December 11, 2017, 06:16:09 pm
Incidentally, one thing I've often heard is "Well sure, we might be a bit overgross, but look at what the 1000 can do-- and it's the same landing gear!"

Which is only mostly true...

Ha.  Sounds also like a Shrike cheerleader  - ?look at that - it?s the same gear as that 12,000 lb plane over there!?
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: donv on December 11, 2017, 06:31:52 pm
Is there much difference between the -511k and the -10T?

I always wondered-- what was the difference between the 501 and 511, anyway?
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: Bruce Byerly on December 13, 2017, 12:10:48 am
Is there much difference between the -511k and the -10T?

I always wondered-- what was the difference between the 501 and 511, anyway?

I don?t remember exactly what they did to go from a 501 to the 511 mods. The 511 on the 695/A/B has a higher torque high speed pinion shaft or something like that - they are higher HP and are equipped with some differnet gearbox parts.  I believe there?s another sensor in the inlet too depending upon the configuration but the compressor and hot section are effectively the same afaik.  I remember converting some late model -10T?s as they had most of the right parts even though they started as 254K?s on a 900.  Recently I inquired about converting some -10T?s and it was simply not practical between the inlet and the gearbox changes.  There outta be an evolution chart.  I get lost on the difference between the -10T 513, 515, and 516 models. I think they cross somehow from the -5 251,252 and 254K from which they are modified.  The good engine shops straighten me out in 5 minutes. There have certainly been a lot of changes over the years. 
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: Adam Frisch on December 13, 2017, 07:32:57 pm
So what you're saying, if you're a miser, avoid the 511K of the 695? You're more likely to find a replacement 501 engine, right? That makes a tricked out RSVMed 900 a better buy, no?
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: donv on December 13, 2017, 08:32:41 pm
I think pretty much all the engines were converted to 511s. That would have happened at the first hot section, or around that time, and I can't imagine there are any 695/A/Bs around that haven't been hot sectioned at least once.

Is there a lower time one than N51DM? And I'm sure it's been hot sectioned at least once.

The problem with a 900 is that you'll be over gross if you want to go long distances and take more than just yourself. If you don't care about that, or only want to fly 2 or 3 hour legs, you'll be fine. That said, before I bought my 980, Norm tried (with good reason) to get me to buy a 900, using the logic that it's cheaper than a 1000, and with dash 10s, pretty close to the same thing.
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: Bruce Byerly on December 14, 2017, 12:39:33 am
So what you're saying, if you're a miser, avoid the 511K of the 695? You're more likely to find a replacement 501 engine, right? That makes a tricked out RSVMed 900 a better buy, no?

Like Don said, I don?t think there is a ?501? left in the fleet and, if there were, you wouldn?t want it. The 511 is a great engine.  There?s a lot to like about a -10 900 but each plane needs to be considered individually given their age and the modifications, pedigree and maintenance.
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: Bruce Byerly on December 14, 2017, 12:40:42 am
Why are question marks instead of puntuation proliferating my posts?
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: Adam Frisch on December 14, 2017, 08:49:28 am
Why are question marks instead of puntuation proliferating my posts?

I'd like to know that too. Glenn?
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: SKYFLYER on December 14, 2017, 11:47:12 am
Most likely the browser you are using to access the site.  You might try a different browser CHROME, EDGE, EXPLORER or one of the others. Also you can try using your phone and see if it still happens.
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: Bruce Byerly on December 15, 2017, 12:29:44 am
I?m using my iPhone and it?s done the same thing with two different phones fwiw. Maybe it?s time for an Android.  Will that keep me logged in or does everyone have to login everytime? 
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: Adam Frisch on December 15, 2017, 04:23:48 am
Have to login every time.
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: donv on December 15, 2017, 11:54:48 am
The login thing has been going on for a long time, and is mildly annoying but not the end of the world-- for me, anyway.
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: Bruce Byerly on December 15, 2017, 11:39:12 pm
Keeps the Riff raff out  ;)
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: JMA on October 29, 2018, 05:10:04 pm
Curiousity brought me back...

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8630616


Don- I cant find CN number that works.
2nd- how can the mexican air force have an active 690, but not fix up a 980???
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8370732

Bruce can't it be saved!?
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: donv on October 30, 2018, 12:51:03 am
Bruce might know... my guess is that the 980 was run out or something and they didn't want to pay to overhaul the engines.
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: Adam Frisch on October 30, 2018, 09:32:58 am
Bruce might know... my guess is that the 980 was run out or something and they didn't want to pay to overhaul the engines.

I'll take her!
Title: Re: Unsure
Post by: donv on October 30, 2018, 01:20:51 pm
The Indonesian 980 is still available, isn't it? Might be a better choice!