Commander 500

[Joel Carter]

Bruce,

You mention your choice of the 500B/U/S as the practical choices for piston Commanders. What's the knock on the straight 500? Just curious.

Thanks,
Joel

[donv]

I'll try to answer for Bruce, and he can correct me. The straight 500 and 500A have different nacelles (the "bathtub" style) and less powerful engines. Once you get to the 500B, the changes through the rest of the production are basically cosmetic, or in the "nice to have" category, but the extra power made a difference.

Most of my 500 time is in 500Ss, and I wouldn't call them over-powered by any stretch, so having even less power would be, well, not good (in my opinion).

[Joel Carter]

Thanks Don.

I'm the nostalgic type and am drawn to the "bathtub" nacelles and 2000 hr engines. Yes, less powerful but compensated for by the high aspect ratio wing.No? If one doesn't need the extra performance of the Speedline IO 540s, is there any quality issue with the O-540 powered 500s that make them inferior to the later models? And if you add the square rudder cap and the flap gap seals, that could mitigate some of the performance gap, No? Thanks again.

Joel

[Bruce Byerly]

Thanks Don.

I'm the nostalgic type and am drawn to the "bathtub" nacelles and 2000 hr engines. Yes, less powerful but compensated for by the high aspect ratio wing.No? If one doesn't need the extra performance of the Speedline IO 540s, is there any quality issue with the O-540 powered 500s that make them inferior to the later models? And if you add the square rudder cap and the flap gap seals, that could mitigate some of the performance gap, No? Thanks again.

Joel

Joel,  there’s no “knock” on the old straight 500’s particularly.  But, in short, if you’re going to the effort of maintaining a classic piston twin, the injected planes give you some real performance benefits. Like Don indicated, they kind of need the extra power. And with the better fuel distribution and better aero, it’s mostly “free” power. A friend of mine has a straight 500 and has fun with it. I admire his work and the fact that it’s flying. But, without an autopilot and real IFR equipment,  I wouldn’t consider one as practical for the cross country mission like a 500S or B. I’ve put 35 hours on the 500B in the last month, coast to coast and north and south.  I could do this because past owners had updated and modernized the plane. I don’t see many, if any, bathtub nacelle planes that have been modernized.  If your interested in restoring one, by all means, go for it and keep us posted. Hopefully you can find a good one that’s worthy of your time and attention.

[Joel Carter]

Thanks Bruce

@80 I'm mostly just dreaming. I do enjoy exchanging ideas. I do this on BTas well sometimes.

Joel

[Roy]

FYI, 500A's are not the bathtub nacelles, I believe they were called "speed line nacelle"(?). Different a little in the intake side as I recall, but still a square nacelle... because...

500A's are powered by Continental IO470's. Having "grown up" in a C310I model, I adapted well to the 500A Continental engines, but certainly the extra 30HP (with turbos in some cases) on the IO540 powered "B" models is certainly an asset in performance.

Roy

[Adam Frisch]

The IO-470 model is going to be the least expensive to maintain. They're just very simple planes.

[Joel Carter]

Adam,

The 1500 HR Continental IO-470 that rarely makes it to TBO, cheaper to maintain than the 2000 HR Lycoming O-540 that usually always makes it to TBO? Is there something here I'm missing?

Joel

[Jeff Johnson]

My 1971 500s was 1600hr TBO engines.  But will fly easily to 2000hrs. 

probably longer.  Very reliable engines. 

[Roy]

My recollection is IO470's were/are 1600 TBO. And one 500A I used to fly had at least 2300 hour on them before they went out for OH, and a C310I I used to fly one engine was at ~1500 hours and the other around 1200 hours and were running strong.

Like other things, I think the disclaimer "actual mileage may vary" holds true. Not to say a good evaluation of data indicates Continental's overall history of making it to TBO is worse than Lycoming's 540's. I don't know; it may very well be true.

And I think a lot of it (TBO) is all about how they were treated (maintenance and the hands that work the throttles.

IO540's on 500B/U/S's are 200 hour TBO?

My $0.02.


Roy

[Adam Frisch]

Was thinking more overall - 2-blade props etc.

[ghancock]

Don't get me involved in the Cont vs Lyco debate.  I have a 310Q with IO 470 VO engines that went almost to 2k hours and never let me down.  These lycoming engines ( albeit more complex) have been nothing but work horses ( I mean I'm the horse working on them).  I love the 470's, I think they are by far the best engines Cont ever built.

My 1.5 cents

Glenn