News: Added Links For Twin Commander and Facebook Pages

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: The Twin Commander as a Traveling Machine  (Read 8300 times)

John Wood

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
The Twin Commander as a Traveling Machine
« on: July 29, 2020, 08:45:12 pm »
There is none better in its class.  The longest trip for my wife and I was Boston to Greece and back.... 9,800 nautical miles, 39 hours of flying over 3 1/2 weeks.  The image captures our overseas trips.

[img]Twin Commander Overseas Trips.png/img]

SKYFLYER

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 570
Re: The Twin Commander as a Traveling Machine
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2020, 09:38:04 pm »
Which Commander do you have?

Looks like some really great adventures.

John Wood

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: The Twin Commander as a Traveling Machine
« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2020, 07:25:22 am »
Along with a partner, owned Commander 1000 (695A) N79PH SN 96029 from 1997 to 2009.

SKYFLYER

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 570
Re: The Twin Commander as a Traveling Machine
« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2020, 07:43:15 am »
What a sad ending for N79PH...

New owners... I guess after your ownership time...  crashed it up in the Pacific Northwest just after buying it.

John Wood

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: The Twin Commander as a Traveling Machine
« Reply #4 on: July 30, 2020, 08:50:51 am »
At least two owners later the left main gear collapsed at Bishop, California, destroying an MT prop and damaging the belly skin.  Last I heard someone was working to get the plane ferriable for restoration.  It was a beautiful cross country machine and would chug along at 270 knots for 5 1/2 to 6 hours at 35,000 feet.  It had a feature missing in many current aircraft... a relief tube up front for the pilots, and one behind the curtain in back for passengers.  My wife, daughters and ninety-year-old mother used the one in back without complaint.

Very early in its career under the original owner, Parker Hannifin Corporation, the right main gear was torn off when a pilot landed in the snow between a runway and taxiway.  We had no issues as a result, years later.

The plane is almost forty years old and I think all these are running into aging aircraft issues.  I recently saw several Commanders in the maintenance hangar at Naples Jet Center and they all belonged to foreign governments.

Allow me to make a shameless pitch for a book I wrote about the life and times an aircraft twice this old... A Waco UPF-7:

As The Prop Turns, The Soul of an Old Airplane

Available from Amazon for fifteen bucks.

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3220
Re: The Twin Commander as a Traveling Machine
« Reply #5 on: July 30, 2020, 01:20:00 pm »
Plenty of Commanders have come back after gear collapse. I would guess a 1000 would be valuable enough to be repaired. I've been involved in a few ferry operations over the years-- honestly not that big of a deal. Especially if it was insured.

Flightaware shows it as sold in October 2019 so I bet someone will make a go of it. As you pointed out, it already had similar damage history before, so no big reduction in value.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2020, 01:22:36 pm by donv »

John Wood

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: The Twin Commander as a Traveling Machine
« Reply #6 on: July 30, 2020, 08:43:02 pm »
I agree and hope the ship is revived.  There were three first’s’ while we owned it, well done by Eagle Creek Indianapolis.   It was the first Commander to have ‘glass’ not steam gauges on the right side of the cockpit, it was the test article for RVSM fleet certification. and the first fo have thick side windows and super-soundproofing.  Meggitt displays were the best you could do at the time, but I gather now they are unsupported and parts are being cannibalized.  Ironically I had to sign a document for overseas travel saying we would not go to South Yemen because a component in the Meggitt system was export controlled.

Garmin glass would be beautiful but most likely the owner would be stuck with the Meggitt autopilot... a lot of money for a ship that might next become a fire spotter, air ambulance, or drug enforcement aircraft.

These Twin Commanders have two very big advantages over light jets:  no type rating is required and they can operate on shorter snow-contaminated runways thanks to reverse prop thrust.

« Last Edit: July 31, 2020, 07:11:08 am by John Wood »

JMA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
Re: The Twin Commander as a Traveling Machine
« Reply #7 on: August 04, 2020, 04:25:35 pm »
John- I remember watching your clip many years ago! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pErQ-2xPJ_g&feature=youtu.be

May I ask, are you still flying?  If so, what was the next step after the commander?


John Wood

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: The Twin Commander as a Traveling Machine
« Reply #8 on: August 04, 2020, 05:25:56 pm »
Wow, your past can come back to haunt you.... I had forgotten about that Twin Commander marketing video.

Tiron and I sold the Commander 1000 in 2009, took on another partner, and in 2010 bought a new Embraer Phenom 100.  We flew it back from Brazil and have enjoyed ever since.  It has been a reliable trouble-free aircraft and Embraer has a nearby service center in Hartford, Connecticut.  As I write this the plane is at the Cody, Wyoming airport as we explore Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Tetons.  The park is crowded and I guess Covid-19 has driven many away from home or at least not modified their travel plans.

The Phenom 100 has seven seats including a belted potty.  It is short-legged compared to the Commander with about 1,100nm NBAA range.  Our longest trip to date is Scotland via Labrador, Greenland and Iceland.  Passengers love the hiss of air going by rather than the beat of propellers.  Pilots love the cockpit ergonomics and friendly Garmin NXi avionics.  The only unusual feature is brake-by-wire which sub-optimum and takes getting used to.  Also the turning radius is quite large... linemen may try to put you in a parking place you can't easily get out of.  Also seventy-five feet is the minimum runway width if there are no turnarounds at the end.  I fondly remember the Commander's hydraulic nose wheel steering and how maneuverable the aircraft was.

The Phenom should have 3,500 feet of dry runway, 5,000 feet wet, and 7 - 9,000 feet with snow.  That limits operations in New England in the winter.  I could be just as happy in a twin turboprop for this and other reasons.  Initial type rating training and recurrency are more expensive in a jet.  The Commander 1000 remains a favorite aircraft.

I would add a note... things broke far more often in the Commander, and I attribute this to the high vibration environment.  The engines are so tightly cowled that engineers left the strain relief off some of the Cannon plugs, replaced by silicone sealant.  Well, when that sealant breaks loose it vibrates back and forth and breaks wires.

Strangely, our biggest expense in twelve years of Commander ownership was windshields... I think we went through four or five.  Tiron had one crack during climb and I came back to the parked aircraft to find a cracked copilot's windshield.  I'm guessing the metal structure around the windows was insufficient to handle the hoop stresses, or maybe PPG had a manufacturing issue.


Adam Frisch

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1656
    • Adam Frisch FSF
Re: The Twin Commander as a Traveling Machine
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2020, 07:54:13 pm »
Thanks John for your memories - I remember that old marketing video! And it was a gorgeous aircraft, sad she legged it up. Seems like the windows are a not unheard of problem - think board member Steve Binnette also had his crack in flight a year or two ago. They're not cheap.

Please tell us more about your Euro-trip. It has always been my dream to fly my Commander back to Sweden where I'm from (and where we vacation each year), but I have to admit I'd probably not want to bring my family along in my old 680V. That would have to wait until I had a more modern or upgraded aircraft.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2020, 07:59:15 pm by Adam Frisch »
Slumming it in the turboprop world - so you don't have to.

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3220
Re: The Twin Commander as a Traveling Machine
« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2020, 08:29:25 pm »
I had a windshield fail in flight, but it was original to the airplane, so 37 years old. Expensive, but not so bad on an annualized basis! My other one is dated 2004, so hopefully it has some life left.

They do have a 3, or maybe even 5, year warranty. And if it happens while the airplane is sitting on the ground, I would think you would have a pretty strong case for insurance, based on a rock hitting it or something like that.

Steve binnette

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
Re: The Twin Commander as a Traveling Machine
« Reply #11 on: August 06, 2020, 11:23:52 am »
I believe the warranty is 3 years and can be extended to 5 years for a window if it was installed by a certified shop.


John Wood

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: The Twin Commander as a Traveling Machine
« Reply #12 on: August 08, 2020, 02:53:22 pm »
Adam,

It has been four years or so since my last North Atlantic crossing and things have gotten more complicated ...surprise!  Formerly a pilot had to have a Minimum Navigation Performance Standards (MNPS) Letter of Authorization (LOA) from your FSDO to operate in RVSM airspace.  An HF set was not required for operation above FL300 since there are VHF outlets across Canada, Greenland, Iceland and Scotland.   MNPS certification has been dropped in favor of a High Level Airspace (HLA) LOA from the FSDO which apparently requires evidence of training and an interview with the FAA.  HLA also imposes advanced navigation standards for aircraft avionics.

The good news is you can still fly the World War II "Blue Spruce Routes" below FL285, which is where I suspect you would operate your 680V.  I don't know about the requirement for an HF transceiver in this case.

And then there is the question of avionics requirements to operate in European airspace.  I don't know if ADS-B would be fully compliant.  I remember that air traffic control charges cost about a hundred dollars per hour for the Commander in European airspace.  Months after the trip a bill arrived for navigation charges in Bosnia and Herzegovina airspace, which was ironic.  We were not allowed into it to divert around thunderstorms because of a surface-to-infinity prohibited area due to hostilities.


schrambow

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
Re: The Twin Commander as a Traveling Machine
« Reply #13 on: August 08, 2020, 06:04:54 pm »
John,
What are maintenance costs of the Phenom 100 and its engine inspections, etc...compared to the 1000?
I am not looking for a Phenom, (well maybe a 300 on a commander purchase price and a commander budget though), just being curious and nosy.


John Wood

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: The Twin Commander as a Traveling Machine
« Reply #14 on: August 08, 2020, 06:45:38 pm »
With three partners, a book keeper, and ten years of detailed data I can give you a good answer.  We charge ourselves $1,200 per wet hobbs meter hour and this includes all  "variable costs", the costs to fly one more hour including power-by-the-hour fees to Embraer, Pratt & Whitney, and fuel.  This may move up a down a little depending on Jet-A prices.  "Fixed costs" such as insurance, hangar and various expenses are split up equally.  We paid $3.65M new and the plane is probably worth about half that now.

More details on the North Atlantic:

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/North_Atlantic_Operations_-_Airspace