News: Added Links For Twin Commander and Facebook Pages

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Best Piston Commander, Let The Debate Begin  (Read 2514 times)

igm05270

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Best Piston Commander, Let The Debate Begin
« on: April 19, 2022, 07:48:35 pm »
I am curious as to what you guys would consider to be the best Piston Commander, either standard or combination of model and STC's that can carry 5 Pax, is pressurized, and would have good parts support?

JimC

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 387
Re: Best Piston Commander, Let The Debate Begin
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2022, 08:01:15 pm »
The one that's flying.

The number of pressurized piston commanders that are still airworthy isn't very high. There are only 3 models (720, 680FP, and 680FLP,) only 76 total built across all 3, and all of them had engines that aren't well supported today.

If you require pressurization, I'd strongly advise to get a 690A or 690B instead. It'll cost more now but you'll be miles ahead in 5 years.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2022, 08:04:46 pm by JimC »
500B, B200

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3220
Re: Best Piston Commander, Let The Debate Begin
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2022, 09:06:41 pm »
"Pressurized" "piston" and "Commander" are not words which go well together. There are no good choices in that space. The least bad, assuming you want an airplane to actually use and not as a piece of history, is a 685... and I can't believe I'm actually saying that.

The 500 series are great airplanes if you want an un-pressurized piston, but if you need (or want) pressurization, you want a 690.

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3220
Re: Best Piston Commander, Let The Debate Begin
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2022, 09:08:47 pm »
I will add that if you want an airplane as a piece of history, I think the 680FP is a really neat choice. But don't try to use it for actual transportation, and expect to spend more, when all is said and done, than you would on a 690. There are maybe 3-4 680FPs that are airworthy (and that's including Glenn's, which is a stretch).

If you read some of Glenn's threads, you can get an idea of what is involved in trying to operate a 680FP. He gave up.

JimC

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 387
Re: Best Piston Commander, Let The Debate Begin
« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2022, 10:34:06 pm »
There you go - there's my trifecta of wrongness for the day. I forgot the 685.
500B, B200

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3220
Re: Best Piston Commander, Let The Debate Begin
« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2022, 10:40:58 pm »
No, I don't think so. When your best choice in a category is an airplane known for burning through the wing (did that actually happen, or was it just legend? Norm told me it came close for him once), there are no good choices... so the 685 is best left unmentioned.

There you go - there's my trifecta of wrongness for the day. I forgot the 685.

JimC

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 387
Re: Best Piston Commander, Let The Debate Begin
« Reply #6 on: April 19, 2022, 10:57:50 pm »
If you have to get a pressurized piston twin, get a 421.

If you want to be smart, take the same money and get a 690A/B.
500B, B200

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3220
Re: Best Piston Commander, Let The Debate Begin
« Reply #7 on: April 19, 2022, 11:52:22 pm »
And before you do that, read that Richard Collins comparison test between the 690 and the 421!

If you have to get a pressurized piston twin, get a 421.

If you want to be smart, take the same money and get a 690A/B.

appleseed

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
  • 500S
Re: Best Piston Commander, Let The Debate Begin
« Reply #8 on: April 20, 2022, 04:40:29 pm »
The best answer to the op’s question is: pick any two, you can’t have all three.

Next best answer might be an Aerostar. Never having owned one (and only flown one briefly) I would be trepidatious. They have a long, long history of mods, stcs, and service kits to try to make them fully serviceable and airworthy. They may be fine now, and no more of an expensive headache than any other 240kt machine. I always picture them though as a collection of bandaids flying in close formation. I can attest that they fly/handle/land beautifully.

Adam Frisch

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1656
    • Adam Frisch FSF
Re: Best Piston Commander, Let The Debate Begin
« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2022, 06:17:29 am »
Aerostars are wonderful airplanes. Nothing flies like them. And they were designed by Ted Smith that did the Commander, so there's that. Very well supported. But, they're thoroughbreds and very tightly cowled and rather complex planes, so not necessarily cheap to maintain. But for sure, if I had to go back to a pressurized piston, it would be an Aerostar.

The 685 is a bit of a mess. Not a great performer and very expensive to maintain. You'd be saving money operating a 690A, compared, my guess. I know how everyone hates the pre 690 models, but the 681 Turbine with the -1's is actually a great owner/operator aircraft. Cheap components (windshield is $11K vs $55K to replace etc), Hamilton Standard props that ar on inspection, no real calendar items except for spar inspection etc.
Slumming it in the turboprop world - so you don't have to.

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3220
Re: Best Piston Commander, Let The Debate Begin
« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2022, 12:36:43 pm »
Aerostars are great airplanes. I had one for several years and really liked it. I agree-- for a pressurized piston, it's the way to go. What you give up with an Aerostar is cabin space-- if you are okay with that, it is fantastic.

As for the 681, yes, I suppose, if you can find one that doesn't have tens or hundreds of thousands of deferred maintenance. And most of the benefits are even greater if you just step up to a straight 690. Heated windshields (which are the expensive ones) were an option on the straight 690. That said, the heated windshields are really nice, and while expensive, they last a long time. In fact, I think they might last longer than the unheated plexiglass ones, so might be cheaper or comparable on an annualized basis.