COMMANDER 1200

[SKYFLYER]

I have always been given to believe that only ONE Commander 1200 was ever built... Stumbled across this today..

Tail Number   Alt. Code   Year Manufacturer Model   Serial   Engines   Seats   Location
N228GA      Gulfstream Aerospace 1200   98001   2   11   
N232GA      Gulfstream Aerospace 1200   98002   2   11   
N236GA      Gulfstream Aerospace 1200   98003   2   11   
N240GA      Gulfstream Aerospace 1200   98004   2   11   

I wonder if these four were actually built.. and if they were what happened to them and is there any photo record of them??

[JMA]

SKYFLYER/SKYBLAZER??


http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,11426.0.html?PHPSESSID=k1qgprh5gbkakl63cdjb9165r3

[SKYFLYER]

I saw the same post which led me to the "N" numbers... like them no clue as to if they were ever built or not...

[donv]

I don't think they were ever built (other than the first one)-- they had just allocated the serial numbers in anticipation of building them.

My understanding is that Garrett didn't get the engines ready in time, and when they did run it with prototypes, the performance wasn't what they were hoping for. By the time all that happened, the investment tax credit had gone away and the entire general aviation industry had gone into the tank...

[Adam Frisch]

Remind me again - was the plan to stick -14's in them?

[donv]

Something like that. Bruce probably knows.

[donv]

There is a picture of one here, oddly enough!

http://flightlevelsonline.com/2017/summer-2017/commander-technicians-attend-maintenance-class/

[Bruce Byerly]

-12's !   I believe that is the highest output of the small block engines. The -14 is a whole nother animal. I need to remember which of the 1000's was the flying prototype 1200 and which is flying around now as a 1000.  Might be 12VA based out in SOCAL but I'm having a CRS moment.

[Adam Frisch]

Is the -14 physically bigger, or just longer? Also heard the -14 only has 3600hr TBO and costs a lot more to overhaul. Be a rocketship if mounted on a Commander, tho. Probably rival the bat-out-of-hell Cheyenne 400LS.

[Bruce Byerly]

-14 is scaled up all around and about 4x the running cost from what I understand.  Never fully matured like the -10 from what I gathered over the years.

It probably didn't matter how wel it worked, the industry was toast in those years. I was just a kid but everything stopped and inventory costs were calculated by the minute as I remember ...

[Adam Frisch]

Maybe it's time someone developed an STC for the -12 again?

[donv]

From what I was told, the 1200 didn't perform as well as they anticipated. Simply adding the power increased the fuel flow and didn't increase the speed all that much. The 1000 is already just about the perfect balance of efficiency and speed, and the 695B has all the load carrying capacity you could ever want.

I think if there were big improvements to be had, someone would have done a conversion already.

[donv]

I did a little bit of internet research. The -12 is only rated to 1100 horsepower, and it's not clear that it can do that continuously. So at altitude, that would only equate to, at best, a 10% power increase. Maybe not even that, depending on how it's set up.

My guess (based on the fact that Commander named the airplane the "1200") is that Garrett was trying to get 1200 horsepower out of it, and were unable to do so. The extra 10% just didn't make much of a difference in performance.

It would be interesting to know if Twin Commander has some more pictures of it, though-- that would be cool for us Commander history buffs.

The -14 is a whole different deal. On the Cheyenne 400LS, the -14 engines are derated from 1645 horsepower! So 1100 on a Commander wasn't going to do much.

[Adam Frisch]

Yeah -14's on a Turbo Commander would turn it into a beast! Not sure they'd fit under the cowling, but would be an interesting concept.

[donv]

Not the best quality, but still...