News: Added Links For Twin Commander and Facebook Pages

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: COMMANDER 1200  (Read 11921 times)

JMA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
Re: COMMANDER 1200
« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2017, 03:39:24 pm »
Not sure how you always find some great stuff Don, but keep it coming.
Awesome article.

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3220
Re: COMMANDER 1200
« Reply #16 on: February 15, 2018, 04:48:07 pm »
Really nice article about the 1200 by Barry Collman, in the new issue of Flight Levels:

http://flightlevelsonline.com/2017/winter-2017/looking-back-gulfstream-aerospace-model-1200/

Adam Frisch

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1656
    • Adam Frisch FSF
Re: COMMANDER 1200
« Reply #17 on: February 19, 2018, 01:32:11 pm »
Nice!

Would have been a great aircraft, but I can see how the extra costs associated with it might not be worth the extra 15-20kts you could get out of it. Also, the -12 is the highest rated of the "small block" Garrett's and it's possible that it would be less reliable than -10 as more power was wrung out from it.

Now, a Turbo Commander with -14's would be something else..... ;)
Slumming it in the turboprop world - so you don't have to.

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3220
Re: COMMANDER 1200
« Reply #18 on: February 19, 2018, 01:36:33 pm »
If it had made the promised 1200 horsepower, it might have been worth it.

The issue with the -14 is prop clearance, I believe. You'd have to redesign the wing, and even then I don't know how the ground clearance would be. Then, you'd also have to redesign the tail (to handle the additional power), and by the time you were done it would be an entirely new airplane.

The Cheyenne 400, with all it's advantages, still doesn't compete all that well with a CJ2. I just don't think there is a niche there for a super high performance turboprop, although they do keep selling Piaggios, so who knows...

Adam Frisch

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1656
    • Adam Frisch FSF
Re: COMMANDER 1200
« Reply #19 on: February 19, 2018, 11:54:05 pm »
Now a Piaggio with -14's would be a very interesting plane...
Slumming it in the turboprop world - so you don't have to.

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3220
Re: COMMANDER 1200
« Reply #20 on: February 20, 2018, 01:12:03 am »
Piaggio with -10s would be interesting!

I don't know that you can mount the 331 in a pusher configuration... it would certainly take some engineering.

Adam Frisch

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1656
    • Adam Frisch FSF
Re: COMMANDER 1200
« Reply #21 on: February 20, 2018, 09:37:57 am »
They'd have to make a reversed gearbox to do it.
Slumming it in the turboprop world - so you don't have to.

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3220
Re: COMMANDER 1200
« Reply #22 on: February 20, 2018, 11:29:20 am »
Right, but I think you might lose some of the efficiency advantages of the direct drive 331 with that... maybe not. On the PT6, it helps you.

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3220
Re: COMMANDER 1200
« Reply #23 on: August 18, 2020, 12:09:10 pm »
It is interesting to note that the Flying Magazine blurb said they were aiming for 347 knot cruise, and Barry's article about what it actually did was 314! That was a big part of the problem, because at 314 it was basically a more expensive 695B.