1968 680W Century II Commander, SN 1790

[SKYFLYER]

Did not know Adam's Commander had a brother

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1968-680W-Century-II-Commander-SN-1790-/253040540240?hash=item3aea643a50:g:mFMAAOSwa~hZZQQ-&vxp=mtr

[donv]

Did you see what else he has for sale? An OnMark Marksman!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Douglas-A-26-Onmark-Marksman-Military-Aircraft/253040590256

We should adopt the Marksman/Marketeer community-- they're also a Ted Smith design, and in some respects the precursor to the Commander. Of course, I think there's only one actually flying these days... (and it's not the eBay airplane).

[Jeff Johnson]

Oh boy!!!

Thats my favorite plane ever!

With CB-16s to boot.  Talk about a cool airplane.  Yes that was my initial favorite airplane of WWII

Almost bought one in van nuys.  Flying condition.  all black. 

mmmmmmmm

4800 total HP and only 36 cylinders.  Needs every bit of its 3000 gallon tank Id suspect. 

But WOW!

What would it cost to rebuild that machine.

[Jeff Johnson]

Question #2

Looking at the specs of the 680W whats the deal im missing...

Flys Tops 25k feet
Cruise @ 217kts
and range is 956nm on 288 gallons

is this not much better, or not better at all than a piston powered 680fl?

plus it looks like these motors are almost at TBO

just saying. 

Looks expensive to me

And the presentation.....

You would think that someone trying to sell a350k aircraft would not put headsets on the glare shield...

Honestly people

[donv]

This one (and probably any 680T, V or W you will see actively operating) is a Century conversion. That gives it the -1 engines and bleed air pressurization, so fewer of the hydraulic issues Glenn is currently fighting with.

The Century converted airplanes also go a bit faster than you are listing-- Adam should be able to chime in with some actual numbers, but I think they're more like 230.

All that said, they weren't a huge advance over the FLP. That's why the 690 was such a revelation. Read that flying magazine pilot report on the 690 which is posted somewhere on here-- they talk about exactly this.

[donv]

Here is the 690 review I'm talking about:

https://books.google.com/books?id=X8fF4FYP9sIC&pg=PA42&dq=690&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgkrPahsrNAhVB6mMKHXGvDCk4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=690&f=false

When the first Turbo Commander came on the market in 1966, it was-- to put it kindly--
 a bit of a disappointment. It was slow and noisy, so the engineers when back to their drawing boards and fixed it. They clipped its wings about 30 inches, installed wheel well covers, shortened the prop blades and added some soundproofing. The result was a Turbo II (later renamed the Hawk) that was a sparking performer. Seven of us took one to Baja California a couple of summers ago at 230 knots average and then landed it on a little gravel strip so short you could almost have sailed a stale tortilla from end to end.

The Turbo II was the 680W, and the Hawk is the 681. Basically, a century-converted Turbo II and a Hawk are the same thing.

[donv]

Here is Flying's review of the Turbo II (680W):

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZX5PAjYvB1cC&pg=PA52&dq=turbo+ii+commander&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9s9b8z4LVAhVN52MKHRm1AFwQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=turbo%20ii%20commander&f=false

[Jeff Johnson]

Ok I'm getting it.

A better way to power an airplane for sure. 

I'm questioning weather Tahiti is possible but...

[donv]

The writing style in that Turbo II review is over the top! I much prefer Archie Trammell's more reserved style in the 690 review.

[Adam Frisch]

The Century converted ones will do 235-250kts. Mine did 235kts at 17500ft whilst hitting power level stop before I ran out of temp (so need to adjust it so I can temp out with travel still on PL). With that done and a bit higher up, I'm pretty confident she'll do 245-250kts.

Engines are pretty high on this one and if it doesn't have long range tanks, it's overpriced. This is a $200-250K plane in my opinion.

[Jeff Johnson]

That's what I was thinking. Price wise

Good to know it's faster than published.  Otherwise what's the point.

What is an overhaul going to cost on these motors?

[Adam Frisch]

Same as on a -5 or -10, roughly. Expect $250K/side, my guess. But FAA has clarified recently that you can run over TBO as long as you comply with HSI's. And this one has pretty fresh ones.  But obviously not a long term solution and for each hour over TBO, you're probably making the next overhaul more expensive. But just as a data point, the crop dusters run these engines to 7000 or 9000hrs and then throw them away. For someone who flies 100/hr per year, these could be the last engines you need.

[SKYFLYER]

I think Hancock in Tenn. is the only one still doing complete overhauls of the -1's and last time I was speaking with him it was not that much a side to do them.. but it was a couple of years back so maybe prices have gone up that much.
Also he used to give a pretty fair warranty on his work too.

[donv]

I don't think the FAA will let you go over on the cycle limitations, regardless of what they say about "overhaul." So that would be the issue with this airplane, possibly. Assuming it makes power and runs okay.

[Adam Frisch]

No I don't think so either. Nor would Honeywell. So you need to comply with all the cycle times. Can't recall what they are, and they differ between engines, but it's around 3000-6000hrs on most rotables.