1121 Jet Commander

[donv]

I was fortunate to fly these beasts when I was young and they were old... the first thing anyone says about the Jet Commander is how much fuel it burns. Well, that's more or less true (especially in relation to how much it carries), but to me the takeoff performance was always the most memorable thing... at least, the most memorable BAD thing.

Good things? Well, it was my first jet. I thought they looked great, and I couldn't have been more excited to get the chance to fly one. Being up at 41,000 feet was really cool! And once you had some speed, the climb performance was actually pretty darn good.

I'll be posting some memories, and some images (sadly, very few that I've taken or were airplanes I've flown, with one exception). I still have a Jet Commander flight manual and FlightSafety manual, so I may end up referring to those for some trivia.

Anyone with any Jet Commander stories should please feel free to add them to the thread, or questions as well.

There was only one still flying the US that I'm aware of, N900PJ (sn 135)-- and after the first of the year, the lack of hush kits probably ended it's flying career. RVSM ended the rest of them, back when that became a requirement to go above FL280-- the Jet Commander is not happy down that low, and there was simply no RVSM solution certified that I'm aware of.

I still think that it's the best looking of all the descendants-- 1123, 1124, 1125 Astra, Galaxy, G150, G200, G280...

[donv]

Interestingly enough, I did actually fly the airplane in the pictures (N155VW), but much later in it's life. When I flew it, it was still with it's original purchaser (although it had been a demonstrator for Rockwell before they bought it), and still with it's original pilot as well. Someone I learned a lot from!

[Adam Frisch]

Nice stories, Don. Please keep them coming.

The successor, the Westwinds are actually very undervalued aircraft today. They have calendar time maintenance which is ideal for a low utility user, cheap and abundant engines and parts (TFE731's), they have great range at 2500nm, RSVM, and I happen to think they look really good. But because people think they're ugly, they have depressed market value. You can get into one with decent times for about $250K these days. I think the TFE's burn about 150gal/hr up there, which isn't terrible. Certainly not the fastest jet there ever was, but not a slouch either. Beats any of the older Citations.

There's a story about a Westwind II flying to Hawaii from CA years back. It's right at the very edge of its range, almost no margin, maybe 300nm. Halfway through the trip, they get a hydraulic leak and because the gear uplock is hydraulically controlled, down comes the wheels. This is a great design from a safety standpoint, but not great from a fuel critical standpoint. The added drag meant they wren't going to make it.  In the end I think they did make it in on fumes, but can't have been a pleasant few hours in the cockpit.

[donv]

I flew Westwinds quite a bit as well. You are right that they are a great value for the money, although, as with any older airplane, there are real pitfalls you need to avoid. In particular, parts availability and the fact that there are only a few shops in the US who are competent to work on them.

One thing which we really don't appreciate enough is the support we get from Twin Commander. IAI/Gulfstream/whoever just wants the Westwind to go away, so they're not interested in doing anything to make them viable. Same thing with Cessna and the Conquest.

I never flew the Westwind to Hawaii, although I have friends who did. It was pretty marginal. I did TEB-HIO a lot in the Westwind, which is about the same distance, and we stopped at least 50% of the time.

The Westwind was a vastly better airplane than the Jet Commander. Simply no comparison. The only superior thing about the Jet Commander, in my opinion, was the looks.

[donv]

A couple more... on the ones I flew, the panel looked almost exactly like the one in the picture. We had a LORAN mounted somewhere (can't remember where), an altitude alerter on the glareshield, and our audio panels were in the overhead, but otherwise the same. Down by the copilot's knee, you can just see the analog DME, which I always loved (it was a gauge with a needle which pointed at the distance or the speed, depending on the setting of a knob).

I don't know anything about the airplane in the lower picture, except that it's a fairly early serial number (no window forward of the door), and it was taken in HIO in 1968 by George Poling.

[Steve binnette]

I worked line service while in college and there was a jet commander in the hangar.

After cleaning and stocking it I would climb into the cockpit and try it on for size.

Just loved that thing.  Didn't they have the GE 610 turbo jet engines.  Same as the early lears?

[Jeff Johnson]

I think it was the plane Rambo jumped out of and got hung up on in the movie Rambo first blood part 2. 

Cool plane especially since I "could" potentially afford it....

[donv]

Yes, Rambo did jump out of a Jet Commander-- I forgot about that! That movie was filmed when I was flying them, and it was a big deal to us.

They are CJ-610s. The problem is that the Learjet 24 was something like 11,800 pounds gross, and the Jet Commander was over 10,000 pounds empty! The Jet Commanders I flew had an 18,500 pound gross weight. So that didn't help the performance much. The cabin on the Jet Commander was much nicer.

Having flown both, I would take a nice Learjet 24E or F over a Jet Commander any day, but this is a Commander forum!

[donv]

So you might be wondering why I mentioned the takeoff performance. After all, it's a jet, right?

Well... the Jet Commander had two big problems. The first one was weight. The Learjet 24 weighed something less than 12,000 pounds at max takeoff weight. The Jet Commander weighed (if my memory is correct) about 10,500 pounds EMPTY! The ones I flew were an 18,500 pound gross. This is with the same basic engines, mind you. So that was bad...

But, even worse was the flap system on the Jet Commander. It was a "split flap" similar to the one on a 340. Basically just a big flat panel, hinged about 3/4 of the way back on the wing, which swung down. All it did was give you some additional drag and very little additional lift.

The result was some unbelievably poor performance. If it was cold and at sea level, and you weren't too heavy, it actually seemed pretty good. Especially with both engines turning. But at Denver, we would often see runway requirements of 10,000 feet or more!

It could really get scary, and with an engine out, that's where it really got interesting.

With such marginal takeoff performance, you always wanted to carry as little fuel as possible, but it really burned a lot... so it was a continual balancing act.

[donv]

No takeoff performance issues here...

[Adam Frisch]

Did the Westwinds improve on the performance, Don?

[donv]

Westwind is night and day better. Well, I should clarify. 1123 Westwind, which is a Westwind with the same CJ-610 engines as the Jet Commander, is not much better.

1124 and subsequent is great.

There are two reasons-- the big one is that they put a proper fowler flap system on the Westwind. That made a huge difference. The other reason is they dramatically increased the power-- the CJ-610s were 2950 pounds of thrust, the 731 3750 (and derated at that!).

On the other hand, the Westwind is quite a bit heavier-- 23,500 pounds gross, but even still, the takeoff performance was just vastly better. And, unless you were going transcontinental, you rarely needed to be that heavy in a Westwind.

Did the Westwinds improve on the performance, Don?

[Adam Frisch]

Thanks Don. If the Westwind was single pilot, one would be sitting in my hangar right now. I love how they look.

[donv]

The thing about the Westwind is that it's a bear to hand-fly. It really is not fun, especially at altitude. I like to hand fly, and in a Westwind, I let the autopilot do the work. Aside from that, they're fantastic airplanes.

The good news about Westwinds is that the autopilots were generally quite good, and had all the functionality you would want.

The Jet Commander, on the other hand, had a very rudimentary and dubiously reliable autopilot. We had one Jet Commander (serial number 7!) where the autopilot never worked in the year or two that we had it. I remember going to the east coast in that airplane, and we were both worn out by the end of the day.

[JMA]

Don- I love your old stories.
I remember my father being able to taxi right up to the concorde in NY and board direct.
Along with that, I remember him telling me he pulled up to "Big Bunny" years ago- what a cool plane.


http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14697/remembering-hugh-hefners-iconic-jet-black-dc-9-big-bunny