AC 690

[Zeldman]

Anyone ever fly a AC 690 Turbo Commander?

If so, what were your likes, dislikes.?

Thanks in advance..!!!

 

[Fearless Tower]

Paging Ted....

 

[mtuomi]

Paging @stratobee

 

[dtuuri]

Anyone ever fly a AC 690 Turbo Commander?

If so, what were your likes, dislikes.?

Thanks in advance..!!!

Yes, 2.5 years. Like takeoff performance, OEI ROC, baggage volume, passenger view, specific fuel consumption, honest 260 KTAS. Disliked noisy engines, nosewheel steering system... that's about it.

dtuuri

 

[Fearless Tower]

Paging @stratobee

That's the last guy you want advice from.

He'll tell you what an awesome airplane it is and how it is so much more affordable to operate than anything else and then next month he'll be show up in a clapped out Sabreliner singing its praises while trying to offload the Commander.

 

[Ted]

Paging Ted....

The paging feature works better when you tag me.

I've got about 25 hours in 690s. The ones I flew were -5 powered, the primary difference between the -5s and -10s being altitude performance. -10s temp out higher so you get a bit faster cruise speed and a bit better climb once you get higher up. -5s are a lot cheaper and, in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with them.

Likes:
- 270 KTAS @ 500 PPH combined at FL260-270 (where we normally flew)
- 3,000 FPM initial climb rate, we probably hit FL270 in 15 minutes or less when given an effectively unrestricted climb
- Overall pretty efficient (see above speed/fuel burn)
- Easy to fly, no fuel tanks to switch since all the fuel tanks drain into a single location for both engines
- Easy to get in and out of since it was so low to the ground
- Good short field performance
- Large baggage compartment with large door

Dislikes:
- Ergonomics didn't work for me. I'm long legged and the column made it hard to move about and stay comfortable on longer trips
- Taxiing it is a real pain. You taxi using toe brakes. First 5-6 degrees of travel is hydraulic nosewheel steering, after that it's braking. Hard to do smoothly, I never got the hang of it
- You're really low to the ground taxiing it, so it feels like you're taxiing a go-kart, and not in a particularly good way (in my opinion)
- Hydraulics! Hydraulics everywhere!
- Props take a long time to spin down (Garrets) and the door exits right in front of the left prop. I always considered that a safety issue
- Toilet located conveniently between the crew and passengers on the co-pilot side
- Big compared to a Cheyenne I/II or Conquest I (425), thus requiring a larger hangar
- 3 across the back means it's technically an 8 seater, but realistically is a 6 seater as you would rarely fit 3 across the back, and rarely have someone sit on the toilet
- Optimal altitudes are in the mid to high 20s, but cabin pressure differential of 5.4 psi means that you have about a 10k cabin altitude when flying up there. Not great for fatigue. Fly lower and you're losing efficiency and/or speed.

Neutral:
- Unconventional cabin layout. Nice for corporate/charter since it keeps the crew separated from the passengers, but not as good for family flying. Would be good for hauling dogs with the door being near the front of the cabin. Would like it less when the 5 of us are flying somewhere

People like to refer to the 690s as a "pilot's airplane." I think that's overall true, since the engines block a lot of the view for the passengers in back. However I didn't particularly enjoy flying it for the dislikes noted above. At my airport, a 690 would require the next size up hangar, which literally quadruples the monthly rent, and that's a big negative. The wingspan is a lot longer on a 690 than on a PA-31T or C425, as is the length. For all that extra space, you don't really have a bigger cabin, although you do have a unique layout as mentioned.

For a similar price to a -5 powered 690, you can buy a Cheyenne II or a 425. Those will be slower, but I overall like them better. If you want to go as fast as a 690, you can buy an MU-2, which is significantly smaller size wise and will fit into a smaller hangar. However I've never flown or sat in an MU-2 so I can't comment there.

Also for clarification on Stratobee, his is a 680 (I believe a 680V?) not a 690. He can tell you the differences, but the biggest one is that it has different engines (I think -1s) and a shorter wingspan, plus a lower cabin pressure differential. So it's a similar bird, but not quite the same as a 690.

 

[Zeldman]

Thanks Ted. That's is a lot more than I knew a minute ago.

I should have added I am not buying one, instead I have chance to fly someone elses 690.

 

[Ted]

Thanks Ted. That's is a lot more than I knew a minute ago.

I should have added I am not buying one, instead I have chance to fly someone elses 690.

I figured you weren't planning on buying one, just throwing out the extra info.

I'd absolutely jump at the chance to fly one again.

 

[stratobee]

That's the last guy you want advice from.

He'll tell you what an awesome airplane it is and how it is so much more affordable to operate than anything else and then next month he'll be show up in a clapped out Sabreliner singing its praises while trying to offload the Commander.

I won't be turning up in a Sabreliner (as I'm on my second Commander) and yes, you'd be right - it is one of the most economical TP's there are. In a tie with a MU-2.