Aero Commander 500

[ArrowFlyer86]

I'm not twin certified but these planes always pop up as fairly low priced options when I take a gander on TAP.

I'm just curious, aside from their old age (most are 1960s) is there something wrong these planes that cause their price to be lower than others? On occasion you see some that look like a steal.

One such example: https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...model=500A&listing_id=2413479&s-type=aircraft

 

[Jim K]

You & me both, brother. I'd love to have one. The biggest issue I see is the ~50' wingspan, which means you need a big hangar. There's also models with obscure engines with reputations for breaking/parts unavailability. I think I've read that certain models have life limited spars, but I haven't delved deeply enough to figure out which ones. The wingspan is really the deal killer for me, as I'd have to build my own hangar if I wanted to stay at CMI, which I do for at least the medium term.

I think my next plane will be a Seneca, as I might even be able to squeeze it into my existing T hangar. I actually spent an unreasonable amount of time today dreaming about twins and researching various models.

 

[kaiser]

Well @Jim K you don’t live close enough.


@ArrowFlyer86 lets go in on one of these!

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

@kaiser
I've been looking for a piston single for a while and most of them are more expensive than this (purchase price at least). Moreover, I've always had a crush on high wing twins (and mid wing aerostars, to be sure). I'm all about it!

If there was a hangar that could accommodate such a beast I'd entertain the idea! It'd give me something to grow into and look forward to...

 

[schmookeeg]

185k is a cheap twin?

I feel like every tiedown line across america has one of those things parked out, weeds taller than the wings growing all through it.

(That one looks nice however )

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

185k is a cheap twin?

I feel like every tiedown line across america has one of those things parked out, weeds taller than the wings growing all through it.

(That one looks nice however )

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but 185k for new avidyne avionics and lowish time engines, good looking P&I... Is 185 pricey? When I look at that beauty compared a comparably equipped Baron I think it's pretty cheap! Maybe I don't have enough experience pricing twins...

 

[texasclouds]

Fuel burn?

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

Fuel burn?

Kind of embarrassed I didn't think of that. A Google search shows 28-35gph depending on the model of 500*.

Doing a similar Google search for the Baron gives the same results, yet the Baron commands a much higher price (part of that might be later models). Is the aero Commander that much less fuel-economical?

*I wouldn't swear by those google results but they seem in the realm of possibility...

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

What a strange panel layout.

 

[Jim K]

What a strange panel layout.

I saw a seneca today that had a seperate engine monitor for each engine, mounted below and on either side of the yoke. Basically one behind each knee. I wish I had saved the picture... it's one of the 24 on trade a plane....

 

[saddletramp]

I also have always had a fondness for them. My father had one in the late 60's & I flew with him quite a bit. I felt like an airline pilot flying it in the right seat as we went XC. It has a robust landing gear because we use to land it on family ranch in Wyoming that was very rough. It took it like a champ. We always got the red-carpet service when we rolled up to an FBO. In those days it wan't that old. Then there was Bob Hoover act in a Shrike. I was hooked. I've drooled over them too but never had the guts to get serious about one.

 

[kayoh190]

That beard is next level!

 

[kaiser]

@kaiser
I've been looking for a piston single for a while and most of them are more expensive than this (purchase price at least). Moreover, I've always had a crush on high wing twins (and mid wing aerostars, to be sure). I'm all about it!

If there was a hangar that could accommodate such a beast I'd entertain the idea! It'd give me something to grow into and look forward to...

No no no no no.. not a single, though I'd probably go in on a Maule or a 180/85 with you. Don't bother looking at listed prices.

I bet you could run a 500 for 300-400/hr all in. And big hangar cost would be the reason to get a partner!

What a strange panel layout.

I've noticed this too. Look how low the 6 pack is compared to pilot seating position. Would these be tough to fly in the soup as a result?

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

No no no no no.. not a single, though I'd probably go in on a Maule or a 180/85 with you. Don't bother looking at listed prices.

I bet you could run a 500 for 300-400/hr all in. And big hangar cost would be the reason to get a partner!


I've noticed this too. Look how low the 6 pack is compared to pilot seating position. Would these be tough to fly in the soup as a result?

Maybe it would help. Your head would be so buried in the panel that you wouldn't have any distraction from the outside.

 

[Pinecone]

Double the fuel burn. Double the overhaul cost. More for hangar. Slow (early models like this are 150 knot airplanes).

Compared to my Mooney, it burns more like 3 times as much fuel to go 25 knots slower. But it will carry more.

 

[RyanB]

I'm not twin certified but these planes always pop up as fairly low priced options when I take a gander on TAP.

I'm just curious, aside from their old age (most are 1960s) is there something wrong these planes that cause their price to be lower than others? On occasion you see some that look like a steal.

One such example: https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...model=500A&listing_id=2413479&s-type=aircraft

That beard is next level!

Heh, that airplane is here at FGU. That big bearded guy’s name is James and he’s a mechanic. There’s a dealer here on field that specializes in Commander’s and he’s the gentleman who is selling it. I think he’s got 6-8 of them parked here right now, the one in the advertisement above being one of them.

 

[Timbeck2]

That beard is next level!

I think he played drums for April Wine

 

[schmookeeg]

I wonder how liveable an O-470-M is as a motor? I assume "MV" props means this is a spline-shaft, and presumably, pressure-carbureted contraption?

(nothing to see here but foolishness folks, please disregard )

 

[bnt83]

I wonder how liveable an O-470-M is as a motor? I assume "MV" props means this is a spline-shaft, and presumably, pressure-carbureted contraption?

Logbooks say IO470M, and it doesn't look like they have splined crankshafts.

 

[schmookeeg]

Logbooks say IO470M, and it doesn't look like they have splined crankshafts.

Aha, thanks -- I wonder where I got the O- from... this listing sent me down a googly rabbithole, so someone on the intertubes got it wrong, but I made it worse by parroting it

 

[mondtster]

I wonder how liveable an O-470-M is as a motor? I assume "MV" props means this is a spline-shaft, and presumably, pressure-carbureted contraption?

(nothing to see here but foolishness folks, please disregard )

FWIW, There are MV props that don't have a splined hub as well. Likewise, there are flanged "V" props that are afflicted by the AD that the MV conversion fixes.

 

[schmookeeg]

FWIW, There are MV props that don't have a splined hub as well. Likewise, there are flanged "V" props that are afflicted by the AD that the MV conversion fixes.

Today I learned!

My beech centrism is showing through I think.

 

[Dan Thomas]

If it's the same basic airframe as the 690, it has 13 fuel bladders. Five in each wing and three in the fuselage. Bladder problems, anyone?

 

[SkyChaser]

If it's the same basic airframe as the 690, it has 13 fuel bladders. Five in each wing and three in the fuselage. Bladder problems, anyone?

If one or more of them develop leaks, is it called incontinence?