Another Big-Cabin Twin

What the heck is picture #6? A leather-lined toilet in the middle of the cabin?
 
Ahh, the 680FL. Powered by IGSO-540 engines, which have the worst BSFC of any piston aircraft engine I've seen.

On the Commanders, the toilet seat/jump seat is located behind the co-pilot. It's the seat closest to the door. Actually it would be good for me since if I had the plane the back end would be filled with dog cages most of the time.
 
timwinters said:
Yeah, I thought that photo was really special too!
Click to expand...

It's not the best location, but it isn't the worst, either. One could conceivably put privacy curtains up to isolate that seat from the cockpit and rest of the cabin.

Now the toilet seat on the Duke, which I recall as being located behind the pilot (as in, one of the 4 club seats) is the crappiest position I've ever seen.
 
timwinters said:
Yeah, I thought that photo was really special too!
Click to expand...

Having the capability to drop a big chuffer at altitude is a great feature. I imagine your wife's friends that came along for the trip to Santa Fe might not think so. :eek:

:rofl:
 
3393RP said:
Having the capability to drop a big chuffer at altitude is a great feature. I imagine your wife's friends that came along for the trip to Santa Fe might not think so. :eek:

:rofl:
Click to expand...

I had to urbandictionary "Chuffer" and I ended up with more questions than answers.
 
Ben, you want no part of a Twin Commander unless you have the budget. It will make your Strad or Guarnari or whatever you are playing, look positively disposable. It is a total hydraulic nightmare. There are parts that only one guy in the country can overhaul.....

They are noisy and slow, but they burn tons of fuel.

Did I get that right?

Now the TPE 331 versions are okay.....
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
Ben, you want no part of a Twin Commander unless you have the budget. It will make your Strad or Guarnari or whatever you are playing, look positively disposable. It is a total hydraulic nightmare. There are parts that only one guy in the country can overhaul.....

They are noisy and slow, but they burn tons of fuel.

Did I get that right?

Now the TPE 331 versions are okay.....
Click to expand...

That's what I understand. The gearing is cool, but more parts. . . .

The turbine solved all that, but now we're waaaaaay beyond what I and 6 other guys could afford or invest time in.
 
Very pretty plane, though.

When tempted to buy such a beautiful beast, I always like to remind myself that, while the market may have driven the cost of acquisition of such aircraft to delightfully low levels, it is in content and complication a million-dollar airplane, and it's maintenance and repair expense will track accordingly.
 
As ladies of the night know, a bit of paint, lipstick,
and a set of false eyelashes can cover up a lot of sins.
I bet that plane did not look appetizing before they covered everything up.
Filiform corrosion anyone?
 
bbchien said:
Now the TPE 331 versions are okay.....
Click to expand...

I think okay is the appropriate word. The speed and performance are good. The hydraulics are still complicated. The nosewheel steering is rotten. The control column is annoying. If I were buying a personal plane, I'd consider it because the layout is good for our dog work, but I find a Cheyenne to be much better.
 
I wonder how much any of these larger piston twins are flying these days. Every once in a while I'll pop onto FlightAware to see what's aloft. There are usually a fair number of Navajos and 402s flying, but really not much else in that size range. Most of the 402s belong to Cape Air, and the Navajos seem to be in air taxi use. I do see some 414s that are mostly used as air taxis, but I'm always surprised on how few 340s and 421s are flying.
 
FormerHangie said:
I wonder how much any of these larger piston twins are flying these days. Every once in a while I'll pop onto FlightAware to see what's aloft. There are usually a fair number of Navajos and 402s flying, but really not much else in that size range. Most of the 402s belong to Cape Air, and the Navajos seem to be in air taxi use. I do see some 414s that are mostly used as air taxis, but I'm always surprised on how few 340s and 421s are flying.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that Navajos and 402s are working airplanes. Cape Air's planes fly all day, every day.

Most 340s/421s are privately owned and don't fly as much. Also, charter outfits aren't usually flying every day. I know we didn't. 2-3x a week utilization for a plane was pretty good. However, the planes are still seeing 100-300 hours/year from many of their private owners who use them for both business and personal travel. Of course, even at that number, they're probably flying once a week at most.

Then you see the low time ones that have been sitting most of their lives, and that exists, too. You also have some people who bomb around in them VFR squawking 1200.
 
Skylane81E said:
Fly it another 1000 and replace the splice plate. That TT doesn't bother me on s working plane
Click to expand...

Wouldn't bother me, either, but I still don't think I'd buy it. Navajos have a lot of the expense of pressurized aircraft without the benefits in terms of speed and passenger comfort. Real benefit is short field and heavy loads. If I were going that size, I'd be looking 340-421. Might do a 685 or P-Navajo just to be different.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Keep in mind that Navajos and 402s are working airplanes. Cape Air's planes fly all day, every day.

Most 340s/421s are privately owned and don't fly as much. Also, charter outfits aren't usually flying every day. I know we didn't. 2-3x a week utilization for a plane was pretty good. However, the planes are still seeing 100-300 hours/year from many of their private owners who use them for both business and personal travel. Of course, even at that number, they're probably flying once a week at most.

Then you see the low time ones that have been sitting most of their lives, and that exists, too. You also have some people who bomb around in them VFR squawking 1200.
Click to expand...

The reason I'd been looking was I was wondering if corporate flight departments still used 421s, and I think you've just answered that for me. I'd always thought of 340s as being mostly owner flown, though I did know one architectural firm that had one professionally flown, but I'd thought of the 421 as being mostly pro flown. Maybe not so much anymore.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Now the toilet seat on the Duke, which I recall as being located behind the pilot (as in, one of the 4 club seats) is the crappiest position I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

Deducts $5 of unintended pun tax from Ted's account
 
FormerHangie said:
The reason I'd been looking was I was wondering if corporate flight departments still used 421s, and I think you've just answered that for me. I'd always thought of 340s as being mostly owner flown, though I did know one architectural firm that had one professionally flown, but I'd thought of the 421 as being mostly pro flown. Maybe not so much anymore.
Click to expand...

You still see a decent number that are flown by pros, either because the owners aren't pilots or aren't experienced enough pilots. But I think most are flown by the owner. But I think that you see fewer corporate flight departments per se these days, and more individual businessmen and families.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Keep in mind that Navajos and 402s are working airplanes. Cape Air's planes fly all day, every day.
Click to expand...

Yup. 402's for passengers, PA-31's for boxes. I fly 2 legs a day, 5 days a week in a PA-31 hauling boxes.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Yup. 402's for passengers, PA-31's for boxes. I fly 2 legs a day, 5 days a week in a PA-31 hauling boxes.
Click to expand...

Then you need to change your name from Cessna driver. :)
 
Problem with the P-Navajo is the TIGO-541s, if they just weren't so bloody expensive to deal with, you're at turbine numbers almost with none of the reliability benefits.
 
Henning said:
Problem with the P-Navajo is the TIGO-541s, if they just weren't so bloody expensive to deal with, you're at turbine numbers almost with none of the reliability benefits.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the 541s are a losing proposition for most people. The Dukes have a following, but the P-Navajos don't.

Basically Continental got enough GTSIO-520s out there (thank you, 421) to have the design work. The P-Navajo wasn't as popular (for good reason) and so the TIGOs never had the same following.
 
I don't know much about the 700s. Flew Navajos and 690s so I know more about the generic airframes. How fast are 700s?
 
FormerHangie said:
Does that qualify as "Little Orphan Aircraft"?

I'm amazed at the number of twins that seem to have 100 hours per year on them, it seems like a tremendous underutilization of an expensive capital asset.
Click to expand...

There are a number of people who've entered partnerships, but it seems like for many, having it available when they need it is worthwhile to them.

I was reading an article about one pilot who upgraded from a Malibu to a 421C. To help make the 421 more affordable, he entered in it with a non-equity partner and also put it on 135. The statement on conflicts was that they'd managed to work around them fine so far.
 
I'm an old Commander owner and am well versed in the different models. I looked long and hard at the 685 before I settled on the Aerostar. The 685 is basically a 690 without turbines.

The good news is it uses turbo bleed air to pressurise the cabin as opposed to the older 6980FP and FLP that used a hydraulic pump (that is almost impossible to overhaul). It's perhaps the quietest twin ever made inside the cabin. Truly cabin class. It has great range with the 322 gal tank - one of the longest of any twin ever made. It's fully FIKI.

The bad news: It's a runway hogger (it's props are far too small for the airframe), it has very highly strung geared engines that have a 1200hr TBO (they'll never make it without a top overhaul) and will cost $60K to overhaul a piece. They're gas guzzlers having to haul so much bulk around. Also, you're susceptible to the same periodic inspections as you are on the 690 - that means recurring pressure bulkhead inspections and a teardown of the whole landing gear every 5 years.

If you need great range, only operate off long tarmac rwy's (and never go to mountain airports) and need to carry a lot of people, then it could be an option. But it has none of the good bush qualities the other Commanders have and yet it doesn't have great top speed either for the power and fuel burn. It's a strange fish.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
Ahh, the 680FL. Powered by IGSO-540 engines, which have the worst BSFC of any piston aircraft engine I've seen.

On the Commanders, the toilet seat/jump seat is located behind the co-pilot. It's the seat closest to the door. Actually it would be good for me since if I had the plane the back end would be filled with dog cages most of the time.
Click to expand...


There's no way me or anyone I know would be squatting on that thing. Rip it out and get the space back. LOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top