Hey,
I'm trying to find the stats for a Commander 700. The more importants numbers are TO/LDG distance, approach speeds, payload, etc. Oh, service ceiling and known-ice/pressurized info would be good as well.
The aircraft I'm looking for is to seat 7-9 for private use. But it needs to get over the rocks IFR. Also, the ability to run off a 2500' strip. Maybe a cessna 340 or 404?
Any suggestions?
RJ
Twin info and Rockwell Commander 700
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
The original idea was something piston. The budget is on the cheaper side of things. A C90 would be too expensive.
What about a Ho, Beech Duke or Queen Air? The Commander has my vote at the moment...without knowing it's TO/LDG specs.
RJ
What about a Ho, Beech Duke or Queen Air? The Commander has my vote at the moment...without knowing it's TO/LDG specs.
RJ
Last edited by Jeremy on Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hey Man,
Depending on what the budget is and where exactly you are, the Navajo is a great aircraft, I've got about 1000 hours in them, I was running it into 3500' strips and never once used up more than 3/4 of it, at max weight that is to.
Fuel burns are pretty low considering your running 350 hp a side, they were between 15-18 gph depending on your alt. possibly even lower if you got oxygen and went up. I did one trip at 13 K flew for 3 hours and still had about 2 hours fuel on board. We ran them at about 100-50 rich of egt for this as well.
Speed is relatively good depending on airframe time, engine times etc. we blocked planned 165, but with one that was lower time we would regularly get around 175-180, the other had high timed engines, and I think a twisted frame cause we would only be around 160.
Ref speed we used was 95 which I am pretty sure is general for what most people are using.
Parts are easy to come by for the chieftiens as there are so many out there.
On the up and up, a chieftien is a great aircraft.
I don't have 404 time, but with the geared engines if you are not careful with them you will have yourself a maintenance queen, parts are somewhat harder to come by as there is not a whole lot out there,
On the plus side, you do have great performance, will carry 9 pax plus 2 pilots, it will carry alot of fuel and the cruise specs are really good as well.
good luck with your choice.
Depending on what the budget is and where exactly you are, the Navajo is a great aircraft, I've got about 1000 hours in them, I was running it into 3500' strips and never once used up more than 3/4 of it, at max weight that is to.
Fuel burns are pretty low considering your running 350 hp a side, they were between 15-18 gph depending on your alt. possibly even lower if you got oxygen and went up. I did one trip at 13 K flew for 3 hours and still had about 2 hours fuel on board. We ran them at about 100-50 rich of egt for this as well.
Speed is relatively good depending on airframe time, engine times etc. we blocked planned 165, but with one that was lower time we would regularly get around 175-180, the other had high timed engines, and I think a twisted frame cause we would only be around 160.
Ref speed we used was 95 which I am pretty sure is general for what most people are using.
Parts are easy to come by for the chieftiens as there are so many out there.
On the up and up, a chieftien is a great aircraft.
I don't have 404 time, but with the geared engines if you are not careful with them you will have yourself a maintenance queen, parts are somewhat harder to come by as there is not a whole lot out there,
On the plus side, you do have great performance, will carry 9 pax plus 2 pilots, it will carry alot of fuel and the cruise specs are really good as well.
good luck with your choice.
Try this: http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/
Aviation- the hardest way possible to make an easy living!
"You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace!" Michael Franti- Spearhead
"Trust everyone, but cut the cards". My Grandma.
"You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace!" Michael Franti- Spearhead
"Trust everyone, but cut the cards". My Grandma.
A PA-31 is a great machine (Chieftain). It's not pressurized of course, but it handles ice extremely well. They are a common airplane, so parts/maintenance isn't as big a deal as some airplanes. I don't know any details on the AC70, other than to say it looks good from far... (Uugly!). I do know that there are not many of them around. How easy it is to maintain? There must be some "The sky's the limit!" boys here who can give you the goods.
I don't think the 700 is the plane you want.
I do not have any first hand experience but I looked at the specs myself a few years ago. From what I remember it was a bit of a pig. Eats runway, underpowered, overweight. I don't even think it holds 7-9, maybe six including pilot. Not too bad for medivac, but useless as a general use aircraft. They are cheap though. But as they say down here 'treep tings na good an good tings na treep.
When you say 'get over the rocks' do you mean pressurized? That will eliminate all the regular ho's and chieftains, other than the P's which are heavy too. The 402c and 404 will be out as well. The 414 and 421 remain possible. The 414 is like a pressurized 402, which basically throws out 300 lbs of usefull load. The 421c isn't too bad, larger with a different wing, fast and pressurized, but I'm not sure if it will get in and out of 2500 legally.
If you need a large piston (7-9 people) the only other options are a commander 680/685 (runway eater), BN2 (too slow, never get over the rocks), and QueenAir (not many are pressurized and don't think it get off in 2500).
I can't think of any other light piston twins that'll hold 7-9??
So in my summary, if you need pressurization, the 421c might be you're only decent option. If not, the PA31-350, Cessna 402c or 404 are your best options.
I do not have any first hand experience but I looked at the specs myself a few years ago. From what I remember it was a bit of a pig. Eats runway, underpowered, overweight. I don't even think it holds 7-9, maybe six including pilot. Not too bad for medivac, but useless as a general use aircraft. They are cheap though. But as they say down here 'treep tings na good an good tings na treep.
When you say 'get over the rocks' do you mean pressurized? That will eliminate all the regular ho's and chieftains, other than the P's which are heavy too. The 402c and 404 will be out as well. The 414 and 421 remain possible. The 414 is like a pressurized 402, which basically throws out 300 lbs of usefull load. The 421c isn't too bad, larger with a different wing, fast and pressurized, but I'm not sure if it will get in and out of 2500 legally.
If you need a large piston (7-9 people) the only other options are a commander 680/685 (runway eater), BN2 (too slow, never get over the rocks), and QueenAir (not many are pressurized and don't think it get off in 2500).
I can't think of any other light piston twins that'll hold 7-9??
So in my summary, if you need pressurization, the 421c might be you're only decent option. If not, the PA31-350, Cessna 402c or 404 are your best options.
-
bob sacamano
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1680
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:26 am
- Location: I'm not in Kansas anymore
I flew a 421C in and out of a 3000' strip a few years back. We were never very heavy from what I recall. It has lots of power to get up and out. Don't think I'd want to land it on anything too much shorter. 2500 would probably work sometimes, but not always. That's a lot of plane to stop with just brakes and no reverse. And big props that are always pulling. ANY runway contamination in the winter would ba a no-go.
With the exception of the 404, Cessna's flaps don't provide great short field performance.
The 421c is not cheap to purchace, not cheap to operate, and not cheap to maintain. The big geared engines operating in the flight levels are kind of pushing the edge of the envelope. As a result, TBOs are very short, and most privately operated ones don't even make it to TBO. Many, many blown jugs and worse. (Good news is, it WILL fly just fine on one engine!)
Personally, I think the 404 would be a good choice. Huge payload, huge fuel capacity, proper flaps. Just not pressurized. I don't think you are going to find a piston twin that can haul your load over the rocks. Through, yes. Just not over.
Probably looking at either a Chieftan or a 404. The 404 will haul more, further, faster than the Chieftan, but is less common and may require more engine maintenance.
With the exception of the 404, Cessna's flaps don't provide great short field performance.
The 421c is not cheap to purchace, not cheap to operate, and not cheap to maintain. The big geared engines operating in the flight levels are kind of pushing the edge of the envelope. As a result, TBOs are very short, and most privately operated ones don't even make it to TBO. Many, many blown jugs and worse. (Good news is, it WILL fly just fine on one engine!)
Personally, I think the 404 would be a good choice. Huge payload, huge fuel capacity, proper flaps. Just not pressurized. I don't think you are going to find a piston twin that can haul your load over the rocks. Through, yes. Just not over.
Probably looking at either a Chieftan or a 404. The 404 will haul more, further, faster than the Chieftan, but is less common and may require more engine maintenance.
Never had anything to do with a 700 but being an orphan airplane, that could get expensive and frustrating. The Queen Air , both normal cabin and pressurized, are a fine airframe with a maintenance hog geared engines. The Twin Commander 720FLP is a fine airframe with mainenance pig engines. The Duke is a fast expensive useless airplane, will not carry shit for a load and one very difficult airplane to maintain. The King Air 90 will outperform almost all the airplanes mentioned with a combination of a bullet proof airframe and absolutley bullet proof engines. The E90, with the PT6- 28 engines will go 7500+ hrs between o'haul. By the time the engine is clapped out in the Duke or caught fire in the Queen Air or making metal in the Twin Commander, the King Air MAY be due for it's first oil change. By the time the Cessna 421 is due for a 12 cylinder top overhaul and a cracked crankcase, the King Air 90 MAY need a quart of oil. They are still building King Air 90's so you can buy new parts. Initial cost is higher but I will bet maintenance costs will be less --- unless you leave it sit a lot. Best way to treat a King Air is to lay the whip to it on a regular basis. The airplane thrives on hard work. Another good choice is a Cheyenne 11. Some early airplanes had an undeserved reputation as being a "tricky" airplane to fly. The only problem with a Cheyenne is it is easy to get the airplane way past it's aft c of g limits which spooked low time, poorly trained pilots with a big mouth. Other than that, a bullet proof airframe with bullet proof engines.
The average pilot, despite the somewhat swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
Try these guys...they specialize in Commanders. It may be worth a shot.
http://www.byerlyaviation.com/
http://www.byerlyaviation.com/
Also something to consider with the Cessna's is that "Wing Spar" AD. I'm out of the loop now on whether or not that AD has been implemented, but I know my old stompin ground couldn't get a FOR SALE sign on ours fast enough. Apparently about $70-100K job, and without it the plane isn't airworthy.
In my experience (with a 414A) the W&B was an absolute whoore anytime we were even considering more than 3 pax. We DID manage to get it into 2500' grass though...and out, but there was alot of water to fly over for our shallow climb. We had the RAM VII conversion on it, so that helped quite a bit.
In my experience (with a 414A) the W&B was an absolute whoore anytime we were even considering more than 3 pax. We DID manage to get it into 2500' grass though...and out, but there was alot of water to fly over for our shallow climb. We had the RAM VII conversion on it, so that helped quite a bit.
-
Dust Devil
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4027
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
- Location: Riderville
When I need to get someplace, I fly a C421B:
Lots of power (375hp each side) and lots of useful load. I really love the pressurization - I typically file for the mid-teens, and with 11,000 feet of differential, it's really quite pleasant to get above most of the weather, and there's hardly anyone else at those altitudes - you can get direct pretty much anywhere.
Everybody gushes over the 'ho, but once you've gotten used to pressurization, it's hard to go back. No more worrying about pax eardrums, either.
The spar AD missed it. Maybe there will be another one, I dunno, but the only way to win at the AD game is to not own any aircraft.
I've never had a problem with W&B - rarely do you fill all 6 tanks, and if you do, no pax wants to fly until they're used. With vortex generators, you've got 2,000 lbs of useful load. With 5 people on board at 200 lbs per, you've got 500 lbs of fuel per side.
And sure, a 172 circuit jockey is going to crack the jugs - you've got to think ahead to plan your descent and keep the CHT up. It's not really intellectually challenging, though.
Sure, a King Air would be nice, some day if you win the lottery ... you can buy a C421B with new paint, interior, engines and king avionics for a fraction of a clapped-out King Air would cost. Plus the pph on the King Air is way more than that of the 421 - I can comfortably cruise at 100 pph per side at any altitude. If money is no object, why stop at a King Air? Heck, go for a GV!
Lots of power (375hp each side) and lots of useful load. I really love the pressurization - I typically file for the mid-teens, and with 11,000 feet of differential, it's really quite pleasant to get above most of the weather, and there's hardly anyone else at those altitudes - you can get direct pretty much anywhere.
Everybody gushes over the 'ho, but once you've gotten used to pressurization, it's hard to go back. No more worrying about pax eardrums, either.
The spar AD missed it. Maybe there will be another one, I dunno, but the only way to win at the AD game is to not own any aircraft.
I've never had a problem with W&B - rarely do you fill all 6 tanks, and if you do, no pax wants to fly until they're used. With vortex generators, you've got 2,000 lbs of useful load. With 5 people on board at 200 lbs per, you've got 500 lbs of fuel per side.
And sure, a 172 circuit jockey is going to crack the jugs - you've got to think ahead to plan your descent and keep the CHT up. It's not really intellectually challenging, though.
Sure, a King Air would be nice, some day if you win the lottery ... you can buy a C421B with new paint, interior, engines and king avionics for a fraction of a clapped-out King Air would cost. Plus the pph on the King Air is way more than that of the 421 - I can comfortably cruise at 100 pph per side at any altitude. If money is no object, why stop at a King Air? Heck, go for a GV!
Last edited by Hedley on Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Dust Devil
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4027
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
- Location: Riderville
Get a pressurised ho if ya need pressurisation. with a 5psi pressure system you'll be playing in the mid 20's. Geared engines can be a bitch but if your the only one flying the plane you shouldn't have any trouble. Just be sure to plan ahead and keep the power on. My main expense has been vacume pumps but we're working on an alternative method with an stc.
I'm not sure anybody in the eastern half of Canada (where I fly) really needs pressurization. I'm sure nobody really needs GPS, either, but gosh, it's sure nice to have, and easy to get used to.
Sorta like ANR headsets. No one needs them, but they're sure nice in a single. The 421, with the geared engine, doesn't need ANR because the prop tips are so slow. Nice quiet cabin at 1800 rpm.
In the summer, it's great to get above the layers because you can see the CBs and just visually drive around them. In the winter, it's great to be able climb out of the icing in the layers. Love those turbochargers.
You can cruise the 421 at 31/1800 all day, but to save gas, you can cruise at 25 or 26 inches. When it's time to come down, pull back to 23 inches, wait 2 minutes, then pull back to 21 inches, and with a bit of experience, you can time the gear and flaps so that you don't have to touch the throttles again until short final.
Sorta like ANR headsets. No one needs them, but they're sure nice in a single. The 421, with the geared engine, doesn't need ANR because the prop tips are so slow. Nice quiet cabin at 1800 rpm.
In the summer, it's great to get above the layers because you can see the CBs and just visually drive around them. In the winter, it's great to be able climb out of the icing in the layers. Love those turbochargers.
You can cruise the 421 at 31/1800 all day, but to save gas, you can cruise at 25 or 26 inches. When it's time to come down, pull back to 23 inches, wait 2 minutes, then pull back to 21 inches, and with a bit of experience, you can time the gear and flaps so that you don't have to touch the throttles again until short final.
Found some old numbers from my 421C days. No guarantees they're right.
BEW 5337
Max ZFW 6733
That means a max payload of 1396. Realistically, that's only 6 (almost 7)adult males, including pilot.
Max TOW 7450
That leaves 717 lbs for fuel at Max Payload. At normal cruise, that's just under 3 hours til tanks dry. (That could be stretched considerably at reduced power settings.)
With full mains (1236 lbs or 5 hours), you can haul 877 lbs of load, including pilot.
These numbers don't seem too impressive. Pressurization, air conditioning, and cabinetry added a lot of weight to this aircraft. Also, we didn't have any mods. No vortex generators, no RAM conversion. Nothing. Possibly this could be improved with mods?
What was impressive, was it's performance, speed, altitude, quiet cabin, and comfort. We normally flew it in the high "teens" or low "20s." I don't think you'll find a nicer piston twin to fly or ride in. One day, I remember passing a King Air 100 in cruise. It was piece of shit KA100, don't know the exact version, but none the less, I passed it in cruise. If I recall, we trued out at just over 210 Kts. Certainly, all KA100s must cruise faster that this? Even the very old ones? I assume we just chose the right altitude that day for the winds.
If I recall, the 414A I flew actually had a higher usefull load than the 421C. This one had no cabinetry, basic cabin. Still a very comfortable plane to fly. Happiest in the mid teens.
Even better for load was the 402C. With the VG kit, it could haul a schwak. Easily pilot plus 6-7 pax, plus a descent amount of bags. Doesn't burn much fuel, either. But now, you're into unpressurized cabins. And no unpressurized cabin will ever be as comfortable as even the most basic pressurized one.
As far as the "Spar AD" goes, I'm clueless. I haven't flown the plane for years, and I don't know which types or serial numbers it applies to. Obviously though, it almost entirely eliminates those airframes that it applies to from being seriously concidered. Too bad. They are nice.
I have no figures for a 404. All I know, is that it's a monster. If you can load it, the 404 will fly it, legally. Huge load capacity. It has a different wing than the rest of the Cessnas. Maybe the AD doesn't apply. Cross your fingers, and look into it.
Good luck.
BEW 5337
Max ZFW 6733
That means a max payload of 1396. Realistically, that's only 6 (almost 7)adult males, including pilot.
Max TOW 7450
That leaves 717 lbs for fuel at Max Payload. At normal cruise, that's just under 3 hours til tanks dry. (That could be stretched considerably at reduced power settings.)
With full mains (1236 lbs or 5 hours), you can haul 877 lbs of load, including pilot.
These numbers don't seem too impressive. Pressurization, air conditioning, and cabinetry added a lot of weight to this aircraft. Also, we didn't have any mods. No vortex generators, no RAM conversion. Nothing. Possibly this could be improved with mods?
What was impressive, was it's performance, speed, altitude, quiet cabin, and comfort. We normally flew it in the high "teens" or low "20s." I don't think you'll find a nicer piston twin to fly or ride in. One day, I remember passing a King Air 100 in cruise. It was piece of shit KA100, don't know the exact version, but none the less, I passed it in cruise. If I recall, we trued out at just over 210 Kts. Certainly, all KA100s must cruise faster that this? Even the very old ones? I assume we just chose the right altitude that day for the winds.
If I recall, the 414A I flew actually had a higher usefull load than the 421C. This one had no cabinetry, basic cabin. Still a very comfortable plane to fly. Happiest in the mid teens.
Even better for load was the 402C. With the VG kit, it could haul a schwak. Easily pilot plus 6-7 pax, plus a descent amount of bags. Doesn't burn much fuel, either. But now, you're into unpressurized cabins. And no unpressurized cabin will ever be as comfortable as even the most basic pressurized one.
As far as the "Spar AD" goes, I'm clueless. I haven't flown the plane for years, and I don't know which types or serial numbers it applies to. Obviously though, it almost entirely eliminates those airframes that it applies to from being seriously concidered. Too bad. They are nice.
I have no figures for a 404. All I know, is that it's a monster. If you can load it, the 404 will fly it, legally. Huge load capacity. It has a different wing than the rest of the Cessnas. Maybe the AD doesn't apply. Cross your fingers, and look into it.
Good luck.
Vortex generator are worth their weight in gold on the Cessna 300/400 twins, and not just for the increased takeoff weight. The slow-speed handling is vastly improved, and far more forgiving. It makes it a pussy cat to land.
RAM on the 421 (we have it) doesn't increase the power like on the non-geared twins.
No air conditioning on our 421, and no stupid wooden dividers behind the pilot seats. I've currently got the seat removed just ahead and left of the door, so there's lots of room to get in and out. This leaves us with 5 normal seats (2 pilot, 2 rear facing, 1 forward facing at the rear right) plus there's a potty seat with a seatbelt for a kid.
The long nose on the B (as opposed to the short-nose A) is great for luggage.
The 421C costs a lot more than the 421B, but I'm not sure of the performance advantages to justify the price.
RAM on the 421 (we have it) doesn't increase the power like on the non-geared twins.
No air conditioning on our 421, and no stupid wooden dividers behind the pilot seats. I've currently got the seat removed just ahead and left of the door, so there's lots of room to get in and out. This leaves us with 5 normal seats (2 pilot, 2 rear facing, 1 forward facing at the rear right) plus there's a potty seat with a seatbelt for a kid.
The long nose on the B (as opposed to the short-nose A) is great for luggage.
The 421C costs a lot more than the 421B, but I'm not sure of the performance advantages to justify the price.
-
Big Pistons Forever
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5956
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: West Coast
Robertson made a STOL kit for the 421B/C. It turns the flap into area increasing fowlers from the simple split flaps they came with. This mod significantly reduces the take off roll. I have flown non robertson modified C421 A, B and C models, including ones with the VG mod and have found all of them somewhat of a runway hog. The bottom line though is on any runway shorter than 5000 feet you are flying a single engine airplane with twice the chance of an engine failure. With respect to the C421's geared engine, I think they have gotten a bad rap by pilots who were too lazy to learn how to operate them properly. The last 421 I flew had 1450 hours on both engines when it was sold and had never needed any cylinder work. The chief maintance issue on the engines was accesories, particularly vacuum pumps and alternators.
I think you might be a little high on the C90, but it really depends on what you are including in the operating cost. Here are my best guesses....
C90 - $700ph
C414 - $440ph
C421 - $500ph
PA31P - $450ph
PA31-350 - $400ph
C404 - $480ph
C402c - $420ph
But if you're ballparking a C90 to $1000ph, than you'll have to adjust those figures upward proportionately.
Last time I checked it only cost around $1000 per hour to charter a C90, so it can't cost that to operate, can it??
C90 - $700ph
C414 - $440ph
C421 - $500ph
PA31P - $450ph
PA31-350 - $400ph
C404 - $480ph
C402c - $420ph
But if you're ballparking a C90 to $1000ph, than you'll have to adjust those figures upward proportionately.
Last time I checked it only cost around $1000 per hour to charter a C90, so it can't cost that to operate, can it??
-
Big Pistons Forever
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5956
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: West Coast
