Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Commander 520 from 1953 questions.
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Commander-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 2:13 pm Post subject: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

Good Afternoon Chris,

  

 Come on down to the Beech Party next Fall. Ask me abut it and you won't be  able to get me to stop talking! <G>

  

 Happy Skies,

  

 Old Bob

  

  In a message dated 12/31/2010 2:17:31 P.M. Central Standard Time,  cschuerm(at)cox.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    Commander-List message posted by: Chris    <cschuerm(at)cox.net>



BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   That was the    first Commander I ever flew and it sticks in my memory 

 because I had    a major "Dark And Stormy Night" experience when I was 

 flying    it.

What chapter of the book will this story be in OB?  
	


I, for    one, would love to hear  it!

Chris

	


  [quote][b]

dfalik(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 2:21 pm Post subject: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

I am based in Michigan and had a 500S for 4 years and 1000 hours.

  

 I had 2 annuals done in Traverse City at Cherry Capital Aviation.  The owner of the FBO is Kent and his number is 231 941-1740.

  

 It wasn't cheap.  The rates may sound reasonable BUT what they can find is purely subjective and with the tremendous decrease in general aviation, the remaining service areas are using less pilots to fill their buckets and with a 50+ year old aircraft the sky is the limit.

  

 If you are paying a very reasonable price for the airplane, remember that is just the price of admission.  I found that, unless you are married or have a personal relationship with your mechanic the costs are astronomical.

  

 I went from $8-9K annuals to $15-25K annuals when I lost my personal mechanic.  The first year of insurance for my 500S with $185K hull value was $7500 and I had 200+ hours in an Apache.  The rate never got lower than $4500.

  

 I do feel that the Twin Commander is the finest twin a general aviation pilot will ever fly but it is not for the faint of heart financially.

  

 Don Falik

  

 John Towner in Kansas is a Twin Commander guru as he maintains a fleet of 35 of them.



 

   From: White_rhino_ps <white_rhino_ps(at)yahoo.com>

To: "commander-list(at)matronics.com" <commander-list(at)matronics.com>

Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 3:30:00 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.



--> Commander-List message posted by: White_rhino_ps <white_rhino_ps(at)yahoo.com (white_rhino_ps(at)yahoo.com)>



Adam,



 	  Quote: 	
		  From personal experience, I suggest an independent pre-buy is the best money you will spend. The local Commander pro I hired for my pre-buy for 747H turned out to not only be a friend of the seller, but had worked on the plane as well. He had a vested  interest, but it wasn't mine!  He also performed an extensive  annual. So good in fact that the left engine made it  3 hours before it failed. The right was minutes behind it!


	


In simple terms, pay the money up front or pay a lot more later!  A guy like Morris can give you a detailed plan to sort the bird out, and the priority of projects!



Good luck!



Craig



 	  Quote: 	
		  From my iPhone 4!


	


On Dec 31, 2010, at 10:22 AM, "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com (john(at)vormbaum.com)> wrote:



[quote] --> Commander-List message posted by: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com (john(at)vormbaum.com)>

 

 Hello Adam,

 

 I am another who would recommend Morris Kernick/Commander Services, although

 I should preface this by admitting that he is one of my closest friends now,

 after a decade of Commanderism. His price is very reasonable, his  toolkit

 essentially one bag, and the money he will save you in the long run far

 outweighs any expense for the prebuy. 

 

 If not for Morris, I would probably be another $100k+ into a Commander,

 instead of enjoying my 500B the way I am.

 

 Good luck,

 

 /John

 

 PS: And it won't cost you $10k. I think you would be pleased at Morris'

 rates.

 

 --

nico(at)cybersuperstore.c
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 2:48 pm Post subject: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

For me, too. It sounds like one of those worthy stories one would  want to keep. 

  



   From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry  Collman

Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 1:26 PM

To:  commander-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Commander  520 from 1953 questions.

 

  

Hi “Old  Bob”, 

  

It will be all of 5  minutes ‘work’, so give me a few minutes to answer a few more emails and I’ll  get an Excel .xls file to you. 

Perhaps you could  put together a Word .doc file on the “Dark and Stormy Night” experience for  me? 

  

Best  Regards, 

Barry 

    

From:  owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of  BobsV35B(at)aol.com

Sent: 31 December 2010 18:27

To:  commander-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Commander  520 from 1953 questions.



 

   

Good  Afternoon Barry,

  

 

  

Just  out of curiosity, how much trouble would it be to find out what happened to  serial number 24?

  

 

  

That  was the first Commander I ever flew and it sticks in my memory because I had a  major "Dark And Stormy Night" experience when I was flying  it.

  

 

  

Happy  Skies,

  

 

  

Old  Bob

  

 

   

In a  message dated 12/31/2010 9:50:57 A.M. Central Standard Time, barry.collman(at)air-britain.co.uk (barry.collman(at)air-britain.co.uk)  writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		     

-->    Commander-List message posted by: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman(at)air-britain.co.uk (barry.collman(at)air-britain.co.uk)>



Hi    Adam,



Welcome, both to the chatlist and as a Commander    owner.



I'm guessing that you bought s/n 62, N527P?



Let me know    and I'll get the history of it to you.



Best Regards,

Barry    Collman

Aero Commander  historian.



   	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  	
4 	  Quote: 	
		  	
5 	  Quote: 	
		  	
6

 	  Quote: 	
		  	
7    [quote][b]

yourtcfg(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 5:20 pm Post subject: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

WELL SAID CHRIS  (Happy new year)  Adam, I love all Commanders and will most likely always have one, but, as Chris and others have said these old masterpieces are not for the weak of wallet. Just so you reality check doesn't bounce.  If the propellers are the original (probably are) and require the on going inspection (as per the AD) the odds are very high (almost certain) that you will need to replace them at some point.  New they cost about 30K, EACH!  There are some options, but the least expensive would cost 10K or more.  The airplane has five fuel cells.  If they are in good shape (probably are) Great!  If they need replaced, they cost about $1500 each, not installed.  Replacing all five (very difficult to replace only one or two unless they are nearly new) will cost about 10K with labor.  A prebuy wont be cheap, unless you don't do one.  I love these airplanes and it warms my heat to see them remain in service and in good hands, but you need to understand the financial commitment before you buy.  Good luck and I hope you will do it right and then become an owner .  jb 360-903-6901

 

   

 

 

   --

cschuerm(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 5:39 pm Post subject: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Good Afternoon Chris,

 Come on down to the Beech Party next Fall. Ask me abut it and you 

 won't be able to get me to stop talking! <G>

I *really* hope to make it Bob.  Killed me to not be able to make the 
	


last one, but I've been working 100 hour weeks pretty much all year.  

One must seize such opportunities when they present themselves, but I'm 

sure hoping to have at least a few weekends off in 2011 !



cheers and happy new years to you and your family.

Chris

n395v

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 450

Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 6:19 am Post subject: Re: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

You may want to look further into this>>>



http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=23445&key=0



If you haven't already



NTSB Identification: LAX67F0049

14 CFR Part 91 General Aviation 

Event occurred Sunday, July 17, 1966 in PHOENIX, AZ

Aircraft: AERO CMDR 520, registration: N527P



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE    DATE          LOCATION          AIRCRAFT DATA       INJURIES       FLIGHT                        PILOT DATA                                                               F  S M/N     PURPOSE----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3-3394  66/7/17    PHOENIX ARIZ        AERO CMDR 520       CR-  0  0  1  NONCOMMERCIAL             ATP,FLIGHT INSTR., AGE        TIME - 1330                    N527P               PX-  0  0  1  BUSINESS                  49, 9200 TOTAL HOURS, 80                                       DAMAGE-SUBSTANTIAL  OT-  0  0  0                            IN TYPE, NOT INSTRUMENT                                                                                                   RATED.        NAME OF AIRPORT - SKY HARBOR        TYPE OF ACCIDENT                                         PHASE OF OPERATION           GROUND-WATER LOOP-SWERVE                                 LANDING: ROLL           GEAR COLLAPSED                                           LANDING: ROLL        PROBABLE CAUSE(S)           AIRFRAME - LANDING GEAR: BRAKING SYSTEM (NORMAL SYSTEM)        FACTOR(S)           MISCELLANEOUS ACTS,CONDITIONS - MISSING           MISCELLANEOUS ACTS,CONDITIONS - DISCONNECTED           MISCELLANEOUS ACTS,CONDITIONS - OVERLOAD FAILURE

I would echo the comments of Chris, Jim and others. Sight unseen you just never know what you are getting.

_________________
Milt

Cate Chagnot

Joined: 24 May 2007
Posts: 36
Location: Ohio

Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 6:43 am Post subject: Re: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

Hi Adam,



Welcome to the world of Commander ownership. Bill Leff is in Dayton, Ohio and probably knows about as much as anyone East of the Mississippi about Commanders. Give him a call. (cell 937-369-3334) Bill is also approved by most (if not all) the insurance companies to do the training. I did my training with Bill after I bought my 680E and do my recurrent training with him.



As already pointed out, Commander ownership is not for the faint of wallet. If you try to analyze the cost of ownership you'll probably freak out and run away. If I told my accountant about the money I spend every year on my wonderful airplane he'd have me certified insane and locked away. 



At least you've found this site and joined the Commander group. These guys are a wonderful group, the font of all Commander wisdom between them and always willing to go out of their way to help. 



My advice? Start calling and talking to anyone and everyone you can. Good luck and have fun!



Cate

Commander 680E

N4278S

_________________
Cate

N4278S 680E
Skywagon N180PK

stratobee

Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 159
Location: Los Angeles

Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:04 pm Post subject: Re: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

I appreciate the candor.



I came very close to owning a Cessna 337 some time ago and have been at the Skymaster forum for many years, so I think I have fairly good idea of the costs of twin ownership. This being 15-20 years older and bigger and with unsupported engines, will probably add a bit to that. I'm expecting to see about $30.000/year, all in. Hopefully less than that, but that's what I've been told to prepare myself mentally for.



The props are on the recurring 500hrs/5years AD inspection and have run 161hrs and 18 months since the last one. Annual was done this summer. Aircraft has 5500hrs total, which seems like a nice number for her age and hopefully means she's been flown and not been sitting idle too much. Engines are 850 and 900hrs respectively. Hopefully with a little babying they'll make it past TBO. I like to throttle back and look at the scenery, so hopefully I can run them at non-geared rpm's, 2500-2700rpm. I'm hoping they will take kindly to this. The $ 40K/engine quote I got from Central Cylinders in Omaha is going to be a tough pill to swallow when it happens...



I'm planning for liability insurance only, no hull.



Couple of questions:



1. The wing AD is not in effect on the first Commanders, right? I seem to remember reading that they only came with the models that mixed stainless steel with aluminum in the spar - was it somewhere around the early 60's?



2. What about the fuel cells - can they be repaired if they're damaged?



3. Heard that the engine mounts are a weak spot on these. Are they made of steel and can be welded/repaired? Is it a costly thing?



4. Are there any alternatives to the prop in case they need replacing? Someone mentioned something about a Queen Air prop STC?



5. Are there alternative (read cheaper) ways/places of overhauling the GO-435's than the quoted 40K?



Any other weak spots on these early models I should keep an eye out for?



Thanks,

A.

moe-rosspistons(at)hotmai
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 5:14 pm Post subject: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

Hi Adam,



I also owned a 337C for quite some time and put over 1,000 hours on it. 

That birds problem is, of course, the Continental IO 360 engines which are 

very prone to case cracking.  Having said that, the Skymaster was really 

CHEAP to operate as compared to my Commander.  They are both great 

airplanes, but are completely different birds.



Regards,



Moe

N680RR

680Fp

--------------------------------------------------

From: "stratobee" <adam(at)adamfrisch.com>

Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 11:05 PM

To: <commander-list(at)matronics.com>

Subject: Re: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 I appreciate the candor.



 I came very close to owning a Cessna 337 some time ago and have been at 

 the Skymaster forum for many years, so I think I have fairly good idea of 

 the costs of twin ownership. This being 15-20 years older and bigger and 

 with unsupported engines, will probably add a bit to that. I'm expecting 

 to see about $30.000/year, all in. Hopefully less than that, but that's 

 what I've been told to prepare myself mentally for.



 The props are on the recurring 500hrs/5years AD inspection and have run 

 161hrs and 18 months since the last one. Annual was done this summer. 

 Aircraft has 5500hrs total, which seems like a nice number for her age and 

 hopefully means she's been flown and not been sitting idle too much. 

 Engines are 850 and 900hrs respectively. Hopefully with a little babying 

 they'll make it past TBO. I like to throttle back and look at the scenery, 

 so hopefully I can run them at non-geared rpm's, 2500-2700rpm. I'm hoping 

 they will take kindly to this. The $ 40K/engine quote I got from Central 

 Cylinders in Omaha is going to be a tough pill to swallow when it 

 happens...



 I'm planning for liability insurance only, no hull.



 Couple of questions:



 1. The wing AD is not in effect on the first Commanders, right? I seem to 

 remember reading that they only came with the models that mixed stainless 

 steel with aluminum in the spar - was it somewhere around the early 60's?



 2. What about the fuel cells - can they be repaired if they're damaged?



 3. Heard that the engine mounts are a weak spot on these. Are they made of 

 steel and can be welded/repaired? Is it a costly thing?



 4. Are there any alternatives to the prop in case they need replacing? 

 Someone mentioned something about a Queen Air prop STC?



 5. Are there alternative (read cheaper) ways/places of overhauling the 

 GO-435's than the quoted 40K?



 Any other weak spots on these early models I should keep an eye out for?



 Thanks,

 A.





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=325277#325277

cschuerm(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 5:42 pm Post subject: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

stratobee wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Couple of questions:

    

I haven't seen anyone posting answers, so I'll try to help out with a 
	


couple of these...



 	  Quote: 	
		   1. The wing AD is not in effect on the first Commanders, right?

The "big" AD (dissimilar metal corrosion) does not apply to the 520.  
	


There are several other wing related ADs which do, however.  The lower 

spar cap radius where the spar exits the fuselage requires repetitive 

inspections for cracks (and a modification if not already done).  There 

is also one requiring some reinforcements in the wing which involve 

cutting a big hole in the leading edge.  I don't remember for certain 

when it has to be done, but 7000 hours sticks in my mind.

 	  Quote: 	
		   2. What about the fuel cells - can they be repaired if they're damaged?

    

Yes.  There are multiple sources for new and re-manufactured fuel cells.
	




 	  Quote: 	
		   3. Heard that the engine mounts are a weak spot on these. Are they made of steel and can be welded/repaired? Is it a costly thing?

    

The mounts are fabricated from aluminum and likely have already had 
	


repairs made with over 5000 hours on the airframe.   New or serviceable 

mounts would likely be impossible to come by but they can be well 

repaired by a competent fabricator.

 	  Quote: 	
		   4. Are there any alternatives to the prop in case they need replacing? Someone mentioned something about a Queen Air prop STC?

    

Unfortunately no (unless something new has happened).  The Queen Air 
	


props are not approved for the GO435 installation.  You're going to need 

to continue the re-occuring inspection until they fail then either find 

some acceptable used parts or bite the bullet and purchase new MV series 

props which eliminate the AD.



 	  Quote: 	
		   5. Are there alternative (read cheaper) ways/places of overhauling the GO-435's than the quoted 40K?

    

Very few shops will touch the geared lycomings these days.  The gearbox 
	


parts are getting very rare and expensive.  I purchased a set of new 

cylinders about 12 years ago and was told at the time that they were the 

last NEW jugs in existence although there must be a few around 

somewhere.  An item of note: a shop is required to have a repair station 

license and approval to overhaul the geared lycoming engines.  That's 

one of the reasons so few shops work on them.  Not worth the hassle.  

You might find someplace that will overhaul them for less money, but 

remember two things: there is a big difference between a "service 

limits" overhaul and a "new limits" overhaul.  Also, at overhaul, you're 

getting "less worn out" parts rather than new for many items.

 	  Quote: 	
		   Any other weak spots on these early models I should keep an eye out for?

    

Overall, it's a great airframe with few major problem areas.  The 
	


biggest trouble spot that I've seen is the truss assemblies in the 

nacelles.  These trusses are fabricated from 7075T651 aluminum (modern 

designation) and are subject to inter-granular corrosion.  They attach 

to the wing spar and are the primary attach points for both the landing 

gear and the engine mount.  Inspect very carefully where the ears 

protrude through the firewall and become the engine mount attach 

points.  This area is usually hidden behind some baffling material and 

almost always has corrosion.  Also, there is a side-ways brace running 

diagonally outwards from the outboard truss.  It should be removed from 

the airplane and the area where it attaches to the lower spar cap inspected.



Commanders tend to have greater levels of corrosion throughout the 

airframe.  I believe this is because many of them have spent their lives 

non-hangared.  It's not really due to any aspect of the design other 

than it's size.



I'd also verify that the engines have the larger 1/2" exhaust valves.  

The earlier p/n 7/16th valves are very prone to breaking and causing 

expensive damage.



The old Goodyear brakes are no longer supported.  They were pretty good 

brakes and easy to work on, but the silly pucks have become quite 

expensive.  Stock up on spare parts when you run across them.



Oh, and just purchase a 55gal barrel of 5606 and the proper tools to 

make your own hydraulic hoses and you'll be a happy camper.



Hope this helps a little.

Chris

tylorhall(at)mac.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 7:15 pm Post subject: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

Chris,

I have made hydraulic hoses before.  We had it part of my shop.

Can a owner make Aviation Hydraulic Hoses for his own plane?

Hose and fitting are easy.  Parker has aviation hose and fittings.

What about paper work and record keeping????

Tylor Hall

On Jan 2, 2011, at 6:39 PM, Chris wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 stratobee wrote:

> Couple of questions:

>   

 I haven't seen anyone posting answers, so I'll try to help out with a couple of these...

> 1. The wing AD is not in effect on the first Commanders, right?

 The "big" AD (dissimilar metal corrosion) does not apply to the 520.  There are several other wing related ADs which do, however.  The lower spar cap radius where the spar exits the fuselage requires repetitive inspections for cracks (and a modification if not already done).  There is also one requiring some reinforcements in the wing which involve cutting a big hole in the leading edge.  I don't remember for certain when it has to be done, but 7000 hours sticks in my mind.

> 2. What about the fuel cells - can they be repaired if they're damaged?

>   

 Yes.  There are multiple sources for new and re-manufactured fuel cells.

> 3. Heard that the engine mounts are a weak spot on these. Are they made of steel and can be welded/repaired? Is it a costly thing?

>   

 The mounts are fabricated from aluminum and likely have already had repairs made with over 5000 hours on the airframe.   New or serviceable mounts would likely be impossible to come by but they can be well repaired by a competent fabricator.

> 4. Are there any alternatives to the prop in case they need replacing? Someone mentioned something about a Queen Air prop STC?

>   

 Unfortunately no (unless something new has happened).  The Queen Air props are not approved for the GO435 installation.  You're going to need to continue the re-occuring inspection until they fail then either find some acceptable used parts or bite the bullet and purchase new MV series props which eliminate the AD.

> 5. Are there alternative (read cheaper) ways/places of overhauling the GO-435's than the quoted 40K?

>   

 Very few shops will touch the geared lycomings these days.  The gearbox parts are getting very rare and expensive.  I purchased a set of new cylinders about 12 years ago and was told at the time that they were the last NEW jugs in existence although there must be a few around somewhere.  An item of note: a shop is required to have a repair station license and approval to overhaul the geared lycoming engines.  That's one of the reasons so few shops work on them.  Not worth the hassle.  You might find someplace that will overhaul them for less money, but remember two things: there is a big difference between a "service limits" overhaul and a "new limits" overhaul.  Also, at overhaul, you're getting "less worn out" parts rather than new for many items.

> Any other weak spots on these early models I should keep an eye out for?

>   

 Overall, it's a great airframe with few major problem areas.  The biggest trouble spot that I've seen is the truss assemblies in the nacelles.  These trusses are fabricated from 7075T651 aluminum (modern designation) and are subject to inter-granular corrosion.  They attach to the wing spar and are the primary attach points for both the landing gear and the engine mount.  Inspect very carefully where the ears protrude through the firewall and become the engine mount attach points.  This area is usually hidden behind some baffling material and almost always has corrosion.  Also, there is a side-ways brace running diagonally outwards from the outboard truss.  It should be removed from the airplane and the area where it attaches to the lower spar cap inspected.

 Commanders tend to have greater levels of corrosion throughout the airframe.  I believe this is because many of them have spent their lives non-hangared.  It's not really due to any aspect of the design other than it's size.

 I'd also verify that the engines have the larger 1/2" exhaust valves.  The earlier p/n 7/16th valves are very prone to breaking and causing expensive damage.

 The old Goodyear brakes are no longer supported.  They were pretty good brakes and easy to work on, but the silly pucks have become quite expensive.  Stock up on spare parts when you run across them.

 Oh, and just purchase a 55gal barrel of 5606 and the proper tools to make your own hydraulic hoses and you'll be a happy camper.

 Hope this helps a little.

 Chris

cschuerm(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 4:34 am Post subject: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

Tylor Hall wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Can a owner make Aviation Hydraulic Hoses for his own plane?

    


	


The FARs are very specific about a limited set of approved tasks an 

owner can perform Tylor.  You'll need a licensed mechanic to be involved 

with the hoses. Remember that you can do anything as long as you are 

being supervised by an A&P.  AC43.13 has specific guidance for proper 

assembly, testing, and documentation.



Chris

n395v

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 450

Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:37 am Post subject: Re: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

 	  Quote: 	
		  Can a owner make Aviation Hydraulic Hoses for his own plane? 

Hose and fitting are easy. 

What about paper work and record keeping???? 

	




Don't ask, don't tell.



Who's gonna know.



 If you have confidence in your own ability I wouldn't hesitate to put home made hose on it.

_________________
Milt

yourtcfg(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 8:58 am Post subject: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

First, it is not legal, but................  Making hoses is not as easy as it sounds.  takes special tools and there are some tricks that only experience can teach.  If it fails, it can be a real problem.  jb

 

   

 

 

   --

nico(at)cybersuperstore.c
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 9:34 am Post subject: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

I am wondering, if it becomes evident after a crash, whether  passengers' life insurance would be compromised. 

  



   From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of  yourtcfg(at)aol.com

Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 8:55  AM

To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re:  Re: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

 

First, it is not legal,  but................  Making hoses is not as easy as it sounds.  takes  special tools and there are some tricks that only experience can teach.  If  it fails, it can be a real problem.  jb



 

 -----Original  Message-----

From: n395v <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com>

To:  commander-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Mon, Jan 3, 2011 5:37 am

Subject:  Re: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.



  	  Quote: 	
		  --> Commander-List message posted by: "n395v" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com (Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com)>

 	  Quote: 	
		   Can a owner make Aviation Hydraulic Hoses for his own plane? 

 Hose and fitting are easy. 

 What about paper work and record keeping???? 

 


	




Don't ask, don't tell.



Who's gonna know.



 If you have confidence in your own ability I wouldn't hesitate to put home made 

hose on it.



--------

Milt





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=325414#325414



t" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List

tp://forums.matronics.com

_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	




[quote]



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c

[b]

John Vormbaum

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 273
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:11 am Post subject: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

Having spent hours helping Morris scrub 5606 off my airplane, plus the money

to fix a *very* gentle nosegear collapse, I am of the opinion that if you

have an airplane that has a 1,000 psi hydraulic system, you might want to

invest in some very nicely built professional-quality hoses.



Of course, we've had some hoses come from the 'big guys' that failed too, so

there's that...



/J



--

n395v

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 450

Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:51 pm Post subject: Re: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

 	  Quote: 	
		  I am wondering, if it becomes evident after a crash, whether passengers' life insurance would be compromised. 

	




I doubt it would affect their insurance but it would certainly negate the insurance on the aircraft which, to me, would be the single best reason not to build your own. 



As John mentions even hose built by the pros can fail so in my mind if you have done it before, have the skill, knowledge, and equipment to make and test them I would not hesitate to do so.



As for the legality, being one who has spent a lifetime playing by the rules and trying to not break the law I must say the way our own government is trampling the constitution and screwing those who have spent a lifetime playing by the rules........well lets just say legal is not a huge concern I have.

_________________
Milt

moe-rosspistons(at)hotmai
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 8:36 pm Post subject: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

If you make them yourself they don't have the stainless band that has the 

info. on it that a certified shop will place on a new hose.  I have been 

told that I can't make the hoses because they are commercially available 

from several faa approved  shops.



--------------------------------------------------

From: "n395v" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com>

Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 5:37 AM

To: <commander-list(at)matronics.com>

Subject: Re: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com>

> Can a owner make Aviation Hydraulic Hoses for his own plane?

> Hose and fitting are easy.

> What about paper work and record keeping????

>

 Don't ask, don't tell.



 Who's gonna know.



 If you have confidence in your own ability I wouldn't hesitate to put home 

 made hose on it.



 --------

 Milt





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=325414#325414

wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.c
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:06 pm Post subject: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

Before you start making your own hoses, get the right data and a set of the proper mandrels for the assembly. Read up carefully on the correct techniques, and the pitfalls, and make certain you can pressure test them as appropriate for the hose size.

Doing the pressure test is crucial.

What can look like a proper assembly may not be, the only way is "by the book", including the pressure test. For what it is worth, I pressure test to the pressure recommended by the hose manufacturer, which will be more than the 150% of working pressure which is, from memory, i n AC43.13A or B.

I have never had a hose blow from improper assembly, but I have seen plenty that have!!

Cheers,

Bill Hamilton

 	  Quote: 	
		   n395v <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com> wrote:

 <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com>

 > Can a owner make Aviation Hydraulic Hoses for his own plane? 

 > Hose and fitting are easy. 

 > What about paper work and record keeping???? 

 > 

 Don't ask, don't tell.

 Who's gonna know.

  If you have confidence in your own ability I wouldn't hesitate to put 

 home made hose on it.

 --------

 Milt

 Read this topic online here:

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=325414#325414

stratobee

Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 159
Location: Los Angeles

Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:18 pm Post subject: Re: Commander 520 from 1953 questions.

Does anyone know if the GO-435's have an oil filter or just an oil screen sump? If it just has a screen - can (and should) it be converted to oil filter?

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Commander-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum