Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Considering a 500S....

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

Considering a 500S....
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Commander-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

ratherbflying

Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 1

Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 2:50 pm Post subject: Considering a 500S....

I am considering a mid 70â€™s 500S as my next aircraft.  It will be used purely for personal/family useâ€¦no write offs.  My â€œmissionâ€ is 1) Play (I enjoy flying!), and 2) regular trips of 229, 322, and 83nm.  Field lengths are 5500 to 11,000ft and elevations from SL to 4415msl.



I have several questions for the group: 



Conklin and de Decker states $521 per hour variable costs (does not include fixed costs) based upon 131 hours per year.   Note: the fuel states $275.40 per hour which equals 45gph? What do you use for block fuel consumption if the 45 is not correct?  Related to the aforementioned question, can anyone shed light on what you experience for variable operating costs for a well maintained Shrike in excellent condition? 



What is the market â€œenergyâ€ for a piston Twin Commander and specifically for a Shrike? I ask, since at some point down the road, it will be resold.   Is it a â€œcultâ€ airplane with limited prospects for buyers?  



For a currently well maintained Shrike with no deferred maintenance, how reliable are the systems, i.e. hydraulics, the 290HP Lycâ€™s or other?   



Can anyone share the experience of owning a 500 series vs. other light twins such as Baron or Seneca or other? 



Any issue with parts availabilityâ€¦what happens if you encounter hangar rash on a tail, etcâ€¦?  



A difficult question, but is there any way to compare the safety of the Shrike or 500X with other light twins?  Realizing that 80% of the time, â€œstupid pilot tricksâ€ are usually the reason for accidents, is the Shrike or 500 better or worse than other light twins, i.e. say an engine failure on TO or are there any other areas where the plane will bite or where it is better than other light twins? 



Any issues with flying out of higher elevation airports (mentioned above). My typical payload is 500 lbs of people and stuff. 



Any other thoughts...what you like most about the 500's? 



I realize I have asked a lot of questions, but answers to any or all questions is appreciatedâ€¦and thank you in advance!

jmgfallstrom(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:41 pm Post subject: Considering a 500S....

Dear RBF,

    

    

   As to any well maintained post 1958 500 piston Commander- For safety and forgiveness - for beauty and view - for cost and value in reference to the 4 former attributes mentioned herein - these aircraft should be selling for twice what the current market offers them up for - they are a religious experience to fly - and a blessing to land

    

   In re any comparable twin aircraft - with the exception of the Douglas DC-3 - none exist - jg

    

   

 

  

   

 

 

   --

dfalik(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:10 pm Post subject: Considering a 500S....

Dear RBF,

  

 This couldn't have been said any more eloquently.

  

 All I can add is a big AMEN.

  

 I flew a 1970 500S for 4 years and 1000 hours.  It flys and lands like a heavy 172.  It is very forgiving and absolutely no surprises in flight characteristics.  The lycs 540's performed and held up well for a ham fisted pilot like me.  The geared engines wouldn't have survived a single flight in my hands.

  

 The only negative is one has to be related to the mechanic either by marriage or friendship as the maintenance, even on a well maintained one can kill the religious experience.  One cannot be faint of heart financially.

  

 Fuel burn was a consistent 34 gal./hr.  I made the supreme mistake of putting a hobby (the 500S) on a spreadsheet and $500/hr. less fuel is very realistic.

  

 As a side note.  My former 500S is again for sale by the same broker that sold it a year ago.  And, yes, I sold it for 1/2 of what it was worth but the last 2 annuals were $22K followed by $14K.

  

 Now I puddle along in my "57 Apache at 30% less speed and and nearly 1/3 the cost but this time I'm not counting.

  

 Don

  

    From: Jmgfallstrom <jmgfallstrom(at)aol.com>

To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Thu, June 30, 2011 10:38:42 PM

Subject: Re: Considering a 500S....



 Dear RBF,

  

  

 As to any well maintained post 1958 500 piston Commander- For safety and forgiveness - for beauty and view - for cost and value in reference to the 4 former attributes mentioned herein - these aircraft should be selling for twice what the current market offers them up for - they are a religious experience to fly - and a blessing to land

  

 In re any comparable twin aircraft - with the exception of the Douglas DC-3 - none exist - jg

  

 



 

 

 --

nico(at)cybersuperstore.c
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:54 pm Post subject: Considering a 500S....

I operated my straight 500 out of Wonderboom in South Africa (FAWB) which is at 4100' ASL on a regular basis. I also owned a Twin Comanche on which I had an engine failure on takeoff which turned out to be a non-event, having flown a circuit and returned for landing. I never had an engine failure on the 500, but I did check it's single engine capability at 7,000' during some single engine workouts and it held altitude with about 100 gals and two people on board. 



If loaded to the max at high-altitude airports, I'd fly it like a single with a bit of additional options using the live motor to extend my glide a little bit if needed, but otherwise you should be fine provided you stay current and fluent on the emergency procedures. You must be like a maestro and let your hands dance over the controls when there is no time to recite poetry, if you know what I mean. 



My dream ship has always been a Shrike and one day I'll be able to afford one provided it has turbo normalization. I flew a 680FP for a couple of hours and enjoyed it tremendously, however, it always felt like I married the wrong women longing for the Shrike, in spite of the 680's wild performance with the geared motors. 



I always imagine a Shrike with 350's and turbo's (Merlin?) and her shaking with raw power in a climb. My straight 500 had a vibration in the climb that made me believe that it's raw power that exudes through her body, but I knew it was something out of balance and if I imagined an additional 1,000 feet per minute to her climb like a not-so-homesick-angel she was. 



Oh, well. It was a glorious time, especially climbing out of a stratus layer of fog into a very early morning climbout, seeing a sunrise that no other earth-bound soul could see. It made me feel special and it was as if I could hear ZS-CLZ grown with pleasure knowing that her utmost effort gave me emmense pleasure. She enjoyed it, too. 



Sigh.



Nico



 



--

cloudcraft(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 11:04 pm Post subject: Considering a 500S....

Since the spiritual and erotic aspect of Commander ownership is being covered so well, I'm going to take a different approach.

 

 You're obviously comparing the Commander to its competition.  When doing so, ask the following questions:Which design has the best one engine inoperative handling?
Which design allows access to ALL the fuel in an O.E.I. scenario?
Which design's emergency gear extension procedure is the same as normal gear extension?Which design would you want to shoot an ILS in while doing an emergency gear extension?
Which design has its C.G. move FORWARD (the safer C.G. shift) with fuel burn ?


 Oh - and don't be bamboozled by rate of climb with one engine inoperative.  Note that they all have about the same O.E.I. climb gradient when you look at R.O.C. at their respective Vyse.

 

 The only thing that is going to help any piston airplane with high and hot take-off performance is turbo normalization, boosting, or super charging.  Nico's philosophy on high/hot departures is spot on.

 

 I will not speak to the cost of operation; it's nothing a sane man would do.  They're all bloody expensive and all of the piston twins are looking at  "aging aircraft" issues that level the playing field so go for handling qualities in normal and abnormal flight regimes.

 

 I've tossed some questions at you so you can, in turn, flip them on the salesmen trying to sell you other products.  See what answers you get.  

 

 I was an AeroStar demo pilot for a number of years (B.C. -- Before Commander) and I demo'd against Beech, Piper and Cessna products.  I always won.  It was after that stint that I worked backwards along the Ted Smith time line and came to understand his design philosophy through the Aero Commander line. 

 

 It's utterly unique in the world of production aircraft.

 

 Keith S. Gordon

 aka Wing Commander Gordon

    

  

     

  

    Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere.FAASTeam Lead Rep, Las Vegas

  NBAA Access Committee

   Las Vegas Airspace Users' Council, NBAA Rep

   Las Vegas RNAV Optimization Work Group, NBAA Rep

   Las Vegas Class B Redesign Committee, NBAA Rep

     

  

     

  

    --

Cate Chagnot

Joined: 24 May 2007
Posts: 36
Location: Ohio

Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:15 am Post subject: Re: Considering a 500S....

Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Owning an Aero Commander is definitely a cult......



ALL HAIL TED SMITH!

_________________
Cate

N4278S 680E
Skywagon N180PK

andrew.bridget(at)telus.n
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 8:50 am Post subject: Considering a 500S....

I have not flown a Shrike let alone owned one, but  offer this: what other business-class piston twin would you see this sort of  both-engines-out performance in the hands of a master pilot? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZBcapxGHjE&feature=related

  

 There may be others, but I haven't seen any other  pilot perform this sort of routine, and I haven't seen Bob Hoover perform his  routine in any other business-class piston twin.

  

 You're right JG, there is no comparison, although I  offer my opinion that comparing the Twin Commander to the Dak is  a little unfair--to both aircraft.

  

 ---

stratobee

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

Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:04 am Post subject: Re: Considering a 500S....

I'm a brand new owner so have no advice to give, except maybe a general approach or philosophy to aircraft ownership:



I only count the fuel and the oil as hourly costs. The rest aren't really a function of flying hours and are hard to quantify. The annual will cost pretty much the same if it's been sitting on the ramp for a year or if it's flown (give or take). Same with the insurance. As for the engine and or systems overhaul, I count them as costs that come with aircraft ownership - it's the price I pay to have a hobby. This way of thinking tricks me into thinking this is a rather affordable little endeavour (when we all know it's utter madness). At about $150/hr in fuel and oil doesn't sound so bad and all of a sudden that little trip to get a hamburger sounds quite affordable.



If reality is to hard to bare, then be unrealistic!

_________________
Adam

jmgfallstrom(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:42 am Post subject: Considering a 500S....

My Dear Watson - 



During JFK's presidency he once hosted a dinner of the world's most accomplished academics, scholars, Nobel winners, intelligentsia, scientists and philosophers etc, etc - I do not remember now which formal dining room in the White house they were holding the dinner. 

After their meal which lasted several hours , and most interesting discourse one would presume, there was a moment of natural silence as they sipped their after dinner libations and smoked no doubt Cuban cigars - that JFK took that moment of silence to observe to all of the guests attention the following;



I may be paraphrasing (but not by much) - JFK looked around the room as said "  . . . I do not suppose that in the history of the the White House in general and to this dining room specifically, has there ever been so much raw intelligence, cerebral horsepower and genius in aggregate.'  



He then paused a moment, the room remained silent as they pondered his observation.  JFK then added: ". . . with perhaps the one exception as to when Thomas Jefferson dined ALONE."



It was with this same spirit that I made the comparative statement with the Dakota and the Aero Commander 500 et al.



All my best,



JG

--

moe-rosspistons(at)hotmai
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:48 am Post subject: Considering a 500S....

Adam,

  

 What is your fuel burn pe hour?  How much are you paying for 100LL?  Although 100LL.com shows the average cost at $ 6.02 here in the southwest, I seem to pay closer to $ 5.50 at the places where I fly to.        $ 150.00 per hour for fuel and oil seems real low.  I realize that a 680Fp is the fuel hog of the piston commanders, however, my fuel costs are between $ 300.00 and $ 375.00 per hour, depending on where I fill up at and operating coditions.  Also, shouldn't set asides fro engine TBO, prop TBO, heater TBO, wing spar inspections and other items with a set life be included as hourly costs?  The more we fly, the sooner these big ticket costs pop up, however the fixed costs items such as insurance and hanger rent get less expensive per hour.

  

 Moe Mills

 N680RR

 680Fp

   

 

  > Subject: Re: Considering a 500S....

 	  Quote: 	
		   From: adam(at)adamfrisch.com

 Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 10:04:05 -0700

 To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

 

 --> Commander-List message posted by: "stratobee" <adam(at)adamfrisch.com>

 

 I'm a brand new owner so have no advice to give, except maybe a general approach or philosophy to aircraft ownership:

 

 I only count the fuel and the oil as hourly costs. The rest aren't really a function of flying hours and are hard to quantify. The annual will cost pretty much the same if it's been sitting on the ramp for a year or if it's flown (give or take). Same with the insurance. As for the engine and or systems overhaul, I count them as costs that come with aircraft ownership - it's the price I pay to have a hobby. This way of thinking tricks me into thinking this is a rather affordable little endeavour (when we all know it's utter madness). At about $150/hr in fuel and oil doesn't sound so bad and all of a sudden that little trip to get a hamburger sounds quite affordable.

 

 If reality is to hard to bear, then be unrealistic! 

 

 --------

 Adam

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=344596#344596

 

 

 

 

 

 

 &gt============

 

 

 


	


 		 	   		  

  [quote][b]

stratobee

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

Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:49 am Post subject: Re: Considering a 500S....

Moe, I've just finished a 17hr tour of the north west - great fun! My first real flying on my own, so I have some fresh numbers. My fuel burn was around 29gph when I stayed low (which was most of the time), but can be forced down to 23-25gph up high. It's a little tricky to gage as the tanks transfer fuel and most FBO guys don't have the time to spend 15 minutes refuelling them. It's easier when you can do it yourself, but even I sometimes had to give up on those last gallons. How much does the 680 burn an hour on average?



The above numbers are at 20-22" and 2500-2600 rpm, so pretty throttled back. She showed around 135-140kts here, so not bad considering. I know Bonanzas that burn almost that much! The posh FBO's always charge an arm and a leg, but I found Avgas for around $5.20/gal on this trip and according to my little Foreflight software, there were out-of-the-way strips with prices as low as $4.70. I'll try to hit those next time.



As for setting aside, yeah it makes some sense, I can't deny that - if you're a sensible and responsible person that can do that, but I've never been very good at saving money. I'll just grin and bear it when the bill comes. 



I also think many of these costs are not quantifiable. A front spar inspection at 6000hrs? Will you even be the owner of the aircraft then if it's got 4000hrs on it now? Why include that. Any future "big" cost is an if - many things can change before that is a reality. And TBO, well, run them as long as they will go and then average that out over how much you flew them. Or you might get a better deal on a spare engine, or find a cheaper shop to overhaul them. It might be they'll run 500hrs extra or you might sell the day before they hit TBO. At least that's how I think I'll look at it. In fact, I asked Central Cylinder what an overhaul of a GO-435 would be and they quoted north of $40K each! If I included those $80K and divide by the published 1200hr TBO, then it would be rather depressing. But, thankfully, there are options. Get spare engines, get them overhauled at different shop, run them longer, just do a top overhaul, etc, etc.



Also, as a friend once put it - any airplane will be cheaper than a coke habit!

_________________
Adam

moe-rosspistons(at)hotmai
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:50 pm Post subject: Considering a 500S....

Hi Adam,

  

 Very interesting.  Just goes to show that you have to more or less square the power (and fuel burn) to increase the speed of basically the same airframe.  Last week end I flew to Mena, AR from Farmington, NM.  It appears that you get about 4.8 NM per gallon, whereas, I get only about 3.3 NM per gallon, crusing at about 180 Kts.  About 40% difference in fuel burn to get there.  The best price I could find was in Borger, TX, $ 5.22 per gallon, literally next to the Phillips Refinery.  Hope you make it to Michigan with your bird.

  

 Best regards,

  

 Moe

 

 

  > Subject: Re: Considering a 500S....

 	  Quote: 	
		   From: adam(at)adamfrisch.com

 Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 12:49:30 -0700

 To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

 

 --> Commander-List message posted by: "stratobee" <adam(at)adamfrisch.com>

 

 Moe, I've just finished a 17hr tour of the north west - my first real flying on my own - so have some fresh numbers. My fuel burn was around 29gph when I stayed low, but can be forced down to 23-25gph up high. It's a little tricky to gage as the tanks transfer fuel and most FBO guys don't have the time to spend 15 minutes refuelling them. It's easier when you can do it yourself, but even I sometimes had to give up on those last gallons. 

 

 The above numbers are at 20-22" and 2500-2600 rpm, so pretty throttled back. She showed around 135-140kts here, so not bad considering. I know Bonanzas that burn that much! The posh FBO's always charge an arm and a leg, but I found Avgas for around $5.20/gal on this trip and according to my little Foreflight software, there were out-of-the-way strips with prices as low as $4.70. I'll try to hit those next time.

 

 Also, as a friend once put it - any airplane will be cheaper than a coke habit! 

 

 --------

 Adam

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=344618#344618

 

 

 

 

&gt=======================
	


&g====================

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 


	


 		 	   		  

  [quote][b]

moe-rosspistons(at)hotmai
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:18 pm Post subject: Considering a 500S....

Fellow Commander Drivers,

  

 There is an interesting letter to the editor, on page three of the July 2011 issue of Twin &Turbine, by fellow member Randy Dettmer.

  

 Moe

 N680RR

 680F(p)

 

    From: moe-rosspistons(at)hotmail.com

To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Re: Considering a 500S....

Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:48:13 -0600



   .ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P {padding:0px;} .ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}    Hi Adam,

 

Very interesting.  Just goes to show that you have to more or less square the power (and fuel burn) to increase the speed of basically the same airframe.  Last week end I flew to Mena, AR from Farmington, NM.  It appears that you get about 4.8 NM per gallon, whereas, I get only about 3.3 NM per gallon, crusing at about 180 Kts.  About 40% difference in fuel burn to get there.  The best price I could find was in Borger, TX, $ 5.22 per gallon, literally next to the Phillips Refinery.  Hope you make it to Michigan with your bird.

 

Best regards,

 

Moe



 

 > Subject: Re: Considering a 500S....

 	  Quote: 	
		   From: adam(at)adamfrisch.com

 Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 12:49:30 -0700

 To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

 

 --> Commander-List message posted by: "stratobee" <adam(at)adamfrisch.com>

 

 Moe, I've just finished a 17hr tour of the north west - my first real flying on my own - so have some fresh numbers. My fuel burn was around 29gph when I stayed low, but can be forced down to 23-25gph up high. It's a little tricky to gage as the tanks transfer fuel and most FBO guys don't have the time to spend 15 minutes refuelling them. It's easier when you can do it yourself, but even I sometimes had to give up on those last gallons. 

 

 The above numbers are at 20-22" and 2500-2600 rpm, so pretty throttled back. She showed around 135-140kts here, so not bad considering. I know Bonanzas that burn that much! The posh FBO's always charge an arm and a leg, but I found Avgas for around $5.20/gal on this trip and according to my little Foreflight software, there were out-of-the-way strips with prices as low as $4.70. I'll try to hit those next time.

 

 Also, as a friend once put it - any airplane will be cheaper than a coke habit! 

 

 --------

 Adam

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=344618#344618

 

 

 

 

=======================

&g====================
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 


	




[quote]



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

ttp://forums.matronics.com

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



[b]

wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.c
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 7:53 pm Post subject: Considering a 500S....

Adam,

Have a good look into your performance figures and engine/prop. numbers and try low RPM and “high boost”, it will make quite an improvement. Better still, fit GAMIjectors and a decent CHT/EGT system and run lean of peak, really save some fuel for the same TAS.

Cheers,

Bill Hamilton

 

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

Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 10:48 AM

To: Com

Subject: RE: Re: Considering a 500S....

 

Hi Adam,

 

Very interesting.  Just goes to show that you have to more or less square the power (and fuel burn) to increase the speed of basically the same airframe.  Last week end I flew to Mena, AR from Farmington, NM.  It appears that you get about 4.8 NM per gallon, whereas, I get only about 3.3 NM per gallon, crusing at about 180 Kts.  About 40% difference in fuel burn to get there.  The best price I could find was in Borger, TX, $ 5.22 per gallon, literally next to the Phillips Refinery.  Hope you make it to Michigan with your bird.

 

Best regards,

 

Moe



 

 	  Quote: 	
		   Subject: Re: Considering a 500S....

 From: adam(at)adamfrisch.com (adam(at)adamfrisch.com)

 Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 12:49:30 -0700

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

 

 --> Commander-List message posted by: "stratobee" <adam(at)adamfrisch.com (adam(at)adamfrisch.com)>

 

 Moe, I've just finished a 17hr tour of the north west - my first real flying on my own - so have some fresh numbers. My fuel burn was around 29gph when I stayed low, but can be forced down to 23-25gph up high. It's a little tricky to gage as the tanks transfer fuel and most FBO guys don't have the time to spend 15 minutes refuelling them. It's easier when you can do it yourself, but even I sometimes had to give up on those last gallons. 

 

 The above numbers are at 20-22" and 2500-2600 rpm, so pretty throttled back. She showed around 135-140kts here, so not bad considering. I know Bonanzas that burn that much! The posh FBO's always charge an arm and a leg, but I found Avgas for around $5.20/gal on this trip and according to my little Foreflight software, there were out-of-the-way strips with prices as low as $4.70. I'll try to hit those next time.

 

 Also, as a friend once put it - any airplane will be cheaper than a coke habit! 

 

 --------

 Adam

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=344618#344618

 

 

 

 

=======================

&g====================
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 


	


 	  Quote: 	
		    [/b][/b][/b][b]http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List[b] 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9

  [quote][b]

nico(at)cybersuperstore.c
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:06 pm Post subject: Considering a 500S....

Low RPM and high boost makes good (common) sense, too. An internal  combustion engine is nothing more than an air pump. The higher the RPM the more  air it pumps. The air is loaded with a certain percentage of fuel and the more  air one pumps the more fuel goes with it. Lower the RPM and the amount of fuel  carried through the engine is also reduced. Increase the manifold pressure and  the resident fuel is burned more effectively yielding energy comparable to the  higher RPM settings. 

 Perhaps too simple. 

  



   From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of William J  Hamilton

Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 8:51 PM

To:  commander-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Re:  Considering a 500S....

 

  

Adam, 

Have  a good look into your performance figures and engine/prop. numbers and try low  RPM and “high boost”, it will make quite an improvement. Better still, fit  GAMIjectors and a decent CHT/EGT system and run lean of peak, really save some  fuel for the same TAS. 

Cheers, 

Bill  Hamilton 

    

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

Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 10:48 AM

To:  Com

Subject: RE: Re: Considering a  500S....



 

   

Hi  Adam,

 

Very interesting.  Just goes to show that you have to  more or less square the power (and fuel burn) to increase the speed of basically  the same airframe.  Last week end I flew to Mena, AR from Farmington,  NM.  It appears that you get about 4.8 NM per gallon, whereas, I get only  about 3.3 NM per gallon, crusing at about 180 Kts.  About 40% difference in  fuel burn to get there.  The best price I could find was in Borger, TX, $  5.22 per gallon, literally next to the Phillips Refinery.  Hope you make it  to Michigan with your bird.

 

Best  regards,

 

Moe



   

 	  Quote: 	
		   Subject:  Re: Considering a 500S....

 From: adam(at)adamfrisch.com (adam(at)adamfrisch.com)

 Date: Fri, 1  Jul 2011 12:49:30 -0700

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

  

 --> Commander-List message posted by: "stratobee" <adam(at)adamfrisch.com (adam(at)adamfrisch.com)>

 

  Moe, I've just finished a 17hr tour of the north west - my first real flying on  my own - so have some fresh numbers. My fuel burn was around 29gph when I stayed  low, but can be forced down to 23-25gph up high. It's a little tricky to gage as  the tanks transfer fuel and most FBO guys don't have the time to spend 15  minutes refuelling them. It's easier when you can do it yourself, but even I  sometimes had to give up on those last gallons. 

 

 The above  numbers are at 20-22" and 2500-2600 rpm, so pretty throttled back. She showed  around 135-140kts here, so not bad considering. I know Bonanzas that burn that  much! The posh FBO's always charge an arm and a leg, but I found Avgas for  around $5.20/gal on this trip and according to my little Foreflight software,  there were out-of-the-way strips with prices as low as $4.70. I'll try to hit  those next time.

 

 Also, as a friend once put it - any airplane  will be cheaper than a coke habit! 

 

 --------

  Adam

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online  here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=344618#344618

  

 

 

  

=======================

&g====================
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   

  

 


	


 	  Quote: 	
		    [/b][/b][/b][b]http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List[b] 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9

 	  Quote: 	
		  	
0[/b][/b][/b][/b]   [quote][b]

stratobee

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

Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:25 pm Post subject: Re: Considering a 500S....

Hi.



I can't lower the RPM any more as 2500rpm is as low as the green arc goes. But I could run her at higher MP. Would would the benefits be?

_________________
Adam

wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.c
Guest

Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:16 pm Post subject: Considering a 500S....

Adam,

Minimum of 2500RPM, that sound very odd to me, can anybody else comment??

Cheers,

Bill Hamilton



--

nico(at)cybersuperstore.c
Guest

Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:27 pm Post subject: Considering a 500S....

Now that you mention it. It's rather odd. Is it a proper RPM guage?

 



--

tylorhall(at)mac.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:35 pm Post subject: Considering a 500S....

Adam is flying a 520.  No supercharger and geared prop.

Does it read engine crank RPM or Prop RPM?

Tylor Hall



On Jul 18, 2011, at 10:19 PM, cybersuperstore wrote:



[quote] 

 

 Now that you mention it. It's rather odd. Is it a proper RPM guage?

 

 

 --

comserv500s(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:39 pm Post subject: Considering a 500S....

All geared Lycoming engines read engine rpm. the gear reduction is .64

on all geared Lycomings, which means when the tach reads 2,500 rpm the

prop is turning 1,600. GO435 & GO480 engines are not injected, but

have automatic mixture control pressure carburetors.

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Tylor Hall <tylorhall(at)mac.com> wrote:

[quote] 

 Adam is flying a 520.  No supercharger and geared prop.

 Does it read engine crank RPM or Prop RPM?

 Tylor Hall

 On Jul 18, 2011, at 10:19 PM, cybersuperstore wrote:

> 

>

> Now that you mention it. It's rather odd. Is it a proper RPM guage?

> --

Display posts from previous:

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

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