SUS Aero Commander Accident

ppragman said:
I love that airplane, but I love it for different reasons than I should. It was like an abusive relationship - flying the 207 is the "I can change her" of Alaska flying. She's not going to change and you're going to suffer. Also, it was the "hardest" airplane I flew, even though it's not a hard airplane to fly. I can think of the knock-off Foxworthy bit: "Oh, you're going to be desperately trying to get in because there's nothing open in 50 miles when the weather suddenly changes and you're popping in and out of the clouds and flying a hand made instrument approach while they hold the visibility up for the last 3 guys stuck out of the surface area? The panel is a shotgun blast of instruments in crazy places and the CHT doesn't really work? The best instrument in the airplane is Eskimo ADF? You're probably in a 207." Like, the conditions that you use those damn things in are so varied and dynamic and abusive that I can respect the dislike and simultaneously think back to flying the thing so damn fondly.

Also, the sled is a "bad" design for a wide array of reasons. It's too long, the gear are sproingy, and IO520F is a bit underpowered for what you're trying to do with the thing most of the time. The nose baggage is inadequate and the pilot seat is uncomfortable. The seats are convenient to install and remove though. Still, I love the airplane because it taught me more about aerodynamics than any other flying machine I climbed into. I prefer it to the Cherokee 6; still though, the "sled" is weird and bad for a wide variety of reasons.

The length is long enough to generate all the various types of stability you talk about in flight school. The airplane will literally get neutrally stable at the aft end of the CG - it's kind of crazy, and if you have a load shift and put a couple hundred pounds in the aft baggage (ask 19 year old me how much of a dumbass he was for not properly securing his cargo), it will demonstrate some types of instability too. It's both weirdly easy to land, and also strangely hard to land. I'm sure if you didn't have the gigantor oversized landis nose fork, it'd be better, but you chew through props if you don't. You're basically landing by braile on every leg, and eventually you get good at it? But adjust the seat 8 tenths of an inch or climb into a different airplane and you're going to be making terrible landings for the next hour until you learn how to land again.

It does well in the ice though - better than the comparable piper in my experience. That said, my general disgust with winter is a direct result of flying the sled. It is straight up too drafty and cold, and I'm sorry, I should not have to pop a piece of scat tubing off of a hose clamp and duct heat into my pantleg so my balls don't freeze. That might just be because the ones I flew had more hours than sin though. I flew a 207 with 18,000 hours on the airframe in 2008, and that airplane has been out there flying 1000 hours per year every year since then. The machine is incredible, and painfully cold.
Click to expand...
That's the best writeup of the 207. I definitely learned a lot in the plane. But still hate it. It's unfortunate that it's best performance comes in the winter when it is miserable to fly.
 
ppragman said:
I flew a 207 with 18,000 hours on the airframe in 2008, and that airplane has been out there flying 1000 hours per year every year since then. The machine is incredible, and painfully cold.
Click to expand...
Hageland had some very high time sleds. I dropped one off at Lake Hood for rebuild: it had 34,000 hours. I think it was N7384U. When I picked it up after rebuild it was the fastest sled in the fleet.
 
WacoFan said:
I'd be interested in hearing from the mechanic types but the AD on various metal airplanes and such - it seems the knock on Bellancas, old wood wing Mooneys and such is the wood wing/how were they stored question. Given my aeronautical preferences I would contend that wood is indeed the superior wing material and ultimately more economically sane.
Click to expand...

I'm going out on a limb here
(not sorry)

Aluminum spars are inspected and maintained by technicians
Wood spars are inspected and maintained by craftsman

Both highly skilled, but different

Wood spar experts are more difficult to come by.
There are no air force wood spars, or airline wood spars so there's just not as many of them.
And I never saw any wood courses in A&P school.

Everyone has aluminum spars.

That said, I have a great respect for the natural composite fibers of quality spruce, but finding an (reliable) expert is a chore
 
Roger Roger said:
Yknow, I actually thought it handled a bit better than the Cherokee. The flat floor made it easier to load in some ways, but in others the Cherokee was easier to load. Certainly the larger nose compartment made it easier to keep the CG reasonable on the 6. Also, the back 2 seats on the 6 were really easy for the village elders to get into. And if you had a lot of USPS you could build a flat floor pretty quick with the thin flat rate boxes and the Amazon dog food. The Lycoming was less fussy. Manual flaps were nice.

As far as maintenance, no comparison. Everything on the 206/207 was twice as complicated as it needed to be. On the Cherokee you could reach most everything once you got the middle seat board out (which was probably twice as hard as it needed to be because the last •wit cross threaded and/or stripped half the screws) where on the Cessna you had to work through access holes in the floor. Also the bottom cowl comes off the Cherokee. Doing anything in the engine bay on the Cessna sucked because the intake, exhaust, and pushrods were all on the bottom of the cylinder heads AND the lower cowl didn’t come off. Heaven help you if you had the power flow exhaust. So many slipping starter adapters. The fuel injection system could be finicky. Etc.
Click to expand...
I never did much passenger flying with it thankfully. Lots and lots of triple mailers.
 
A150K said:
Since ABQ was the new base when I was there, we actually had new-ish Toyota Corollas in the stations we had cars. I TDY'd to PDX and had my WTH moment when I stepped into a 90s Accord Coupe in Florence, OR and discovered actual moss growing from the floor of the car with extensive water damage throughout.
Click to expand...

I've driven a Geo Metro in San Luis Obispo. *I learned to drive a manual Geo Metro in San Luis Obispo. It was either learn to drive it or walk to 1970's decor'd condo with shag carpets and dingy everything.

AMF was actually shamed into updating the crew car in Eureka. Pilots had taken duct tape and spelled out "Ameriflght...We also fly Airplanes!" on the side of it. They replaced it with a new Ford Focus.

I can say that the planes I flew, the crew cars I've driven, and the sketchy crew apartments/hotels I've stayed on while there built a lot of character. The OAK and BUR base were the worst while the DFW and CVG bases were the best. The MIA "sitting place" (the fbo had kicked us and IFL out) in Merida Mexico was a equipment shed transferred into a crew room with a few recliners. We had to get escorted through security at the airline terminal to use the bathroom. We ate in the employee cafeteria with the airport workers. The food was cheap and amazing! The only engine failure that I've ever had on the Metro was going into there.
 
KLB said:
I've driven a Geo Metro in San Luis Obispo. *I learned to drive a manual Geo Metro in San Luis Obispo. It was either learn to drive it or walk to 1970's decor'd condo with shag carpets and dingy everything.

AMF was actually shamed into updating the crew car in Eureka. Pilots had taken duct tape and spelled out "Ameriflght...We also fly Airplanes!" on the side of it. They replaced it with a new Ford Focus.

I can say that the planes I flew, the crew cars I've driven, and the sketchy crew apartments/hotels I've stayed on while there built a lot of character. The OAK and BUR base were the worst while the DFW and CVG bases were the best. The MIA "sitting place" (the fbo had kicked us and IFL out) in Merida Mexico was a equipment shed transferred into a crew room with a few recliners. We had to get escorted through security at the airline terminal to use the bathroom. We ate in the employee cafeteria with the airport workers. The food was cheap and amazing! The only engine failure that I've ever had on the Metro was going into there.
Click to expand...

Those Geo 1.0l engines and really let loose sometimes!
 
Roger Roger said:
I always tell people the PC12 is far and away the best airplane I’ve flown (and I like to think that list is substantially longer than the CFI->Horizon/Skywest->Alaska folks they usually with). The Lear 45 is still my favorite, but the PC12 was objectively a better airplane. The Navajo was the most fun.
Click to expand...
I never had the chance to fly a PC-12 but everyone I know that has loves it. That being said I can see why the Lear 45 was your favorite, I really enjoyed that airplane and it was my first advanced glass cockpit. Plus coming from the Lear 35 flying pax charter it was such a better tool to work with. For me it was overshadowed by the Falcon 900 EASy that I flew afterword but for all the jets I'm typed in the Lear 35, 45, Falcon and 737 I like them all equally but for different reasons. The 35 was the most fun, the 45 was great to live with, the Falcon is a delight to fly and I loved the EASy cockpit, and the 737 is an indestructible workhorse. I also have a BE-300 type and I enjoyed my brief time in the 350 as well.

My time in the Chieftain was not desirable, I flew them for a broke check hauler that was circling the drain. Generally if I was flying one it was because the MU-2 was broke and I was flying from APA-SLC and back. It was miserable. I really liked the MU-2 also, I have to throw that out there for Boris.

The only other airplane I didn't like all that much was the Seneca II, I much preferred the Baron to that thing.

And hats off to you guys flying singles in Alaska, I worked some LAB guys at Airnet and elsewhere and the stories of that place made it seem like we were at the Delta of 135 freight.
 
Spent several hundred hours in a PC-12. Amazing airplane, no question. The MU-2 is better in all regards from a pilot's perspective, and I'll happily die on this hill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top