My fulsome praise is based on Adam’s $650/hour cost estimate – which is not far off the cost of running a legacy piston twin in Europe.
Also the Turbo Commander at 270-280 KTAS is not too far off early Citation speeds (330 KTAS/M0.55), with useful load of 3,500 lbs and the ability to operate out of 3,000 feet runways I would think it would fulfill most missions of an early Citation for much less cost – and can be operated more realistically single crew in Europe.
Have not operated a Citation but have flown in them as a passenger – great for mid range sectors and when not too heavy – on longer hauls (say1,300 nm ) I recall with two crew, two passengers and minimal baggage you had to climb and be well established in the cruise (on one occasion we were 400 nm down route) before the flight computer confirmed the fuel plan. There was no runway performance limitation as the sector was between major international airports.
It would be interesting to see what payload the Turbo Commander can carry on a 1,300 nm winter sector with NBAA reserves.
All this is however moot as the Cessna strategy of competing with twin turbines was a resounding commercial success.
This plane is more in the 250kts range, like most early generation turboprops. It’s only the later 690’s with the -5 and -10 engines that can sniff on 300kts. From other owners, it’s also best in high teen to low 20’s flight levels plane. Service ceiling is 25000ft with a 4.2psi diff. The later 690’s are certified up 33000ft and have a 5.5 or 6psi diff. Full tanks the useful load is 1500lbs.
The Commander has a great reputation for the job it was made for. I know things are cheaper in the USA but all turbine aircraft can get expensive snags, so there’s a bit of luck needed to keep the costs that low.
I recall with two crew, two passengers and minimal baggage you had to climb and be well established in the cruise (on one occasion we were 400 nm down route) before the flight computer confirmed the fuel plan.
That’s not unusual in jets, the fuel burn is so high at low level and the FMS just looks at the distance to go , speed, and fuel burn at any given point to calculate fuel remaining at the destination. You just have to get used to seeing the “check fuel at destination” message and the projected fuel being zero or less at the destination. 
Adam, is there a zero fuel weight restriction?
I don’t know Neil. Will find out.
That’s not unusual in jets, the fuel burn is so high at low level and the FMS just looks at the distance to go , speed, and fuel burn at any given point to calculate fuel remaining at the destination.
Meridian too. FOD usually negative during the climb for a 600-700nm trip.
Adam – Dude, you are the MAN !
I saw your videos on the Commander a few years ago and already was thinking: this Swede has got Grandes Cojones !
I completly missed the AeroStar episode and had no idea when I saw this post that this was the same guy with the dinasaur Commander on YouTube …
My hat’s off to you sir and may your disposable income continue to rise ! 
Quote You just have to get used to seeing the “check fuel at destination” message and the projected fuel being zero or less at the destination bq. Quote
Same on the SR22T, negative on climbout can morph into FOD 50 gal in the cruise.
Here are some shots of interior.
As you can see, the pink leather seats are an extra treat and will match my pink socks as I step out.
The panel has an old Apollo GPS that’s useless. Everything else is also ancient. Probably the first upgrade I’ll do in panel will have to be a GTN 650 in there to be able to do LNAV approaches. The King H14 autopilot is probably older than I am, but it works. Having a high tech autopilot that can shoot approaches is not that important to me, I’m happy to hand fly the last bit.
It’s even got wood cabinets!
