banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 09:16 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 20 Jun 2016, 01:56 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/22/12
Posts: 3798
Post Likes: +1076
Location: WI
Aircraft: Commander 112 IO-390
I recently bought a 1976 112 from a friend. Yes, I realize limitations with useful load and speed. I'm still going through a familiarization phase and doing some cleanup. I have thoughts of the IO-390 conversion with an MT prop since the engine is somewhat played out.

I never got 'underwater' with real estate, so maybe it will be alright to do so with a plane?

The panel could use some help too, older radios and nav.

So far things are checking out well. Like most older planes there are a handful of ADs, and various solutions to deal with them.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 20 Jun 2016, 09:26 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/09/09
Posts: 5547
Post Likes: +2503
Location: Owosso, MI (KRNP)
Aircraft: 1969 Bonanza V35A
The one area to look at closely on the Commander series is the horizontal stabilizer spar under/near the outer hinge mount. They seem to crack in that location. The one (112) that I sold had a crack on the right side, and we had to purchase a kit that spliced that spar. It wasn't a huge job, but just an area to watch. It was difficult to see the area, and I think we found it with a borescope.

http://www.harrisonaero.com/Commander_STC.html

Jason


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 20 Jun 2016, 23:19 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/18/11
Posts: 2203
Post Likes: +1926
Location: (West of) St Louis, MO KFYG
Aircraft: PA28 180C
The guy I got my Cherokee from moved up to a 112. He really needed a bigger cabin he had a Commander fly in earlier this year that I crashed. They are certainly a loyal group. Also hoping that the new money coming into the former Commander company might spur a start up of spares and other items. Will increase the values of the entire fleet. I had looked into some commanders before I realized a simple Cherokee was a better fit for me


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2016, 09:23 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/06/08
Posts: 1726
Post Likes: +367
Location: North Bay Ontario CYYB
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Username Protected wrote:
Let's Resurrect an Old Thread:

I recently sold my Piper Comanche and bought a one owner 1996 114TC ( N295TC ) on Jan 15th 2016 (about 5 months ago) with factory air conditioning , on board factory oxygen and has the TIO-540 AG1A 270HP engine. We bought it in Las Vegas and flew it back to Alabama. The sweet spot is between 13,000 FT and 16,000 FT (25,000 FT certified ceiling) however even at lower altitudes we are typically seeing 168-170 KIAS, The book numbers are spot on for the newer 114TC's. Book indicates 180 KIAS in the flight levels and it truly does 180 KIAS above FL180 and below it is truly a 170 KIAS airplane. I agree the older 112's and 114's are a little slower but Commander got it right when they created the 114TC, now I do have to say with these speeds the fuel burn is 18.0-19.0 GPH, They got the speed numbers correct however they missed it on the fuel burn, the book for the new 114TC's indicates 170 KIAS at 16.0 GPH and in order for me to keep my CHT's at a comfortable level (comfortable level for me anyway) I have to burn 18.0 Plus, if I lean it back to 16.0 I have to open the cowl flaps which then I lose about 8-10 knots when the cowl flap opens. As someone above mentioned the Commander Factory would have really got it right had they installed a 320HP TIO-580 on the nose, my 114TC with a 320HP TIO-580 would most definitely have to be close to 200+ knot airplane but once again I'm certain the fuel burn would also probably be 25GPH or more at cruise.

I've often wondered why they just didn't install one of the bigger horsepower TIO-540's, my TIO-540 at 270HP is so de-rated, this same engine block in the piper Navaho Chieftain are 350HP, same exact engine block, I wonder why they would not have at least bumped these to at least 300HP, there wouldn't have been any weight difference to matter. The TIO-540-AE2A is the same block and making 350HP, WOW I need to hang me one of these AE2A 350HP engines on N295TC and I'd most definitely have the Ultimate Single Engine Flying Dream machine.

Anyway, I have always as far back as I can remember admired and Loved everything about the Commanders and knew one day if things worked out I'd own one, well that day came this past January and I haven't looked back, we are flying the wheels off of it (already logged over 100 hours in just the past 5 months) I'd do it all over again and wished I'd done it sooner. Out of my 26 years of flying this airplane is by far the most comfortable plane I've ever flown, we all Love to fly so I guess in the end is speed really what we want to achieve or is staying up in the air longer what we are all really ultimately shooting for, once again since our passion is flying anyway, if flying is our passion then why do we all talk about wanting something faster, what we should do after we get airborne is pull the throttle back so we can stay in the air that much longer and enjoy what we all love to do and that's FLY AIRPLANES.

TODD


180 KIAS above Fl180? Come on man. It wouldn't do that with a turbine. That would be over 230 true. I used to say about mine "faster than the speed of smell and you couldn't carry more than one thought".


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2016, 11:46 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/09
Posts: 4693
Post Likes: +2403
Company: retired corporate mostly
Location: Chico,California KCIC/CL56
Aircraft: 1956 Champion 7EC
There is a 114 on my local airport (SVH) that is missing a rudder, has flat tires, and more birds than an aviary living in it. Another one of those sad lost airplanes... We see them everywhere.

Jeff

Edit: I think I may have flown a 112 back when they were new, I seem to remember a large cabin and not the greatest speed.

Now, the Aero Commander (Meyers) 200, was a fast one,(I got a few hours in N2900T) but not the greatest useful. I was recently in Michigan, near where the Meyers factory used to be. Met an old (er) salt, that had worked there....was not safe to mention Bonanzas around him. If you did, you were in for a lecture on the virtues of the Meyers! :D

_________________
Jeff

soloed in a land of Superhomers/1959 Cessna 150, retired with Proline 21/ CJ4.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 28 Jun 2016, 17:13 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/24/13
Posts: 805
Post Likes: +561
Company: Retired
Location: Farmersville, TX
Aircraft: 2007 RANS S-6ES
Username Protected wrote:
Are they life limited to something like 7000hs?


The early 112s and 112As (with the IO-360) have a wing life limit of 6,945 hours, but the 112B has a wing life of 8,878, and the 112TC ups that to 10,908.

The 114s are MUCH more desirable airplanes (IO-540 gives much better performance, especially with high DA), and wing life ranges from 19,284 hrs (114), 14,812 (114A and 114B), while the 114TC is rated at 10,349.

This isn't as much of an issue as you'd think, because the Rockwell Commander fleet in general has a lot lower total hours than comparable-aged Cessna or Piper aircraft. No one in their right mind would put their prized Commander out for rental...

_________________
Jim Parker
2007 Rans S-6ES


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 28 Jun 2016, 17:18 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/24/13
Posts: 805
Post Likes: +561
Company: Retired
Location: Farmersville, TX
Aircraft: 2007 RANS S-6ES
Username Protected wrote:
That is a good point. While the front seats are much more comfortable the rear seats have little headroom and have less room. The baggage area is also better in the V35; however, the Commander will have no CG issues like a V35 will.

Many owners don't even realize it, but the rear seats recline in the 112/114, and that easily solves the headroom problem. As for leg room - I'm not sure what the problem it there? I flew in the back seat for 2 hours, and I'm a REALLY big guy, and had zero issues.

_________________
Jim Parker
2007 Rans S-6ES


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 28 Jun 2016, 17:30 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/24/13
Posts: 805
Post Likes: +561
Company: Retired
Location: Farmersville, TX
Aircraft: 2007 RANS S-6ES
Username Protected wrote:
I also looked at them, but the anemic climb and unimpressive short-field capability was a no-go for me.

Gorgeous, gorgeous airplane, though.


As with many of the OWTs about "quirky" airplanes, that criticism applies more to the 112, and less to the larger-engine 114.

My 114 would take off in < 1,500 ft (at about 600 MSL and 400 lbs below max gross weight), and easily exceed 1000 fpm climb rate on even the hottest Texas days. Landings were typically about half the takeoff distance - around 800 ft ground roll.

_________________
Jim Parker
2007 Rans S-6ES


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 02 Sep 2018, 09:28 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 10/20/17
Posts: 1055
Post Likes: +146
Location: Fort Worth, TX (KFWS)
Aircraft: 1971 Bonanza A36
Rather than start a new thread, I thought I would bump this one.

Any other thoughts on the Commander?

_________________
Check six.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 02 Sep 2018, 09:52 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/13/10
Posts: 20103
Post Likes: +23513
Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
Aircraft: Prior C310,BE33,SR22
The 114 really is just about the best looking single-engine plane on any ramp, and in flight too. Doors on both sides - like ALL planes should have! Here's me in 2007 in my second 114:
.
Attachment:
AC 114.jpg

.
Attachment:
AC 114 ground.jpg


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.

_________________
Arlen
Get your motor runnin'
Head out on the highway
- Mars Bonfire


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 02 Sep 2018, 10:15 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 10/28/12
Posts: 3315
Post Likes: +2734
Company: IBG\Altapraem M&A Advisors
Location: Kerrville, TX (60TE)
Aircraft: SR22-G2 GTS
114’s were on my short list. Here’s an excellent article from Commander.org that summarizes models, performance and changes: http://www.commander.org/Bergcom/Tech/D ... %20FAQ.pdf

Frequently when discussing values people say the market is very good at pricing based on desirability overall. The fact that there are only three on the market and all in the mid 100’s should say something about them.

By comparison 3 out of 1000 produced versus 100 Bo’s on market of I think 17,000 produced.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 03 Sep 2018, 10:53 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 10/20/17
Posts: 1055
Post Likes: +146
Location: Fort Worth, TX (KFWS)
Aircraft: 1971 Bonanza A36
Bob, any experience in a 112A?

_________________
Check six.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 03 Sep 2018, 11:29 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 10/28/12
Posts: 3315
Post Likes: +2734
Company: IBG\Altapraem M&A Advisors
Location: Kerrville, TX (60TE)
Aircraft: SR22-G2 GTS
Username Protected wrote:
Bob, any experience in a 112A?


No experience whatsoever. Sat in a few (112’s and 114’s, same airframe) and spoke with several owners when I was shopping, also joined the Commander Owners Group, great resource as mentioned. I noticed Judy at Suncoast only has one on market, kind of unusual for her.

The 112 turbo versions (Hot Shot or factory) are pretty capable planes if you’re only flying by yourself or with a friend most times, would prefer those to an Arrow.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 03 Sep 2018, 22:42 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/10/16
Posts: 1111
Post Likes: +1257
Location: KLBO
Aircraft: Cessna 172
I had the opportunity to fly a 112A back in late 1984, so my recollections have been impacted by time. We had three male adults on board with full fuel and I remember that the acceleration on takeoff was leisurely. Initial climb was not impressive.

The cockpit was wide, roomy and very comfortable. You sit upright on a nice seat. The side windows come down low which provided great visibility. The controls fell where you would naturally expect them to be. I do not remember power settings or indicated cruise speed (ugh!) but I do remember the nose of the plane sitting low in cruise attitude, which I like as it provides a nice field of view ahead.

When I reduced power for descent, I remember that is started right on down with gusto. That should be expected for a heavy airplane with not a lot of wing. So I had to carry more power in the pattern than I expected.

Landings were easy with the trailing link landing gear. Made me look good for just a 73 hour Private Pilot.

Never had the opportunity to fly one again. Never seriously considered buying one when I was airplane shopping and I don’t have a good answer as to why not. I certainly enjoyed flying it and would sure like to do it again. I think it was a darn nice airplane.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 06 Sep 2018, 22:26 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/09/15
Posts: 67
Post Likes: +62
Company: Circle S Inc.
Aircraft: King Air C90
And they damn sure look cool with smoke.

_________________
Lonnie Steverson
1976 C90 N26RE
1977 Commander 114 N4959W


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4




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 post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.