banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 10:35 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 08 Feb 2015, 22:55 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/19/08
Posts: 12161
Post Likes: +3535
Aircraft: C55
The difference is that the Commander is 10x the comfort as the Cessna. I agree, though, that I would rip out my kidneys before agreeing to a 145 knot TAS with an airplane that has an IO-540 in it.

_________________
The kid gets it all. Just plant us in the damn garden, next to the stupid lion.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 08 Feb 2015, 23:09 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/13/14
Posts: 382
Post Likes: +327
Location: New Hampshire
Aircraft: PC-24
Username Protected wrote:
The difference is that the Commander is 10x the comfort as the Cessna. I agree, though, that I would rip out my kidneys before agreeing to a 145 knot TAS with an airplane that has an IO-540 in it.


Not sure if you can see under my avatar, but I rent a piper warrior. I dream of 145 knots at night. :drool:


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 08 Feb 2015, 23:10 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12797
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
You could get an Aztec and do 145 with dual 540s


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 08 Feb 2015, 23:46 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/24/13
Posts: 805
Post Likes: +561
Company: Retired
Location: Farmersville, TX
Aircraft: 2007 RANS S-6ES
There is a turbo-normalizing upgrade for the Commander 114 that makes it significantly faster. The STC supplement says 158-160 KTAS @ 15,500 - 22,000 ft (ROP)., but it is known to be very conservative. Mine does a good bit better than that ROP, but I typically plan for 160 KTAS LOP cruise @ 12-15K ft. Block fuel burn (LOP) is around 12.5-13 GPH. May not be as fast as some, but the comfort more than makes up for it... I can spend all day in the cockpit, and climb out without any complaints... Can't even fit in the Mooney, and a Bo / Deb makes me feel claustrophobic with a comparatively small cabin and no door on the pilot side...

Good Commanders are actually pretty easy to sell, and there seems to be a ready market for these planes. The secret is to work with Judi Anderson (Commaner-specialist broker who hangs out on the Commader Owner's Group (COG) forums. (http://www.commander.org)

The Commander type certificate and production tooling, etc. was purchased by a Chinese woman, who says she is planning to restart production (in Oklahoma) within a couple of years. Meantime, the COG is an excellent resource for maintenance issues, parts, etc. Most of the "wear out" components on the Commanders are off-the-shelf components.

_________________
Jim Parker
2007 Rans S-6ES


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2015, 14:17 
Offline

 Profile




Joined: 05/21/14
Posts: 1
We would like the info for the Commander Owners Group if you can provide it.

Thanks

Username Protected wrote:
They have always caught my eye as well, a great looking plane. What other comparable plane has this engine? What speeds are they getting?

On a side note, there's probably a new parts plane here at KSEE in San Diego. Guy hand propped the plane and.....you guessed, it got away and went into a hangar door across the ramp. Pretty sure it's totaled.

If anyone wants details of it, I'm sure I can find them.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2015, 15:38 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/13/10
Posts: 20103
Post Likes: +23513
Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
Aircraft: Prior C310,BE33,SR22
Google: Commander Owners Group

you get

www.commander.org

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


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2015, 16:42 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 12/04/09
Posts: 1132
Post Likes: +418
Location: phoenix, AZ (KDVT)
Aircraft: 1968 Bonanza V35A
I was looking at Commanders but bought a V35A with a 550. I went for some 114 test flights and to get any good speed I had to run 70-75% power ROP at a high fuel burn. The sellers were not into LOP ops so I can't compare there.
A big difference I noted was in the back seat area. While the cabin is wide it is not tall. The legroom was less than the V35A as I can move the seats fore and aft quite a distance.
The 114 also seemed to require more runway on take off. Considering the speed penalty and the rear seat accommodations, I bought my V35A. I was looking for an efficient traveling machine.
The Commander Owners Group members were as the members here, a great bunch and always willing to share their knowledge. To be honest, the Commander is the sweetest looking single out there, next to the V tail, and if the performance was better, I would have bought one.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2015, 17:16 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/19/08
Posts: 12161
Post Likes: +3535
Aircraft: C55
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.

_________________
The kid gets it all. Just plant us in the damn garden, next to the stupid lion.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2015, 17:18 
Offline




User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/12/07
Posts: 10873
Post Likes: +2231
Company: MBG Properties
Location: Knoxville, TN (KDKX)
Aircraft: 1972 Bonanza V35B
To me the sexiest production single engine plane(s) on the ramp will be a RC114/115...tied with our V-tails. I almost bought a 114 in 1979...went with a C210 instead.

The one in the above photos is gorgeous. !!

_________________
Max Grogan

Come fly with me.

My photos: https://photos.google.com/albums


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2015, 22:29 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/13/14
Posts: 382
Post Likes: +327
Location: New Hampshire
Aircraft: PC-24
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.

Good thing I'd never sit in the back of my own airplane!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2015, 22:38 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/01/08
Posts: 734
Post Likes: +170
Company: USAF
Location: Colorado
Aircraft: E35 (SOLD), RV-7
I also looked at them, but the anemic climb and unimpressive short-field capability was a no-go for me.

Gorgeous, gorgeous airplane, though.

_________________
Chris McClernon
Colorado Springs, CO (KFLY)
N174FM
https://mcclernon.smugmug.com/Airplanes/RV-7


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2015, 22:46 
Online


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 08/07/08
Posts: 5522
Post Likes: +3819
Location: Fort Worth, TX (KFTW)
Aircraft: B200, ex 58P
Now, as I reflect on my decision to buy a Commander 114, as a newbie pilot with all of about 40 hours total, I bought it solely on how it looked.

Since then I bought a couple of P Barons. Guess I haven't changed much at all.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2015, 11:45 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/16/10
Posts: 2031
Post Likes: +886
Location: Wisconsin
Aircraft: CJ4, AmphibBeaver
Username Protected wrote:
I bought it solely on how it looked.


I can relate!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2015, 14:06 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/08/11
Posts: 8024
Post Likes: +7302
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA (KCID)
Aircraft: 1978 Bonanza A36
I never owned one, but flew in a 114TC twice - once as pilot and once in the back seat as a passenger. Very comfortable both in the front and the back, and I'm a tall guy.

In terms of looks and comfort, this is a nice single.

- Martin

_________________
Martin Pauly
Accredited BPPP Instructor
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/martinpauly


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rockwell Commander
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2015, 19:38 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/24/13
Posts: 805
Post Likes: +561
Company: Retired
Location: Farmersville, TX
Aircraft: 2007 RANS S-6ES
:scratch: I believe that the "Commanders have an anemic rate of climb" OWT originated with people who flew (or "had a friend" who flew) a Commander 112 (IO-360 w/ 200 HP) on a hot day at high altitude... Like many other GA airplanes, the Commander 112 can be "challenged" in those conditions, and you may need to leave off fuel, passengers, or wait for cooler temperatures.

The 112 and 114 may look very similar, but they perform like completely different animals! The additional power of the IO-540 makes a huge difference. The 114's climb performance seem pretty very similar to a V-Tail (assuming the Beech "book" figures are accurate).

In my 114 Hot Shot (aftermarket turbo-normalizer), I plan for (and get) 1,000+ FPM all the way to the flight levels. But then, the TN system maintains sea-level power to 18,000' or better... :dancing:

As for legroom and headroom, check out page 3 in this link: Why a Commander? The front seats have a LOT of travel, and most pilots roll them all the way back to enter/exit. But anyone who actually flies with the seat all the way back would have to be REALLY tall. I have a 6'4" friend who flies with the seat 3" forward of the aft-most position.

With the front seats anywhere forward of the aft stops, there is plenty of legroom in the back seat. Rear-seat headroom is better than in most airplanes, but the seat back angle is also adjustable, so even really tall people can get comfortable.

My wife, who has always been a very "uncomfortable" passenger in GA airplanes, says the Commander feels very "solid" to her, and that she feels OK flying in it with me. (Trust me, that is high praise!) Turbulence that would feel pretty rough in other planes seems to barely affect the Commander. It is a great IFR platform - very stable, without feeling "ponderous" on the controls, like some of the Brand C airplanes do... And you almost cannot make a bad landing in one - that trailing link landing gear turns almost any landing into a good one. Impresses your passengers...

_________________
Jim Parker
2007 Rans S-6ES


Top

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




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

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