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.

You could get an Aztec and do 145 with dual 540s

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.

We would like the info for the Commander Owners Group if you can provide it.

Thanks

Google: Commander Owners Group

you get

www.commander.org

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.

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.

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. !!

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

I also looked at them, but the anemic climb and unimpressive short-field capability was a no-go for me.

Gorgeous, gorgeous airplane, though.

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.

I can relate!

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

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...

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...