Whatever happened to the AC-114?

jonvcaples

jonvcaples

Pre-takeoff checklist
Gone West
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
395
Location
Colorado, USA
Display Name
Display name:
Sasquatch
What a fun flying, comfortable ride. What has happened with these? Are there issues with parts and ADs?
 
Yea mean AC-11? No issue with parts unless you bend metal, even then pets are available just takes time to get.

Great planes, comfortable and fun to fly.
 
Jamie

Thanks! Aero Commander 114, thought they were called AC-112 for fixed gear and 114 was the retract, but could be wrong. It has been a long time back and having trouble finding old logbooks. Lots of fond memories.
 
jonvcaples said:
Jamie

Thanks! Aero Commander 114, thought they were called AC-112 for fixed gear and 114 was the retract, but could be wrong. It has been a long time back and having trouble finding old logbooks. Lots of fond memories.
Click to expand...

The 112/114/115 are all AC-11, they are also all retract, no fixed gear.

112 = Lycoming 4 cylinder
114/115 = Lycoming 6 cylinder

All models have turbo options.

Great planes, fun to fly and very comfortable. Parts are easy, support is great and the factory in Oklahoma is back up and producing parts.
 
Because they were the first GA airplane to be produced under Part 23.............They were heavier and didn't have the performance of all the CAR 3 competitors.
 
The model 111 was supposed to be the fixed gear version, but Rockwell never put it into production.

I've never heard the 112 or 114 called "AC" or "Aero Commanders"; everyone I know refers to them as Rockwell Commanders. Maybe that's because both owners I know have rather hefty looking nameplates with "Rockwell" cast into them riveted on either side of their fuselages.
 
Last edited:
The ICAO code AC-11 includes all of the different models of the Rockwell Commander, the manufacture uses it's own individual designations for the different models.
Two prototypes of the 111 model were produced and were fixed gear with 180 HP.
Although I've never sat in one, it would be fun to fly one. They look great, and that trailing link gear would make anyone look good on landings.

Here's one I saw this spring at a local Minnesota fly-in.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9399 (1024x627).jpg
    IMG_9399 (1024x627).jpg
    122 KB · Views: 51
GRG55 said:
The model 111 was supposed to be the fixed gear version, but Rockwell never put it into production.
Click to expand...
champ driver said:
Two prototypes of the 111 model were produced and were fixed gear with 180 HP.
Click to expand...

rockwell_111.jpg

I've never heard the 112 or 114 called "AC" or "Aero Commanders"; everyone I know refers to them as Rockwell Commanders. Maybe that's because both owners I know have rather hefty looking nameplates with "Rockwell" cast into them riveted on either side of their fuselages.
Click to expand...

It was originally called [ahem] "North American Rockwell Aero Commander 112".

1972 ad:

North American Rockwell 112 1972.jpeg
 
Pilawt said:
...It was originally called [ahem] "North American Rockwell Aero Commander 112"...
Click to expand...

Now there's a mouthful! :eek:


kgruber said:
Because they were the first GA airplane to be produced under Part 23.............They were heavier and didn't have the performance of all the CAR 3 competitors.
Click to expand...

I've always wondered if North American's military aviation heritage also played a part in this outcome. North American's Navion also had a reputation for being very sturdily constructed, and a bit weighty for its size.

Every time I look at the Commander landing gear I think the only thing preventing it from performing carrier operations is the lack of a tailhook. :)
 
I have the "2nd round" of the AC11 - the Commander (no "Rockwell") 114B. 1995 model year. These are great airplanes and are extremely comfortable to ride in and easy to fly. I was initially attracted to these airplanes because of the pilot's side door and the fact that you don't rub shoulders with your co-pilot.

After two years of ownership and 200+ hours of flying I really love this airplane. It is a great airplane in IMC - very stable. It is 15-20 kts slower than a Bonanza. I get it. But....see above - I don't crawl across a seat to get into mine and I don't rub shoulders with my front seat passenger.
 
I flew the 112TC. It is very comfortable and has the widest cockpit I know of in a light single.

Not terribly fast, but it is heavy, so it has a nice ride...
 
the Aero Commander 112 looks like a nice aircraft. I should be so lucky to own one..:rolleyes:
 
Jamie Kirk said:
Yea mean AC-11? No issue with parts unless you bend metal, even then pets are available just takes time to get.

Great planes, comfortable and fun to fly.
Click to expand...

I think the animal rights people will be picketing you soon if you are using pets for parts.
 
Very fond memories of the 114 and saw some beautiful scenery from it. Lived in Hawaii and flew between Oahu and the other islands a lot. Thanks for correction about the Rockwell v Arto bit...it was a long time ago.
 
The 114 seems to have better payload than the 112. That's equipped, with full fuel.

Sort of a Navion with doors instead of a canopy (and not a Navion Rangemaster).

Reports say docile, stable, heavy plane...

Seems everything in GA aircraft associated with NA (in it's heritage) is built to last, and comfortably roomy, if not "screaming eagles."

Just my general impressions from a "if I could buy a 4 place plane what would I look at" standpoint. Providing, of course, if I didn't look at my bank account first.

It's Shank's mare, a pickup truck, and rentals for me...

But if I win the "tax on math flunkies" lottery, it has made the list.
 
CharlieD3 said:
The 114 seems to have better payload than the 112. That's equipped, with full fuel.

Sort of a Navion with doors instead of a canopy (and not a Navion Rangemaster).

Reports say docile, stable, heavy plane...

Seems everything in GA aircraft associated with NA (in it's heritage) is built to last, and comfortably roomy, if not "screaming eagles."

Just my general impressions from a "if I could buy a 4 place plane what would I look at" standpoint. Providing, of course, if I didn't look at my bank account first.

It's Shank's mare, a pickup truck, and rentals for me...

But if I win the "tax on math flunkies" lottery, it has made the list.
Click to expand...

The 114 has a good bit more payload than the 112, and bigger engine as well. Most 114's I see are around 1K-1,100lbs total payload. I'd guess they're probably closer in comparison to the PA24-250/260 Piper Comanche in terms of metrics. Payload/cruise speed/fuel burn/etc.
 
SoonerAviator said:
The 114 has a good bit more payload than the 112, and bigger engine as well. Most 114's I see are around 1K-1,100lbs total payload. I'd guess they're probably closer in comparison to the PA24-250/260 Piper Comanche in terms of metrics. Payload/cruise speed/fuel burn/etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah... That's what I gleaned as well. Thanks for the additional comparison points.


Now, if I could just start a go fund me for my desperate need of an aircraft... But alas...
 
Really going to miss my Commander. Cross country trips were amazingly comfortable for everyone.

eabb2cc170644d95ca05dcfb55b04938.jpg
12029b84fa276f958da350e1d9da0a10.jpg
0838828a8aad78c04b30934c5f54689e.jpg
 
Jamie Kirk said:
Really going to miss my Commander. Cross country trips were amazingly comfortable for everyone...
Click to expand...

I'll bet. Have a good friend. Started with a Grumman Cheetah as his first plane, then upgraded to a Commander 112TC. Flew that everywhere around the continent with his wife.

Then had his head turned and fell in love with a really good looking, nicely equipped Mooney M20E, ostensibly for the speed and fuel efficiency. His wife got into the Mooney when he arrived at his hangar after ferrying it home. She climbed out and refused to fly with him ever again as long as he owns it. Eleven years later she still says she wishes he'd kept the Rockwell. He flies the Mooney so little now he sold a share to another friend of mine I connected him with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top