Anyone here owns a rockwell commander?

codeeno said:
It's good for a plane to fly regularly, but, it shouldn't be a show-stopper if it hasn't - just more due diligence. If memory serves me, when I was researching my plane, going back year over year, it was: 1 hour, 6 hours, 9 hours, 20+ hours. I sent the oil off for analysis, shared my findings with the shop that did my pre-buy. It took me about 4 oil changes for the oil analysis to be "perfect" but, each oil change it improved. So I've been ok.

If you are serious about investigating it as a possibility - contact Judi Anderson with Sun Coast Aviation. She has files on almost all the Commanders and knows the history of most of the fleet. She has been working with Commanders since the late 70's. She may have background info. You could also join the Commander Owners Group (www.commander.org) - it's a great site for Commander specific info.

Dean
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info.

I am still a ways out, but there are a myriad of planes that would fit my missions I finally narrowed it down to 3. The Commander is one of those 3, followed by the Comanche and a 182RG
 
Sure - good luck with the search. We all have to find what is right for us - which is part of the "fun" LOL

Dean
 
codeeno said:
Sure - good luck with the search. We all have to find what is right for us - which is part of the "fun" LOL

Dean
Click to expand...

I know...I thought I enjoyed looking for cars, trucks and boats....Airplanes are like on a whole other level.
 
codeeno said:
Its also a 112 - so the 360 and not the 540.
Click to expand...

That's the one I want a Turbo 4. less Mx than a turbo 6 I'd imagine.

I do all of my flying at sea level so I don't think I would need the extra grunt of the 6.

All of the airports I'd fly to are all like 5000 feet or better.
 
midcap said:
That's the one I want a Turbo 4. less Mx than a turbo 6 I'd imagine.

I do all of my flying at sea level so I don't think I would need the extra grunt of the 6.

All of the airports I'd fly to are all like 5000 feet or better.
Click to expand...

Oh but so slooooowwww


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OK - I'm a bit confused - in your post you say "I do all of my flying at sea level" then later say all the airports you fly to are 5000' of better.

The turbo or hot shot will give you sea level performance up to the teens. If at sea level or really 3000' AGL you should be ok. If you are flying from airfields that are 5000' AGL then yes, a turbo or turbo-normalized (Hot Shot) 112 makes sense. The normally aspirated 114 will be fine at 5000' but, you will need to watch density altitudes and runway lengths. Loaded on a warm summer day I can use 6000' of runway.

I went with the 114 (normally aspirated) because I will be traveling to lower AGLs typically and figured that I wouldn't be loaded and taking off on a hot summer's day. Both for density altitude considerations and those lovely afternoon thunderstorms.

Dean
 
bcool said:
Looking at the logs, it seems it hasn't flown much lately.
Click to expand...

codeeno said:
It's good for a plane to fly regularly, but, it shouldn't be a show-stopper if it hasn't - just more due diligence. If memory serves me, when I was researching my plane, going back year over year, it was: 1 hour, 6 hours, 9 hours, 20+ hours. I sent the oil off for analysis, shared my findings with the shop that did my pre-buy. It took me about 4 oil changes for the oil analysis to be "perfect" but, each oil change it improved. So I've been ok.

If you are serious about investigating it as a possibility - contact Judi Anderson with Sun Coast Aviation. She has files on almost all the Commanders and knows the history of most of the fleet. She has been working with Commanders since the late 70's. She may have background info. You could also join the Commander Owners Group (www.commander.org) - it's a great site for Commander specific info.

Dean
Click to expand...

Agree. May not be an issue depending on how much it's been flown and how it's been stored. Make sure you use an A&P that will work WITH you and not just one that will say "too many hours stay away".

The two areas to keep an eye on are: 1) airframe corrosion (should be detected during annual & I never saw much on my plane except for the battery bracket which was easily treated) and 2) engine internals. If it was treated right and oil changes were done regularly (or it was pickled), it's likely to be OK. Even so, the price should be negotiable to cover any issues.

midcap said:
This one doesn't have the glass, but it has the Turbo!

https://www.aso.com/listings/spec/V...l=True&pagingNo=1&searchId=28975756&dealerid=
Click to expand...

That's a "hotshot" turbo-normalized unit. It may or may not meet your needs. The turbo will be a bit more maintenance in exchange for greater altitude flexibility (with a corresponding weight penalty and need for O2). The bigger 540 engine will carry a greater load.
 
codeeno said:
OK - I'm a bit confused - in your post you say "I do all of my flying at sea level" then later say all the airports you fly to are 5000' of better.

The turbo or hot shot will give you sea level performance up to the teens. If at sea level or really 3000' AGL you should be ok. If you are flying from airfields that are 5000' AGL then yes, a turbo or turbo-normalized (Hot Shot) 112 makes sense. The normally aspirated 114 will be fine at 5000' but, you will need to watch density altitudes and runway lengths. Loaded on a warm summer day I can use 6000' of runway.

I went with the 114 (normally aspirated) because I will be traveling to lower AGLs typically and figured that I wouldn't be loaded and taking off on a hot summer's day. Both for density altitude considerations and those lovely afternoon thunderstorms.

Dean
Click to expand...

I meant 5000 feet runways, my mistake

I wonder if the 6 calories would end up being less mx since it doesn't have a turbo
 
midcap said:
That's the one I want a Turbo 4. less Mx than a turbo 6 I'd imagine.

I do all of my flying at sea level so I don't think I would need the extra grunt of the 6.

All of the airports I'd fly to are all like 5000 feet or better.
Click to expand...

The turbo 4 in the 112 is a bit anemic, and is a bit of an oddball Lycoming engine. It is a turbocharged carbureted engine, not fuel injected as is more common with turbocharger installations. This engine was used only in two production airplanes, the 112 and a Partenavia (if I recall correctly), and the cylinders are unique so can be difficult and potentially expensive to find (although the Commander type club is very good at assisting in that sort of thing). If you are near sea level you will be far better off and most certainly money ahead over time with the naturally aspirated IO-540.
 
The 112TC are the carb versions with factory turbo systems. These have manually controlled wastegates.

The hot shots are 112 or 114's that were normally aspirated fuel injected but now have a turbo added. As stated earlier, they are turbo normalized.
 
midcap said:
I meant 5000 feet runways, my mistake

I wonder if the 6 calories would end up being less mx since it doesn't have a turbo
Click to expand...

Midcap,

OK - yeah 5,000 runways at sea level - that helps :) -- so really -- in my opinion -- the turbo or turbo-normalized (HotShot (HS)) won't be of much benefit. The turbos help provide sea level performance at altitude (flight or field elevation). For me - I leave Okla - with full manifold pressure and as I climb, my manifold pressure drops and power drops since there isn't enough oxygen to maintain full manifold pressure. So I rarely fly above 10 or 12K and really I should probably stay around 8-9K for engine performance, but, I like the extra altitude for safety. If I had a turbo or HS I would still have full power and manifold pressure available to me at 10K and above. The benefits of the turbo or HS are only realized higher up. It is possible if you don't manage your power correctly to provide too much boost and with turbos you have to carefully manage your engine temperatures.

You might want to check some of the flight manuals for a NA 112 & 114, then a turbo 112 and see if the numbers for takeoff performance really impact you. Then you would know for sure.

As far as MX goes - that was my logic as well. However, many Commander owners with Turbo/HS versions don't really think there is that big of a difference. I am not sure and they were stating opinions not facts.

Dean
 
codeeno said:
Midcap,

OK - yeah 5,000 runways at sea level - that helps :) -- so really -- in my opinion -- the turbo or turbo-normalized (HotShot (HS)) won't be of much benefit. The turbos help provide sea level performance at altitude (flight or field elevation). For me - I leave Okla - with full manifold pressure and as I climb, my manifold pressure drops and power drops since there isn't enough oxygen to maintain full manifold pressure. So I rarely fly above 10 or 12K and really I should probably stay around 8-9K for engine performance, but, I like the extra altitude for safety. If I had a turbo or HS I would still have full power and manifold pressure available to me at 10K and above. The benefits of the turbo or HS are only realized higher up. It is possible if you don't manage your power correctly to provide too much boost and with turbos you have to carefully manage your engine temperatures.

You might want to check some of the flight manuals for a NA 112 & 114, then a turbo 112 and see if the numbers for takeoff performance really impact you. Then you would know for sure.

As far as MX goes - that was my logic as well. However, many Commander owners with Turbo/HS versions don't really think there is that big of a difference. I am not sure and they were stating opinions not facts.

Dean
Click to expand...

thanks for that info...

My main reasoning for the Turbo was that I plan to use the plane for a lot of XC flying. My normal longest route 2-3 times a year would be about 540nm. Then I would want to throw in some 740nm trips. A normal trip would be less than 250nm though. So I figured if I had a turbo I could get up high and pour on the coals and really make good time. I don't need the take off performance, I want the cruise performance, so a turbo normalized system, preferably a 2nd throttle style would probably best suit my needs.

That was one of the reasons I was looking at the Comanche and the 182RG, both of those are 150kt TAS birds from what I gather.
 
codeeno said:
As far as MX goes - that was my logic as well. However, many Commander owners with Turbo/HS versions don't really think there is that big of a difference. I am not sure and they were stating opinions not facts.
Click to expand...

For my 112TC, there was additional mx on the turbocharger and wastegate. I can't speak to the hotshot. Figure another $1000 or so at mid-engine life, and extra cost at overhaul.

It depends on how you run it, though. The harder & hotter you run it, the greater the chance of turbocharger and wastegate work sooner.

midcap said:
thanks for that info...

My main reasoning for the Turbo was that I plan to use the plane for a lot of XC flying. My normal longest route 2-3 times a year would be about 540nm. Then I would want to throw in some 740nm trips. A normal trip would be less than 250nm though. So I figured if I had a turbo I could get up high and pour on the coals and really make good time. I don't need the take off performance, I want the cruise performance, so a turbo normalized system, preferably a 2nd throttle style would probably best suit my needs.
Click to expand...

"pour on the coals" implies running hot and hard. While the systems are pretty rugged, the turbocharger itself tends to be a ~800-1000 hour item, and the wastegate depends on the model. If you don't need the extra umph for takeoff, the Hotshot might work quite well for you. A bit harder to manage with the second control, but is done successfully.

I liked having the turbo (112TC, factory turbo), but no illusion that there wouldn't be extra costs.
 
wsuffa said:
For my 112TC, there was additional mx on the turbocharger and wastegate. I can't speak to the hotshot. Figure another $1000 or so at mid-engine life, and extra cost at overhaul.

It depends on how you run it, though. The harder & hotter you run it, the greater the chance of turbocharger and wastegate work sooner.



"pour on the coals" implies running hot and hard. While the systems are pretty rugged, the turbocharger itself tends to be a ~800-1000 hour item, and the wastegate depends on the model. If you don't need the extra umph for takeoff, the Hotshot might work quite well for you. A bit harder to manage with the second control, but is done successfully.

I liked having the turbo (112TC, factory turbo), but no illusion that there wouldn't be extra costs.
Click to expand...

thanks for the good info.

As far as a turbo, really the only type I want to mess with is the Turbo Normalized style. I had a very solid back ground on repairing and running F/I marine engines, so I have a good understanding of the theory of operation of that system.

Like you said, I won't need the extra umph for take off since I will only do sea level flying, I really just want the extra speed at flight levels and the Option to just cruise low and slow and not burn a lot of fuel if I don't want to also.

So after looking at the pros of the 114, more useful load, better performance etc, it probably makes more sense to get a 114 with it's version of the Hot Shot, or just buy a N/A 114 and add it on later if I really feel the need for speed.

Do any of you guys know what speeds at cruise the hot shot on the 114 was seeing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top