Anyone here owns a rockwell commander?

midcap said:
I'd imagine the Turbo 540 or which ever the engine is, gets closer to 150kts?
Click to expand...

Depends on altitude and power setting. I didn't like to run the turbo on the 112TC above 65% power even though it was allowable by the book (lasted longer that way). I'd run the TIO-540 the same way. In the upper teens, you should see something above 150 (I think 100% power is 190 kts book and 70-75% power is 170-ish, but I didn't fly the 540-series engine). Below 10K, I'd think 150-ish should be about right.

If I owned another Commander I'd want the 114/115 series with turbo and TKS (yes, some were factory-equipped with TKS).

The guys on commander.org can give you a better feel for the real numbers.
 
wsuffa said:
Depends on altitude and power setting. I didn't like to run the turbo on the 112TC above 65% power even though it was allowable by the book (lasted longer that way). I'd run the TIO-540 the same way. In the upper teens, you should see something above 150 (I think 100% power is 190 kts book and 70-75% power is 170-ish, but I didn't fly the 540-series engine). Below 10K, I'd think 150-ish should be about right.

If I owned another Commander I'd want the 114/115 series with turbo and TKS (yes, some were factory-equipped with TKS).

The guys on commander.org can give you a better feel for the real numbers.
Click to expand...

The more I look at this plane the more I like it.

Those cruise numbers are awesome...and some even have de icing wow..
 
I have a couple of hours in a friend's 112tc. It's really roomy in he front and rear seats as others have mentioned. I thought it flew like a suburban compared to the 172s and Cherokees I was flying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
wsuffa said:
Depends on altitude and power setting. I didn't like to run the turbo on the 112TC above 65% power even though it was allowable by the book (lasted longer that way). I'd run the TIO-540 the same way. In the upper teens, you should see something above 150 (I think 100% power is 190 kts book and 70-75% power is 170-ish, but I didn't fly the 540-series engine). Below 10K, I'd think 150-ish should be about right.

If I owned another Commander I'd want the 114/115 series with turbo and TKS (yes, some were factory-equipped with TKS).

The guys on commander.org can give you a better feel for the real numbers.
Click to expand...
well.....that's kinda doggy compared with other 300 HP aircraft.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
well.....that's kinda doggy compared with other 300 HP aircraft.
Click to expand...

The 112TC is a 200 hp airplane I believe.

Rockwell never produced a turbocharged 540 version. I believe the Commander 115TC was 270 hp.
 
Ok....that's more like it....but a TIO-540 is way more than 200 HP.
 
GRG55 said:
The 112TC is a 200 hp airplane I believe.

Rockwell never produced a turbocharged 540 version. I believe the Commander 115TC was 270 hp.
Click to expand...
The 112TC is 210 HP. The 114/115TC is a 540 turbocharged engine, but it is in the 270 hp range (not 300). I'm working from memory on the 114/115TC, though, so double check the specs.
 
I was hot to trot for a Commander 114 when I was looking to buy a plane - loved the looks, interior room, build quality, useful load, etc.

But when I ran some loading scenarios to see if I could take full advantage of the useful load, I found I couldn't put adults in the back without being out of CG.

I was bummed, and moved on to looking elsewhere. I may have had an unusual situation, though, so don't let that scare you off - just be sure to run the numbers for your expected loads.
 
bcool said:
I was hot to trot for a Commander 114 when I was looking to buy a plane - loved the looks, interior room, build quality, useful load, etc.

But when I ran some loading scenarios to see if I could take full advantage of the useful load, I found I couldn't put adults in the back without being out of CG.

I was bummed, and moved on to looking elsewhere. I may have had an unusual situation, though, so don't let that scare you off - just be sure to run the numbers for your expected loads.
Click to expand...

If it helps...I am really fat..so that may counter act some adults in the rear seats...:D

Off to run some W&B numbers
 
wsuffa said:
The 112TC is 210 HP. The 114/115TC is a 540 turbocharged engine, but it is in the 270 hp range (not 300). I'm working from memory on the 114/115TC, though, so double check the specs.
Click to expand...
compared with like equipped Cirrus, Mooneys and Bonanzas....that's slow and thirsty.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
compared with like equipped Cirrus, Mooneys and Bonanzas....that's slow and thirsty.
Click to expand...
You don't like it? Nobody is making you buy one.

It was the right plane for me and I loved owning it and flying it.
 
wsuffa said:
You don't like it? Nobody is making you buy one.

It was the right plane for me and I loved owning it and flying it.
Click to expand...
ya but.....I didn't say it wasn't comfy and nice. :D

btw....I wish my Bonanza had two doors.
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
compared with like equipped Cirrus, Mooneys and Bonanzas....that's slow and thirsty.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but so is a SUV compared to a car. The trade off is you'll have two doors, and a wider cabin. When I was looking to buy, a single door plane was a non starter for me. After looking long and hard I purchased a Socata Trinidad TB20, seems to be a lot like the Commanders. Roomy, not the fastest plane in the sky, but not slow either. Personally I'll give up a little speed for comfort, plus with the 86 gal tanks I have on long trips I may just be able to make them non stop instead of one stop refill.

Lot's of great planes out there, some like the smaller, faster some are fine with a little slower but more room.
 
GBSoren said:
That may be true, but so is a SUV compared to a car. The trade off is you'll have two doors, and a wider cabin. When I was looking to buy, a single door plane was a non starter for me. After looking long and hard I purchased a Socata Trinidad TB20, seems to be a lot like the Commanders. Roomy, not the fastest plane in the sky, but not slow either. Personally I'll give up a little speed for comfort, plus with the 86 gal tanks I have on long trips I may just be able to make them non stop instead of one stop refill.

Lot's of great planes out there, some like the smaller, faster some are fine with a little slower but more room.
Click to expand...

Those Socatas are very nice too....That's one of things that bugs me about the pipers, mooneys, Beech's etc is the single door.
 
This thread seems to put a positive light on the commanders.... Previously here and in other articles I've read not so much... Stories of wing spars, unrealized performance numbers and expensive parts was the theme...

I love this plane for many reasons, but have taken it off my wish list because of the above...Have I crossed into another dimension or something?
 
The wing spar thing was blown out of proportion. The spar is life-limited to like 10,000 hours, and people act like it was some common failure point. I wouldn't buy a 4-place piston aircraft with 8,000TT on it anyway, much less worry about what happens with a spar at 10,000 hours. It's a non-issue because you don't see many aircraft on the market with those high-hour times.

I don't know that I understand the unrealized performance stuff, they just don't go as fast on the same power as most others. It's not unrealized, just not the most speed per HP.

I don't guess I've seen the expensive parts thing . . . I thought Beechcraft had the "expensive parts" market on lock, lol. Sure, there are some Commander parts that are likely almost unobtainium, but that goes for a lot of it's competitors (PA24 line, looking at you). Also, most of those unobtainium parts/really expensive items are things that, if damaged, probably means the aircraft is totaled anyway.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I don't know that I understand the unrealized performance stuff, they just don't go as fast on the same power as most others. It's not unrealized, just not the most speed per HP.
Click to expand...

So realistically, what kind of 75% cruise and fuel burn should one expect from a 112A Genre?
 
It better be caddy comfy - I get 175 on 13 in my Mooney... even my Arrow got 140 on 11...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
rpadula used to own one, but I haven't seen him on here in a while and it looks like his PM is turned off. Oh well, I'm sure he could give you some good insight.

Edit: OK, was able to send him something via PM, hopefully he'll drop in and look at your questions.
 
Last edited:
FlySince9 said:
This thread seems to put a positive light on the commanders.... Previously here and in other articles I've read not so much... Stories of wing spars, unrealized performance numbers and expensive parts was the theme...

I love this plane for many reasons, but have taken it off my wish list because of the above...Have I crossed into another dimension or something?
Click to expand...

SoonerAviator said:
The wing spar thing was blown out of proportion. The spar is life-limited to like 10,000 hours, and people act like it was some common kfailure point. I wouldn't buy a 4-place piston aircraft with 8,000TT on it anyway, much less worry about what happens with a spar at 10,000 hours. It's a non-issue because you don't see many aircraft on the market with those high-hour times.

I don't know that I understand the unrealized performance stuff, they just don't go as fast on the same power as most others. It's not unrealized, just not the most speed per HP.

I don't guess I've seen the expensive parts thing . . . I thought Beechcraft had the "expensive parts" market on lock, lol. Sure, there are some Commander parts that are likely almost unobtainium, but that goes for a lot of it's competitors (PA24 line, looking at you). Also, most of those unobtainium parts/really expensive items are things that, if damaged, probably means the aircraft is totaled anyway.
Click to expand...

Wing/spar life varies by model. Look at the TCDS and see what it calls out for each model. Like every other plane of that vintage there are a variety of ADs on the airframe and engines. Even the Cirrus has airframe life limits.

The original spar AD was addressed years and years ago. I don't think there are any in the fleet that haven't been fixed. There is an AD for the tail feathers, but it's a repetitive inspection or replacement deal. Aerodyne has a kit to permanently fix it.

FlySince9 said:
So realistically, what kind of 75% cruise and fuel burn should one expect from a 112A Genre?
Click to expand...

The numbers quoted above are not even close for a 112A with the io360 engine. My turbocharged 112TC flew at about 12 GPH at 65% and topped out at 21-ish GPH at takeoff (100% power) unleaned. I'd expect fuel but to be comparable to other models using the same io360 engine (after all, % power being the same fuel burn will be about the same). Speed varies with altitude. The commander.org site may have the manuals (it did at one time). I don't know the numbers for the 112A vintage, the TC had a bit higher power, but I would not be surprised to see a 112A in the 130 range at 8000' with 10-11 GPH fuel burn.
 
bcool said:
I was hot to trot for a Commander 114 when I was looking to buy a plane - loved the looks, interior room, build quality, useful load, etc.

But when I ran some loading scenarios to see if I could take full advantage of the useful load, I found I couldn't put adults in the back without being out of CG.

I was bummed, and moved on to looking elsewhere. I may have had an unusual situation, though, so don't let that scare you off - just be sure to run the numbers for your expected loads.
Click to expand...

Good advice for any airplane shopping. :thumbsup:
 
Holy crap guys - instead of taking wild ass guesses, maybe take a look at the 112A POH, which is readily online.

ISA at 8000', 75% power seems to yield 139 knots at around 11gph. Book numbers of course, but a far cry from 130 knots at 16-17gph.
 
how much HP is a TIO-540 humming at 75% making?....and the fuel burn? it ain't 11gph.
 
Sure how you do at 6k feet...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I own a Turbo Normalized 112. Referred to as a "Hot Shot". Sea Level power to 16,000. The "sweet spot" is between 10 and 12,000. I fly at 65% at 9-10 GPH and get 130-140 TAS. Pushing it up to 75% it will do close to 150 TAS. Two door, BIG cockpit, comfy airplane. I am in a club that has Archers and a Cherokee-Six. Much, much more comfortable than either of them. Built well. Parts haven't been an issue and there is an involved, resourceful owners group. Flies like a dream. (Retired airline/Navy guy...). I just putz around south Florida so I don't really use its' ultimate capabilities. Carries 60 gallons of usable fuel. Even has a "both" position on the fuel selector. The 112 variant is, however, a two person airplane that has four seats if the two guys up front are my size, i.e., 235 pounds. With its' new composite prop, my useful load is 860#. With full fuel (rarely needed), that leaves 500# for payload. If you flew in one for a couple of trips, you'd love it. Elbow room and headroom.
 
Yep I know. Slowwww... How fast at 13gph at 6k feet roughly?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
That's where I get 175... but no doubt you pay for cabin width and height comfort with speed...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
yup....Buicks and Cadis are not known to be fuel efficient. ;)
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
TSIO-520, at 17,500 ft AGL, 16.5 gph, BE-35 V-35A....no wind TAS
Click to expand...

You should be a politician. We're talking about an airplane with an IO-360, and you decide to jump in with numbers from a TSIO-520 being flown up where you need to have a cannula hanging from your face. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top