Anyone here owns a rockwell commander?

kayoh190 said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...
so....which one has the TIO-540? and what HP is that?...and the burn?
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
so....which one has the TIO-540? and what HP is that?...and the burn?
Click to expand...


I'm no expert on Commanders, but I think the 114's and 115's could come with the TIO-540 or the IO-540.
 
I stand corrected, looks like they never actually introduced the 115, in the 114 they had the 114TC with an TIO-540.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
so....which one has the TIO-540? and what HP is that?...and the burn?
Click to expand...

I dunno - the 114 is too rich for my blood, and the 540 too thirsty. That said, I'd take your V35 any day of the week over one, numbers be damned. :)
 
The 112 has the IO-360 (200HP) and a turbo-normalized version (210HP).
The 114 has the IO-540 (260HP), and the 114TC was the TIO-540
The 114/115 "Super Commander" STC has the IO-580 (320HP)
 
kayoh190 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure why folks would need to look at that even.

You look at the thing on the ramp and see that it has about the frontal cross section of a 182 and a similar engine size, and you say "130 knots at 9000..." haha.

Mashing things through the air creates drag and about the same amount of drag for equivalent sizes.

The whole W&B thing, you can see that too. Smaller tail than similarly sized aircraft. Won't have the elevator authority to load heavy people aft.

All that said... you had me at SUV. Haha. I like big cabins, and I cannot lie, as the hip hop song goes. :) I had asked @wsuffa to let me know when he was selling his and wasn't ready to do something back then. Oh well.

Realistically though, Denver is surrounded by great distances of nothingness. Faster is better if you want to actually go someplace other than Kansas or Nebraska. No offense to Kansas or Nebraska. So the answer for flyover States probably isn't Commander, but I love 'em anyway.

But I also love the looks of the Cessna T303 Crusader, and it's also a dog, so I know I'm weird. ;)
 
Sounds a lot like the Sierra. Big, comfortable, and slow for the HP. Sierra you get 2 doors and a large baggage door in the later models.
 
kayoh190 said:
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.
Click to expand...

About in the range I indicated. Some will make book (especially if they have gap seals and are well maintained), and some won't. I put vortex generators on my TC and gained some climb and slow speed performance in exchange for about 1 kt of airspeed. Well worth the trade for me.

Checkout_my_Six said:
how much HP is a TIO-540 humming at 75% making?....and the fuel burn? it ain't 11gph.
Click to expand...

As noted below, the 112A has an IO-360. The 114-series and 115 has a TIO-540 with higher cruise speed (and accompanying fuel burn).

kayoh190 said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...

Yep.

SoonerAviator said:
The 112 has the IO-360 (200HP) and a turbo-normalized version (210HP).
The 114 has the IO-540 (260HP), and the 114TC was the TIO-540
The 114/115 "Super Commander" STC has the IO-580 (320HP)
Click to expand...

Almost.

The 112, 112A, and 112B have IO-360 at 200 HP. The turbo-normalized version keeps the horsepower, just lets it run at higher HP higher up.
The 112TC has a factory turbocharged engine, Lycoming TO-360. It's kind of a stepchild as very few planes use it (the Commander 112TC, the Partenavia, and one more, I think). Lyc built a TIO-360 engine but Rockwell was already making planes with the 540 and never adopted that engine. Not worth the trouble to STC it.
The 114, 114A, 114B all had the IO-540 engines.
The 114TC and 115 had TIO-540 engines.

Yes,there were planes designated "115", they are really 114/114TC models that had the 115 designation for marketing purposes.
The "Super Commander" (and the 112A/B turbo-normalizer) were STCs. The TN was done by RCM out in the Rockies, and the "Super Commander" is done by Aerodyme in Vermont. There are two versions of the "Super Commander": 1 is for the 114-series and puts an IO-580 at 320 HP in the plane, the other is for the 112 series and puts an IO-320 in the plane.

Aerodyme has provided great support for the Commanders and has a number of service kits and STCs. Not cheap, but nothing in aviation is.

Here's a link to the Super Commander marketing material: http://aerodyme.com/Firewall_Forward/firewall_forward.html
 
Honestly if I want that kind of room, as nice as the Commander looks and with that sexy trailing link gear, I'd probably go Saratoga...


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

I usually cruise at 65%. I get 130kt at 11 gallons hour. At 75% the speed increases to 138 but the fuel goes up to 13.

There are faster planes and of course some slower. It's a comfortable plane for long trips and fits my needs.

Parts and service have yet to be an issue. If you bend metal, that's a problem.

If I recall correctly, there are less than 900 in the US registered.
 
I think the 112 Hot Shot (Turbo'd) would run in the mid-150kts if you were getting it up around 10K' or higher.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I think the 112 Hot Shot (Turbo'd) would run in the mid-150kts if you were getting it up around 10K' or higher.
Click to expand...

I saw that RCM has a Turbo Normalizing Kit....I wonder how much the costs would be.

And then to think about it, if I read it correctly, that's mid 150kts from a turbo 4 clinder.

2 less cylinders to worry about, than a 6 cylinder 182 or the like.
 
lmars said:
I usually cruise at 65%. I get 130kt at 11 gallons hour. At 75% the speed increases to 138 but the fuel goes up to 13.

There are faster planes and of course some slower. It's a comfortable plane for long trips and fits my needs.

Parts and service have yet to be an issue. If you bend metal, that's a problem.

If I recall correctly, there are less than 900 in the US registered.
Click to expand...

138 isn't bad...that's for a 4 cylinder correct?
 
midcap said:
I saw that RCM has a Turbo Normalizing Kit....I wonder how much the costs would be.

And then to think about it, if I read it correctly, that's mid 150kts from a turbo 4 clinder.

2 less cylinders to worry about, than a 6 cylinder 182 or the like.
Click to expand...

True, but it doesn't have nearly the payload of a 182, so its a bit more like a Mooney M20.
 
SoonerAviator said:
True, but it doesn't have nearly the payload of a 182, so its a bit more like a Mooney M20.
Click to expand...

more room than a M20 I Imagine. I really need to sit inside of one. I was only able to check one out from the outside.

Don't laugh at this question, but do you all think there would be a Commander at Sun N Fun that I would be able to look inside?
 
Its all about your mission - and where you live. I am in Denver and wanted the ability to take 2 people, full fuel and full luggage - and leave in the afternoon. Density altitude up here can be "fun". For me the 114 was the answer - I can load up my cargo space (200 lbs), fill my tanks, with two people and still have W&B room for more in my back seats. I will use some runway though :) up here (6,200 feet on that day).

I typically fly CO to OK or TX. I love how my Commander performs at the lower altitudes for takeoff and rate of climb. If I had deeper pockets the turbo or turbo-normalized (HotShot) would be perfect for me. However, I don't have dollars like that. I also looked at the Socatas - the TB20 and 21. With the 114 I gave up airspeed and range - but after 4 hours or so I am looking for a bathroom - so the longer range to me wasn't a loss and the 114 is less expensive than the TB20. So for me - the trade off meant I could buy now and fly - instead of saving more money. I am now 3 years as an owner.

Last year - flew - Denver to Atlanta. Then Atlanta to middle of Florida. Finally Florida to Denver. This year - I hope to make it to Napa, CA.

My performance is 10-12 gph around 130-ish at 9,000 ft. I was excited the day I hit 165 on 12gph - tail winds are a wonderful thing!

Dean
 
codeeno said:
Its all about your mission - and where you live. I am in Denver and wanted the ability to take 2 people, full fuel and full luggage - and leave in the afternoon. Density altitude up here can be "fun". For me the 114 was the answer - I can load up my cargo space (200 lbs), fill my tanks, with two people and still have W&B room for more in my back seats. I will use some runway though :) up here (6,200 feet on that day).

I typically fly CO to OK or TX. I love how my Commander performs at the lower altitudes for takeoff and rate of climb. If I had deeper pockets the turbo or turbo-normalized (HotShot) would be perfect for me. However, I don't have dollars like that. I also looked at the Socatas - the TB20 and 21. With the 114 I gave up airspeed and range - but after 4 hours or so I am looking for a bathroom - so the longer range to me wasn't a loss and the 114 is less expensive than the TB20. So for me - the trade off meant I could buy now and fly - instead of saving more money. I am now 3 years as an owner.

Last year - flew - Denver to Atlanta. Then Atlanta to middle of Florida. Finally Florida to Denver. This year - I hope to make it to Napa, CA.

My performance is 10-12 gph around 130-ish at 9,000 ft. I was excited the day I hit 165 on 12gph - tail winds are a wonderful thing!

Dean
Click to expand...

That's cool.....I don't plan on flying anywhere that density altitude would be an issue, but It would be cool to pour on the coals at 9k feet and do 150kts, but 130 knots and all the room is not bad considering you can always throw a turbo on it for more money.
 
When I was looking for a 114, I found one for sale that was really amazing. However, I discovered some pictures online of it several years ago UP TO THE FLOORBOARDS in water after a hurricane in FL :eek2: While they may have successfully cleaned it up when it was restored, I decided to pass on it because I wondered if there could still be salt lurking in some nooks and crannies that would bite me later.

Which is ironic, because I'm wondering if the same thing happened to the Archer I bought. At some point it was totally revamped, including newer avionics. I had a thorough prebuy that didn't find any corrosion or other evidence of problems, so I went ahead & bought it anyway.

The best you can do with these older planes is get the best pre-buy you can, inspect the logs, and hope for the best :)

I don't think anyone has mentioned her, but there's a broker (Judy) at Suncoast Aviation who has the scoop on just about every Commander out there. I asked her about a few of the ones I found and she was able to tell me about their histories, including sometimes knowing the people who own(ed) them.
 
bcool said:
When I was looking for a 114, I found one for sale that was really amazing. However, I discovered some pictures online of it several years ago UP TO THE FLOORBOARDS in water after a hurricane in FL :eek2: While they may have successfully cleaned it up when it was restored, I decided to pass on it because I wondered if there could still be salt lurking in some nooks and crannies that would bite me later.

Which is ironic, because I'm wondering if the same thing happened to the Archer I bought. At some point it was totally revamped, including newer avionics. I had a thorough prebuy that didn't find any corrosion or other evidence of problems, so I went ahead & bought it anyway.

The best you can do with these older planes is get the best pre-buy you can, inspect the logs, and hope for the best :)

I don't think anyone has mentioned her, but there's a broker (Judy) at Suncoast Aviation who has the scoop on just about every Commander out there. I asked her about a few of the ones I found and she was able to tell me about their histories, including sometimes knowing the people who own(ed) them.
Click to expand...

Someone like that is wroth their weight in gold...THanks!
 
midcap said:
Seems like you can get a lot of plane for the money with them

This one has the Turbo and with a 530WAAS it would be the bees knees.

I've seen 172s go for that much.:eek:

http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1440235/1978-rockwell-commander-112tca
Click to expand...

That's got older radios, the old panel style, and the original Century AP. Also less than 1000 hours since new (39 years, so <25 hours per year) including engine. I'd want to go through that with a fine-tooth comb, especially the engine. Be aware that the prop had an AD on it and has both an hour limit and 6 year limit referenced in the TCDS, making a periodic OH necessary (per the FAA, I had that conversation with them).

It should fly fine, but you'll put another $20-30 K+ into it to have a really fine airplane. Maybe more depending on what you do with it & what's required given the low hours since new.

bcool said:
.....
The best you can do with these older planes is get the best pre-buy you can, inspect the logs, and hope for the best :)

I don't think anyone has mentioned her, but there's a broker (Judy) at Suncoast Aviation who has the scoop on just about every Commander out there. I asked her about a few of the ones I found and she was able to tell me about their histories, including sometimes knowing the people who own(ed) them.
Click to expand...

Yes, find a mechanic that's familiar with the Commander to do the pre-buy. There are some little things that someone with experience in the breed will pick up that others won't... like how to set the wastegate on a 112TC engine and how to properly rig the plane.

I used to have a local shop do routine maintenance on the plane, and then take it to an A&P experienced with a Commander for every or every other annual. The first few years I owned the plane I had the chance to take it back to the factory for every other annual. The year before I sold it, it went to Aerodyme for annual. Figured that the experienced mechanics doing annual would catch anything that the local folks missed and vice/versa.

Judy is a great resource, she represented me in the sale of my plane and worked with the buyer to find a good local A&P that was also a Commander owner. He did the transition training, too. She doesn't know every plane, but has the best history on the planes of about anyone (save for what the factory had before it went under)... she can dispense great advice and point you to resources to help you along the way. Much better than some of the other brokers I've seen or heard of.

midcap said:
Someone like that is wroth their weight in gold...THanks!
Click to expand...

The Commander Owner's Group is also worth their weight in gold. Judi used to (and probably still does...) participate there, but the collective knowledge makes the annual membership fee a pittance. Tips, tricks, part sources, mechanics, referrals, and the like. The CoG got the AMOC for the tail feathers AD permitting borescope inspection rather than drilling out rivets for detailed annual inspections.
 
gsengle said:
Honestly if I want that kind of room, as nice as the Commander looks and with that sexy trailing link gear, I'd probably go Saratoga...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


That Saratoga (same cabin as the Archer, right?) doesn't have anywhere near the room the Commander has.
 
No it is a PA 32, not a PA 28. It's way bigger, and seats six. They are not the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
but then I would want a turbo lance if I were looking at saratogas/cherokee 6/300s
 
Nah I'd want a modern turbo retract Saratoga. If I could afford it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Nah I'd want a modern turbo retract Saratoga. If I could afford it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


That makes sense.

they seem to be right above $200,000....that's about double my budget.lol
 
Last edited:
What's the fuel burn like on a Saratoga? I know they are bigger but, don't know what their useful load is like or their performance is like.

Dean
 
codeeno said:
What's the fuel burn like on a Saratoga? I know they are bigger but, don't know what their useful load is like or their performance is like.

Dean
Click to expand...
I'd have to ask my friend. I dont remember if his is a retract or not.
 
codeeno said:
What's the fuel burn like on a Saratoga? I know they are bigger but, don't know what their useful load is like or their performance is like.

Dean
Click to expand...

15-16gph at 145kts, give or take a few. This on a retract non-turbo 'toga.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
9-10 mi/gal?....not a very efficient way to burn gas.
Click to expand...

You wanna carry 6 people relatively comfortably, 1300lbs load, get a Cherokee 6/Lance/Saratoga.

You wanna be fast and efficient and cozy for 4, get a Mooney. Everything else is somewhere in between...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thanks for the numbers.

So this last XC of mine (KFTG,KTUL,KOUN,KFTG) I was averaging 14 gph and 145kts with a ground speed of 155 to 163. I was burning more fuel than normal - I typically work about 12 gph but was in a bit of a hurry. This is in a non-turbo Commander 114 (IO-540).

I can fill my tanks, have myself (170), three 150lbs passenger, and haul 97 pounds of luggage and be within my W&B. Now my take off roll will be a ways - especially if I am near home. I have a decent useful load. Typically, it's just myself or one other person and then my W&B and performance are solid - nowhere near the edge of the envelope.

It boils down to your mission and what is right for you. The Cherokee 6 or Dakota have great useful loads.

Dean
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
9-10 mi/gal?....not a very efficient way to burn gas.
Click to expand...

Neither is a full size pick up truck. But quite a few of us seem to prefer them over a cramped little 4-place Ford Fiesta, no matter how efficient the latter might be. ;)
 
midcap said:
now that's what I am talking about!!
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Some quite good airplanes fall in to what I call the "unloved" category. The Aztec is one example. The Commander is another. People who own and fly them generally love them (everyone else wants a Baron or a Bo). They typically go for a measurable discount to similar aircraft of comparable vintage and equipment. And that discount pays multiple dividends - less money up front, lower hull loss insurance costs, more money left for gas.:)
 
midcap said:
now that's what I am talking about!!
Click to expand...
That's a reasonable price assuming the inspection and due-diligence pans out. Fair amount of upgrades on that plane, the owner is probably not going to get back what they invested in it.

Their loss, your gain.
 
wsuffa said:
That's a reasonable price assuming the inspection and due-diligence pans out. Fair amount of upgrades on that plane, the owner is probably not going to get back what they invested in it.

Their loss, your gain.
Click to expand...

Looking at the logs, it seems it hasn't flown much lately.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top