Commander 114?

petroke

petroke

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
4
Display Name
Display name:
petro
Commander 114 v Piper Dakota

I have been looking to buy or partner in an aircraft- and it seems the Commander 114 line meets most of my requirements, and prices seem very reasonable. Now I know it just got bought out (after being bought out by some owners after going bankrupt). A few questions for anyone in the know-

1. Any update on the new owners/company- specifically- thoughts on will there be a good source of parts, etc.

2. The 114 and 114A - 1979 and pre (not the newer 114 Bs) generally have low hours and pretty good panels- seems like they were not in the training rental pipeline very often. I travel 200-400 NM, 900 - 950 total useful load perfect 4 seats enough. IFR regularly. fly out of Atlanta- PDK- so no mountains. All pleasure- not tax write-off unfortunately. Have flown 172, 182, beech sundowners and sierras, and piper archers. but never the Commander. I like a low wing, like 2 doors, going above 120 knots but don't need 170. Thoughts on the Commander or another likely candidate?
 
Last edited:
I love them. They're rock solid IFR platforms, as nice as Mooneys but not as fast.

I'm not sure about parts, though. I have no idea who owns the type certificate and the rights to parts.
 
The Commander has gone through many owners in the past 40 years and I'm sure it will continue to survive with the new owners.

I would sign up for the Commander Owners Group forum to get more direct from the source answers to your questions.

Good luck and please post a follow up picture of your Commander.
 
Paging Bill Suffa. Mr.Bill Suffa.

Wait for his response.

Like they said about Packards, ask the man who owns one....
 
I've got a little time in a 114 and very little in the 112. The 114 is a wonderfly airplane to fly, its got a lot of room for passengers with space for elbows to move around too. Its what I would term a "cushmaster deluxe" aircraft who's only real problem is the speed for horsepower/fuel consumption deal. Compare it to other planes with the same power and its not quite as fast and burns some fuel. On the other hand the comfort factor is worth it to many and its hard to beat the comfort factor in this one. I love the 182 for utility but the 114 is one that would sway me if the prices were similar.

Frank
 
I think a 114 is a great plane for your mission. Someone was saying that there is an STC to adjust the angle of incidence of the H-Stab that picks you up a good dose of speed/efficiency so look into that.
 
So where to start.

I own a 112TC (Turbo version). My mission is generally solo, but I do take a second passenger on occasion (mostly recurrent, but sometimes on longer trips). It's great to fly in the upper teens. The 114TC was out of my budget when I bought & aside from a few more knots it gives added useful load. Flying solo on most missions makes both of those lesser issues for me.

Every plane has it's tradeoffs. The Commander is no exception. It's a bit heavier than some of the others and it has a somewhat wider cross-section. Yes, that gives much more comfort due to a wider cabin, but it chews a few knots off the airspeed. Tradeoff. I chose cabin. And it has two doors, a significant plus if you're taking family/friends as passengers.

Because it's heavier, it gets bounced around a little less than, say, a Cessna. The trailing link gear make landings seem better (but it doesn't forgive everything....). I added VGs to mine to improve rudder and low speed handling.

OTOH, I don't find the plane to be a real short-field performer. And as a low-wing retract it's not the king of unimproved strips.

Mission-wise, it should fit the kind of mission you describe. I do (have done) a lot of long X-C flying, the comfort is superb. For shorter missions, the difference in fuel consumption between the 114 and it's peers won't amount to a lot.... for long-haul xc, the fuel difference wil be obvious compared to, say, a Mooney.

Parts are *generally* not much more of an issue than any other older GA plane. No real update on the factory & ownership, even though I am/was a shareholder - you can get more info on the commander.org website.
 
I've got a little over 700 hours in Commander 115/115TCs (114B), all aircraft made after 1999. I'd probably still own my 115TC if the factory hadn't augured in. It's by far the most comfortable 4 place piston bird I've ever flown so even though you're not going as fast, the spousal unit never complained. We flew it coast to coast several times and put nearly 6,000 miles on it in two weeks once and never once did I ever hear my wife say "Geez, not another day of flying!"

There's was a company based in Cape Girardeau (sp?) MO with Carl Gull at the helm. Carl's a great guy, ex-Top Gun Navy pilot and was in charge of customer service and training back when I bought mine - I got my HP sign off from Carl. I haven't heard much of anything from the other owners I knew that went in to buy the assets out of chapter 7. I'd be interested to learn if they're still supplying parts if anyone finds out. The biggest down side to the airplane is the somewhat small fleet size and how much of the plane was hand/custom made at the factory. IOW, there's a lot of stuff on that plane that when it breaks or gets dinged would leave you on the ground for a long, long time.
 
I did my single-engine commercial training in a Commander 114 and I really liked the plane. If you are really tall (or really wide), it is great. The size of the cabin is unlike any other 4 seat single I have ever flown in. Unfortunately, you pay for that with speed and fuel burn. It makes a great IFR platform and looks great on the ramp.

I enjoyed flying the plane, but would never want to own one myself. I was only using it for a specific rating and was happy to rent it. The owner invested a lot of money in the plane, especially the gear system. During one of my training flights, the gear system wouldn't extend and I had to use the emergency gear extension procedure. This is slightly off-topic, but I would not buy a single-engine retract. More maintenance and less reliability, for a small speed improvement.

Ryan
 
n12365 said:
This is slightly off-topic, but I would not buy a single-engine retract. More maintenance and less reliability, for a small speed improvement.
Click to expand...

While true, typically the maintenance is not too bad and the failures are usually pretty benign (as you observed), and preventable if you perform proper maintenance. The speed improvement may seem small, but when you factor in winds you start to realize how much even a little extra speed helps. Even then, it seems to me to generally be 10-20%, depending on the specific planes chosen.

I wouldn't buy a fixed gear single, I just don't like them.
 
Last edited:
When I started buying airplanes in the late 90's, if I wanted to go faster in a certified airplane I needed a plane that tucked the wheels away. I wanted roomy and fast so I bought a Commander. My 115 was a 154kt plane and the 115TC was 167 down low and up to 180kt plane up high - all that in a seat that felt like a first class cabin seat on the airlines. By 2005, I was flying a Columbia 400 because they proved that the you didn't need to pull the wheels up to go fast. But, oddly enough, I just sold that plane because it wasn't roomy enough and ultimately it didn't serve my family traveling needs because of that. I still think if the company had been in good health, I would still have that TC. It's certified FIKI with TKS, air conditioning, and did everything I really needed except let me sleep good at night because of parts availability.
 
Henning said:
I think a 114 is a great plane for your mission. Someone was saying that there is an STC to adjust the angle of incidence of the H-Stab that picks you up a good dose of speed/efficiency so look into that.
Click to expand...

That would be Jim Richards, of Aerodyme, designer of the Super Commander.

Jim is quite the engineer. He started out by designing in the IO-580 into the 114/115 airframe. Then, he designed the 210-hp IO-390 into the 112 airframes. I talked to him at length about that when I still had mine. Next, he's been tackling aerodynamic cleanup of the airframe, of which the H-stab (although he's really been studying the Commander's whole tailfeathers) is included.
 
rpadula said:
That would be Jim Richards, of Aerodyme, designer of the Super Commander.

Jim is quite the engineer. He started out by designing in the IO-580 into the 114/115 airframe. Then, he designed the 210-hp IO-390 into the 112 airframes. I talked to him at length about that when I still had mine. Next, he's been tackling aerodynamic cleanup of the airframe, of which the H-stab (although he's really been studying the Commander's whole tailfeathers) is included.
Click to expand...

The Super Commander that's for sale on ASO (N115CE) was my first aircraft purchase. I bought that airplane new from the factory in 2000 and flew it about 450 hours in the first year. It was the plane that was in all the magazine ads of that time and I got a lot of compliments on it from pilots on the ramp that recognized it. I traded that plane after about a year on a TC and it ultimately ended up being the Super Commander that's for sale today.
 
Last edited:
AdamZ said:
The guy whos name also includes and 'L' unfortunatly I was fresh out of "L"s when I posted that.
Click to expand...
That's very Christmasy for a nice Jewish Boy, Adam.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
No L, No L, No L, No L, born is the king....
 
petroke said:
I have been looking to buy or partner in an aircraft- and it seems the Commander 114 line meets most of my requirements, and prices seem very reasonable. Now I know it just got bought out (after being bought out by some owners after going bankrupt). A few questions for anyone in the know-

1. Any update on the new owners/company- specifically- thoughts on will there be a good source of parts, etc.

2. The 114 and 114A - 1979 and pre (not the newer 114 Bs) generally have low hours and pretty good panels- seems like they were not in the training rental pipeline very often. I travel 200-400 NM, 900 - 950 total useful load perfect 4 seats enough. IFR regularly. fly out of Atlanta- PDK- so no mountains. All pleasure- not tax write-off unfortunately. Have flown 172, 182, beech sundowners and sierras, and piper archers. but never the Commander. I like a low wing, like 2 doors, going above 120 knots but don't need 170. Thoughts on the Commander or another likely candidate?
Click to expand...


Thanks for all the help- now let me add on and ask if anyone has thoughts on Commander versus Piper Dakota- another plane I have found very appealing to my requirements. I like the fixed gear (may go into a partnership- easier to get partner and insurance cost), I like the vast support / parts network. Other than that I find very similar- and prices seem very comparable, at least on the surface. any help on this one?
 
petroke said:
Thanks for all the help- now let me add on and ask if anyone has thoughts on Commander versus Piper Dakota- another plane I have found very appealing to my requirements. I like the fixed gear (may go into a partnership- easier to get partner and insurance cost), I like the vast support / parts network. Other than that I find very similar- and prices seem very comparable, at least on the surface. any help on this one?
Click to expand...
Well, for starters, you'd be giving up having two doors and major style points. :D

As Wayne likes to say (BTW, where has he been lately?), go find an example of the plane in question, and load it up with everything/everybody you'd take on your typical mission. See if it all fits. Then fly the typical mission you'd make and see if everybody's comfortable when they come out the other end.

If you're looking at Dakotas for cheaper insurance & (fixed gear) maintenance, you might as well include the ol' reliable 182 in the search. It's my understanding they perform about the same. Then at least you'd have two doors. :thumbsup:
 
rpadula said:
If you're looking at Dakotas for cheaper insurance & (fixed gear) maintenance, you might as well include the ol' reliable 182 in the search. It's my understanding they perform about the same. Then at least you'd have two doors. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

And a more comfortable cabin, too. :yes:
 
rpadula said:
Well, for starters, you'd be giving up having two doors and major style points. :D

As Wayne likes to say (BTW, where has he been lately?), go find an example of the plane in question, and load it up with everything/everybody you'd take on your typical mission. See if it all fits. Then fly the typical mission you'd make and see if everybody's comfortable when they come out the other end.

If you're looking at Dakotas for cheaper insurance & (fixed gear) maintenance, you might as well include the ol' reliable 182 in the search. It's my understanding they perform about the same. Then at least you'd have two doors. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Agreed, 100%.
 
EvilEagle said:
So what kind of cruise and fuel burn can one expect from a 114?
Click to expand...
I'd say it's in the range of 140 to 150 kts, and 11.5 to 14.5 gph, depending on % HP.

I think the '76 114's are a tad slower than the '77-'79 114A's. More aerodynamic mods (cowl) were done on the mid 90's 114B's.

Scanned copies of the POH's are over at the Commander Owner Group website:

http://www.commander.org/Bergcom/Tech/POH.htm
 
rpadula said:
I'd say it's in the range of 140 to 150 kts, and 11.5 to 14.5 gph, depending on % HP.

I think the '76 114's are a tad slower than the '77-'79 114A's. More aerodynamic mods (cowl) were done on the mid 90's 114B's.

Scanned copies of the POH's are over at the Commander Owner Group website:

http://www.commander.org/Bergcom/Tech/POH.htm
Click to expand...

I plan about 145 TAS @12.5 GPH in the teens for my 112TC. I've got a number of the aerodynamic mods made and VG's.
 
wsuffa said:
I plan about 145 TAS @12.5 GPH in the teens for my 112TC. I've got a number of the aerodynamic mods made and VG's.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, that reminds me.

Jim Richards' SuperStream horizontal stab mods are indeed good for a 6 to 9 kts gain at cruising altitude.
 
Last edited:
wsuffa said:
Interesting. How many AMUs?
Click to expand...

Bill, there's a big thread about it on the COG members section. Jim offered various pricing specials here and there to coincide with the intro and with the Fly In, but I didn't follow enough to see what today's price is...

Guess you'll have to log in. :wink2:
 
rpadula said:
Ah yes, that reminds me.

Jim Richards' SuperStream horizontal stab mods are indeed good for a 6 to 9 kts gain at cruising altitude.
Click to expand...

9kts on a 114-114TC... would mak it in my opinion the best of the HP singles. A Bo is still a bit faster on the fuel and slicker handling, but the Commander cabin comfort more than makes up for it.
 
Assuming the promised performance improvements are attainable, it would be an impressive airplane assuming all the other problems (door leaks, etc) had been addressed.

Henning said:
9kts on a 114-114TC... would mak it in my opinion the best of the HP singles. A Bo is still a bit faster on the fuel and slicker handling, but the Commander cabin comfort more than makes up for it.
Click to expand...
 
Henning said:
9kts on a 114-114TC... would mak it in my opinion the best of the HP singles. A Bo is still a bit faster on the fuel and slicker handling, but the Commander cabin comfort more than makes up for it.
Click to expand...

The president of Commander Aircraft took me out to dinner the night before I was supposed to fly off with N115CE and explained the difference between my Commander and the Mooney Ovation 2 I almost bought instead. He held up a square cocktail napkin and said "This is the cross-section your Commander is pushing through the air." Then he folded it to a quarter of the size and said "This is the cross-section of the Mooney." That was probably not quite accurate but it still left me feeling like I bought the right airplane for me.

Some people want those extra knots so much that they're willing to give up comfort and wedge themselves into a sleek ship to get 'em. I could have been flying around those first several years going nearly 30 kts faster but I would have been doing it alone and a lot less often. I bought the Commander for all the reasons it's a great airplane but primarily because I knew my wife would enjoy spending time curled up in her 1st class cabin seat with her blanket and a good book. My wife and I logged more than 700 hours in two years in that plane.

I sold it and ended up flying a Columbia 400 for a few years. Going 200 kts is definitely a game changer over a 150 kt airplane. We took trips we weren't taking in the Commander because we got there in a time below our family pain threshold. But ultimately, we stopped flying family trips because it was too tight for my wife, toddler, and I. The wife and toddler would just rather buy a $99 ticket on Airtran and not have to worry about getting home if there's ice. The Columbia's gone now and I haven't flown in the system in a couple of years. I wonder if Commander hadn't folded if we'd still be flying those trips from Baltimore to Cincinnati or Atlanta more often.
 
@PittsDriver - after an admittedly quick review, it looks like a mid 2000's vintage Columbia and early-2000's vintage Commander single are in the same price range. Does that sound right to you?
 
jhausch said:
@PittsDriver - after an admittedly quick review, it looks like a mid 2000's vintage Columbia and early-2000's vintage Commander single are in the same price range. Does that sound right to you?
Click to expand...

The market is so small for Commanders and with the complication of where to find replacement parts, I'd have a hard time assessing the value of even a low time Commander 115/115TC. They were high-400K to nearly 600K (for the TC) as a new plane from the factory. There's just so much stuff that can break and leave you AOG indefinitely that it's hard to put a discount on that.
 
PittsDriver said:
The market is so small for Commanders and with the complication of where to find replacement parts, I'd have a hard time assessing the value of even a low time Commander 115/115TC. They were high-400K to nearly 600K (for the TC) as a new plane from the factory. There's just so much stuff that can break and leave you AOG indefinitely that it's hard to put a discount on that.
Click to expand...

Since they are unsupported, what parts are in your concern that cannot be relatively easily fabricated?
 
wabower said:
Assuming the promised performance improvements are attainable, it would be an impressive airplane assuming all the other problems (door leaks, etc) had been addressed.
Click to expand...

The 6 to 9 kts was my estimation based on what I read on the COG board. I don't know what Jim is officially publishing, but he does real engineering work and has the data to back it up. I believe he just completed the mod on one owner's Commander, and, of course, has it installed on the 114 he used for development of the STC, which was approved near the first of the year. The STC applies to all Commanders.

BTW, in the all the years I owned and hung out with the Commander crowd, I don't recall anyone beefing about door leaks. You talking air or water? What other problems are you referring to in the "etc" portion of your statement?
 
Original doors/seals leaked like sieves. Company promised to fix, and AFAIK may have done so, but air and water leaks would be part of my pre-buy if I planned to buy one. The etc. reference is to all the specific issues that are known to br problematic on the airplanes. At one time I could provide a list from memory, but that time has passed. All airplanes have such a list, Commanders are no different.

rpadula said:
The 6 to 9 kts was my estimation based on what I read on the COG board. I don't know what Jim is officially publishing, but he does real engineering work and has the data to back it up. I believe he just completed the mod on one owner's Commander, and, of course, has it installed on the 114 he used for development of the STC, which was approved near the first of the year. The STC applies to all Commanders.

BTW, in the all the years I owned and hung out with the Commander crowd, I don't recall anyone beefing about door leaks. You talking air or water? What other problems are you referring to in the "etc" portion of your statement?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Original doors/seals leaked like sieves. Company promised to fix, and AFAIK may have done so, but air and water leaks would be part of my pre-buy if I planned to buy one. The etc. reference is to all the specific issues that are known to br problematic on the airplanes. At one time I could provide a list from memory, but that time has passed. All airplanes have such a list, Commanders are no different.
Click to expand...
Roger that.

Come to think of it, I think you triggered a neuron in my brain that says the first year Commander 112's had their doors built differently (read: cheaply) and had fit problems. Upgraded door design came in 1974 with the 112A model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top