Commander Series

FlySince9

FlySince9

En-Route
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
3,152
Location
Huntersville, NC
Display Name
Jerry
Home Airfield
JQF
I have always been drawn to the Commander 112, 114 aircraft. If I ever decide to own again, I would take a serious look at them. Anybody out there have any first hand info about these airplanes. I know they were developed to compete with the Arrow, and the like. They seem to be a more classy, well thought out design, (two doors, engine-control layout, etc). As every airplane has its "quirks" I'm pretty sure you folks can come up with a few. :popcorn:
 
Paging Bill Suffa...
 
All I have ever heard was they are slow for what you are paying for.... But they are very good looking aircraft. There was a thread a long time ago about parts availability, but I believe the final verdict was if you looked hard enough you can get whatever parts you needed.
 
loudbagel said:
All I have ever heard was they are slow for what you are paying for.... But they are very good looking aircraft. There was a thread a long time ago about parts availability, but I believe the final verdict was if you looked hard enough you can get whatever parts you needed.
Click to expand...

Parts issues are in the heads of the owners.

what parts would you as an owner really buy? tires, break pucks, spark plugs, all off the shelf stuff.

just don't crunch it and you'll have no worries.
 
Parts support is reportedly pretty good and an angle of incidence STC on the tail does a lot for speed. I have heard claims of 10-12kts on the 114-115 six cylinder planes. If that's true, I'd probably take one over a Bo. It is one tough as airframe and gear.
 
I don't have much time in the 112....about an hour and it was a 112TC. I've got a few hours in a 114 and it was pretty nice. Its roomy and has very nice controls. Its easy to land and fly and like the others noted the biggest complaint is the speed vs fuel burned. The landing gear is beefy trailing link type and pretty durable. If I had the money I'd go for one.....its fast enough and I'm not in that big of a hurry. It is very comfy and thats nice to find in GA.

Frank
 
Slow for the HP.
Parts can be gotten, just takes time.

I was renting a 114 and had a gear fail to extend issue. One main down, the nose partway and the other main up. I got the gear down ok, landed safely. Up on jacks the mech could not find a problem, after about the 6th retract on jacks they went asymmetric again. Found the shuttle in the hydraulic pack was bad.

Parts had to be made, it took awhile and it was not cheap.
 
BillTIZ said:
Slow for the HP.
Parts can be gotten, just takes time.

I was renting a 114 and had a gear fail to extend issue. One main down, the nose partway and the other main up. I got the gear down ok, landed safely. Up on jacks the mech could not find a problem, after about the 6th retract on jacks they went asymmetric again. Found the shuttle in the hydraulic pack was bad.

Parts had to be made, it took awhile and it was not cheap.
Click to expand...

That's what I like about my 310 gear and Beech gear, electric worm with a crank handle although I have to tilt to mid or rear tilt to crank the 310, the Beech you're reaching behind you. If the gear jams up you may have to jump on that. Electric quadrant with rods is pretty low maint.
 
Last edited:
If they're slow for the hp, they'll get poor mileage, too.

I've also heard that they're heavy for their size.

Dan
 
Tom-D said:
Why wasn't the valve repaired?
Click to expand...

I don't know the details of valves in the hyd pack, only report I got back was a shuttle valve was bad, had to be replaced.

It was a rental, renters don't get the same feed back that owners can dig out of the mechs.
 
I have a 112TC.

It goes high enough. It goes OK speed-wise (slow is in the minds of the beholder). It is quite comfortable (making any speed issue a non-problem). It's heavy - but built well... the landing gear are trailing-link so it's harder to make a bad landing.

The only think that doesn't thrill me on the 112TC is that it's not a common engine. The straight 112s use IO360's, relatively common but somewhat underpowered.

The 114's (and later) use IO/TIO 540s. Higher gross weight, faster, still comfortable (key airframe difference to the 112B/112TC is wing length). Were I to do it again, I'd opt for the 114TC. For one person, the 112TC is OK. There is a version of the 114TC/115 that came with TKS K-ice.

Most parts are available. There's decent support, and some folks very passionate about the plane. Henning's right, there is a mod to change the angle of incidence to the elevator (which I have not done, so I can't speak to it's effectiveness). There are also a couple of engine mods available. Usual range of airframe mods are available, including VG's (I love mine...), gap seals (a couple of knots), turbonormalizing for the straight 112 series, etc.

The gear is hydraulic - power packs can be rebuilt. Folks that complain about rebuild quality often have had their rebuild done at Kelly.

No, it's not as fast as a Mooney, but it's far more roomy. Unlike a Bo' it's got two doors, which is handy with pax. It's stable & fun to fly (did my IPC last weekend & CFI noted that he was glad to be doing it in my plane...)
 
I enjoyed my 112A for the five years I owned it. Everyone would always comment on how interesting it looked and how comfortable/roomy it was inside. My favorite one was from Bill Jennings, who said "this thing is like sitting in a Buick!" after he climbed into the right seat. Very easy to handle and land.

Slow is of course relative. The majority of my trips were from Atlanta to Jacksonville, FL - always 2 hours, give or take 5-10 minutes depending on the winds. Spending more $ for a faster plane would've only bought me 15-20 extra minutes at those distances.

I personally did not have any parts issues, as stuff I ever needed was off the shelf or rebuildable. The gear powerpack is the same as in an Arrow I think, and if it fails, the gear has manual override. Just pull the knob, and the gear free-falls with spring assist. Have proper tension on those springs, and you'll have no problems.

As to the mods Bill mentioned, here are the links:

http://www.aerodyme.com/

http://www.rcmnormalizing.com/

Don't forget the Commander Owners Group. A must-belong-to if you're going to have one.

http://www.commander.org
 
rpadula said:
... The majority of my trips were from Atlanta to Jacksonville, FL - always 2 hours, give or take 5-10 minutes depending on the winds.
Click to expand...

My trips are mostly South Carolina to WV, about 357 miles. Thats only a little further than your trips.

I think this is gonna be my choice when the time comes. Maybe a 114 though...

Thanx all for your inputs
 
dell30rb said:
how slow are we talking? 140kts?
Click to expand...

It depends.

I true between 140 and 145 normally, less down low, but then again, I run at 65% power or less (it's turbo'ed....) most of the time. Book says full power will do 172 knots up high, but only a fool would run a turbo engine that hard, that high, 100% of the time.
 
BillTIZ said:
Slow for the HP.
Parts can be gotten, just takes time.

I was renting a 114 and had a gear fail to extend issue. One main down, the nose partway and the other main up. I got the gear down ok, landed safely. Up on jacks the mech could not find a problem, after about the 6th retract on jacks they went asymmetric again. Found the shuttle in the hydraulic pack was bad.

Parts had to be made, it took awhile and it was not cheap.
Click to expand...

Where did you find a 114 for rent? How long ago?
 
wsuffa said:
I have a 112TC.

It goes high enough. It goes OK speed-wise (slow is in the minds of the beholder). It is quite comfortable (making any speed issue a non-problem). It's heavy - but built well... the landing gear are trailing-link so it's harder to make a bad landing.

The only think that doesn't thrill me on the 112TC is that it's not a common engine. The straight 112s use IO360's, relatively common but somewhat underpowered.

The 114's (and later) use IO/TIO 540s. Higher gross weight, faster, still comfortable (key airframe difference to the 112B/112TC is wing length). Were I to do it again, I'd opt for the 114TC. For one person, the 112TC is OK. There is a version of the 114TC/115 that came with TKS K-ice.

Most parts are available. There's decent support, and some folks very passionate about the plane. Henning's right, there is a mod to change the angle of incidence to the elevator (which I have not done, so I can't speak to it's effectiveness). There are also a couple of engine mods available. Usual range of airframe mods are available, including VG's (I love mine...), gap seals (a couple of knots), turbonormalizing for the straight 112 series, etc.

The gear is hydraulic - power packs can be rebuilt. Folks that complain about rebuild quality often have had their rebuild done at Kelly.

No, it's not as fast as a Mooney, but it's far more roomy. Unlike a Bo' it's got two doors, which is handy with pax. It's stable & fun to fly (did my IPC last weekend & CFI noted that he was glad to be doing it in my plane...)
Click to expand...

I've always admired the commander from afar. One night when I was training for my IFR, I saw an aircraft coming down the taxiway and all I could see was two bright landing lights on the gear. It looked like a large business jet or something (from my perspective of a 172) and he said it was a commander that was for sale.

I should have at least sat in it before it sold. :mad2:
 
I have 35 hours in a 114 and used it for my commercial single-engine check ride. The cockpit is bigger than most low wing GA airplanes. If you are tall or wide, you will really appreciate the extra space. Unfortunately, the extra space comes at the expense of speed.

Ryan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top