For Sale 1968 Aero Commander Darter

F

fasteddie

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
184
Display Name
Display name:
Fasteddie
Not my aircraft, but I've seen it on the local Craigslist for months now. Interesting aircraft that I hadn't heard of before.

https://rockford.craigslist.org/avo/d/shannon-1968-aero-commander-darter/6958809253.html

Some background on the type here:

http://www.aviation-history.com/volaircraft/darter.htm

Again, not my aircraft, so comment away on price/condition/etc.
00Y0Y_cG8NIfEYqj9_600x450.jpg
 
There was also the Lark. I knew a guy who flew a Lark and loved it. The Lark 180 had a swept tail and looked more like a 172. It was supposed to be something between a 172 and 177 in performance.
Lark100-180_e.jpg


There was also the Luscombe Model 11E. Another company that tried to take on the 172. The problem with any high wing, 4-place, airplane with struts is it quickly gets compared to the 182, which we've all seen our whole lives. Anything else looks like a cheap copy.
511bw-600x300.jpg
 
I did a bunch of work on a Lark. It was easy to see why it didn't compete seriously with the 172. It's heavy, for one thing. The cabin is surrounded by an internal steel-tube frame that takes the engine mount, landing gear, wings and tailcone loads. The floor is a heavy plywood thing. The seats are high and one is reminded of sitting up high in an old truck. The flaps are plain, hinged flaps instead of the Fowlers found on Cessnas. The landing gear legs are of steel-tube construction similar to what you'd find on a Cub, but narrower, and the springs are thick, short fiberglass leaves. I bet it would be fun to find a new leaf.

It needed 180 HP to haul the extra weight around, and its performance was no better than the 150-hp 172. Certainly no competition to the 177.
 
I wonder what that Lancer cruises at...or if it's fast enough to even call it cruise.
 
EdFred said:
I wonder what that Lancer cruises at...or if it's fast enough to even call it cruise.
Click to expand...

There is an article on it that's a funny read. That airplane doesn't have a single-engine rate of climb, it has a single-engine least rate of going down. This airplane really epitomizes the old joke "what's the purpose of the second engine on a light twin..."
 
There’s been a Darter sitting out on the ramp of a local airport for as long as I can remember. Tires flat, birds nests in the cowling and full of mildew. I bet it hasn’t flown in 15+ years. That was the first time I ever saw one of these airplanes in person.
 
alfadog said:
There is an article on it that's a funny read. That airplane doesn't have a single-engine rate of climb, it has a single-engine least rate of going down. This airplane really epitomizes the old joke "what's the purpose of the second engine on a light twin..."
Click to expand...
Fixed-pitch props, fixed gear, struts everywhere, a cruise speed less than twice the stall speed, 6.8 NM per gallon in a two-seater. An example of model evolution taken too far.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Fixed-pitch props, fixed gear, struts everywhere, a cruise speed less than twice the stall speed, 6.8 NM per gallon in a two-seater. An example of model evolution taken too far.
Click to expand...

Yes! It was (is) a glorious waste of time and money, but I got to fly one and it is just a heavy Champ with good forward visibility. You fly it like a single, because with one engine windmilling, you are going to land soon anyway!

The only purpose for having two throttles is to match the engine RPMs. They go out of sync every time you make a pedal input, though...

I'd like to fly one again, just to remember the thrill of that one flight so many years ago...
 
pigpenracing said:
Those are good airplanes....
Click to expand...
own one And love it --just gota get use to no toe breaks and ground control --- don't take long --climb prop and 160 hp conversation lycoming 0-320, perfect for my mission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top