Any Commander 112/114 pilots in the house?

Unit74

Unit74

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
6,992
Display Name
Display name:
Unit74
I am thinking about selling and stepping into a Commander. Here is my reasoning:

I am on the cusp of installing the Aspen 1500 and a new interior in my Archer. This would put me at around $100k into this plane since I bought it in May of 2014. However, I know that if I sold it with the new equipment, I would never get close to $100k out of it when I sold a year or two down the road.

It's a great machine, but I'm looking for more comfort and to build HP retract time. Ultimately, I see myself in an A36 in 5 years but don't need it right now.

The 112 with the HotShot mod is ideal. Same speed as a 114, much less burn with a small useful load drop.

I looked at the Commander owners group, but not sure I want to commit $75 just to go look at their website.

Speed is fine for my needs. A Mooney would be in my opinion, a lateral move from my Archer as the cabins are comparable and I don't really need the 30kt advantage for much.

From the interwebz search, it seems owners loves the planes and non-owners say its over weight and too slow.

What I really need to do is get into one and see for myself.

So, anyone who has one, can you tell me what the breakdowns on cost of ownership are, you speeds and fuel burns and any other key points that a perspective buyer should know?
:yes:
 
Have a few hours in the plane and I liked it. From the people I know that work on them, parts are hard to come by and when they do get parts, the are expensive. The fact they aren't manufactured anymore would leave me worried on the support side.
 
As long as the plane is in good shape, it's hard to go wrong with a Commander, especially if you want a comfy plane. The 112 is a bit weak if you load it up, but if most of the time you fly light, it's fine. I was flying a 112TC out west and it did well even in the mountains. Personally I would buy a Cardinal over a 112 though.
 
Aren't the cardinals way under powered?
 
Looking for a response from Bill Suffa, who with the 112TC seems to have the "sweet spot" in the line. It is true that they are not speed demons, but the cabin's like a basketball arena inside, just huge, and doors on both sides. The TC flies high and does pretty well on speed at altitude.

Nice buggy...
 
Unit74 said:
Aren't the cardinals way under powered?
Click to expand...

The Cardinal RG (the one I would get) has the same IO-360 power plant as the 112 Commander. The Cardinal RG grosses 2800lbs, (E.W. around 1650), the 112 Commander 112 grosses 2550lbs, (E.W. Around 1550).
 
How's the cabin inside?
 
Most of the people who seem to dislike the Commander generally seem to be only concerned with speed for a given fuel burn. Are there faster birds with 260HP? Absolutely. Are any of them as comfortable as the Commander? Not likely. If it meets your payload requirements and speed requirements, I don't see how you could go wrong. Trailing link gear, two entry doors, generally decent panels, and a dedicated owner group seem to be major selling points. I believe Suncoast Aviation has a file on just about every Commander 112/114/115 ever made so that's a good place to start if you are looking. I believe parts are still readily available, and the ones that aren't can be produced with drawings/etc from the Commander owner's group for the most part.

I've never flown in one, but those who I've spoken with who have seat time say that it's really a gem to fly. If you need over 160kts, it's not your bird.
 
Talked to my MX just now....


He said don't get one. He has worked on them in the past and they "have more electrical switches than a 747" and swore he wouldn't work on them gain. He pushed me towards an Arrow or a M20 for a 200 hp retract.

But, he said they were usually very nice inside and comfy.
 
Unit74 said:
Talked to my MX just now....


He said don't get one. He has worked on them in the past and they "have more electrical switches than a 747" and swore he wouldn't work on them gain. He pushed me towards an Arrow or a M20 for a 200 hp retract.

But, he said they were usually very nice inside and comfy.
Click to expand...

I would choose a 177RG over either the Arrow or Mooney if comfort is a prime criteria. I never owned a Commander, but a couple friends have, and I did maintenance on a couple, but never noticed them to be maintenance hogs or particularly difficult to work on. They are built like a tank.

Since you want a Bonanza anyway, why not just get a P or S 35 Bonanza for the money?
 
Unit74 said:
Talked to my MX just now....


He said don't get one. He has worked on them in the past and they "have more electrical switches than a 747" and swore he wouldn't work on them gain. He pushed me towards an Arrow or a M20 for a 200 hp retract.

But, he said they were usually very nice inside and comfy.
Click to expand...

Sounds like he had one poor experience with on and swore them off. I can't imagine they have any more switches than any other HP complex aircraft. There are only so many things to have switches for. :confused:
 
I have some time in a 114 and an hour or two in a 112TC and really liked both of them. Roomy isn't really an adequate term to describe the cabin. Its really comfy. I don't recall a huge number of switches either...nor circuit breakers so not sure what your mechanic is talking about. As others noted the gear is really solid and not spindly like the cessna retracts. There are some speed mods that supposedly will up the cruise into a range more comparable with the tighter cabin competition. There are issues with parts and maintanence but who among us with older planes has good supply on these parts. Older Cessnas have some problems too and if you need a part the mechanic can't make or have made its going to be serious anyway.

Frank
 
Parts are one of those things that rarely can you absolutely not make something work. Most parts you need to buy are common parts across many types.

There is a tail incidence mod for the Commander that I hear good reports on with speed increases between 5 & 10 kts.
 
There is a commander 114 for sale at my airport. If you are interested I will try to find out some info on it. It looks like new on the outside, the inside is nice too. The avionics are a little dated though.
 
Is it up on one of the usual websites? Know the tail number?
 
Henning said:
Parts are one of those things that rarely can you absolutely not make something work. Most parts you need to buy are common parts across many types.

There is a tail incidence mod for the Commander that I hear good reports on with speed increases between 5 & 10 kts.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think it applies to the 112 and 114A models which update the fairing to the 114B/115 style. I've heard that the gap seals and flush mount beacon help a good bit on those birds, too.
 
Unit74 said:
Talked to my MX just now....


He said don't get one. He has worked on them in the past and they "have more electrical switches than a 747" and swore he wouldn't work on them gain. He pushed me towards an Arrow or a M20 for a 200 hp retract.

But, he said they were usually very nice inside and comfy.
Click to expand...

That's pretty ill-informed - it's really no more than a typical retract. But YMMV.

I have a 112TC (full disclosure: I'm considering selling for reasons unrelated to the plane - would love to keep it).

There are several different models: 112, a & b versions of the 112, 112TC, 114/114A, 114TC, and 115. The 114 series and the 115 are essentially the same with a more modern interior & some other "options" on the 115.

The two key powerplant mods are the "hotshot" for the older stock 112s (it adds turbonormalization to the IO360), and a 580 engine option for some of the planes.

Aside from normal STCs (like VGs, gap seals, etc), there is an airframe STC to change the angle of the h-stab to gain a bit of airspeed. All reports are that it works well, though it only adds a few knots. I chose not to do it as I didn't see the payback in the time I plan to own the plane - I might have done it had it been available when I bought.

All the models except the 112TC have fairly standard 360 and 540 engines (either IO or TIO depending on model). The 112TC has a rarer TO360 Lyc engine. Wing length differs between the 112B/TC models and the 114s.

In real life, the 112-series are 2 adult planes, and the 114-series are 3 adult planes, given pretty normal sizes and weights. You can trade fuel & things like oxy tanks for payload. Fuel tanks are "tabbed" if you fly reduced fuel load (on my plane, the tabs are at 20 gallons below max, or 120 pounds).

On my 112TC, I tend to fly in the 12-17K foot range. I plan 12.5 GPH and 140-145 kts depending on altitude at 60-65% power. Yes, you can push it harder - I prefer to fly it a little softer to hopefully get a but more life out of the turbocharger & engine. It's different for the non-turbocharged and hot-shot versions.

It's heavier than some planes, but that makes it a really stable platform for IFR. There are days where my CFI will go with me (but not fly with others) because of the stability. It's comfy inside, but that comes at a bit of speed penalty. The 114 has higher gross weight limits & flys a bit faster... for most trips it's a non-issue (and I'll take altitude over speed almost any day of the week, especially if I can pick up a tailwind).

Maintenance is typical of a bird of it's age. Annuals usually run ~$2500-$3000/year plus squawks - I've had a couple of pricier annuals due to heavier maintenance (2 years ago we opened the tanks, removed the crud from an improper sealant, installed a 408 ELT, etc). It's a retract - it will cost more than a fixed-gear.

Some parts are harder to get given the factory situation, BUT there is great support from Jim Richards at Aerodyme in Vermont. He has a number of parts available and is a Commander specialist. The owner's group has also found sources for many of the others. That said, other older planes have similar availability issues.

Insurance will depend on your record and time in plane. I've got 1200-1500 hours in plane, commercial and instrument tickets, with reasonable insurance costs. YMMV.

My budget is about $1000-$1200 per month without paying for fuel & oil. That includes hangar, base annual, insurance, charts/nav data, etc. I keep the plane in the DC Metro area - the hangar cost is the largest single share of that number. It was lower when I lived in San Antonio.

Drop me a PM if you've got other questions.
 
Last edited:
My neighbor has a 114. The interior space and visibility is incredible. His only regret is not getting the TC version (he says it is a pig at hot/higher airports).
 
BTW, the best STC I added were the Vortex Generators.

There are also a few of the later 114/115-series airframes with factory TKS K-ice.
 
narchee said:
My neighbor has a 114. The interior space and visibility is incredible. His only regret is not getting the TC version (he says it is a pig at hot/higher airports).
Click to expand...

Yeah, Commanders like turbos.
 
Thank you for the info.


What are the useful load numbers on the 112 and the 114s?
 
Unit74 said:
Thank you for the info.


What are the useful load numbers on the 112 and the 114s?
Click to expand...

Henning said:
Around 1000 and 1275 lbs respectively.
Click to expand...

Gross limits on the 112 series are:

112 (through S/N 125): 2550
112 (S/N 126 -> ): 2650
112B: 2800
112TC: 2850
112TCA: 2950

Empty weight varies by airframe, but Hennings numbers are reasonable for "book" (the TC/TCA series are about 75 +/- pounds heavier). Some are as low as 800-850-ish pounds of useful depending on what's installed (those with new-style full metal replacement instrument panels, leather seats, and new carpet tend to be a bit heavier than the originals).

Also note that somewhere along the line the factory went from (measuring the plane empty then calculating fuel weight to get to useful) to (measuring the plane with full fuel, then calculating empty). In theory, that should not make a difference.
 
Drop me a PM, I own a 112TCA. Even though I love my bird, everything is for sale.
 
1000 pounds useful is about where I need to be for sure. Is the 114 much more on annuals and MX?
 
Unit74 said:
1000 pounds useful is about where I need to be for sure. Is the 114 much more on annuals and MX?
Click to expand...

No. The main difference is the engine. The turbo engines are a bit more maintenance than the normally aspirated ones, regardless of brand. The 114 comes either normally aspirated or turbo.
 
Will a 112 turboed perform close to a 114 non turbo?
 
Unit74 said:
Will a 112 turboed perform close to a 114 non turbo?
Click to expand...

In what way?

Down low? High up? Max gross? How many pax? High altitude airports at high temps? Too many variables.

This is where "define your mission" comes into play.
 
Unit74 said:
Will a 112 turboed perform close to a 114 non turbo?
Click to expand...

You give up climb performance and low altitude performance to the extra 60 hp at sea level, and start making up the difference in take off performance around 7000' and start pulling away from the naturally aspirated 114 around 12,500'.

You will find this truth in any 180-200hp Turbo vs 260-285hp naturally aspirated, same plane comparison.

Turbo SE is about high efficiency, high TAS cruising up high with light loads. If you fly light most of the time, many people don't need the higher horsepower down low and want to be able to carry more power for less weight up high to either clear mountains or take advantage of high TAS. This requires oxygen or pressurization to take full advantage of though.
 
Henning said:
You give up climb performance and low altitude performance to the extra 60 hp at sea level, and start making up the difference in take off performance around 7000' and start pulling away from the naturally aspirated 114 around 12,500'.

You will find this truth in any 180-200hp Turbo vs 260-285hp naturally aspirated, same plane comparison.

Turbo SE is about high efficiency, high TAS cruising up high with light loads. If you fly light most of the time, many people don't need the higher horsepower down low and want to be able to carry more power for less weight up high to either clear mountains or take advantage of high TAS. This requires oxygen or pressurization to take full advantage of though.
Click to expand...

The 114 with the larger engine will haul more load down low in exchange for high-altitude performance. The 112B and TC models have longer wings, which provide a slightly better glide performance. The 114 will climb better through about 5K.

I usually fly solo (and sometimes +1) in the teens so load capacity is no big deal for me. The 112TC was less expensive & met my needs. The engine burns less fuel (lower HP).

That said, were I to do it today and had the cash to spend, I'd probably spend the extra money and do the 114TC (and consider one with TKS). But I'm absolutely happy with my decision on the 112TC when I bought it & it's met >95% of my non-airline flying needs.

Many/most of the -TC models had "factory" (read: portable in a mounted case) O2 bottles. I have a second bottle, too. But get oxymiser cannulas rather than the "stock" masks.
 
If you get a NA model, run the numbers for takeoff runway required at the Grand Canyon in the summer.

Once you see the numbers, forget about going to the Grand Canyon in the summer!!
 
In a 112TC can I carry full fuel and 650 pounds in the cabin?
 
Hmm.... Well then. Maybe I should be focusing on a 114.
 
I have been working wild on the commander 114 and I'm happy so far, from everything I learned its a great bird. I would like to know if anyone out there has a lead on a commander 114 that is not being flowen and in need of work. I'm looking for a project and this is the perfect plane for me..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top