Buyer's advice: Bellanca Super Viking vs. Rockwell Commander 114

C

Cedric31

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
May 31, 2021
Messages
17
Display Name
Display name:
Cedric31
Hey guys and gals!

I'm looking at getting into aircraft ownership and would appreciate advice of some folks more experienced in the field and maybe have first hand knowledge of one or both of the aircraft types mentioned above.

A little bit about me:
I'm an ATPL holder and work for a large European legacy airline, but would like to have my own SEP to fly around the US for family holidays about twice a year. I know that it's not good for an airplane to sit that long, but renting or partial ownership are no-no's for me as I'm too individualistic. The airplane would (for climatic/storage reasons) be parked somewhere in the South-West, preferably Phoenix area, if I can find a hangar there.
The mission is 2-3 hour flights plus 1 hour reserve, for my 2 kids, my wife and me. So I require a useful load of at least 1000 lbs.
I've flown retractables all my life (we started flight training on F33A Bonanzas) and so I'm definitely looking for an aircraft with a retractable landing gear.
As we just build our family home a couple years ago, money is not unlimited and in light of the ownership costs down the road my wife and I agreed on a budget of maximum $80k for the purchase price.

In conclusion: the two aircraft I came up with are the Bellanca Super Viking and the Rockwell Commander 114.
For me the pros and cons list looks as follows:

Super Viking:
+ purchase price (good examples can be found for under $50k, pre-Covid even under $40k)
+ cruise speed
- wood and panel construction may lead to high MX cost if not careful at pre-buy
- smaller cabin size
- lower useful load (right around 1000 lbs for most aircraft)

Commander 114:
+ great cabin space
+ higher useful load (most aircraft well about 1100 lbs)
- high number of ADs related to air-frame rigidity and fatigue cracking
- relatively low speed for its fuel burn
- purchase price probably very much on the upper limit of what I'm prepared to spend

If you have any other suggestions for aircraft that fit my criteria (1000lbs+ useful, 4+ seats, SEP, retract, under $80k) then please go right ahead.

If all you have to say is "I would never buy a SEP retract", then please don't...

Thanks for your advice and insights!
Cedric
 
182RG, Mooney C through J models.

80k is going to be tough for any of those in today’s market. Mooney C and E are probably best value.
 
The $80k seems tight for what you’re trying to do. Once you take ownerships, costs continue, and then while flying. What’s the plane going to do for 3+ month stretches you are not here?

If $$ was almost no object, the plan would work better. I’m not even trying to dissuade you, just saying to keep evaluating options. JMHO.

Hey, just to get things rolling, come over to Oshkosh, WI late July, great place to formulate new ideas.
 
I know today's market is quite high priced compared to a couple years ago. I'm not in a rush and am willing to wait for things to quite down some more post-covid and hopefully prices return to old levels.

I'm also aware the running costs are high, that's exactly why I try to keep the purchase price reasonable. I'm planning for $20k costs per year all in, for up 100h of operation. Does that sound unreasonable?

The aircraft would probably be sitting for those long stretches. If I can find a hangar close to where my employer flies to commercially, I might be able to take it on $100 Hamburger runs every now and then during a lay-over.
 
Your $20K/year "should" be reasonable, barring any huge maintenance expenses. The $80K purchase budget limits options, I'm looking for a similar aircraft, but you might find something that's not totally run-out. Additional options to consider, Beech Sierra, Cessna Cardinal, Piper Arrow, Mooney, even older Beech V-tails, all have individual pluses and minuses. I think the Bellanca would be extremely tight for a family of 4 (as would a Mooney). Commanders are pretty nice planes, but I'm not sure about parts availability (I believe GMascelli flies a Commander, he may be along with first-hand comments). That said, as you and others mentioned, leaving the plane parked for such extended periods is not an ideal scenario. I get that you don't want to 'share', but I'd seriously consider looking into some kind of club or partnership situation. Hard to find the right combo that might work for you, but there are some 'premiere' operations to be found. At a minimum, I'd want to find someone (trusted and well-qualified, of course), to babysit the bird and take it up once every few weeks.
 
I’m flying out of the Phoenix area. I would get yourself on the hangar lists now. It’s a years-long wait to get hangar space out here (at least for individual T-hangars). I was able to get into a covered tie-down, so that’s some protection from the sun, but I’m still anxiously waiting as my name slowly (very slowly) climbs the hangar waiting lists at a few local airports.

Best of luck!
 
I think it'll be tough with that price limit. I'm partial to the Commander, but at the price range I think it'll be tough to get one with modern avionics and lower engine times. When I bought my Commmander I decided that the choice was between a Commander and a Socata TB21.

For a 2-3 hour mission, the fuel burn and seeped wasn't a big deal for me - by the time you do a climb and descent you're only talking a few minutes difference with respect to a faster plane. To me, the two doors and wider cabin (comfort) were well worth it. There is user support through the Commander owners group.

If you're flying out of the Phoenix area, you might want to look at the intended destinations and the routes (as well as your intended loads) - figure out whether a turbo and/or oxygen would be needed and plan accordingly.

I had a 112TC. The ADs were no real issue: tho older ones were all done long ago with no further action. The one on the tail feathers was not an issue with my plane and the COG has an alternate means of compliance on the procedure, which simplifies things and is pretty straightforward. PMA'd elevator spars are available if necessary.

Good luck in your search!
 
And, do you enjoy hand flying.........or is it "gear up, autopilot on?"

In the light airplane arena, the Super Viking has the best feel, Mooney the worst. Commander in the middle. It is the only Part 23 airplane on your list if that matters (and it shouldn't, the King Air 90 is still partially a CAR3 airplane)
 
@Jim Carpenter, thanks the Cardinal RG is an interesting shout I didn't have on my mind yet. And the reason I didn't mention the Mooney in the beginning was exactly the reason of probably being very tight for a family of 4. Now my wife and I are both rather skinny (6'1"/ 170lbs and 5'3" / 120lbs), so I assumed the Super Viking would be fine since it's just 1.5" narrower than a Bonanza, which never felt cramped, even with two males in the front seats. But of course I can only really verify that by sitting in one. In the Phoenix area I would know a couple of people who could take my aircraft up in the air from time-to-time, it's one of the reason I'd prefer to hangar there if I can.

@Sluggo63 is it easier to find community hangars? I'd be fine with that. The airport I found with the shortest wait list was GYR, about 1.5 years for a small T, IIRC. Any further insights are highly appriciated.
 
The Bo is roomier, and the seating is more like a chair; upright. I think the Viking seats are closer to the floor, so you have your legs stretched out further forward.
Ask any Viking questions here.
 
@wsuffa, thanks for the reply! What's your useful load on the 112TC? I'd be interested in that version of the Commander as well, if it can haul enough. But I read online that the climb performance (especially low level) isn't great, what's your experience? And high-time engine and old avionics are no problem for me. If I want to look at glas cockpits I go to work. And I wouldn't fly single-engine IFR with my family in the back anyways due to safety concerns. And if the price is right and old engine might even be a plus, because that's usually factored into the purchase price 1:1 but if the inspections come up good, I have absolutely no problem of pushing the hours well past TBO. And a high-age/low-time engine runs just as high a risk of needing replacement, but usually fetches a lot higher purchase price.

@kgruber, if I wanna use the autopilot, I go to work. A nice handling plane is always a plus in my book. How it's cetified doesn't concern me too much.
 
Last edited:
I can't imagine being able to find a Commander 114A for $80K unless it was a runout engine with original 1970s panel. You could probably find a 112, but that isn't going to come with much useful load for a family of 4. Ever considered a Comanche 250/260? You could probably find one for closer to $80K than a decent 114.

Vikings are fine, most people just don't like that narrower cabin. The Commander is about the roomiest piston 4/5 seater ever made, obviously the cost of cruise speed. Trailing link landing gear is also a great design on the Commanders.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk
 
@SoonerAviator, original panel is absolutely fine for me. As is high-time engine provided compression, oil/filter analysis, boroscoping comes up good. I'd do engine overhaul based on condition anyways, not on hours.
And no, I didn't have the Comanche on my mind yet, thanks. Another one on the list of possibilities.
 
Cedric31 said:
@SoonerAviator, original panel is absolutely fine for me. As is high-time engine provided compression, oil/filter analysis, boroscoping comes up good. I'd do engine overhaul based on condition anyways, not on hours.
And no, I didn't have the Comanche on my mind yet, thanks. Another one on the list of possibilities.
Click to expand...
You might contact Suncoast Aviation on Commanders. She has pretty extensive knowledge of most of the fleet and specialize in them. She often knows about some that are in the market before they hit the public sites.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk
 
kgruber said:
And, do you enjoy hand flying.........or is it "gear up, autopilot on?"

In the light airplane arena, the Super Viking has the best feel, Mooney the worst. Commander in the middle. It is the only Part 23 airplane on your list if that matters (and it shouldn't, the King Air 90 is still partially a CAR3 airplane)
Click to expand...
The Commander is Part 23. I think that's what you meant but want to clarify.
Cedric31 said:
@wsuffa, thanks for the reply! What's your useful load on the 112TC? I'd be interested in that version of the Commander as well, if it can haul enough. But I read online that the climb performance (especially low level) isn't great, what's your experience? And high-time engine and old avionics are no problem for me. If I want to look at glas cockpits I go to work. And I wouldn't fly single-engine IFR with my family in the back anyways due to safety concerns. And if the price is right and old engine might even be a plus, because that's usually factored into the purchase price 1:1 but if the inspections come up good, I have absolutely no problem of pushing the hours well past TBO. And a high-age/low-time engine runs just as high a risk of needing replacement, but usually fetches a lot higher purchase price.

@kgruber, if I wanna use the autopilot, I go to work. A nice handling plane is always a plus in my book. How it's cetified doesn't concern me too much.
Click to expand...

The 112TC is really a 2-3 person plane, maybe 2 adults and a couple of small kids. For mine, it was 2 adults and full fuel. I don't recall the exact useful load, but it was under 1000 pounds. It met my needs, but for someone with a family it probably wouldn't.

Climb rate was OK for me (it was just me about 90% of the time), but a bit anemic at full load and a very hot day in Texas. I know what the book says, but I tended to keep the climb rate a bit lower (with more speed) for engine cooling because of the turbo. I preferred to run cooler to help engine life. I did put vortex generators on which helped with climb and stalling characteristics. I can recall two occasions where I wasn't happy with the climbe rate: one where I forgot to check the gear retraction (doh) and the other when we had an exhaust leak right before the turbo and I was climbing out of Henderson, NV on a hot day. Fixed the exhaust issue before it torched anything. The gear remained down because I hit the emergency gear drop with my knee and didn't catch it until about 3,000 feet.

If you've got family on board, you really want a 114.

SoonerAviator said:
You might contact Suncoast Aviation on Commanders. She has pretty extensive knowledge of most of the fleet and specialize in them. She often knows about some that are in the market before they hit the public sites.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Agree. Judy's handled transactions on much of the fleet at one time or another. I used her when I sold mine.

I sold because I wasn't flying it enough to stay as current as I wanted - the lack of flying was due to other pressures on my time as well as the 45-75 minute drive to the airport each way (a downside to being in the DC area). It w a great handling plane and superb IFR platform - I'd look hard at the 114/115 series if I were to buy another certified plane, though I have thought about doing a kit plane if I ever move out of DC area to a place more conducive to keeping and owning a plane.
 
Having flown both, I'd pay twice as much for a Commander just so I wouldnt have to be crammed into a Viking with a shoehorn. I would even take a Sierra over a Viking. Yeah those that know my disdain for Sierra, I would take that over a Viking! The Viking is the most uncomfortable plane I have ever been in. After 10 minutes I was ready to be out. And I'm not even metabolically challenged.
 
EdFred said:
Having flown both, I'd pay twice as much for a Commander just so I wouldnt have to be crammed into a Viking with a shoehorn. I would even take a Sierra over a Viking. Yeah those that know my disdain for Sierra, I would take that over a Viking! The Viking is the most uncomfortable plane I have ever been in. After 10 minutes I was ready to be out. And I'm not even metabolically challenged.
Click to expand...

Why so? I'm looking for a Bo alternative and on paper the SV looks great.

I have been looking for one to sit in, haven't had the chance yet. What is wrong with the seating position or ergonomics?
 
FancyG said:
Why so? I'm looking for a Bo alternative and on paper the SV looks great.

I have been looking for one to sit in, haven't had the chance yet. What is wrong with the seating position or ergonomics?
Click to expand...

Way too tight. I had to lean toward and turn my shoulders to the middle of the plane. I could not actually sit in the seat like you are supposed to. It's worse than basic economy coach on the cattle cars.
 
EdFred said:
Way too tight. I had to lean toward and turn my shoulders to the middle of the plane. I could not actually sit in the seat like you are supposed to. It's worse than basic economy coach on the cattle cars.
Click to expand...
Ehhhhhh so if I had a 20" neck and 52" jacket I would be Commander 114 shopping?
 
FancyG said:
Why so? I'm looking for a Bo alternative and on paper the SV looks great.

I have been looking for one to sit in, haven't had the chance yet. What is wrong with the seating position or ergonomics?
Click to expand...

I'll give you my perspective. I've had my Super Viking 9 years and Ikve logged 920 hours in it. We love it. I'm 6'2", and for most of that time have been very, shall we say, hefty. It can be quite cozy in the front with 2 people. I've recently lost a lot of weight (72 lbs and counting), and it's much more comfortable in front now. My head still touches the top, but that's because I prefer the seat in a more upright position. It's possible to recline the seat and get more headroom.

When it's just my wife and I on long trips, she will tend to ride in the back and I in front. We have taken trips with my wife and me in front with our adult son and his girlfriend in the back, and it's doable. It's certainly not roomy, but it's doable and it's fast. It trues out around 200mph.

We have to be very aware of the baggage and fuel load when all four of us are flying, but that's not really different from most planes (Cessna 185 possibly excepted)

[edit]
I've taken the plane on some long cross country flights. Went to Tennessee from California and back this past March. Several 4 hour legs on that trip. One time I put 15 hours on the meter in one day with legs of 4+ hours and only stopping to refuel and made it from East TN to the SF Bay area in one day. Solo, the front is roomy enough for me. I wouldn't want to do that kind of trip with 2 people in front, but having one in front and one in back would be fine. I did a 5 hour flight with my wife from CA to Washington state one time. It was fine.

My advice is to go sit in one with the people you're likely to fly with. See if it fits you. Don't forget to get a flight in one also. Very sweet flying planes.
 
Last edited:
jimhorner said:
I'll give you my perspective. I've had my Super Viking 9 years and Ikve logged 920 hours in it. We love it. I'm 6'2", and for most of that time have been very, shall we say, hefty. It can be quite cozy in the front with 2 people. I've recently lost a lot of weight (72 lbs and counting), and it's much more comfortable in front now. My head still touches the top, but that's because I prefer the seat in a more upright position. It's possible to recline the seat and get more headroom.

When it's just my wife and I on long trips, she will tend to ride in the back and I in front. We have taken trips with my wife and me in front with our adult son and his girlfriend in the back, and it's doable. It's certainly not roomy, but it's doable and it's fast. It trues out around 200mph.

We have to be very aware of the baggage and fuel load when all four of us are flying, but that's not really different from most planes (Cessna 185 possibly excepted)
Click to expand...

I'm same height, 280#. Researching a gulf hopper for me and the wife into MGMM with decent grass/short capability. Mogas would be an extraordinary plus.
 
FancyG said:
I'm same height, 280#. Researching a gulf hopper for me and the wife into MGMM with decent grass/short capability. Mogas would be an extraordinary plus.
Click to expand...

Well, I was at that weight until recently, and we were able to make it work. It's tight, however. Mogas is a nono on the engine. The Viking can be landed quite short (not STOL, Valdez short, but still) and does well on grass.
 
Salty said:
182RG...80k is going to be tough...
Click to expand...

for anything with a 182 in it, 80k won't even buy you a 60's model. From the looks of the market people are asking a premium on the RG. I think they're crazy.
 
Cedric31 said:
@Sluggo63 is it easier to find community hangars? I'd be fine with that. The airport I found with the shortest wait list was GYR, about 1.5 years for a small T, IIRC. Any further insights are highly appriciated.
Click to expand...
Community hangars might be easier to find. I decided to not go that route and just hold out for my own. I'm at DVT in a covered spot, but I'm on the lists at DVT and GYR for a large T-hangar. You might move a little quicker only needing a small. One thing that has folks in PHX scrambling right now is that SDL is closing for a couple months to repave, so owners are trying to get their planes out and somewhere else for the summer before they get stuck there. Spaces are at a super-premium right now, but that's just temporary, then it'll be back to just the normal premium.
 
Interesting conversation, I guess I'll have ask someone with a BSV if I can "test sit" in his in order to see whether or not I it feels cramped for me... actually the more I look at it, the more I also like the idea of a Cardinal RG... I was under the impression it would have a useful load more akin to a 172, but it really is a solid 1000lbs+ performer. There even is a turbo-normalizer kit available if you feel the need to for speed. And since the first airplane I flew for an airline was a Dash-8 Q400, I'm a little partial to a high-wing.

and thanks, Suncoast Aviation is noted :)

@jimhorner, trueing at 200mph? Do you have an ATC? Because in the POH I found online the most I can find for the NA versions is something in the 180mph ballpark (which is already plenty fast, but 200mph would be amazing).

@Rgbeard, yes that would be possible

@Sluggo63, very interesting, thanks
 
Here a couple ones I found online:

BSV:
https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...VIKING+300&listing_id=2394602&s-type=aircraft
actually a very nice example at a great price.

Commander 114:
https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...&model=114&listing_id=2386829&s-type=aircraft
a little over price, but otherwise a nice plane. Actually I found one yesterday for $65k, but that thing moved fast (not surprised). I take no issue with the engine being over TBO, IO-540s often easily go to 3000h, so as long as every checks out well during the inspection, I would be okay with that.

Cardinal RG:
https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...odel=177RG&listing_id=2394650&s-type=aircraft
don't have a feel for the market on those yet, but this one also appears to be a good find.
 
Last edited:
Wood airplane in Phoenix climate probably not a great idea, too dry. Better than too wet though.
 
I visited two airports in Illinois where the guys we’re paying $75 a month for a nice T-Hangar. Illinois would give you the advantage of being in the central part of the country.
The airports were KIJX and KDNV. No idea if there was a waiting list but that would cut costs. I was able to fly commercial into St. Louis and do a one way car rental with Enterprise to get to KIJX. Same would work flying into Chicago for KDNV.
 
Cedric31 said:
@jimhorner, trueing at 200mph? Do you have an ATC? Because in the POH I found online the most I can find for the NA versions is something in the 180mph ballpark (which is already plenty fast, but 200mph would be amazing).
Click to expand...

Not an ATC, but it is one of the newer planes. It's an '89. The factory built only maybe 20 or so planes after mine before stopping production.

Check out the TAS shown on the Gi275 coming back from a day trip to Santa Barbara this past Saturday. Trueing at 197mph. A little tweaking of the mixture and power settings would likely have bumped it up a bit. I also get a few more mph when its cg is aft. The aux tank was empty on this flight, and my wife was with me in the front. It was also hot so our DA was higher than 8500. The sweet spot for speed seems to be closer to 7500 ft DAs.

39cbe1c1eb72e5a73ad44f0c640922f3.jpg
 
Last edited:
I’ll throw my plane in the mix, Comanche 250. Faster than a 114 and about 5-10kts slower than the Viking. 1200lb useful makes it a true 4seat, full fuel machine. Cabin is a lot wider than then BSV and only a couple inches narrower than the 114. I would try to set up a partnership since you are somewhat flexible in location. I know you said it’s a no-no but having your plane sit for months at a time would be more problematic than a partner.
 
Cedric31 said:
Here a couple ones I found online:

Commander 114:
https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...&model=114&listing_id=2386829&s-type=aircraft
a little over price, but otherwise a nice plane. Actually I found one yesterday for $65k, but that thing moved fast (not surprised). I take no issue with the engine being over TBO, IO-540s often easily go to 3000h, so as long as every checks out well during the inspection, I would be okay with that.
Click to expand...
All the best paint/interior/avionics that 1977 had to offer... ;) .

A couple of notes: I don't see ADS-B out listed in the specs. If it doesn't have the equipment installed, you'll have to do so. OKV is just outside the Mode-C veil of IAD.

IIRC, the 2 blade props have an AD on them, and Hartzell added language to some of their TCs that effectively stuck a calendar limit on the prop TBO (that's not a Commander thing, it affects every type of plane with those props. I'll add that a lot of folks don't think it applies to Part 91 operations - I'll leave that to the lawyers to decide). I don't know whether this is one or not.

I don't see anything about the hoses having been replaced. Gear is hydraulic - this is an area you might pay attention to. I'd also look at the condition of the fuel-fill caps - the Commander has a flap in the tank and the fuel caps secure to that with a dzuz fastener - check the dzuz and the wire it secures to in the flap. Also check the gaskets on the tank. These generally aren't much of an issue if the plane spends most of it's life hangared, but if it sits out in the rain it can become an issue.

Assuming she flies well, it's just a matter of spending money to bring her to the standards you have. Were it me, I'd probably be looking at redoing the interior, taking some of the old boat anchors out of the panel and replacing them with modern avionics (maybe gaining a bit of useful), adding vortex generators & gap seals, and eventually repainting. I'd take a close look at tires, battery, and hoses. And I'd probably get and either keep as a spare or install a new master solenoid: they do go bad over time and the electrical system is pretty much unusable if it fails (same with the starter solenoid).

I'd also suggest joining the Commander Owner's Group forum for more advice.
 
I think the seat comfort is very much a person to person thing; when my lower back is hurting, 2-3 hours in the Viking absolutely fixed it.
Many people love the Bonanza seats but I twist and squirm trying to get comfortable (Its just me).
 
Cedric31 said:
but renting or partial ownership are no-no's for me as I'm too individualistic
Click to expand...

Cedric31 said:
agreed on a budget of maximum $80k for the purchase price.
Click to expand...

SITUATION:
  • You have a desire to fly 3 -4 days at a time, 3-4 times a year.
  • You want to load your family of four
  • You have high standards
  • You have a limited budget - you're not going to buy an airplane for $80k that fits your needs

SOLUTION THOUGHT STARTER FOR YOU TO CONSIDER:
Given all of these, trade offs will give you the best outcome.

Consider a Cirrus rental.

REASONS:
  • Cirrus is a high quality aircraft that will take your entire family where you want to go in the comfort and style you want.
  • Cirrus rentals are not like renting the "Old Bessy" highly used (ratted out) 172's you might be thinking of when you think of "rental"
  • Cirrus rental organizations can give you the "white glove" treatment you want.
  • You won't have to worry about your plane not being flyable because it's been sitting.
  • You won't worry about whether or not your plane is in tip top shape
  • You'll have a nice panel - most likely glass
  • You'll have a BRS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top