Commander 112's-115's

Capt.Crash'n'Burn

Capt.Crash'n'Burn

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
1,097
Location
Lompton,CA
Display Name
Display name:
Capt.Crash'n'Burn
What's the appeal of these planes? I read the wiki article on them and the company went out of business, but was bought by several owners to continue support an to produce new aircraft.

On paper, this doesn't look like an impressive plane, yet people who own them love their planes enough to have bought the company.

Do these planes handle well? are forgiving and easy to fly? have a high useful load? come with an Asian prostitute?
 
Calling Bill Suffa!!!

They're roomy. Easy to get into/out of thanks to the 2 doors. Easy to land smoothly due to the gear.

All I know is what owner's have told me, but they like the way they fly.

For those to whom top-end speed is less important than comfort, at a "relative" bargain price due to unstable lineage, I think they're a pretty good choice.

Not the 112 though. Save money and buy a Sundowner. :D
 
I can't answer your question, but one of my flight instructor's has one and loves it. The plane has quite a following and a very active owners group. I seems well built and I think it looks like a larger, more expensive plane than it actually is (good curb appeal)
 
I'm intrigued by the Commander as well. I need to get a ride in one some day.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Not the 112 though. Save money and buy a Sundowner. :D
Click to expand...

I don't know much about those planes, but I know I want one because I really want my callsign to be 'sundowner ###'. What a wonderful name.
 
I own one. A 112TC turbocharged version. MAA of 20,000 (and I've had it that high).

Appeal? Looks, handling, ease of access, spacious cabin, double doors (big deal). It's no pocket rocket, but it's more comfortable than a Mooney.

Handles great, drop gear at ILS GS intercept & approach speed and you'll be pretty close to the required descent profile. I put vortex generators on mine - it's darn hard to do power-on stalls - had ATC call me one day in the practice area asking what I was doing as he was showing <20 kts ground speed. T-tail makes prop wash a non-factor. Oh, and trailing link gear make landings much smoother.

The drawbacks: a bit harder to get specialized parts, though the factory ownership & active usergroup helps. Speed: you don't buy it for speed, you buy a Mooney or a Lancair if you want speed. I fly mine at 65% power in the 140-150 knot range in the 'teens. The 114/115 series has a larger engine, goes faster. Life limits on the wings (not really an issue for me, but need to look if it's a very high time plane). Rudder is not a barn door, vortex generators add authority. I've landed mine in crosswinds well above the stated value.

I always liked the look of the plane and it was one of two planes I considered when I bought 10+ years ago (the choice was Commander or Socata).
 
A good friend had one and it was all that Bill says - I loved the spaciousness, and the cabin seemed to provide a lofty perch.
 
chucky said:
I don't know much about those planes, but I know I want one because I really want my callsign to be 'sundowner ###'. What a wonderful name.
Click to expand...

Yeah. But when you want some respect from ATC you call in "Beech ####" so they think you're a Bonanza. BTDT.:D
 
I've owned three of these, all post 1999 vintage aircraft. My first one was N115CE, the first Commander 115 that I took delivery of in June 2000 (if you find the October 2000 Private Pilot mag, I'm on the cover with the plane). I bought it for two main reasons - as a low time pilot looking to fly A LOT, I knew that would only happen if my wife felt comfortable flying with me. The Commander's cabin and seats are absolutely the most comfortable of any piston GA 4 place aircraft. The second reason was that I got phenomenal very personal factory support like you would expect from Rolls Royce or Bentley - it was their (unsuccessful) business model to treat every customer that way.

My 5CE was the poster plane for those years and you'll see in in just about every magazine for a few years there from 2000 on. I flew it 450 hours in the first year and traded it for a 115 TC which I then flew until the factory filled Chapter 11. I sold it shortly after and have since owned another 115 TC that I bought and flipped after another year of flying it.

It's a very forgiving IFR platform that is easy to manage on approach. I could fly a 150 kt approach in it and still make the mid field turn off at BWI runway 33R/15L. The normally aspirated plane (114B/115) is a 150 kt plane on 14 g/h and can carry between 900 and 1000 lbs. The TCs I had were 165+ kt/18 g/h planes that would carry 900 lbs.

I've flown then coast to coast many times and always got out of the plane feeling as fresh as when I got in and that's the only airplane I've ever flown that I can say that about. For a long time it was the only certified FIKI single engine piston bird available.

And finally, they're great looking airplanes. But having said all that, I wouldn't own one today because if the lack of parts available/support. Something like 85% of that plane and it's parts were made by/for Commander and it was a hand made airplane - these were ultimately the factory's downfall. I had dinner on several occasions with Aviation General's Owner (parent of Commander Aircraft Co) and he would tell me about the nearly 3000 hours of labor that went in to every airplane but how they were building the Aston Martin of the GA for that. That didn't really work out for them so well.
 

Attachments

  • BoysDurango.jpg
    BoysDurango.jpg
    55.3 KB · Views: 52
flyersfan31 said:
Not the 112 though. Save money and buy a Sundowner. :D
Click to expand...

Dude, 112 owners (and I was one for 5 years) would never stoop to being seeing seen in the bulb-headed Sundowner. :D


inactive15 said:
Didin't the 112 have wing problems? I read about this somwhere.
Click to expand...

Some 112's and 114's started having cracking problems where the main gear attached to the wing spar. This was addressed with a final AD in 1990 (90-04-07). There is also an AD on the vertical fin, and on the seat belts. Every Commander in the field should have all these long-since applied. Interesting to note: there hasn't been another AD against the airframe since then.

I've spoken to Jim Richards of Aerodyme Corp. He has STC's to put the 310hp IO-580 into 114/115's (the Super Commander) and the 210hp IO-390 into the 112's. He's an engineer's engineer. He told me that he's seen things in the plane and at first wondered why something was done, but after he reverse engineered it, understood what they were getting at. Remember, these designers were coming off the height of the US aerospace industry at the time.

RockComm114 said:
On the contrary, Bill:
http://www.commander.org/Bergcom/Video/Hoover.htm
Hoover flew the 114, as well.
You can visit us at http://www.commander.org Lots of information and the Forum, too.
Mine even has smoke!!
Click to expand...

Gary, you dog!!! I miss you guys! How was Jekyll?
 
Last edited:
rpadula said:
Dude, 112 owners (and I was one for 5 years) would never stoop to being seeing seen in the bulb-headed Sundowner. :D
Click to expand...

You know what they say...opinions are like ****oles, everyones got one :wink2:
Love my Sundowner.....you keep flying that commander.
 
rpadula said:
115CE is for sale again. It is now a kick-a$$ Super Commander with a G600 installed!
Click to expand...

Geez, I remember seeing that ad a couple of years ago. Some of my best aviation memories are in that bird. I used to get compliments on it all the time from tower/ground guys at airports and other pilots that recognized it from the magazine ads. I've got a photo of it with my wife posing by it on the ramp at Meigs somewhere around here.

Like I said, you'll never find a more comfortable 4 place piston airplane than a late model Commander. Those seats are pretty nice and if I'm remembering right, something like a 50" wide cabin. The closest thing I've seen to that cabin was the DA50 I saw at Oshkosh a few years ago.
 
GMascelli said:
You know what they say...opinions are like ****oles, everyones got one :wink2:
Love my Sundowner.....you keep flying that commander.
Click to expand...
LOL I know. Notice I said "was" owner. Sold mine earlier this year.
 
PittsDriver said:
Like I said, you'll never find a more comfortable 4 place piston airplane than a late model Commander. Those seats are pretty nice and if I'm remembering right, something like a 50" wide cabin. The closest thing I've seen to that cabin was the DA50 I saw at Oshkosh a few years ago.
Click to expand...

I think it might be 49". I do remember walking past an A36 Bonanza after parking my Commander and being struck by what a "skinny" airplane it was for being so much bigger than the 112.

When Bill Jennings sat in mine at one of the Raleigh fly ins, he said, "this is like sitting in a Buick!!!"
 
rpadula said:
Gary, you dog!!! I miss you guys! How was Jekyll?
Click to expand...

Hey Rich!!! Long time no talk/see. I didn't make it to Jekly Island for the annual Commander gathering this year. They were late getting organized and finalizing plans.

Next year we go back to Sedona, but we'll probably fly SW or US AIRWAYS. Getting too old to enjoy those major(two day or more one-way) cross-country trips.

Take care,
Gary
 
RockComm114 said:
On the contrary, Bill:
http://www.commander.org/Bergcom/Video/Hoover.htm
Hoover flew the 114, as well.
You can visit us at http://www.commander.org Lots of information and the Forum, too.
Mine even has smoke!!
Click to expand...

Thanks, Gary. I guess somewhere back in my brain I knew that, but oh well.

Haven't been over at Commander.org in quite a while for a number of reasons, mostly too busy. I haven't been over to the Red Board in at least that long, either. Haven't flown much lately, either, which begs the question of whether it's finally time to sell my bird.
 
Some of the fattest pilots drive Commanders but I wouldn't hold that against the airplane :)
 
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
I'm 5'10" and 170 lbs. I should squeeze through just fine. Just as long as shoulder room isn't an issue.
Click to expand...

If I amputated my left arm above the shoulder, I would fit fine in a Mooney. (6'-3", 190)
 
RockComm114 said:
Some of the gayest pilots fly Pitts but hey, whatever turns your prop.
Click to expand...

Well, the fat guys aren't flying Mooneys, that's for sure. I didn't say that Commander pilots are fat. I just said/meant that it's a plane preferred by fat pilots obviously because of the roomy cockpit. I happened to be good friends with the V.P. of Sales for Commander aircraft before the Chapter 11 and he would especially get traction on aircraft sales to overweight guys that wouldn't fit in the competitor's aircraft. Just a fact, not a stereotype or meant to be hurtful.

If what I posted offended you, I apologize. And if gay pilots want to fly Pitts, that's great too. I don't think that would negatively affect the reputation of Pitts aircraft any more than a roomy cabin suitable for fat pilots affects the reputation of Commanders.
 
EdFred said:
If I amputated my left arm above the shoulder, I would fit fine in a Mooney. (6'-3", 190)
Click to expand...

Yeah, Mooneys are great for leg room, but kinda suck in the width department. I was flying safety pilot with a friend in his Mooney and I had my arm along the back of the seat for the entire flight like I was gonna make a try for first base with him.

Airplanes should have aisles. I'll stick with the 6. I've ridden in every seat in the airplane and there's plenty of room for me in each. (I'm 6'2" 190).

I am drooling over the Commanders. Pretty sweet. I think I'd take a Comanche 260 first, though, just for the looks.
 
Personally I don't see the difference between saying one airplane is for fat people and the other airplane is for gay people. Both are pretty much equally uncalled for. How about we play nice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top