Commander 114 airplanes

FloridaPilot

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
FloridaStudentPilot
Hello,

Don't know much about these types wanted to hear your experiences from those who have flown them. They seem nice and the retractable gear looks solid compared to some other types.

Looks like they have a lot of room as well, reasonably priced, Lycoming engine, 1,000 useful works too.

How do they fly?

Thanks!

FP
 
They also look like they have 2 doors as well, don't see that much in a low wing airplane.
 
I was looking at them pretty hard until I flew in one. The rollout seems long and the climb rate seemed a bit anemic. Once in cruise it seemed to perform pretty well and was smooth and fun to fly. Landing approach speed seemed unusually fast but that may have been that guy's technique. Not much to go on but that was my take.
 
JCranford said:
I was looking at them pretty hard until I flew in one. The rollout seems long and the climb rate seemed a bit anemic. Once in cruise it seemed to perform pretty well and was smooth and fun to fly. Landing approach speed seemed unusually fast but that may have been that guy's technique. Not much to go on but that was my take.
Click to expand...

That was good stuff...thanks, I will keep it in mind! They are not the fastest airplanes out there by any means.
 
Underpowered. Watched one, with only 2 on board, come out of Susanville after refueling. Had to circle three times to gain altitude. I climb right out....
 
Also watch useful load, zero fuel weight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think I'd rather have a Socata TB-21TC... If we were going for OOP 4-seat retracts with lots of room.

From what I've read the 114 is vastly improved in performance over the 112.
 
Goofy said:
Underpowered. Watched one, with only 2 on board, come out of Susanville after refueling. Had to circle three times to gain altitude. I climb right out....
Click to expand...

Are you sure that wasn't a -112? I thought the -114 had enough power.

I was all sold on a 114 when I was looking for my first plane until I started running some sample W&Bs and found I'd have problems with some of my typical loading scenarios. Others may do OK...just one more thing to look at before you pull the trigger.
 
Goofy said:
Underpowered. Watched one, with only 2 on board, come out of Susanville after refueling. Had to circle three times to gain altitude. I climb right out....
Click to expand...
Seriously doubt it was a 114. 114's don't suffer much on climb performance, maybe you saw a 112 instead. Even the 112TC does pretty well.
 
The 112 was the first production lightplane certified under FAR 23. The TCDS prescribes service life limits for certain parts of the airframe:

Model 112, the service life of the wing and associated structure has been established as 6945 hours maximum.
Model 112B, the service life of the wing and associated structure has been established as 8878 hours maximum.
Model 112TC, the service life of the wing and associated structure has been established as 10908 hours maximum.
Model 112TCA, the service life of the wing and associated structure has been established as 7947 hours maximum.
Model 114, the service life of the wing and associated structure has been established as 19284 hours maximum.
Model 114A and 114B, the service life of the wing and associated structure has been established as 14812 hours maximum.
Model 114TC, the service life of the wing and associated structure has been established a 10349 hours maximum.
Click to expand...

For comparison, Grumman-American AA-5 series wings are limited to 12,000 hours (with mandatory shoulder-bolt replacement at 7,250 hours); Piper Tomahawk wings 11,000 hours.

Trivia -- There was also to be a fixed-gear version, with a 180-hp Lycoming engine and fixed-pitch prop. Two prototypes of the <ahem> "North American Rockwell Aero Commander 111" were built, but the type never went into production.

Screen Shot 2017-07-12 at 1.13.33 PM.png
 
I loved my Commander. Wonderful IFR platform - stable. Not as fast as a Mooney, but did OK, especially higher up (I had the TC model).

Pilawt said:
The 112 was the first production lightplane certified under FAR 23. The TCDS prescribes service life limits for certain parts of the airframe:



For comparison, Grumman-American AA-5 series wings are limited to 12,000 hours (with mandatory shoulder-bolt replacement at 7,250 hours); Piper Tomahawk wings 11,000 hours.

Trivia -- There was also to be a fixed-gear version, with a 180-hp Lycoming engine and fixed-pitch prop. Two prototypes of the <ahem> "North American Rockwell Aero Commander 111" were built, but the type never went into production.

View attachment 54779
Click to expand...
Red herring. Let's figure it out: if you fly 200 hours a year, the 112/114 TC models are still looking at 50 years on the life-limited parts. The 114 A&B 70 years. We'd be lucky to be flying so long, and most folks don't fly 200 hours a year.
 
Pilawt said:
The 112 was the first production lightplane certified under FAR 23. The TCDS prescribes service life limits for certain parts of the airframe:
Click to expand...
Very strange that they didn't use round numbers. Any idea why?
 
P
Pilawt said:
Yes and no. Starting from zero, you're right. But if a buyer happened to find something that looked like a killer deal on an early 112 with 5,000+ TTAF, it's something to consider.
Click to expand...
simply see if it's priced right. Just like a runout engine. Still, at 1900 hours left most folks won't own and fly it that long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top