Look, A Cessoony

FlySince9

FlySince9

En-Route
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
3,151
Location
Huntersville, NC
Display Name
Display name:
Jerry
img.axd


Actually a 1968 AERO COMMANDER 100...I'm embarrassed to say I've never seen one of these before...Didn't even know Aero Commander made a SE airplane...
 
Yeah, used to be one in at Harrison, AR when I was there. Sure are ugly!
 
It looks like a copy of a 172 - up to the tail.
 
There’s been one sitting on the ramp here for as long as I can remember-looking derelict as ever! Surprisingly, someone is still footing the bill for it.
 
in your defense, they didn't make many of them. i kinda like the look...
 
The Luscombe 11E was another unsuccessful 172 clone. It was essentially the Luscombe Sedan put on tricycle gear. Both the Luscombe and Aero Commander claimed to be better than the 172, but it's hard to dethrone the king. Not to mention they both look a little odd.

2009-luscombe-11e-for-sale-1.jpg
 
Sac Arrow said:
It looks like a copy of a 172 - up to the tail.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but a lot boxier stem to stern. I always thought it looked kinda like they designed it using a block of clay.
 
Last edited:
Saw an aero commander at one flight school years ago.
 
Lowflynjack said:
The Luscombe 11E was another unsuccessful 172 clone. It was essentially the Luscombe Sedan put on tricycle gear. Both the Luscombe and Aero Commander claimed to be better than the 172, but it's hard to dethrone the king. Not to mention they both look a little odd.

2009-luscombe-11e-for-sale-1.jpg
Click to expand...
I considered buying an Aero Commander that was for sale up my way...my research found it was slower than a 172, less useful load than a 172, looked clunky compared to a 172, harder to find parts than a 172...I'm not sure how that makes it better?
 
I knew a guy who had one. He loved flying it. Plus, it was a guaranteed ramp-rat magnet.
 
They were interesting machines. They started out as the "Volaire 10" with three seats and 135 hp, increased to four seats and 150 hp by the time Rockwell bought the design in 1965 and dubbed it "Aero Commander 100".



The Aero Commander 100's 1968 base price of $8500 was two grand less than a bare-bones Cessna 172, but it still couldn't dent Cessna's market share.

For 1969 the 100 became the "Darter Commander", and the price went up to $8,950.



Also in 1969 the "Lark Commander" was introduced -- basically a Darter with a facelift, a new tail, and a 180 hp engine. It was priced at $12,995, only $500 more than a base 172, but still a thousand less than a 172 with the Skyhawk option package. With 180 hp the Lark was only 4 mph faster than a 150 hp 172, had less useful load, and used more fuel.



About 350 Volaire/100/Darters were built, ending in 1969. The Lark Commander lasted until 1971, with a production total of 213.
 
Pilawt said:
They were interesting machines. They started out as the "Volaire 10" with three seats and 135 hp, increased to four seats and 150 hp by the time Rockwell bought the design in 1965 and dubbed it "Aero Commander 100".



The Aero Commander 100's 1968 base price of $8500 was two grand less than a bare-bones Cessna 172, but it still couldn't dent Cessna's market share.

For 1969 the 100 became the "Darter Commander", and the price went up to $8,950.



Also in 1969 the "Lark Commander" was introduced -- basically a Darter with a facelift, a new tail, and a 180 hp engine. It was priced at $12,995, only $500 more than a base 172, but still a thousand less than a 172 with the Skyhawk option package. With 180 hp the Lark was only 4 mph faster than a 150 hp 172, had less useful load, and used more fuel.



About 350 Volaire/100/Darters were built, ending in 1969. The Lark Commander lasted until 1971, with a production total of 213.
Click to expand...
Looks like you answered my question, as to "how it is better than a 172"...Cheaper!
 
Our local flight school bought a few of the Luscombes. They look like a 172 that's been through the Hardee's drive-through a few too many times. I don't know how well they fly, but they seem to deal with student pilot abuse well (except for the whole landing on a ball field and putting it through a chain-link fence thing).
 
FlySince9 said:
Didn't even know Aero Commander made a SE airplane...
Click to expand...

Are you forgetting this one? It was introduced in 1972 as the "North American Rockwell Aero Commander 112."

Screen Shot 2018-03-29 at 1.38.53 PM.png

There was also to have been a 180 hp fixed-gear, fixed-prop model called the Aero Commander 111. Two prototypes were built, but never certified.

Screen Shot 2018-03-29 at 1.39.12 PM.png

Lowflynjack said:
The Luscombe 11E was another unsuccessful 172 clone. It was essentially the Luscombe Sedan put on tricycle gear. Both the Luscombe and Aero Commander claimed to be better than the 172, but it's hard to dethrone the king. Not to mention they both look a little odd.
Click to expand...

Like the Luscombe, the Cessna was more graceful as a taildragger (170B, and the proposed, pretty 170C with the 172's squared-off tailfeathers). It took several modifications to the landing gear, engine mount geometry and forward fuselage before the 172 looked comfortable on tri-gear.
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
Are you forgetting this one? It was introduced in 1972 as the "North American Rockwell Aero Commander 112."

View attachment 61400

There was also to have been a 180 hp fixed-gear, fixed-prop model called the Aero Commander 111. Two prototypes were built, but never certified.

View attachment 61401



Like the Luscombe, the Cessna was more graceful as a taildragger (170B, and the proposed, pretty 170C with the 172's squared-off tailfeathers). It took several modifications to the landing gear, engine mount geometry and forward fuselage before the 172 looked comfortable on tri-gear.
Click to expand...

Such a pretty plane.
 
As a freshly minted ppl, was waiting to take off at a grass strip, when one of these came wallering in and hit one of the white painted tires marking the threshold. They crow hopped right and left a few times, pacing the marker tire they sent airborne, eventually parking half way up a mesquite tree. Everyone was ok...but one less Cessooney out there now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Duster said:
As a freshly minted ppl, was waiting to take off at a grass strip, when one of these came wallering in and hit one of the white painted tires marking the threshold. They crow hopped right and left a few times, pacing the marker tire they sent airborne, eventually parking half way up a mesquite tree. Everyone was ok...but one less Cessooney out there now
Click to expand...

Ouch...!!! Everyone was ok from the crash, but how long did it take to pull all the thorns out after climbing out of the tree..???:hairraise:
 
Wasn't the North American Rockwell Aero Commander 112, the first GA aircraft certified under Part 23?
 
kgruber said:
Wasn't the North American Rockwell Aero Commander 112, the first GA aircraft certified under Part 23?
Click to expand...
Yep ... which may account for why the TCDS for the early 112 says, “the service life of the wing and associated structure has been established as 6945 hours maximum.”

For other 112 variants it’s a little more, and for the 114 nearly 20,000 hours.
 
My dad's first R/C plane was an Aero Commander 100, a Du-Bro ARF kit. 3 channel (no ailerons, lots of dihedral), it wasn't a great flyer.
 
Sac Arrow said:
It looks like a copy of a 172 - up to the tail.
Click to expand...

It was intended to compete with the 172, but the similarity is deceiving. The airplane was largely a steel-tube strucure from the firewall to just aft of the baggage section, and stressed skin from there on back. The main gear legs were made of steel tubing (like a Cub's, and hinged like a Cub's) with aluminum fairings to hide that anachronism, and the springs were thick, short fiberglass leaves between the gear legs and fuselage frame. Flaps were on piano hinges. Floor was a skookum sheet of plywood, and you sat up high and straight as if you were having dinner. Much heavier than a 172, too.
 
Lowflynjack said:
The Luscombe 11E was another unsuccessful 172 clone. It was essentially the Luscombe Sedan put on tricycle gear.

2009-luscombe-11e-for-sale-1.jpg
Click to expand...
Too bad it doesn't have the correct rudder/tail. Then we could call it a "Looney".
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Preceded by the Aero Commander 200 which was derived from the Meyers 200
Click to expand...
Gorgeous airplane, and I’m told it had excellent handling and performance. It might have been a Bonanza-beater, but was complex and expensive to build, and didn’t have the capacity for expansion (e.g. Model 36) that kept the Bonanza line going for another half century.

1ED5FA2D-5962-4461-A9D3-C0CC209C9DD4.jpeg

Rockwell (Aero Commander) started development of the 112 series in 1968. The 100 (Volaire) and 200 (Meyers) series were probably never in the company’s long-range plans, just stop-gap single-engine offerings until the home-grown product was ready for prime time.
 
timwinters said:
But aren't they SLOOOOOW?
Click to expand...

Because they are big, roomy, comfortable, tough and well built (e.g. heavy). The gear looks like it could be good for carrier landings - maybe that's what you get when a defence contractor builds a GA plane. The side windows are double pane. Two doors. :cool:

Got two friends who owned them. One was a 112TC (weird 4-cyl turbocharged, carbureted Lycoming) that he sold and then bought a really nice Mooney M20C. His wife loved the Rockwell, hates the Mooney and won't fly with him any more, LOL. The other has a 114 with the IO-540 in it. I think that's the better bet.
 
Last edited:
I’ve always had a soft spot for the looks of the Commander 11X series. I like the (generally considered non-ideal) mid tails.

Which is why I like the looks of the Cessna 303 Crusaders, too.

It’s a fetish. :) Probably developed because they were all over the airplane magazines in the 80s.
 
Yup, despite not being the fastest, the Commander 112/114/115’s are about the best looking piston singles out there (radials not included). I’d have no qualms about owning one, but they’re still pretty pricey on the used market.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SoonerAviator said:
Yup, despite not being the fastest, the Commander 112/114/115’s are about the best looking piston singles out there (radials not included). I’d have no qualms about owning one, but they’re still pretty pricey on the used market.
Click to expand...

As with many other orphaned airplanes, parts can be really scarce and expensive. Buyer beware. It can be difficult keeping things legal and safe.
 
Dan Thomas said:
As with many other orphaned airplanes, parts can be really scarce and expensive. Buyer beware. It can be difficult keeping things legal and safe.
Click to expand...

True, but when I looked into them a few years back, it seemed like their parts availability was no worse than buying a PA24, TB20, or similar vintage aircraft. Their owner group CPAC exists primarily for parts availability, and seemed pretty active at the time. I think most of the parts that are unobtainable are items that likely wouldn’t be replaced/repaired without other significant damage that would total the aircraft anyways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top