Rockwell Commander

Whats wrong with the Rockwell Commander? Ive never flown one. Never seen one in person, but I really like the way they look. This one, although out of my price range by a lot, is really nice. Love the panel layout! Useful load seem low. What the realistic cruise speed?

http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1407599/1977-commander-114

Two pilots that are friend that own them and I have flown with them. Big, comfortable airplanes. Check out the carrier deck landing gear (what else to expect from Rockwell). Double pane side windows - quiet. But it all makes it heavier and slower.

112TC owner friend found parts for the engine a headache. Apparently that Lycoming was only used on the TC Commander and one other airplane. Had it down for a couple of months looking for an cylinder, but the Commander Owner's group came through faster than Lycoming. Loved the airplane nevertheless, but had his head turned by a lovely restored 1966 Mooney and now goes faster on less fuel, but has no space to carry anything (including me).

114 owner friend is a retired commercial pilot, has had the airplane for two decades. Engine is a common Lyc 540 so no parts issues like the TC. Flies it everywhere with his wife. Won't trade it for anything. I keep telling him that's because its the only light plane with the same ramp presence as the Boeings he used to fly.
 
Last edited:
Two pilots that are friend that own them and I have flown with them. Big, comfortable airplanes. Check out the carrier deck landing gear (what else to expect from Rockwell). Double pane side windows - quiet. But it all makes it heavier and slower.

112TC owner friend found parts for the engine a headache. Apparently that Lycoming was only used on the TC Commander and one other airplane. Had it down for a couple of months looking for an cylinder, but the Commander Owner's group came through faster than Lycoming. Loved the airplane nevertheless, but had his head turned by a lovely restored 1966 Mooney and now goes faster on less fuel, but has no space to carry anything (including me).

The 112TC uses a TO360-C1A6D engine. It's a rarer model (the other plane type that uses it is the Partenavia), but I had no issues getting parts. That the COG could find them speaks to availability... it's more that some A&Ps don't know where to go to get them.

114 owner friend is a retired commercial pilot, has had the airplane for two decades. Engine is a common Lyc 540 so no parts issues like the TC. Flies it everywhere with his wife. Won't trade it for anything. I keep telling him that's because its the only light plane with the same ramp presence as the Boeings he used to fly.

The 114-series uses IO/TIO 540 engines. The non-turbo 112s use IO-360 engines. There is at least one aftermarket conversion to use a different engine, and there is at least one STC for turbonormalizing the IO-360s.
 
Commanders are great for big people tall and short. I flew in a 112 and it was nice but too slow. So I would have to get a 114TC or 115 with speed mods. Otherwise a nice plane but limited in cross wind conditions.
 
Commanders are great for big people tall and short. I flew in a 112 and it was nice but too slow. So I would have to get a 114TC or 115 with speed mods. Otherwise a nice plane but limited in cross wind conditions.

Not if you install the vortex generators....
 
Vortex generators help with takeoff speed in addition to cross wind control?
 
Vortex generators help with takeoff speed in addition to cross wind control?

Sure. The idea behind them is to prevent separation of the airflow from the wing at slow speeds. So, when landing in heavier crosswinds, the control surfaces remain effective at lower airspeeds which increases the crosswind capability.

Also, welcome to POA.
 
Last edited:
A Commander 114 just came on the rental line at the flying club that I am still loosely affiliated with. I have a BFR coming up this year, so I'm thinking I might get the club checkout in the 114 as my BFR just to fly something new. I really don't think I'll ever rent it otherwise, I just want to check it out and do something different for a BFR.
 
Sure. The idea behind them is to prevent separation of the airflow from the wing at slow speeds. So, when landing in heavier crosswinds, the control surfaces remain effective at lower airspeeds which increases the crosswind capability.

Also, welcome to POA.

It works sorta like a STOL kit.

The VGs were one of the best 3-4 changes I made to my plane.... and saved my bacon one time. The stall speed dropped low enough that ATC once asked me (when I was doing slow flight and stall practice) whether I was fixed wing or rotary.

Another pilot - who owned his own Commander - flew the plane one day and remarked as to how much better it handled on slow-speed and TO and Landing than his did.

A Commander 114 just came on the rental line at the flying club that I am still loosely affiliated with. I have a BFR coming up this year, so I'm thinking I might get the club checkout in the 114 as my BFR just to fly something new. I really don't think I'll ever rent it otherwise, I just want to check it out and do something different for a BFR.

No reason not to. It really is a sweet, stable plane to fly.
 
Bill,
Do you have a 112 or 114? How much did vortex generators reduce ground roll?

JD
 
Sure. The idea behind them is to prevent separation of the airflow from the wing at slow speeds. So, when landing in heavier crosswinds, the control surfaces remain effective at lower airspeeds which increases the crosswind capability.

Also, welcome to POA.

I understood the physics of VGs was to delay separation of the airflow over the upper wing surface at high angles of attack. Generally high angles of attack are associated with low airspeeds, such as when in a descent for landing.

But slow airspeeds are not necessarily associated with high angles of attack, the take off roll being an example.

What's the experience of pilots out there that have installed VGs on the likes of faster Bonanzas, Mooneys, Commanders, etc? I am curious as is there really much difference in takeoff performance?
 
Last edited:
No reason not to. It really is a sweet, stable plane to fly.

I think I'll like it. I sat in one many years ago at an AOPA Summit. I just don't think I'll like the fuel burn and being a club plane, it likely will not have an engine monitor and I will not be flying it LOP. :no:
 
Bill,
Do you have a 112 or 114? How much did vortex generators reduce ground roll?

JD
I had a 112TC. I never really compared the ground roll, but I do know it was significant on landing as it allowed a lower approach speed. Harder to tell on TO as I had such a wide variety of conditions.
 
I think I'll like it. I sat in one many years ago at an AOPA Summit. I just don't think I'll like the fuel burn and being a club plane, it likely will not have an engine monitor and I will not be flying it LOP. :no:

Owner is paying for the fuel, so unless you intend to stretch the tanks, should be a non-issue?
 
Are you stuck using the Eagle Creek / Naples conglomerate for most mx like you are for their Garrett-powered big twin brothers?
 
Ahhhh, necro thread. For a moment, I thought @JCranford was cheating on Ruby.
 
I've got my eye on a 114 at my airport when I'm ready to buy. Best looking plane on the ramp IMO. Well maybe that and a V-tail. :)
 
831592B9-10B6-40E1-827E-7BE44FB31E56.jpeg I just got my 76 112 back, earlier this Summer. I bought it at 1720 TT with a used up engine. I had a good amount refurbished, including a factory new IO-390 and an MT 3-blade prop. My useful load is officially #890 right now, not including the 42 lbs of the back seat that’s out now. I may get it re-weighed since I took out a Loran & a few other things, with more to follow.

No it’s not a speed demon, I’m in the neighborhood of 140 kts TAS, midlevel cruise, 75% or so. I’m always looking for that tailwind.

No need to tell me I’m ‘upside down’ with aircraft ownership, I realize that. I certainly didn’t care for worn out IO-360 performance, better now. I’m enjoying my evaluation of the upgrade. If an adjustment is needed after a year, I’ll look into that. So far things are fine. I do like the 2 doors.
 
I was ready to upgrade to a new complex. I wanted two doors and a low wing. My current plane was a Beech Sundowner. Big cabin, low wings, and a pilot side door. If you ever move to an airplane with a pilot's side door, you will never go back to having to crawl over a passenger seat to get to your seat.

Anyway, the Commander obviously came up on that list of criteria - low wing, pilot's side door, and a big cabin (I do not want to rub shoulders with anyone when I fly). I joined the Commander's Owner Group. I spent alot of time on that website learning about the history, design, and different models of this type. As mentioned above, Judi Anderson of Suncoast is indispensable. Don't buy a Commander without her help.

I quickly determined that I wanted a 2nd generation Commander - not a "Rockwell" but an aircraft from the 2nd attempt at building these airplanes. The Commander Aircraft Company which was in business from around 1992 through the early 2000's. Why a Commander from this era? The AD's from the Rockwell's were addressed and the design was tweaked to get an extra 5-10 knots from the airplane (cowling changes). The panels were pretty good for the era as well.

Next up, I narrowed my search to a 114B and NOT a turbo. No reason other than I did not need a turbo but more importantly I did not want the complexity or expense of a turbo (114TC).

These mid 1990's to early 2000's 114B's and 115TC's were great airplanes. They have alot of quality built into them. The cabins are comfortable. You don't touch your passenger. These airplanes were expensive for their time. $350K in the mid 1990's. They just could not compete on pricing, and then in my opinion were dealt the "death blow" when Cirrus came on the scene in 1999. Cirrus went after the high performance single market in a way that put a serious dent on the Commander. By 2003 I believe they were gone.

I found my 1995 114B a few weeks ago. I have owned it all of two weeks. In that time, I have flown it from Long Island down to Texas (initial purchase) and then from Texas to Wisconsin and back last week (Oshkosh). Two long cross countries in two weeks time. I could not be happier with my decision. The plane is the most comfortable 4 place single engine airplane I have ever flown in. This plane is a 1885 TTH airplane. Original panel, paint, interior, and engine. It has the original panel, with a King KLN 90B GPS and KFC200 autopilot. It has actually been kind of fun figuring out how to use that 90B GPS. My other plane has a Garmin 430W, so this definitely was a learning task for me. It actually works pretty good. But, I will be upgrading soon! I got a plan put together at Oshkosh.

I am obviously close to engine run out, but the engine runs great and I am seeing 160 kts cruising at 75%. I figure I have maybe 1-2 years before I will need an engine.

The interior needs the leather scrubbed with conditioner and cleaner, but in reality it is fine. No real need to do anything.

Once I do my panel upgrade (GTN 750 and GTX 345 with some additional stuff) I figure this airplane will be as good as any newer airplane that I could reasonably afford. Two weeks and 20 hours in I am thrilled with it. Great color too.

IMG_20180715_191648637_HDR_zpsuiv30zp8.jpg

IMG_20180715_192328637_zpsrlwrbbgj.jpg

IMG_20180715_192336854_HDR_zpswchhptyl.jpg

IMG_20180715_191807185_HDR_zps0x7igzjl.jpg
 
Last edited:
That’s good lookin! I love Ruby and wouldn’t cheat on her, but I still love the looks of a Commander
 
R
I find it interesting that a life limit would be established for a wing in flight, but not for an airplane on the ground (and subject to gravity).
Really? There is somewhat more stress applied in flight. The lever comment is just ridiculous.
 
Anyone have a 114, near Seattle, that I could go for a ride in? I’m a student pilot and thinking about getting a commander. Also I’m happy to pay for gas or dual time if you’re a Cfi
 
Back
Top