@@scottmoseley5122 thanks Scott, am not planning to sell right now, however I can put you in contact with the commander people if you’re looking for a 112.
@@RaceMentally A typical annual inspection on a Rockwell Commander would cost around $1500, depending on your location. My plane is based in Europe. This cost does not include spare parts or repairs. A realistic estimate would be around $2500-$4000 per year, including annual inspection , parts, and other maintenance needs. I am an A&P myself, and while I find working on the Commander enjoyable, there are instances where some repairs can be more challenging. It is important to note that a retractable gear aircraft like the Commander requires careful inspection, just like any other aircraft with retractable gear.
@@kennethcaruana6554 thanks for all your input. I’m US west coast and looking to pick one up possibly. Just want a realistic budget number. Parts east to get?
I've owned a Commander 114 for 5 years now, love the way it flies and handles. Not the fastest design, but comfortable and roomy. Maintenance has been no issue and if I did need spare parts, they were easily accessible. Anywhere I land it draws a crowd, asking about it...now that's ramp appeal!
I have owned N1506J, a Rockwell 112 TC since 1995. It has been a fine aircraft and a great investment. I am a CFII, and have flown in many different single engine aircraft, and prefer the Rockwell to most.
I had maintained a 114 and 112 for customers over the years. The 112 is under powered. Both have IMHO weak nose gear. How ironic that they include trailing arm MLG but an almost backwards pointing pogo stick nose gear strut. This is the only airplane that I'd encountered, that required a simulated wind load, using a weight an pulley system, during a landing gear extension check at annual. I don't miss having to work on them now. Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Don't ever leave the fuel selector in "Both" with full tanks if the airplane is parked on even slightly uneven ground. You'll come back to find a substantial fuel puddle under one wing as the fuel transfers to the lower tank, causing that wing to dip even lower on the trailing arm gear and spill out of the vent. Ask me how I know.
I owned a 114TC and found they had good power and performed really well at higher altitudes. They do leak if the fuel selector is left on both, personal experience. But they do have hardened jack point on the wings and I never felt they were remotely hard to work on and if you ever get a look at the wing spare you'll see they are military grade. Also a good shimmy dampener and correctly inflated front tire usually solved most of the noise gear issues. All in all and excellent AC, with huge back seat room and two doors. Loved it and wish I still had it. They would have had a winner if they had put a 310 HP TC in it from the get go. Just needed more power.
So you’re saying don’t get a 114? I only ask because my mechanic said not to get a 112 local to me. So figured get the 114. But let me know if it’s one that I should stay away from. I’m west coast as well.
I am half owner of a vastly upgraded 112A. Absolutely wonderful aircraft! Rock steady, easy to fly, and very comfortable. We will keep this one for a couple of years before we find a bargain on a 114.
I’ve owned a ‘76 114 for 8 years. It’s a great family plane that hauls the load (4x200 lb occupants is a tall order for most 4 seat GA aircraft). Mine cruises at 145 kts true.
I like how acft owners use “True” to make it sound like their plane is faster, such a joke. All the brown nose magazine editors do the same nonsense in their articles.
@@tropicthndr True airspeed is the speed of the aircraft relative to the air mass through which it is flying. It’s a technical calculation which incorporates air pressure, temperature, and altitude. It’s important for flight planning and it’s what ATC wants to know. It’s a more accurate way of measuring airspeed.
I was Lucky enough to fly for many hours in the Rockwell back in the mid 70's working out of Long beach,Ca early in my flying career as a Demonstration pilot (Salesman).. I met and talked with Bob Hoover in his shrike commander and was given lots of info on this 112 - 114 design. If memory serves (Please do the math ha ha) the FAA wanted the General aviation light aircraft built to a different standard I believe it was part 23? After a few years FAA dropped that requirement but that's what brought on the "T" Tail piper line(Lance Arrow etc.) Beach craft skipper and a few others. Of course the Rockwell had a cruciform tail what this configuration meant was that selecting flaps all the way through full would result in very little pitch change on approach as putting horizontal tail assembly higher kept it out of main wing configuration changes from flap deployment. Part 23 meant that the Rockwell 112 was a little heavier and they made the cabin wider so it was, since it used the same engine as it competitors, naturally a little slower (maybe 5 knots) I have to say I loved all of the flight characteristics of this plane in all the hours I put in them. I was told that the 114 was to start off with the 260hp Lyc but there were plans to stretch the plane and upgrade to 300hp same engine but I never saw that. I had a great deal of respect for the original North American aviation company as my Grand father was an experimental design engineer with them and was involved in development of the B25,Mustang and Sabre. AS a boy I would hang on the fence at Mines Field (Now LAX) and wait for my Grandfather to get off work. I never considered this airplane a failure it was unique,sturdy and a real eye catcher on the ramp. Merry Christmas hope this was useful information
It became law that any new light airplane design built after Part 23 was adopted (around 1965) had to be built to Part 23 standards. The first airplane certificated under Part 23 was the Cessna Cardinal. Part 23 has never been dropped. In fact, it was revised and now we are on the second edition. As the Commander 114 bounced around to different manufacturers, there was a Model 115 introduced that had a Lycoming TIO 540 with at least 300 hp.
Very nice video Dwayne. We have been a Commander owner for ten years ( s/n 27 straight 112 ) and in spite of it being a bit anemic, it is a wonderful aircraft to own and fly and no more difficult than any other brand to find parts for or maintain.
In the early 2000's, I looked into buying a 115. As one who is 6'5" and 250 lb it looked to be the perfect plane for me. While in Oklahoma City visiting in-laws, I looped by the Wiley Post airport and got a good close look at the 114/115 aircraft. Even though I could swing buying one, I could not afford hanger and maintenance. So I took my CP-ASEL-IA and kept flying as a volunteer with the CAP.
Yep … you “nailed” it: “hangar and maintenance.” That’s what keeps me from buying what is arguably the most beautiful single engine aircraft ever produced.
@@flitetymwhat makes them more expensive than other planes when it comes to hangar costs? I've seen some other comments saying it's super easy to find parts for these, too. Is that not really true?
@@RaceMentally I really don’t think it’s a wallet drainer. If a bigger engine was available, and parts wasn’t a concern, I would absolutely get another one.
@@RaceMentally We had the turbo version and it was good, but I feel like it was a little underpowered compared to other airplanes. At the time, major parts was a concern. It may be different now but I’m not sure. We sold it in 2016
I have over 200 hours in the 114b. I used to rent it out of a school that sub-leased from a company that did not fly it much to justify the cost. Loved the aircraft. Very well equipped, roomy for sure. Speed was okay, it could have been better. Flying characteristic were good and landing were great with the trail link landing gear.
I took an introductory flight in a 114 back in the 1980s. What I remember is (1) the top of the instrument panel was lower than usual, providing great visibility forward, (2) the cruising speed was somewhat less than other retractables of the similar power, and (3) puling power off on final with gear and flaps out caused the plane to descend like a rock (so quickly added power).
In the mid 1970's I worked on an early 112 as an A&P IA. The plane seamed to only have straight tubing and fittings to make turns. During an annual inspection I found a loose bolt on the rear main gear pivot assembly. It took two mirrors and two flash lights to see the nut. It took a couple extensions, u joints, and a breaker bar to reach the nut. Also needed a pair of Snap On mechanical to hold it all in place.
I always liked the look and design of the Commander and always wanted to fly one, but there were none to rent at all the airports, big and small, that I flew out of over the years.
In the mid 90’s i rented and flew VH-SLN a 114 featured in this video. I love the Commander design and comfort. Came close to buying SLN but then Cirrus came to market. Now fly an SR22 G5 but i think a 114TC beats it for executive ramp appeal. Would seriously consider a Commander with a Continental IO550 310 HP (if it existed).
I flew SLN as an instructor in the late 70s - did quite a number constant speed /retractable endorsements in that aircraft, and instrument training etc. Nice aeroplane, but DEFINITELY not the hottest performer. Where was SLN in the video? I missed it. Edit: disregard, found at at 13:45. However, I recalled it as a 112A. I just looked at my logbook which confirms my memory, flew it multiple times throughout 1979 and also most of 1980 at Gil Layt’s, and it’s listed in my logbook as an R-112A, so was it upgraded (bigger engine) or perhaps the rego was transferred to a complete new airframe?
Being a mechanic who has vast experience with these things, i’m not a fan of the video. It’s very informational - that is for sure. But, some of the more subjective opinions are way out of left field. I find it surprising when they creator referred to the landing gear and fuel systems as “well thought out”. I appreciate the effort, and it’s a great video, but many of the small things are off putting and show that the video is little more than a mini-doc citing forum posts and the POH.
Flew 112, 112TC and the 114. The tc was good. The 114 was awesome. The 112 was under powered and terrible at high altitude. 114 is great for people who are cramped. It’s a great plane.
I was lucky enough to log few hours on 112, compare with Cherokee & C172, I personally found her more decent & refine to fly, probably betta than TB10 if not as roomy.
I was hired to test fly the aircraft to find out why it waggled its tail so badly ( worse than a V tail Bonanza) in any kind of turbulence or disturbed air. Our findings were the vertical fin from the horizontal stabilizer down is ineffective. So if you look at it there's very little vertical fin left to keep the plane flying straight.
ZAP59 - Maybe some Top of Cabin VG's (Vortex Generators) would pull some air down to the Root of the Vertical Stabilizer, maybe not, but seems worth a test! Might require 2 Rows, to really put enough Energy down there!
Wait a minute; just a minute here: are you saying that the vertical fin (stabilizer) isn't "effective from the horizontal stab' to the fuselage"? How could that be...the aircraft would never a) maintain stable, low-speed directional control and b) attain AW certification?! Please explain this, if you would? Note that the Germans in WWII "extended" the tail of the Fw190D's due to similar stability problems (albeit in a combat aircraft) but the AC11 Commander has substantial fin surface area so this idea of an ineffective vertical fin is puzzling. Thx!
I’ve flown one or two Commanders, they’re good little airplanes but I could not wait to get back into my Comanche. The Commander managed to feel small inside despite being big and I don’t think it’s quite as beautiful ad you say it is!
Always liked the look of the Commander. I flew a Mooney 201 from 1982 to 1998. On the same 200HP Lycoming engine as on the 112, the Mooney would fly much faster on 10gph and I'd use 160Kt as a general block-to-block airspeed (in theory the 201 was named for its top airspeed in mph, but my aircraft would probably do in the high-190's flat out). Not a great load-hauler but still a service ceiling of over 18,000ft. Gross was 2,740lb and it would carry 6+ hours of fuel. The Mooney's bigger brother back then was the 231 (turbocharged engine had issues, finally fixed years later with the wonderful 252) and gross weight was bumped up to 2,900lb with no airframe changes but a slightly higher stall speed. The little 201 was built like a tank, with a one-piece spar and rollcage around the cockpit. So in my view the Commander was good-looking but couldn't compete with the competition in key areas. I wish Roy LoPresti, the genius behind finding all those Mooney speed increases that resulted in the 201, had also been hired to do his magic on the Commander. EDIT: Oh, and the Mooney sat nose-high on its gear. You do NOT want to land nosegear first, or if uncorrected it will begin to pogo up and down into the air, eventually collapsing the nosegear. But easy to avoid; just haul back, say "Whoah!" and touch down on the mains first. The Commander would probably be a peach to land with its trailing-link gear.
My only low wing piston hours were on an Arrow II and a 114 (102 and 15hrs). A few decades since I flew the 114. If memory serves me right it, it was considerably slippier on approach, compared to the Arrow.
In Australia I went to pick up a brand new Rockwell 112 VH-DDY. I was a passenger. It was a reward gift for a young man who had finished high school. It was the sexiest aeroplane I’d ever seen. Interior was beautiful. I was 19, the year was 1974.
In the seventies... I always thought this was one of the sexiest singles of that era....It had that military look and stance...it's a shame it didn't sell well...I would love to own one even today.....
I always thought the Commander was the best looking single engine aircraft, ever. I very much wanted a low time 114B, and was seriously considering selling a Maule 235 (amazing and very capable airplane ), and Cherokee 180 I owned at the time. A CFI, aa couple friends, and an A&P mechanic all advised against it; probably because of supposed or real airframe issues. Anyway, my grand dream never got off the ground.
The hubris exhibited by Rockwell was palpable at the start, and contributed to its eventual failure. One of my friends in the Cessna Engineering department was lured to work at Rockwell in 1968, and he reported back that the Rockwell office had a large sign "Orville and Wilbur are alive and well, designing airplanes in Wichita." Well, at least the Wichita-designed airplanes had a cruise speed commensurate with their engine size, and an eye for detail that kept ADs at bay . . The Rockwells, when they finally appeared, were about as over-hyped as the 2-decades-earlier Ford failure (Edsel).
Worst part of owning a Commander 114 is the hydraulic pump breaks a lot, is expensive to replace, and you can only get a rebuilt one. 7 years of ownership and I’m on #3.
Good video about a great aircraft not often covered, but that annoying bouncing screen transition needs to go. Just because your software offers stupid features doesn't obligate you to use them.
YES Good explaining here and all details Right here on the Money I enjoyed this video !! Thanks for some very clear words ! Keep up the Good work !! 😊😊
My dad had a 114 tail #N 4829W. Had a very nice interior. He said it flew like a rock. It was slow and the door had a closing glitch otherwise fondly remembered.
Almost purchased one until I discovered the lack of parts support unfortunately. Cool airplane and the trailing link landing gear was great, but wish it had more power.
7 Year owner for a Commander 114 one of the best single engine aircraft ever built with a great safety record too, your video on the Commander was great but had many errors on the Commander 112/114 and I will respond in more detail on your errors later. The 114 is one of the best ever built all around aircraft for performance, cabin room, speed, loading, handling etc
Thank you!!! I love the Commander and I've literally been waiting for this video as you lol... Your channel is dope and my favorite especially when it comes to being informed 🔥🔥🔥💪🏾💪🏾💪🏾
Commander is a good plane just slow for the fuel burn. But some are willing to trade comfort (cabin width) for speed and that's fine. Personally I'd prefer an old 4 seat bonanza. Same fuel burn, still plenty of room, and 25 kts faster.
I flew the 112 and the 114. I enjoyed both. The 112 did blow a gasket on me and dumped all the hydraulic fluid overboard. Also the 112 had a little too much elevator authority. The cabins were definitely roomy. I did move on later to planes with a little more speed.
Sounds a bit like the Cessna Cardinal. Only 150HP in the early models and that tarnished the line forever. My 200HP Cardinal RG is a 48" wide cabin with an enormous CG range and legroom. Plus 140 knots at about 9GPH. Add a 1016 useful load and it still was a very limited run. Sometimes even a great plane just doesn't really make it.
I owned a 1993 114B for about 9 years... Biggest problem was poor management by Commander Aircraft Company. The aircraft is out of production, and has been for many years.....
Most all aircraft could do with an upgrade in the basic engine design horsepower and torque, I don't know why they never post torque figures at different RPMs but torque is required whenever you're trying to screw a propeller through any kind of a fluid whether it be the atmosphere or the water. You can't make a proper decision without knowing those numbers. They are very informative. However like many aircraft, a bit more engine is always helpful. Aircraft with more engine is easier to fly. And there is no reason why you can't design an engine that will run I respectable speed, a comfortable ride, and still use a comfortable amount of fuel to get you where you need to go. Frankly I think the commander was probably the best looking airplane of its type. It just needed about another 50 to 75 horsepower. And probably another 40 to 70 foot pounds of torque.
Great, informative video, I saw one of these recently and want sure what it was - I now know! Not a fan of the bouncy picture transitions though, they make my eyes go funny.
I flew the 112 it was nice, under power it wasn't the easiest airplane to work on. They'd try to get the company going again but the owner died unexpectedly Back in the 90
I'm one who gladly gives up some speed for good handling qualities. This was a really nice flying airplane. Begged you to at least roll it, if not more!
The Rockwell Commander failed in the marketplace, but that doesn't mean they were bad or unsafe airplanes. The 112, 112A and 112TC were underpowered, especiall the first two, because Rockwell was trying to compete with all of the other 200 HP normally aspirATED singles from Cessna, Mooney, Piper and Beechcraft. But The 114 and especialy the 115 were great airplanes with plenty of performance and load carrying ability , if not absolutely the fastest option out there. Hel, wh buy a 112 tha only does about 137 knots in cruise when yo can by a Mooney M20C that'll scootalong at155 knot on 20 horsepower less and burn a paltry 8.5 gallons per hours up high. Ultimately I believe Rockwell pulled the plug on the Commander single-engine line because: 1) They were built to withstand larger gust loads much higher than their coompetion: 50 feet per second rather than 30 which i standard throughout most light aircraft. . That made them safer but also made them heavier and thus more expensive to manufacture than their competition; 2) If you are looking for the macro reasson why Rockwell pulled the plug on the Commander single-engine line, Rockwell could make way more $$$ selling one of their twin-engine Commander series of piston and turboprop twins and twin jets than they ever could competing near the bottom of the light aircraft market selling piston bug smashers; 3) Sure, there were some problematic ADs through the years. But that's true of almost every light aircraft design ever built. Aircraft ownership is expensive, man! Especially for complex singles or twins with retractable gear and constant speed propellor(s)!!
I can't think of a Rockwell design that isn't super airplane sexy, my fav is the Aero Commander, especially the earlier models with the augmented exhaust GIO-480's.
Ive been flying some 114B and it can easily be compared to a cadillac of the skies compared to a pinto, wich would be the piper cherokee 150... both has their charms. However, with the commander, there's a lot of bells and whistles, like the strange T-tail, retractable gears and constant speed prop, but to what avail? It's not very fast, the engine is not THAT powerful and it's not preassurized nor does it have a turbo. It's big heavy and full of features, but prettly slow (compared to mooneys) and requires a lot more work before you can fly it compare to that cherokee. If you love flying, then this beast may be not for you, but if you like the features and would not spend more time doing daily checks, well.. maybe this is the right type for you.
The only commander worth owning is the super commander from Aerodyme corp. Wing spar and weak tail all fixed and strengthened, along with a well deserved iO-580. After all that Still cheaper than the Pipistrel Panthera everyone wants now.
I don't know that a tail waggle in turbulence is a downside. It's been my experience that planes which wag their tails in turbulence tend to NOT jolt up and down as much.
lovely informative video but the effect when you switch between pictures is quite annoying and nauseating. Do consider something smoother, less abrupt and visually aggressive.
There are a lot of people who have no idea what they are talking about. For instance, stating the 112 is under powered. Or slow. LOL. they are all just repeating what someone spread long ago and it is so untrue. All you have to do is look at the numbers. Compare to say a 172, which is the most produced plane in existence everyone loves. The 112a out performs it in every way. Yet you never hear someone say the 172 is a dog. So how is it a plane that has performance beyond the 172 and beyond many popular piper models, is considered a dog when it out performs them on all levels. ? it is because when the 112 was created It was designed for the US air force, who wanted a cheaper trainer with less performance to have more of them. . This Small trainer by design and purpose to save money did not perform as well as other air force trainers. So Air force pilot instructors began spreading bad reviews to kill the program so they can keep faster trainers. Granted the 112 outperformed many popular loved Civil planes for certain, and still does. But it did not out perform other military prop trainers, the instructors wanted to keep in production and not see replaced with 112's. The 112 was designed with double doors, and a high stabilator per the military requirements. Two doors was to meet non ejection seat requirements allowing BOTH pilots to bail out, from both sides in absence of a ejection system, and stabilator to also prevents pilots who bail out from hitting a elevator on the way out. The 112 Is for absolute fact according to 50 years of field in use data, the best plane you will ever own for safety. No plane comes close to its safety record and fatality that is nearly ZERO over 50 yrs. Not even a ballistic parachute Sirus comes close. There is no problem with gear. The gear was made to military specs far in excess of civil rules. The step pedestals actually act as a backup ground Seperators to prevent any belly slide in the event of a main gear failure. belly slides on hard surface cause sparks and fuel fires. The pegs are designed with an alloy to suppress sparks. Many civil craft makers copied it, including piper. ALL the gear is designed that the min height in event of pneumatic piston collapse is enough to still land safe from damage. Also, ALL planes with retractable gear are subject to gear failure to release. In the event of no nose gear release, the spinner acts as a slide. This is why is not recommended to do a nose gear failure to release landing on dirt, EVER. It will dig in and flip the plane. However, a nose gear failure to release with main gear release is preferred to land on a runway, because the spinner as slide peg prevents a disastrous landing . If a hard runway landing cant be done in the event of a nose gear release failure, then a full gear up landing on a runway is preferred also because the step pegs will slide and keep the belly off the runway, there is far more control and less damage. A gear up landing in dirt will cause the step pegs to dig in the dirt and rip out the under belly. The 112 is a beautiful plane with a safety record the far exceeds any civil plane ever made. Nothing compares to its almost death free accident history. nothing. The plan did not fail, the company failed. I own one and There are things in these planes nearly every aerospace engineer I talked to has no idea what they are or for. But I do, there are design feature things in this plane you will never see in any civil GA plane like piper. Cessna. etc. They simply can't afford to engineer them into their planes. If any plane deserves to go back into production, the 112 does. It has saved countless lives for its safety record.
This is the first video I've watched on your channel. I love the Commander singles. And your narration is excellent. However the video aspect of your presentation is, in a word, annoying. You selected your transitions to be flashing, shaky, bouncy . . . all very irritating. I recommend simple cut or dissolve transitions from one video sequence to another. Let me know in your reply to my comment. No more Dwayne's Aviation until I hear back from you.
Great lokin plane for sure but it had low power at that time . I think that might have been a easy dix . Way not a turboprop motor people are putting them in everything these days .
Flew a 112 Part 135 1979. By far the worst SE retract I've flown in 17,000 hours. Couldn't fly 4 adults, cheap plastic interior, difficult to start - tore up a Bendix. Forgot to set flaps for takeoff once and almost snagged a fence.
The title of the video is why the commander failed. This is a 15 minute video and at 13:40 they actually start to tell you why and it's basically it was slow, heavy and there were some cracks. You have to sit through a 13 minute advertisement with every statistic about the airplane before he gets to the point. About 5% of the video was actually about the subject described in the title. The rest is marketing bumf.
At 4:24 you post a photo of the WRONG aircraft. That is Beech Sierra. When you do that, you lose the trust and respect of your audience. Everything else else you say is then suspect.
That's an obvious mistake, I'm sorry about that... Sometimes the time consuming research and video editing gets draining, at times like making obvious mistake in editing becomes easy 😭😭
No bad flying/handling characteristics after you just mention side slip and elevator authority lacking. Poor xwind control and then great trainer in the same breath. Talk about flight controls and structures having cracks and then then state the problems are over blown. Are you even a pilot, do you do any first hand research besides Wikipedia and forums?
Clearly he doesn't. He stated that these were the fastest s/e airplanes manufactured by "Rockwell". While this may be technically true the 112/114 design superseded the Aero Commander 200 D, which was faster.
9/13/2022 Why do you say “just over 1100 pounds?” That could mean 1400 pounds. Leave vague terms out of your communications. Try saying for example “1,100 pounds.”
I own the N629CC 112B @ 10:01 in the video. I’ve been flying this beauty since 2004.
lucky you! Great looking plane. What's your asking price?
@@scottmoseley5122 thanks Scott, am not planning to sell right now, however I can put you in contact with the commander people if you’re looking for a 112.
Can you let me know rough annual total costs as well as is it easily worked on? I had one mechanic tell me no. But a why wasn’t really there.
@@RaceMentally A typical annual inspection on a Rockwell Commander would cost around $1500, depending on your location. My plane is based in Europe. This cost does not include spare parts or repairs. A realistic estimate would be around $2500-$4000 per year, including annual inspection , parts, and other maintenance needs. I am an A&P myself, and while I find working on the Commander enjoyable, there are instances where some repairs can be more challenging. It is important to note that a retractable gear aircraft like the Commander requires careful inspection, just like any other aircraft with retractable gear.
@@kennethcaruana6554 thanks for all your input. I’m US west coast and looking to pick one up possibly. Just want a realistic budget number. Parts east to get?
In 1976 I went for a very interesting, to say the least, ride in a new Commander 114 with a gentleman named Bob Hoover👍
I've owned a Commander 114 for 5 years now, love the way it flies and handles. Not the fastest design, but comfortable and roomy. Maintenance has been no issue and if I did need spare parts, they were easily accessible. Anywhere I land it draws a crowd, asking about it...now that's ramp appeal!
I’m seriously considering a 114 purchase, parts is my biggest concern.
I have owned N1506J, a Rockwell 112 TC since 1995. It has been a fine aircraft and a great investment. I am a CFII, and have flown in many different single engine aircraft, and prefer the Rockwell to most.
From what I've seen so far this is my goal plane to have.
I had maintained a 114 and 112 for customers over the years. The 112 is under powered. Both have IMHO weak nose gear. How ironic that they include trailing arm MLG but an almost backwards pointing pogo stick nose gear strut. This is the only airplane that I'd encountered, that required a simulated wind load, using a weight an pulley system, during a landing gear extension check at annual. I don't miss having to work on them now. Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Don't ever leave the fuel selector in "Both" with full tanks if the airplane is parked on even slightly uneven ground. You'll come back to find a substantial fuel puddle under one wing as the fuel transfers to the lower tank, causing that wing to dip even lower on the trailing arm gear and spill out of the vent. Ask me how I know.
I owned a 114TC and found they had good power and performed really well at higher altitudes. They do leak if the fuel selector is left on both, personal experience. But they do have hardened jack point on the wings and I never felt they were remotely hard to work on and if you ever get a look at the wing spare you'll see they are military grade. Also a good shimmy dampener and correctly inflated front tire usually solved most of the noise gear issues. All in all and excellent AC, with huge back seat room and two doors. Loved it and wish I still had it. They would have had a winner if they had put a 310 HP TC in it from the get go. Just needed more power.
😊😊😊😊
😅😢😅😢😅😊😮😮😅😊😅😢😅😮😅😢😮😢😅😊😊😊😊
@@AUCTIONEER816dd😅$$#@AUCTIONEER816 /😮.😅 , ==×№##$$$$$$#$#🎉🎉'😅●😅$😊😊gd□fd$÷÷!○3😮○+№@#####$$#####$$$##ddDDdDDDDZzDszRddDfDraseee÷ee😊$÷№==÷@@😅@😮$$$😢w😮😊😅#dddd●#ddddeq😅😮aqwdd😅qw😮FLORIDA sdf😅wq😮😅😊
So you’re saying don’t get a 114? I only ask because my mechanic said not to get a 112 local to me. So figured get the 114. But let me know if it’s one that I should stay away from. I’m west coast as well.
I am half owner of a vastly upgraded 112A. Absolutely wonderful aircraft! Rock steady, easy to fly, and very comfortable. We will keep this one for a couple of years before we find a bargain on a 114.
I’ve owned a ‘76 114 for 8 years. It’s a great family plane that hauls the load (4x200 lb occupants is a tall order for most 4 seat GA aircraft). Mine cruises at 145 kts true.
I've always thought a TSIO-540 Lyc would've been a much better motor for the 114.
Or, a small Garrett turboprop - 450-500shp.
I like how acft owners use “True” to make it sound like their plane is faster, such a joke. All the brown nose magazine editors do the same nonsense in their articles.
@@tropicthndr True airspeed is the speed of the aircraft relative to the air mass through which it is flying. It’s a technical calculation which incorporates air pressure, temperature, and altitude. It’s important for flight planning and it’s what ATC wants to know. It’s a more accurate way of measuring airspeed.
@@tropicthndr you prefer the much less accurate gps speed?
My cousin ted has a 114 commander, while not the fastest, its roominess and ramp appeal alone are easily worth the asking price..
Just got mine in for a service after owning it for 2 years. It’s a great plane. Can’t wait to invest in it and update it.
I was Lucky enough to fly for many hours in the Rockwell back in the mid 70's working out of Long beach,Ca early in my flying career as a Demonstration pilot (Salesman).. I met and talked with Bob Hoover in his shrike commander and was given lots of info on this 112 - 114 design.
If memory serves (Please do the math ha ha) the FAA wanted the General aviation light aircraft built to a different standard I believe it was part 23? After a few years FAA dropped that requirement but that's what brought on the "T" Tail piper line(Lance Arrow etc.) Beach craft skipper and a few others.
Of course the Rockwell had a cruciform tail what this configuration meant was that selecting flaps all the way through full would result in very little pitch change on approach as putting horizontal tail assembly higher kept it out of main wing configuration changes from flap deployment.
Part 23 meant that the Rockwell 112 was a little heavier and they made the cabin wider so it was, since it used the same engine as it competitors, naturally a little slower (maybe 5 knots)
I have to say I loved all of the flight characteristics of this plane in all the hours I put in them.
I was told that the 114 was to start off with the 260hp Lyc but there were plans to stretch the plane and upgrade to 300hp same engine but I never saw that.
I had a great deal of respect for the original North American aviation company as my Grand father was an experimental design engineer with them and was involved in development of the B25,Mustang and Sabre.
AS a boy I would hang on the fence at Mines Field (Now LAX) and wait for my Grandfather to get off work.
I never considered this airplane a failure it was unique,sturdy and a real eye catcher on the ramp.
Merry Christmas hope this was useful information
It became law that any new light airplane design built after Part 23 was adopted (around 1965) had to be built to Part 23 standards. The first airplane certificated under Part 23 was the Cessna Cardinal. Part 23 has never been dropped. In fact, it was revised and now we are on the second edition.
As the Commander 114 bounced around to different manufacturers, there was a Model 115 introduced that had a Lycoming TIO 540 with at least 300 hp.
Very nice video Dwayne. We have been a Commander owner for ten years ( s/n 27 straight 112 ) and in spite of it being a bit anemic, it is a wonderful aircraft to own and fly and no more difficult than any other brand to find parts for or maintain.
In the early 2000's, I looked into buying a 115. As one who is 6'5" and 250 lb it looked to be the perfect plane for me.
While in Oklahoma City visiting in-laws, I looped by the Wiley Post airport and got a good close look at the 114/115 aircraft.
Even though I could swing buying one, I could not afford hanger and maintenance. So I took my CP-ASEL-IA and kept flying as a volunteer with the CAP.
Yep … you “nailed” it: “hangar and maintenance.” That’s what keeps me from buying what is arguably the most beautiful single engine aircraft ever produced.
How much is that?
@@flitetymwhat makes them more expensive than other planes when it comes to hangar costs?
I've seen some other comments saying it's super easy to find parts for these, too. Is that not really true?
I loved our commander. It definitely wasn’t the fastest, but it was comfortable and solid. I flew it for 16 years. Thanks for the credit @6:46
114? If so would you get one again or is it a wallet drainer?
@@RaceMentally I really don’t think it’s a wallet drainer. If a bigger engine was available, and parts wasn’t a concern, I would absolutely get another one.
@@mark6121 the 114 engine not enough? Are parts availability a concern?
@@RaceMentally We had the turbo version and it was good, but I feel like it was a little underpowered compared to other airplanes.
At the time, major parts was a concern. It may be different now but I’m not sure. We sold it in 2016
@@mark6121 well I’m sending logs over to my mechanic on one today. What did that thing sell for in 2016?
I have over 200 hours in the 114b. I used to rent it out of a school that sub-leased from a company that did not fly it much to justify the cost. Loved the aircraft. Very well equipped, roomy for sure. Speed was okay, it could have been better. Flying characteristic were good and landing were great with the trail link landing gear.
How were costs? My mechanic said no to a 112 and said these planes like to use money when worked on. Any insight ?
I took an introductory flight in a 114 back in the 1980s. What I remember is (1) the top of the instrument panel was lower than usual, providing great visibility forward, (2) the cruising speed was somewhat less than other retractables of the similar power, and (3) puling power off on final with gear and flaps out caused the plane to descend like a rock (so quickly added power).
In the mid 1970's I worked on an early 112 as an A&P IA. The plane seamed to only have straight tubing and fittings to make turns. During an annual inspection I found a loose bolt on the rear main gear pivot assembly. It took two mirrors and two flash lights to see the nut. It took a couple extensions, u joints, and a breaker bar to reach the nut. Also needed a pair of Snap On mechanical to hold it all in place.
I always liked the look and design of the Commander and always wanted to fly one, but there were none to rent at all the airports, big and small, that I flew out of over the years.
In the mid 90’s i rented and flew VH-SLN a 114 featured in this video. I love the Commander design and comfort. Came close to buying SLN but then Cirrus came to market. Now fly an SR22 G5 but i think a 114TC beats it for executive ramp appeal. Would seriously consider a Commander with a Continental IO550 310 HP (if it existed).
It’s called a Super commander with an io-580 from Aerodyme. That’s the real Commander, the way it should have been built.
👍🏼
I flew SLN as an instructor in the late 70s - did quite a number constant speed /retractable endorsements in that aircraft, and instrument training etc.
Nice aeroplane, but DEFINITELY not the hottest performer.
Where was SLN in the video? I missed it.
Edit: disregard, found at at 13:45.
However, I recalled it as a 112A. I just looked at my logbook which confirms my memory, flew it multiple times throughout 1979 and also most of 1980 at Gil Layt’s, and it’s listed in my logbook as an R-112A, so was it upgraded (bigger engine) or perhaps the rego was transferred to a complete new airframe?
Being a mechanic who has vast experience with these things, i’m not a fan of the video. It’s very informational - that is for sure. But, some of the more subjective opinions are way out of left field. I find it surprising when they creator referred to the landing gear and fuel systems as “well thought out”. I appreciate the effort, and it’s a great video, but many of the small things are off putting and show that the video is little more than a mini-doc citing forum posts and the POH.
I passed my private pilot check ride at Wiley Post airport, Bethany, OK former home of Commander. Buildings are all still there.
Flew 112, 112TC and the 114. The tc was good. The 114 was awesome. The 112 was under powered and terrible at high altitude. 114 is great for people who are cramped. It’s a great plane.
Amazing mismanagement of issues being resolved with proper marketing damage control of a unique quality airplane ! Thanks
I was lucky enough to log few hours on 112, compare with Cherokee & C172, I personally found her more decent & refine to fly, probably betta than TB10 if not as roomy.
I was hired to test fly the aircraft to find out why it waggled its tail so badly ( worse than a V tail Bonanza) in any kind of turbulence or disturbed air. Our findings were the vertical fin from the horizontal stabilizer down is ineffective. So if you look at it there's very little vertical fin left to keep the plane flying straight.
ZAP59 - Maybe some Top of Cabin VG's (Vortex Generators) would pull some air down to the Root of the Vertical Stabilizer, maybe not, but seems worth a test! Might require 2 Rows, to really put enough Energy down there!
@@robertweekley5926 VG's don't work that way sorry.....
Wait a minute; just a minute here: are you saying that the vertical fin (stabilizer) isn't "effective from the horizontal stab' to the fuselage"? How could that be...the aircraft would never a) maintain stable, low-speed directional control and b) attain AW certification?! Please explain this, if you would? Note that the Germans in WWII "extended" the tail of the Fw190D's due to similar stability problems (albeit in a combat aircraft) but the AC11 Commander has substantial fin surface area so this idea of an ineffective vertical fin is puzzling. Thx!
@@glennandrews7689 all that's passing by the vertical fin under the horizontal stabilizer is Disturbed air. yarn and cameras don't lie.
@@Avonhoe901 yes
I’ve flown one or two Commanders, they’re good little airplanes but I could not wait to get back into my Comanche. The Commander managed to feel small inside despite being big and I don’t think it’s quite as beautiful ad you say it is!
Always liked the look of the Commander. I flew a Mooney 201 from 1982 to 1998. On the same 200HP Lycoming engine as on the 112, the Mooney would fly much faster on 10gph and I'd use 160Kt as a general block-to-block airspeed (in theory the 201 was named for its top airspeed in mph, but my aircraft would probably do in the high-190's flat out). Not a great load-hauler but still a service ceiling of over 18,000ft. Gross was 2,740lb and it would carry 6+ hours of fuel. The Mooney's bigger brother back then was the 231 (turbocharged engine had issues, finally fixed years later with the wonderful 252) and gross weight was bumped up to 2,900lb with no airframe changes but a slightly higher stall speed. The little 201 was built like a tank, with a one-piece spar and rollcage around the cockpit.
So in my view the Commander was good-looking but couldn't compete with the competition in key areas. I wish Roy LoPresti, the genius behind finding all those Mooney speed increases that resulted in the 201, had also been hired to do his magic on the Commander.
EDIT: Oh, and the Mooney sat nose-high on its gear. You do NOT want to land nosegear first, or if uncorrected it will begin to pogo up and down into the air, eventually collapsing the nosegear. But easy to avoid; just haul back, say "Whoah!" and touch down on the mains first. The Commander would probably be a peach to land with its trailing-link gear.
My only low wing piston hours were on an Arrow II and a 114 (102 and 15hrs). A few decades since I flew the 114. If memory serves me right it, it was considerably slippier on approach, compared to the Arrow.
In Australia I went to pick up a brand new Rockwell 112 VH-DDY. I was a passenger. It was a reward gift for a young man who had finished high school. It was the sexiest aeroplane I’d ever seen. Interior was beautiful. I was 19, the year was 1974.
A plane as a reward for finishing high school? That's a wealthy family
In the seventies... I always thought this was one of the sexiest singles of that era....It had that military look and stance...it's a shame it didn't sell well...I would love to own one even today.....
I have no PPL, but if I had and some money, I'd by a 114. A great looking airplane!
I always thought the Commander was the best looking single engine aircraft, ever. I very much wanted a low time 114B, and was seriously considering selling a Maule 235 (amazing and very capable airplane ), and Cherokee 180 I owned at the time. A CFI, aa couple friends, and an A&P mechanic all advised against it; probably because of supposed or real airframe issues. Anyway, my grand dream never got off the ground.
There's something about that stout tail that just works.
The hubris exhibited by Rockwell was palpable at the start, and contributed to its eventual failure. One of my friends in the Cessna Engineering department was lured to work at Rockwell in 1968, and he reported back that the Rockwell office had a large sign "Orville and Wilbur are alive and well, designing airplanes in Wichita." Well, at least the Wichita-designed airplanes had a cruise speed commensurate with their engine size, and an eye for detail that kept ADs at bay . . The Rockwells, when they finally appeared, were about as over-hyped as the 2-decades-earlier Ford failure (Edsel).
...A 6 seaters version, or original design with 285 or 290 HP would`ve been a best seller back in those days, its got beautiful lines, i think
Worst part of owning a Commander 114 is the hydraulic pump breaks a lot, is expensive to replace, and you can only get a rebuilt one. 7 years of ownership and I’m on #3.
What’s considered expensive?
I have a little time in a 114 and I loved the roominess of the cabin. It was a solid and stable airplane to fly.
I have the yoke from one of those sitting on my desk.
Repaired a 112 that had a gear up landing. The only damage to the fuselage was the two cabin entrance steps and the nose gear doors.
Im pretty sure the 114 didnt have garmin anything when it launched.
Good video about a great aircraft not often covered, but that annoying bouncing screen transition needs to go. Just because your software offers stupid features doesn't obligate you to use them.
I had one in my hangar in Everett WA for at least 5 years. I did annuals on it after I got my IA until the owner traded it.
YES Good explaining here and all details Right here on the Money I enjoyed this video !! Thanks for some very clear words ! Keep up the Good work !! 😊😊
My dad had a 114 tail #N 4829W. Had a very nice interior. He said it flew like a rock. It was slow and the door had a closing glitch otherwise fondly remembered.
Great plane, very comfortable. Had some serious airframe issues in the past. It is slow for the power and never really caught on.
Almost purchased one until I discovered the lack of parts support unfortunately. Cool airplane and the trailing link landing gear was great, but wish it had more power.
7 Year owner for a Commander 114 one of the best single engine aircraft ever built with a great safety record too, your video on the Commander was great but had many errors on the Commander 112/114 and I will respond in more detail on your errors later. The 114 is one of the best ever built all around aircraft for performance, cabin room, speed, loading, handling etc
2:45 I OWNED THAT PLANE!!! VH-PJO. Man I loved that plane. 112b
Thank you!!! I love the Commander and I've literally been waiting for this video as you lol... Your channel is dope and my favorite especially when it comes to being informed 🔥🔥🔥💪🏾💪🏾💪🏾
😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
Why the arm and fire emojis?
@@guaporeturns9472 it means the video is fire/dope and I strongly support him.
@@willthompson83 I agree
Commander is a good plane just slow for the fuel burn. But some are willing to trade comfort (cabin width) for speed and that's fine. Personally I'd prefer an old 4 seat bonanza. Same fuel burn, still plenty of room, and 25 kts faster.
I thought the 114 was boss til this video. I really want one of these 115s 😮
I flew the 112 and the 114. I enjoyed both. The 112 did blow a gasket on me and dumped all the hydraulic fluid overboard. Also the 112 had a little too much elevator authority. The cabins were definitely roomy. I did move on later to planes with a little more speed.
The slide transitions are distracting from the excellent content.
Terrible transitions. Almost threw my phone.
Sounds a bit like the Cessna Cardinal. Only 150HP in the early models and that tarnished the line forever. My 200HP Cardinal RG is a 48" wide cabin with an enormous CG range and legroom. Plus 140 knots at about 9GPH. Add a 1016 useful load and it still was a very limited run. Sometimes even a great plane just doesn't really make it.
I owned a 1993 114B for about 9 years... Biggest problem was poor management by Commander Aircraft Company. The aircraft is out of production, and has been for many years.....
I feel sorry for anyone who has to replace the hydraulic pump.
Worst part I have ever replaced.
Most all aircraft could do with an upgrade in the basic engine design horsepower and torque, I don't know why they never post torque figures at different RPMs but torque is required whenever you're trying to screw a propeller through any kind of a fluid whether it be the atmosphere or the water. You can't make a proper decision without knowing those numbers. They are very informative. However like many aircraft, a bit more engine is always helpful. Aircraft with more engine is easier to fly. And there is no reason why you can't design an engine that will run I respectable speed, a comfortable ride, and still use a comfortable amount of fuel to get you where you need to go. Frankly I think the commander was probably the best looking airplane of its type. It just needed about another 50 to 75 horsepower. And probably another 40 to 70 foot pounds of torque.
The most beautiful single GA aircraft outside of the single commanche
My friend George Regis owned N1332J. Sadly, he and the plane both perished in a crash on Mt Hood. RIP Geo.
Absolutely Not a Failure! Totally Bitchin aircraft 🤙
Great, informative video, I saw one of these recently and want sure what it was - I now know!
Not a fan of the bouncy picture transitions though, they make my eyes go funny.
I flew the 112 it was nice, under power it wasn't the easiest airplane to work on. They'd try to get the company going again but the owner died unexpectedly Back in the 90
One of the best family cruisers out there 🙂
It’s a nice looking airplane with the cruciform tail and tall gear.
Speed is everything in aviation. It's the whole point of flying vs driving.
Doesn't seem like a failure to me. Everything I read from owners they all seem to love and respect the plane.
I'm one who gladly gives up some speed for good handling qualities. This was a really nice flying airplane. Begged you to at least roll it, if not more!
Reminds me of the Trinifad and Tobago
Aways loved this plane and still one of my favorites. If was rich Id look in to buying one of these. Then hot rod it with up grades! 😎
Rockwell Commander shares ramp beauty honors with the Bellanca Viking
I really liked how it look's but really needed more power .
Beautiful Susan Oliver flew one across the Atlantic...by herself. She also acted and directed and had THE most beautiful blue eyes God ever made.
Perhaps, but I've always thought these were very pretty airplanes..!
Good morning to all from SE Louisiana 12 Sep 22.
The Rockwell Commander failed in the marketplace, but that doesn't mean they were bad or unsafe airplanes. The 112, 112A and 112TC were underpowered, especiall the first two, because Rockwell was trying to compete with all of the other 200 HP normally aspirATED singles from Cessna, Mooney, Piper and Beechcraft. But The 114 and especialy the 115 were great airplanes with plenty of performance and load carrying ability , if not absolutely the fastest option out there. Hel, wh buy a 112 tha only does about 137 knots in cruise when yo can by a Mooney M20C that'll scootalong at155 knot on 20 horsepower less and burn a paltry 8.5 gallons per hours up high.
Ultimately I believe Rockwell pulled the plug on the Commander single-engine line because:
1) They were built to withstand larger gust loads much higher than their coompetion: 50 feet per second rather than 30 which i standard throughout most light aircraft. . That made them safer but also made them heavier and thus more expensive to manufacture than their competition;
2) If you are looking for the macro reasson why Rockwell pulled the plug on the Commander single-engine line, Rockwell could make way more $$$ selling one of their twin-engine Commander series of piston and turboprop twins and twin jets than they ever could competing near the bottom of the light aircraft market selling piston bug smashers;
3) Sure, there were some problematic ADs through the years. But that's true of almost every light aircraft design ever built. Aircraft ownership is expensive, man! Especially for complex singles or twins with retractable gear and constant speed propellor(s)!!
Please do a video on Socata TB range!
Any speed mods available for this bird? Man that horizontal stabilizer looks proportionately small. 2 doors on a low wing is rare and best.
I can't think of a Rockwell design that isn't super airplane sexy, my fav is the Aero Commander, especially the earlier models with the augmented exhaust GIO-480's.
Ive been flying some 114B and it can easily be compared to a cadillac of the skies compared to a pinto, wich would be the piper cherokee 150... both has their charms. However, with the commander, there's a lot of bells and whistles, like the strange T-tail, retractable gears and constant speed prop, but to what avail? It's not very fast, the engine is not THAT powerful and it's not preassurized nor does it have a turbo. It's big heavy and full of features, but prettly slow (compared to mooneys) and requires a lot more work before you can fly it compare to that cherokee. If you love flying, then this beast may be not for you, but if you like the features and would not spend more time doing daily checks, well.. maybe this is the right type for you.
The only commander worth owning is the super commander from Aerodyme corp. Wing spar and weak tail all fixed and strengthened, along with a well deserved iO-580. After all that Still cheaper than the Pipistrel Panthera everyone wants now.
Thank you
N1360J has been for sale on &off for years.
"53-knots to 50 miles per hour at 3:27"
Can we stay with the same unit of measurement for easy comparison?
Aero Commander original bought and built the Meyers 200D. Far faster and safer than the 112 and 114 that they decided to build later.
I don't know that a tail waggle in turbulence is a downside. It's been my experience that planes which wag their tails in turbulence tend to NOT jolt up and down as much.
lovely informative video but the effect when you switch between pictures is quite annoying and nauseating. Do consider something smoother, less abrupt and visually aggressive.
There are a lot of people who have no idea what they are talking about. For instance, stating the 112 is under powered. Or slow. LOL. they are all just repeating what someone spread long ago and it is so untrue. All you have to do is look at the numbers. Compare to say a 172, which is the most produced plane in existence everyone loves. The 112a out performs it in every way. Yet you never hear someone say the 172 is a dog. So how is it a plane that has performance beyond the 172 and beyond many popular piper models, is considered a dog when it out performs them on all levels. ? it is because when the 112 was created It was designed for the US air force, who wanted a cheaper trainer with less performance to have more of them. . This Small trainer by design and purpose to save money did not perform as well as other air force trainers. So Air force pilot instructors began spreading bad reviews to kill the program so they can keep faster trainers. Granted the 112 outperformed many popular loved Civil planes for certain, and still does. But it did not out perform other military prop trainers, the instructors wanted to keep in production and not see replaced with 112's. The 112 was designed with double doors, and a high stabilator per the military requirements. Two doors was to meet non ejection seat requirements allowing BOTH pilots to bail out, from both sides in absence of a ejection system, and stabilator to also prevents pilots who bail out from hitting a elevator on the way out. The 112 Is for absolute fact according to 50 years of field in use data, the best plane you will ever own for safety. No plane comes close to its safety record and fatality that is nearly ZERO over 50 yrs. Not even a ballistic parachute Sirus comes close. There is no problem with gear. The gear was made to military specs far in excess of civil rules. The step pedestals actually act as a backup ground Seperators to prevent any belly slide in the event of a main gear failure. belly slides on hard surface cause sparks and fuel fires. The pegs are designed with an alloy to suppress sparks. Many civil craft makers copied it, including piper. ALL the gear is designed that the min height in event of pneumatic piston collapse is enough to still land safe from damage. Also, ALL planes with retractable gear are subject to gear failure to release. In the event of no nose gear release, the spinner acts as a slide. This is why is not recommended to do a nose gear failure to release landing on dirt, EVER. It will dig in and flip the plane. However, a nose gear failure to release with main gear release is preferred to land on a runway, because the spinner as slide peg prevents a disastrous landing . If a hard runway landing cant be done in the event of a nose gear release failure, then a full gear up landing on a runway is preferred also because the step pegs will slide and keep the belly off the runway, there is far more control and less damage. A gear up landing in dirt will cause the step pegs to dig in the dirt and rip out the under belly. The 112 is a beautiful plane with a safety record the far exceeds any civil plane ever made. Nothing compares to its almost death free accident history. nothing. The plan did not fail, the company failed. I own one and There are things in these planes nearly every aerospace engineer I talked to has no idea what they are or for. But I do, there are design feature things in this plane you will never see in any civil GA plane like piper. Cessna. etc. They simply can't afford to engineer them into their planes. If any plane deserves to go back into production, the 112 does. It has saved countless lives for its safety record.
This is the first video I've watched on your channel. I love the Commander singles. And your narration is excellent. However the video aspect of your presentation is, in a word, annoying. You selected your transitions to be flashing, shaky, bouncy . . . all very irritating. I recommend simple cut or dissolve transitions from one video sequence to another. Let me know in your reply to my comment. No more Dwayne's Aviation until I hear back from you.
I highly appreciate your input.. I've gotten this complain from other viewers too, I'll effect the changes....
It is beautifull
It failed because it was the slowest airplane, by far, in its class.
If it had 100 hp more it'd be a great plane
Great lokin plane for sure but it had low power at that time . I think that might have been a easy dix . Way not a turboprop motor people are putting them in everything these days .
Retired pilot here... The single-engine Commanders are too damn heavy. That's why A-36 Bonanzas kick their ass all day long. Period. The end.
Flew a 112 Part 135 1979. By far the worst SE retract I've flown in 17,000 hours. Couldn't fly 4 adults, cheap plastic interior, difficult to start - tore up a Bendix. Forgot to set flaps for takeoff once and almost snagged a fence.
17,000 hours and you have trouble starting an 0-360? IF so, there was something wrong with that engine.
Flooded on a dime as I recall.@@scottutube1
A piper archer 3 will not cruise at 130kts more like 110kts, the commander is much faster
GA is stuck in a Wright era paradigm
The title of the video is why the commander failed. This is a 15 minute video and at 13:40 they actually start to tell you why and it's basically it was slow, heavy and there were some cracks. You have to sit through a 13 minute advertisement with every statistic about the airplane before he gets to the point. About 5% of the video was actually about the subject described in the title. The rest is marketing bumf.
At 4:24 you post a photo of the WRONG aircraft. That is Beech Sierra. When you do that, you lose the trust and respect of your audience. Everything else else you say is then suspect.
That's an obvious mistake, I'm sorry about that... Sometimes the time consuming research and video editing gets draining, at times like making obvious mistake in editing becomes easy 😭😭
@@Dwaynesaviation ...and that's not Cessna's original Citation. That's a CJ3.
IMHO the 112 is slightly underpowered for a four seater.
No bad flying/handling characteristics after you just mention side slip and elevator authority lacking. Poor xwind control and then great trainer in the same breath. Talk about flight controls and structures having cracks and then then state the problems are over blown. Are you even a pilot, do you do any first hand research besides Wikipedia and forums?
Clearly he doesn't. He stated that these were the fastest s/e airplanes manufactured by "Rockwell". While this may be technically true the 112/114 design superseded the Aero Commander 200 D, which was faster.
Failure meaning desirable ?
9/13/2022
Why do you say “just over 1100 pounds?” That could mean 1400 pounds. Leave vague terms out of your communications. Try saying for example “1,100 pounds.”