Looking for a very nice (uk/euro) Commander 114B
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SDB73, I have gone down the ownership route that you are looking at but, for reasons of ease of servicing/parts availability, have gone down through the Piper family of aircraft (Cherokee 140/Archer/Arrow III/Cherokee 6/Saratoga, so have a few opinions that you may or may not agree with. Rather than attempting to write them all out, do either drop me an email and we can either speak on the phone, meet for a coffee or go for a fly in my current machine, the Saratoga.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
114B v TB v Saratoga
SDB73
A guy I taught to fly back in '03 bought a 114B about 6 months after getting his PPL. I did his conversion/differences training, then a NQ and IMCr on it. We would initially go with him on business trips throughout the UK and into N Europe and still do occasionally, or if the aircraft needs positioned, lots of this in IMC and no problems. I've got a few hundred hours on it, about half as many on a turbo-Saratoga and a couple of hours (admittedly many years ago) on a TB21.
The Commander is far and away my favourite aircraft out of the three (very personal and subjective I know). Aesthetically, I love it, it's a great looking aeroplane, the newer TB's are quite nice, but the Saratoga's not really very pretty. While the Piper and TB are both very capable aircraft, probably more so than the Commander actually, it's the nicest to fly. I found front seat legroom limited in the Saratoga, IIRC by the back of the row 2 club seating, then there's the hassle of the one door only issue, the main thing I remember about the TB21 was it being very heavy in roll, although IO may tell us that's not the case now.
If you're reasonably competent, getting to grips with a 114B won't be a problem. If you can accept that unlike the Piper and TB, factory support is lacking and some parts can be tricky (and expensive) to source, it would be my choice of the three. The cabin is roomy, front and back and the U/C is the best you'll find. The one I fly emerged totally unscathed from a couple of hundred metres of "off-roading" roughly parallel to a runway a couple of years ago, due to lack of cross wind practice/technique. If anything, I find that it's crosswinds you have to watch a bit with it, POH gives 19kts demonstrated, so it's capable, but you have to actually keep on top of things.
A guy I taught to fly back in '03 bought a 114B about 6 months after getting his PPL. I did his conversion/differences training, then a NQ and IMCr on it. We would initially go with him on business trips throughout the UK and into N Europe and still do occasionally, or if the aircraft needs positioned, lots of this in IMC and no problems. I've got a few hundred hours on it, about half as many on a turbo-Saratoga and a couple of hours (admittedly many years ago) on a TB21.
The Commander is far and away my favourite aircraft out of the three (very personal and subjective I know). Aesthetically, I love it, it's a great looking aeroplane, the newer TB's are quite nice, but the Saratoga's not really very pretty. While the Piper and TB are both very capable aircraft, probably more so than the Commander actually, it's the nicest to fly. I found front seat legroom limited in the Saratoga, IIRC by the back of the row 2 club seating, then there's the hassle of the one door only issue, the main thing I remember about the TB21 was it being very heavy in roll, although IO may tell us that's not the case now.
If you're reasonably competent, getting to grips with a 114B won't be a problem. If you can accept that unlike the Piper and TB, factory support is lacking and some parts can be tricky (and expensive) to source, it would be my choice of the three. The cabin is roomy, front and back and the U/C is the best you'll find. The one I fly emerged totally unscathed from a couple of hundred metres of "off-roading" roughly parallel to a runway a couple of years ago, due to lack of cross wind practice/technique. If anything, I find that it's crosswinds you have to watch a bit with it, POH gives 19kts demonstrated, so it's capable, but you have to actually keep on top of things.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SDB73,
A few thoughts on this interesting discussion.
Firstly, in pilot forum world, it's easy to sometimes over-obsess with nuances that don't have that much practical impact on ownership. When it comes to maintenance, the randomness of experience in an individual aircraft (IMHO) outweighs much of the attempts at identifying the "least maintenance intensive" Type overall. You could convince yourself that Type A was better in this respect than Type B, fine. But if you bought a 3rd quartile example of Type A, you could find it much worse than a 2nd quartile example of Type B. I think the most important factor is the specific aircraft you are buying. The tempation to get a lot of airplane for you money is always there. In reality, it can be a good temptation to sucumb to if you are prepared for the expense. Otherwise, I think the easiest mistake to make is to underspend on the pre-purchase inspection. Get someone you really trust to do a really extensive inspection. Many owners will be convinced they are maintaining their aircraft "squawk free/blank chequebook". Some will be lying and some will be kidding themselves. Few will actually be doing as they claim!
But, whatever inspection you do and however nice the airplane, budget for high costs in the first year or two of ownership. Well above the average that owners will tell you it costs to maintain. It's just how airplane ownership works. Expect to spend a huge amount and be pleasantly surprised, it's much better than vice-versa.....
Secondly, on training and type handling differences. I think the most important thing is that you seem concerned about safety and want to be trained properly. IMHO, all light aircraft fly pretty much the same. I am with IO540 on this. Everyone says type X is a "stable instrument platform". Have you ever read an aircraft review of anything heavier than a C150 that didn't say that? There is no material difference in transitioning from the aircraft you've flown to any non-pressurised single. I don't see your total experience being very significant. Be prepared to do whatever it takes to convince a reputable instructor he would let you fly his family in your airplane. If this takes 20hrs or 50hrs, who cares? It's irrelevant relative to the transaction costs of buying an airplane and then selling it a few years later because it was a transitional type you bought to learn on. People with 200hrs do Airbus and Boeing Type Ratings. Just forget the old school view that you should slowly crawl your way up from a C150 to some "hot ship" which is still only a light single after all - but do not expect differences training to be 2hrs. It could be 20hrs. It's a very good investment.....
Finally, on types, an obvious candidate would be the Cirrus. There are thousands out there, so parts and maintenance a non-issue. I know there is a temptation from those who own types that sold 20-50/yr whilst the Cirrus was selling a thousand airplanes per year, to assume Cirrus buyers were morons deluded by clever marketing. Maybe a few were, but the majority I've met were just as discerning and astute as the non-Cirrus owners, and the numbers must indicate something about the attractiveness of the type.
brgds
421C
A few thoughts on this interesting discussion.
Firstly, in pilot forum world, it's easy to sometimes over-obsess with nuances that don't have that much practical impact on ownership. When it comes to maintenance, the randomness of experience in an individual aircraft (IMHO) outweighs much of the attempts at identifying the "least maintenance intensive" Type overall. You could convince yourself that Type A was better in this respect than Type B, fine. But if you bought a 3rd quartile example of Type A, you could find it much worse than a 2nd quartile example of Type B. I think the most important factor is the specific aircraft you are buying. The tempation to get a lot of airplane for you money is always there. In reality, it can be a good temptation to sucumb to if you are prepared for the expense. Otherwise, I think the easiest mistake to make is to underspend on the pre-purchase inspection. Get someone you really trust to do a really extensive inspection. Many owners will be convinced they are maintaining their aircraft "squawk free/blank chequebook". Some will be lying and some will be kidding themselves. Few will actually be doing as they claim!
But, whatever inspection you do and however nice the airplane, budget for high costs in the first year or two of ownership. Well above the average that owners will tell you it costs to maintain. It's just how airplane ownership works. Expect to spend a huge amount and be pleasantly surprised, it's much better than vice-versa.....
Secondly, on training and type handling differences. I think the most important thing is that you seem concerned about safety and want to be trained properly. IMHO, all light aircraft fly pretty much the same. I am with IO540 on this. Everyone says type X is a "stable instrument platform". Have you ever read an aircraft review of anything heavier than a C150 that didn't say that? There is no material difference in transitioning from the aircraft you've flown to any non-pressurised single. I don't see your total experience being very significant. Be prepared to do whatever it takes to convince a reputable instructor he would let you fly his family in your airplane. If this takes 20hrs or 50hrs, who cares? It's irrelevant relative to the transaction costs of buying an airplane and then selling it a few years later because it was a transitional type you bought to learn on. People with 200hrs do Airbus and Boeing Type Ratings. Just forget the old school view that you should slowly crawl your way up from a C150 to some "hot ship" which is still only a light single after all - but do not expect differences training to be 2hrs. It could be 20hrs. It's a very good investment.....
Finally, on types, an obvious candidate would be the Cirrus. There are thousands out there, so parts and maintenance a non-issue. I know there is a temptation from those who own types that sold 20-50/yr whilst the Cirrus was selling a thousand airplanes per year, to assume Cirrus buyers were morons deluded by clever marketing. Maybe a few were, but the majority I've met were just as discerning and astute as the non-Cirrus owners, and the numbers must indicate something about the attractiveness of the type.
brgds
421C
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say, the UK GA scene is an incredibly friendly a supportive community, which fantastic. Thank you!
wsmempson, I'll PM you.
IO, the 114B has a yaw damper as standard I believe - certainly all the ones I've looked seriously at, have it.
Interesting point about needing to turn it off before landing - it's an eye opener to me that I wouldn't have even considered that! Would that point have been made in POH? If not, the mere fact that I wouldn't have consered it, is a bit of a concern to me.
golden,
I see what you mean now about the elevator delay. Fair point.
Also, I think the 114B is much improved over the 114, with a completely new 24 volt system, as well as a whole bunch of mechanical improvements. It looks to me as though it has be largely AD free for many years now - aside from the recent elevator spar AD, which most seem to be passing inspection with flying colours - especially the 114Bs.
Congratultions on the Malibu - what a stunning aeroplane. The economic formula for initial outlay vs. ongoing maintenance is an interesting one, highlighted by your experience of similar costs for a new vs. old aeroplane.
mrmum,
Very interesting, and reassuring. Thank you. I agree on the Saratoga legroom (assuming the Lance is the same) in the club seating configuration - but wondered if it was better in a normal three-rows config.
Very interesting, however, was your comment about the TB21 being very heavy in roll. I found the controls of the TB10 I flew uncomfortably stiff in roll. I wouldn't actually call it "heavy", as I quite like a bit of weight behind the controls, but it was actually stiff - meaning it was also "heavy" to release pressure as well as to add it. IO?
Thanks again, guys.
wsmempson, I'll PM you.
IO, the 114B has a yaw damper as standard I believe - certainly all the ones I've looked seriously at, have it.
Interesting point about needing to turn it off before landing - it's an eye opener to me that I wouldn't have even considered that! Would that point have been made in POH? If not, the mere fact that I wouldn't have consered it, is a bit of a concern to me.
golden,
I see what you mean now about the elevator delay. Fair point.
Also, I think the 114B is much improved over the 114, with a completely new 24 volt system, as well as a whole bunch of mechanical improvements. It looks to me as though it has be largely AD free for many years now - aside from the recent elevator spar AD, which most seem to be passing inspection with flying colours - especially the 114Bs.
Congratultions on the Malibu - what a stunning aeroplane. The economic formula for initial outlay vs. ongoing maintenance is an interesting one, highlighted by your experience of similar costs for a new vs. old aeroplane.
mrmum,
Very interesting, and reassuring. Thank you. I agree on the Saratoga legroom (assuming the Lance is the same) in the club seating configuration - but wondered if it was better in a normal three-rows config.
Very interesting, however, was your comment about the TB21 being very heavy in roll. I found the controls of the TB10 I flew uncomfortably stiff in roll. I wouldn't actually call it "heavy", as I quite like a bit of weight behind the controls, but it was actually stiff - meaning it was also "heavy" to release pressure as well as to add it. IO?
Thanks again, guys.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
421C, thanks for a great perspective.
Agree regarding a thorough inspection, and a high initial maintenance cost.
I'm not keen on the Cirrus, although I did consider it, but for a few reasons I prefer the older construction, and Cirruses do seem to fall out the sky quite a bit (although some of them do fall slowly and gracefully of course). I just don't think it's the aircraft for me - all tech, but little soul. Each to their own.
Agree regarding a thorough inspection, and a high initial maintenance cost.
I'm not keen on the Cirrus, although I did consider it, but for a few reasons I prefer the older construction, and Cirruses do seem to fall out the sky quite a bit (although some of them do fall slowly and gracefully of course). I just don't think it's the aircraft for me - all tech, but little soul. Each to their own.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The TB aircraft do feel heavy in roll, compared to say a PA28.
I never thought it was relevant to flight however. It is just something that people comment on. It does not stop you "throwing the plane around" to a fair degree. This is my son flying
In performance terms you need to forget the TB10 as a comparison however. A TB20 has about 2x the range, 2x the rate of climb, probably about 1.7x the operating ceiling, a lot more speed, and a better short field performance.
Regards operating costs, this is strongly geared to the airframe age. I know a man who was running a 1970 C150 for a syndicate. Their Annual was £7000 every time. Mine are under 50% of that (£3000 or so plus VAT, including extras like greasing control linkages) and there has never been any remedial work. Avoiding unscheduled maintenance on the airframe is the biggest maintenance cost saver. Avionics can be expensive; there is more luck involved in that, but again if it is quality stuff it should be mostly OK.
I never thought it was relevant to flight however. It is just something that people comment on. It does not stop you "throwing the plane around" to a fair degree. This is my son flying
In performance terms you need to forget the TB10 as a comparison however. A TB20 has about 2x the range, 2x the rate of climb, probably about 1.7x the operating ceiling, a lot more speed, and a better short field performance.
Regards operating costs, this is strongly geared to the airframe age. I know a man who was running a 1970 C150 for a syndicate. Their Annual was £7000 every time. Mine are under 50% of that (£3000 or so plus VAT, including extras like greasing control linkages) and there has never been any remedial work. Avoiding unscheduled maintenance on the airframe is the biggest maintenance cost saver. Avionics can be expensive; there is more luck involved in that, but again if it is quality stuff it should be mostly OK.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
421C makes some very good points.
I have flown in a TB20, Commander and Cirrus. I would reiterate 421Cs comments; they each are solid instrument platforms and comfortable touring aircraft.
For me part of the equation is whether or not you want glass; a distinguishing feature between the Cirrus and most other similiar aircraft. I am a glass devotee. Perhaps not for the glass screens but the way in which avionics integration has developed in the Cirrus cockpit. For me the ability to display traffic, weather, approach plates, airport plates and airspace on a single screen takes some beating, particularly if you are serious about regular IFR.
421C is also correct in his comments regarding maintenance. Like it or not Cirrus use parts that come straight from current parts bins and, hopefully with the Chinese in charge, they are here to stay. I have owned aircraft that were out of production before and while I accept both Socata and Commander parts are readlily availlable as the aircraft ages that may not continue to be so for ever.
You either love or hate the chute it seems to me. The reality is it might just save your life one day.
On the other hand both Commander's and TB20 represent far better value for money not least because they have hammered the depreciation curve already and, at least to a degree, because they are not "current" models so some people will have fallen out of love with them. You are not going to get a low time Cirrus without digging a bit deeper into your piggy bank.
However before you make a final decision take a look at the Cirrus. It is a very comfortable aircraft (made for big fat Americans) and undoubtedly has many features that from a pilots perspective set it apart from both the Commander and TB20.
As to the transition the absoute key is to find yourself an instructor who really knows the type and has worked with other pilots making a similiar transition. Such a person will tell you within an hour whether you are going to struggle. The majority dont, but it is well worth knowing before hand.
Without doubt if you havent flown all three of these aircraft I would find a way of spending a couple of hours in each - it is such an important decision it is well worth making as informed a decision as you can. If you have flown the other two, but not a Cirrus, you must give the Cirrus a try.
I have flown in a TB20, Commander and Cirrus. I would reiterate 421Cs comments; they each are solid instrument platforms and comfortable touring aircraft.
For me part of the equation is whether or not you want glass; a distinguishing feature between the Cirrus and most other similiar aircraft. I am a glass devotee. Perhaps not for the glass screens but the way in which avionics integration has developed in the Cirrus cockpit. For me the ability to display traffic, weather, approach plates, airport plates and airspace on a single screen takes some beating, particularly if you are serious about regular IFR.
421C is also correct in his comments regarding maintenance. Like it or not Cirrus use parts that come straight from current parts bins and, hopefully with the Chinese in charge, they are here to stay. I have owned aircraft that were out of production before and while I accept both Socata and Commander parts are readlily availlable as the aircraft ages that may not continue to be so for ever.
You either love or hate the chute it seems to me. The reality is it might just save your life one day.
On the other hand both Commander's and TB20 represent far better value for money not least because they have hammered the depreciation curve already and, at least to a degree, because they are not "current" models so some people will have fallen out of love with them. You are not going to get a low time Cirrus without digging a bit deeper into your piggy bank.
However before you make a final decision take a look at the Cirrus. It is a very comfortable aircraft (made for big fat Americans) and undoubtedly has many features that from a pilots perspective set it apart from both the Commander and TB20.
As to the transition the absoute key is to find yourself an instructor who really knows the type and has worked with other pilots making a similiar transition. Such a person will tell you within an hour whether you are going to struggle. The majority dont, but it is well worth knowing before hand.
Without doubt if you havent flown all three of these aircraft I would find a way of spending a couple of hours in each - it is such an important decision it is well worth making as informed a decision as you can. If you have flown the other two, but not a Cirrus, you must give the Cirrus a try.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haha,
You know what. For the last 5 - 6 years, I've promissed myself that when I finally had time to get my license, I would buy a Bonanza, and my life would finally be complete.
But then I sat in one, and was shocked at how cramped they are, both width and height.
They're fast, and look pretty comfy in the back, but they also don't seem to like to get off the ground on anything other than the M1. To be honest, it was one of the biggest let disappointments of my adult life!
You know what. For the last 5 - 6 years, I've promissed myself that when I finally had time to get my license, I would buy a Bonanza, and my life would finally be complete.
But then I sat in one, and was shocked at how cramped they are, both width and height.
They're fast, and look pretty comfy in the back, but they also don't seem to like to get off the ground on anything other than the M1. To be honest, it was one of the biggest let disappointments of my adult life!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I love mine to bits,and yes it gets me places very fast
Actually I have about 100 hours in my friends 114TC. I did not join the debate, others were doing just fine. FWIW, I find there is less room in the Commander than my V tail bonanza. I also find the Commander more sluggish and less responsive than the Beech, but that may be the Turbo lag on his.
Yes I concur with all the points stated in terms of 'stable platform etc etc, however, his drops like a brick if you get the power setting not quite right on final, and the cruise is much slower, however, its what floats your boat as they say.
Anyway best of luck in whatever you chose
Actually I have about 100 hours in my friends 114TC. I did not join the debate, others were doing just fine. FWIW, I find there is less room in the Commander than my V tail bonanza. I also find the Commander more sluggish and less responsive than the Beech, but that may be the Turbo lag on his.
Yes I concur with all the points stated in terms of 'stable platform etc etc, however, his drops like a brick if you get the power setting not quite right on final, and the cruise is much slower, however, its what floats your boat as they say.
Anyway best of luck in whatever you chose
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi maxred,
Yeah, the Beech lineup always seem to be the classiest of the light singles and twins. And let's be honest, if I did end up with a Bonanza, I wouldn't exactly consider it a chore to fly it!!!
I think all round it's a more capable aeroplane than the 114B, but it's supposed to be. I just felt it was a bit narrow at the front. It was one of the latest model. It was the UK factory demonstrator. Are the older ones more roomy?
Yeah, the Beech lineup always seem to be the classiest of the light singles and twins. And let's be honest, if I did end up with a Bonanza, I wouldn't exactly consider it a chore to fly it!!!
I think all round it's a more capable aeroplane than the 114B, but it's supposed to be. I just felt it was a bit narrow at the front. It was one of the latest model. It was the UK factory demonstrator. Are the older ones more roomy?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, they may be. I do not have the specs in front of me, but from the original design, they have been lengthened and modified. I do recall some of the 33's were tight, however, internal space has never seemed an issue before to potential buyers.
I have limited experience in the straight tails, my pleasure are the v tails, however, I will agree the two entry doors on the Commander are a benefit.
If interesed I can get more info on the Beech range for you and pm you.
I have limited experience in the straight tails, my pleasure are the v tails, however, I will agree the two entry doors on the Commander are a benefit.
If interesed I can get more info on the Beech range for you and pm you.
Anytime a low time PPL ask me what to buy as his first "travelling machine", I tell them to buy a 1973 to 1984 Cessna 182. It is simple, reliable, comfortable, roomy, supportable, insurable, and on an average trip when you are setting the parking brake on a 114 the C 182 will be calling for joining instructions. If it has to be low wing then buy a Piper Dakota, which is shares the same attributes of the C182 except it has a noticeably smaller cabin.
I think most first time buyers greatly underestimate the difficulty and cost in maintaining orphan low production number types., and retractable gear will double your insurance premium
I think most first time buyers greatly underestimate the difficulty and cost in maintaining orphan low production number types., and retractable gear will double your insurance premium
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
been there
hi sb73
did exactly what you plan to do.
bought a 98 114tc and picked it up the day after i got my ppl. mine is with the whole garmin stack. did my faa ir on it.
recon 25 hrs for conversion.. it really is faster and more complex then your cessna.
i ended up not going tohrough asg for lack of commercial sense and it being impractical locationwise. yes my techs had a learning curve but the factory which is still open today and aerodyme and the owners forum are briljant.
maintenance has been expensive but most of it was due to the fact that it had sat outside for over a year after a crankshaft ad.
the turbo is also very sensitive on proper engine management.
... in all .. a 114b should be fantastic and 125k should by you a nice one. preferably without ac. the ones for sale now in europe are way to expensive.
that said john fergusson has his for sale and he is an active forum member. heshould know everything about these planes.
and otherwise drop a call to judi anderson. she knows every commander in the world.
did exactly what you plan to do.
bought a 98 114tc and picked it up the day after i got my ppl. mine is with the whole garmin stack. did my faa ir on it.
recon 25 hrs for conversion.. it really is faster and more complex then your cessna.
i ended up not going tohrough asg for lack of commercial sense and it being impractical locationwise. yes my techs had a learning curve but the factory which is still open today and aerodyme and the owners forum are briljant.
maintenance has been expensive but most of it was due to the fact that it had sat outside for over a year after a crankshaft ad.
the turbo is also very sensitive on proper engine management.
... in all .. a 114b should be fantastic and 125k should by you a nice one. preferably without ac. the ones for sale now in europe are way to expensive.
that said john fergusson has his for sale and he is an active forum member. heshould know everything about these planes.
and otherwise drop a call to judi anderson. she knows every commander in the world.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go again Everybody recommending their favourite plane
I think that is because the Commander (and the TB20) have always had a great deal of style. It's a great looking plane and is generally well made - especially compared to anything from Piper. The 2-door layout is super passenger-friendly. Only the agricultural C182 beats it on ease of access, but getting into a combine harvester should be easier still.
In the 1960s and 1970s, people did not care about style and stuff like that. A new Vauxhall Viva would turn heads as you drove it down the street. In those days, anything sold well no matter how crap it was, and anyway GA was having a massive boom, with sales about 10x higher than today.
Then things changed, people got richer, their expectations went up, but the GA product lineup didn't change for many years (until Cirrus came along).
If you look at the average airfield contents today, a Commander and a TB20 would stand out way above the rest in style.
Obviously people still buy Cessnas for a particular mission profile, especially the 182, and if you are broke then you have to go for an old Piper or an old Cessna anyway, but anybody with a decent budget would never buy those things for flying distances.
Regarding fuel efficiency, there is far less "free lunch" than most people think. My TB20 does 138kt IAS (low level) for 11 USG/hr. I once flew in a Cessna 400 - a state of the art plastic plane - which also did 138kt IAS at 11 USG/hr. An SR22 does something very similar. A DA42 also does ~ 140kt IAS at 11 USG/hr (though that is the combined fuel flow of 2 engines). I would be astonished if a Bonanza was any better. A V-tail airframe is supposed to have less drag but the body is a 1940s design which looks anything but efficient, and anyway each half of the "V" needs to be bigger than the vertical stabiliser on a normal tail, to give you decent yaw stability so the gain on drag is mostly an illusion. The thing which directly affects MPG is the cross-section of the cockpit, so you have a direct trade between height / elbow room, and MPG. That's why Mooneys, with their smaller cockpit cross-section, do a bit more MPG.
A lot of fuel efficiency figures are not like for like e.g. a correctly leaned engine will give you some 30% more MPG than one flown full-rich.
Absolutely not true in Europe.
It is also not true in the USA, where Cirrus SR22 owners consistently pay a load more for insurance than TB20 owners. But the marketing hype about "simplicity of fixed gear" survives...
There are so many myths in this business.
VP prop makes a plane "complex" but actually it is a triviality (unless the pilot is a bit stupid, and his conversion instructor is also stupid). It is true that if you don't understand the most basic things about engineering / mechanics (I know of one pilot who cannot drive a car with a manual box) then it is better to stick to a C150.
Retractable gear makes a plane "complex" but actually it is a triviality (unless the pilot (a) forgets and (b) flies a landing procedure which sidesteps the gear warning interlocks e.g. lands with takeoff flap).
In the £150k arena, the bulk of an insurance premium is the hull value cover.
The most direct effect on maintenance cost is how old the plane is. An aluminium airframe, well looked after and hangared, should have close to zero unscheduled maintenance for the first 15-20 years. If corrosion-proofed with ACF-50, even longer...
It doesn't matter much how you mix the numbers; what is consistently found in this business is that paying more up front means paying less afterwards.
Everybody recommending their favourite plane
They went from slow selling oddball to prestige product
In the 1960s and 1970s, people did not care about style and stuff like that. A new Vauxhall Viva would turn heads as you drove it down the street. In those days, anything sold well no matter how crap it was, and anyway GA was having a massive boom, with sales about 10x higher than today.
Then things changed, people got richer, their expectations went up, but the GA product lineup didn't change for many years (until Cirrus came along).
If you look at the average airfield contents today, a Commander and a TB20 would stand out way above the rest in style.
Obviously people still buy Cessnas for a particular mission profile, especially the 182, and if you are broke then you have to go for an old Piper or an old Cessna anyway, but anybody with a decent budget would never buy those things for flying distances.
Regarding fuel efficiency, there is far less "free lunch" than most people think. My TB20 does 138kt IAS (low level) for 11 USG/hr. I once flew in a Cessna 400 - a state of the art plastic plane - which also did 138kt IAS at 11 USG/hr. An SR22 does something very similar. A DA42 also does ~ 140kt IAS at 11 USG/hr (though that is the combined fuel flow of 2 engines). I would be astonished if a Bonanza was any better. A V-tail airframe is supposed to have less drag but the body is a 1940s design which looks anything but efficient, and anyway each half of the "V" needs to be bigger than the vertical stabiliser on a normal tail, to give you decent yaw stability so the gain on drag is mostly an illusion. The thing which directly affects MPG is the cross-section of the cockpit, so you have a direct trade between height / elbow room, and MPG. That's why Mooneys, with their smaller cockpit cross-section, do a bit more MPG.
A lot of fuel efficiency figures are not like for like e.g. a correctly leaned engine will give you some 30% more MPG than one flown full-rich.
and retractable gear will double your insurance premium
It is also not true in the USA, where Cirrus SR22 owners consistently pay a load more for insurance than TB20 owners. But the marketing hype about "simplicity of fixed gear" survives...
There are so many myths in this business.
VP prop makes a plane "complex" but actually it is a triviality (unless the pilot is a bit stupid, and his conversion instructor is also stupid). It is true that if you don't understand the most basic things about engineering / mechanics (I know of one pilot who cannot drive a car with a manual box) then it is better to stick to a C150.
Retractable gear makes a plane "complex" but actually it is a triviality (unless the pilot (a) forgets and (b) flies a landing procedure which sidesteps the gear warning interlocks e.g. lands with takeoff flap).
In the £150k arena, the bulk of an insurance premium is the hull value cover.
The most direct effect on maintenance cost is how old the plane is. An aluminium airframe, well looked after and hangared, should have close to zero unscheduled maintenance for the first 15-20 years. If corrosion-proofed with ACF-50, even longer...
It doesn't matter much how you mix the numbers; what is consistently found in this business is that paying more up front means paying less afterwards.
Last edited by IO540; 5th Jul 2011 at 07:06.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for info really, but the chap I bought the Commander with had about 120 hrs total time, on simple SEPs - no complex, retract or turbo time, and he is handling the turbocharged commander just fine now. Insurance did put a restriction of a checkout plus a further 5 hours dual with me before he could solo. The TC took a bit of getting used to due to the non lineararity of the throttle response, especially on the take off roll, and it increases workload a lot on take off (rather than simply firewalling the throttle) but once you get used to it it is really easy to manage the turbo.
We fly together a lot and now ~20 hours time on type he is perfectly comfortable in a much more complicated and faster aeroplane than he used to fly.
PPS: Our insurance is only £400p.a. more than for the Rallye we used to fly, for much higher hull value and retract.
We fly together a lot and now ~20 hours time on type he is perfectly comfortable in a much more complicated and faster aeroplane than he used to fly.
PPS: Our insurance is only £400p.a. more than for the Rallye we used to fly, for much higher hull value and retract.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been following this thread with interest as I've always liked the look of the Commanders...what cruise TAS can you realistically get from one?
Which is the "ultimate" Commander...would it be the 115?
Which is the "ultimate" Commander...would it be the 115?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
114B's are good for about 150KTAS cruise. Probably more realistically 140 - 145 most of the time.
A 115 in standard trim is about the same as a 114B.
The ultimate Commander is probably the Super Commander, which is a modded 115, which will cruise at about 170KTAS.
-
The line up is VERY roughly (I'm sure there are a few mistakes in this) :
112 is the smaller engine model, 114 is the bigger engine - but otherwise they're basically the same.
The 70's versions are called version A (112A, 114A), except for the later 112's which got an update and called 112B.
The factory then went bust, and at some point later a new company bought the rights and started making the 114 again in the early 90's, calling it the 114B, with lots of updates and improvements.
Later either the same factory or a new one, made an upgraded version of the 114B and called it the 115, but from what I can tell, it could have more apprioately been called a 114C.
I haven't seen one for sale later than a year 2001, so I think they went bust around that time again!
A 115 in standard trim is about the same as a 114B.
The ultimate Commander is probably the Super Commander, which is a modded 115, which will cruise at about 170KTAS.
-
The line up is VERY roughly (I'm sure there are a few mistakes in this) :
112 is the smaller engine model, 114 is the bigger engine - but otherwise they're basically the same.
The 70's versions are called version A (112A, 114A), except for the later 112's which got an update and called 112B.
The factory then went bust, and at some point later a new company bought the rights and started making the 114 again in the early 90's, calling it the 114B, with lots of updates and improvements.
Later either the same factory or a new one, made an upgraded version of the 114B and called it the 115, but from what I can tell, it could have more apprioately been called a 114C.
I haven't seen one for sale later than a year 2001, so I think they went bust around that time again!