Looking for a very nice (uk/euro) Commander 114B
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Need to be careful with performance figures 
The standard aircraft salesman trick is to quote a TAS and either not mention the altitude (and perhaps even not mention it is TAS), or assume an altitude at which the oxygen usage will be almost impractical e.g. FL250 (needs masks and uses a lot of gas).
In practice one files (IFR assumed) for FL140 or so, which gets you reasonable Eurocontrol routings, and you climb till you are VMC, and then ask for a "stop climb", but no lower than about FL100-110 (for reasons of MPG, and possibly avoiding military airspace). Then, very little oxygen is needed to stay alert, and none for passengers
Any turbocharged plane will achieve a very impressive TAS at FL200+. Even a TB21, turbonormalised to 250HP, will achieve something like 190kt at FL220, flat out.
Nearly all piston planes which are quoted as capable of ~ 170kt or more are burning silly money at those speeds. The amazing performance of the Cessna 400 is achieved at an eye watering fuel flow. The one exception to this is the PA46 which, being pressurised, is actually practical to fly at the ~ FL250 needed to get the good MPG, but it's engine failure history is not good.
And fuel flow is the other thing. My TB20 does 165kt IAS at low level, full bore, burning about 22 USG/hr. This is completely pointless given that you can get 140kt TAS at low level on 11 USG/hr, or 140kt TAS at FL100-140 on about 9.0 to 9.5 USG/hr. Flying a little slower dramatically improves your MPG and almost nobody flies at the sales brochure power settings.
Another thing is the quoted range. The assumptions need to be stated but rarely are. The FAA IFR requirements are destination, alternate, and then 45 minutes. But how far away is the alternate assumed to be? With jets you have proper guidelines but in the piston world everybody plays with the figures, or at least doesn't state the assumptions. And obviously the range is heavily dependent on the engine operating conditions; I can get 1350nm to zero fuel, by climbing to FL100 and sitting there at 140kt TAS. But at "best power" i.e. about 150F ROP the range would shrink by about 10-15%, and one would be doing about 155kt TAS.
The standard aircraft salesman trick is to quote a TAS and either not mention the altitude (and perhaps even not mention it is TAS), or assume an altitude at which the oxygen usage will be almost impractical e.g. FL250 (needs masks and uses a lot of gas).
In practice one files (IFR assumed) for FL140 or so, which gets you reasonable Eurocontrol routings, and you climb till you are VMC, and then ask for a "stop climb", but no lower than about FL100-110 (for reasons of MPG, and possibly avoiding military airspace). Then, very little oxygen is needed to stay alert, and none for passengers
Any turbocharged plane will achieve a very impressive TAS at FL200+. Even a TB21, turbonormalised to 250HP, will achieve something like 190kt at FL220, flat out.
Nearly all piston planes which are quoted as capable of ~ 170kt or more are burning silly money at those speeds. The amazing performance of the Cessna 400 is achieved at an eye watering fuel flow. The one exception to this is the PA46 which, being pressurised, is actually practical to fly at the ~ FL250 needed to get the good MPG, but it's engine failure history is not good.
And fuel flow is the other thing. My TB20 does 165kt IAS at low level, full bore, burning about 22 USG/hr. This is completely pointless given that you can get 140kt TAS at low level on 11 USG/hr, or 140kt TAS at FL100-140 on about 9.0 to 9.5 USG/hr. Flying a little slower dramatically improves your MPG and almost nobody flies at the sales brochure power settings.
Another thing is the quoted range. The assumptions need to be stated but rarely are. The FAA IFR requirements are destination, alternate, and then 45 minutes. But how far away is the alternate assumed to be? With jets you have proper guidelines but in the piston world everybody plays with the figures, or at least doesn't state the assumptions. And obviously the range is heavily dependent on the engine operating conditions; I can get 1350nm to zero fuel, by climbing to FL100 and sitting there at 140kt TAS. But at "best power" i.e. about 150F ROP the range would shrink by about 10-15%, and one would be doing about 155kt TAS.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ours is the 112 TC Alpine version which features slightly longer wings for another 100lbs useful load / or shorter take off run. Essentially it has a 210HP Turbo Charged engine, which although less powerful than the IO540 by 40HP gives a good compromise between fuel flow and speed - we typically see about 137 KTAS at 5k, though the ceiling is 20,000 and it prefers to go high.
There was a very nice 115TC for sale recently for about £150,000
There was a very nice 115TC for sale recently for about £150,000
IO 540
Re my comment about a retractable doubling the insurance. I should have said this was my experience in Canada. It was the case for friend of mine (75 hr PPL)
who was seriously looking at 2 aircraft a C 182 and a Comanche C. Both were nice and were about the same asking price, although the C182 was 10 years younger. I recommended he get a preliminary insurance quote for each aircraft. The best deal the insurance broker came up with had the Comanche at just about double the total annual cost. There was also the fact that the C 182 required 3 hours of dual before he was allowed to go solo on the C 182, versus 15 hrs dual for the retract.
However I should note that the disparity will lessen as the pilot gains experience. He ended up buying the C 182, flew it for 3 years, got his instrument rating, and sold it for what he paid for it and upgraded to a deiced T210. His 210 just had its first annual and the bill was stupendous. He was joking that the amount of the annual would have paid for a whole years worth of fuel for his old C 182
.
Seriously though he needs and can use the capabilities that a 210 class aircraft provides. He also said that the skills and experience he gained on the
C182 were invaluable when he moved up and, at least for him, an intermediate moderate performance but simple and stable aircraft, like the C 182 was in retrospect the best way to work up to a high performance aircraft. The acquired experience of ownership of a simpler aircraft was also invaluable when it came to managing the maintainance of his T210
This is not meant to say that going straight to a 114/TB 20/Bonanza etc is wrong but merely to point out an alternative scenario of getting there.
Re my comment about a retractable doubling the insurance. I should have said this was my experience in Canada. It was the case for friend of mine (75 hr PPL)
who was seriously looking at 2 aircraft a C 182 and a Comanche C. Both were nice and were about the same asking price, although the C182 was 10 years younger. I recommended he get a preliminary insurance quote for each aircraft. The best deal the insurance broker came up with had the Comanche at just about double the total annual cost. There was also the fact that the C 182 required 3 hours of dual before he was allowed to go solo on the C 182, versus 15 hrs dual for the retract.
However I should note that the disparity will lessen as the pilot gains experience. He ended up buying the C 182, flew it for 3 years, got his instrument rating, and sold it for what he paid for it and upgraded to a deiced T210. His 210 just had its first annual and the bill was stupendous. He was joking that the amount of the annual would have paid for a whole years worth of fuel for his old C 182
. Seriously though he needs and can use the capabilities that a 210 class aircraft provides. He also said that the skills and experience he gained on the
C182 were invaluable when he moved up and, at least for him, an intermediate moderate performance but simple and stable aircraft, like the C 182 was in retrospect the best way to work up to a high performance aircraft. The acquired experience of ownership of a simpler aircraft was also invaluable when it came to managing the maintainance of his T210
This is not meant to say that going straight to a 114/TB 20/Bonanza etc is wrong but merely to point out an alternative scenario of getting there.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should have said this was my experience in Canada
His 210 just had its first annual and the bill was stupendous
The only thing more expensive to keep on the road than an knackered old piston is a knackered old turboprop
There was also the fact that the C 182 required 3 hours of dual before he was allowed to go solo on the C 182, versus 15 hrs dual for the retract.
A C182 is easy to fly and land. But I wouldn't buy a C182 unless I wanted short field performance, carrying of tall/obese/stiff people, a photo / sightseeing platform, or wanted a plane I can chuck things out of
You pay for these features; it does about 20% less MPG than a decent IFR tourer.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
commanders
the ultimate commander is in fact the supercommander. this is any 114/-a/-gt/-b/-tc or 115x upgraded to a io580 engine by aerodyme corp. it will do 170ktas and climb with 2500fpm from sealevel.
in 1992 the factory started up production (after it stopped in 79) and the 114b were produced. later also the 114tc
the 115 is a marketing upgrade. there is no real difference with the latr modl b s.
insurance for a low time pilot for 160.000 euro hull value is 3700 (germany) to 4800 euro via hayworth (total)
my tc is about 7 -8 knots below the book on tas but will run a lot richer.
the disadvantage of the tc is that she can run hot very easily and therefor you have to run her ROP. typically at 70-75% i would count on 17,5gph at 155-160kts in the low teens. throttle her back to 140-145 and she will fly 13,5-14 gph
the reason for me to choose the tc was that she was the best equipped with garmin, tks, ox and the tc. and really it is amazing to see that she just keeps climbing and climbing
i do not have these real figures ror th 114b.
remember that the commander has always been relatively slow because of her dimensions. the sr22 can be much more fuel efficient or faster.. but they this with a 310hp engine. the climb performance however of the supercommandef is a hell of a lot better with a 310 hp engine. and the speeds will not differ that much.
i hope one day my plane will be equipped with the io 580 or the teo-540-ie2 which will run avgas and mogas and make her seriously fast
the commander is just a very comfortable and nice plane
in 1992 the factory started up production (after it stopped in 79) and the 114b were produced. later also the 114tc
the 115 is a marketing upgrade. there is no real difference with the latr modl b s.
insurance for a low time pilot for 160.000 euro hull value is 3700 (germany) to 4800 euro via hayworth (total)
my tc is about 7 -8 knots below the book on tas but will run a lot richer.
the disadvantage of the tc is that she can run hot very easily and therefor you have to run her ROP. typically at 70-75% i would count on 17,5gph at 155-160kts in the low teens. throttle her back to 140-145 and she will fly 13,5-14 gph
the reason for me to choose the tc was that she was the best equipped with garmin, tks, ox and the tc. and really it is amazing to see that she just keeps climbing and climbing
i do not have these real figures ror th 114b.
remember that the commander has always been relatively slow because of her dimensions. the sr22 can be much more fuel efficient or faster.. but they this with a 310hp engine. the climb performance however of the supercommandef is a hell of a lot better with a 310 hp engine. and the speeds will not differ that much.
i hope one day my plane will be equipped with the io 580 or the teo-540-ie2 which will run avgas and mogas and make her seriously fast
the commander is just a very comfortable and nice plane
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fuel flow
true and false.
yes fuel flow is to high. however i must add to that that i have installed a g3 gem which gives a lot of info per cylinder. i take great care that none of the cylinders will run hot as that billis potentially much higher. i do believe that the lack of 7-8 knots and the very poor cooling design of th tc is at the heart of this. however a tc will always burn a lot more.
false: the tb20 is absolutely not as spacious. i am 6f6 and weigh 270 lbs. i do not fit in the tb20 and belive me i have tried.
in the commander my clone and i can easily sit next to each other and not touch each other. i also sat in the back and was really comfortable flying luxmburg to rotterdam.
the tb20 is definitely faster until i go up to fl180. but usually i opt for fl120. over fl 140 she starts to go a lot faster. on the down.. according to my instructor who teaches cpls in the tb20 the glide of the tb20 is more brickstyle while the 114 will glide hapily at 1:9.5. he definitely prefers the 114.
that said .. i never flew a tb20 as i do not fit in it.
yes fuel flow is to high. however i must add to that that i have installed a g3 gem which gives a lot of info per cylinder. i take great care that none of the cylinders will run hot as that billis potentially much higher. i do believe that the lack of 7-8 knots and the very poor cooling design of th tc is at the heart of this. however a tc will always burn a lot more.
false: the tb20 is absolutely not as spacious. i am 6f6 and weigh 270 lbs. i do not fit in the tb20 and belive me i have tried.
in the commander my clone and i can easily sit next to each other and not touch each other. i also sat in the back and was really comfortable flying luxmburg to rotterdam.
the tb20 is definitely faster until i go up to fl180. but usually i opt for fl120. over fl 140 she starts to go a lot faster. on the down.. according to my instructor who teaches cpls in the tb20 the glide of the tb20 is more brickstyle while the 114 will glide hapily at 1:9.5. he definitely prefers the 114.
that said .. i never flew a tb20 as i do not fit in it.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think a turbo aircraft (even a DA40 TDi) will beat the TB20 above about FL120.
Interesting about cockpit dimensions. The ones I have sat in must have been different.
Interesting about cockpit dimensions. The ones I have sat in must have been different.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cockpit
the tb20 has in fact 2 versions of cockpits as far as i knw
i tried both.
biggest problem is headroom. the only other option i could sit normally in, was a cirrus.
a 182 will fit for headroom but not for width.
ultimately i choose the 114 as it has a better reputation for slow flights and the seat is much more comfortable. i really really like her..
today @fl 080 with 29/22 ktas was 145-147 and fuel at 13.7 gph
the turbo will make her climb a lot better then the tb20.
i have crossed the alps and pyrenees.. no sweat what so ever.
i tried both.
biggest problem is headroom. the only other option i could sit normally in, was a cirrus.
a 182 will fit for headroom but not for width.
ultimately i choose the 114 as it has a better reputation for slow flights and the seat is much more comfortable. i really really like her..
today @fl 080 with 29/22 ktas was 145-147 and fuel at 13.7 gph
the turbo will make her climb a lot better then the tb20.
i have crossed the alps and pyrenees.. no sweat what so ever.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the tb20 has in fact 2 versions of cockpits as far as i knw
the turbo will make her climb a lot better then the tb20.
I've done the Alps etc a few times too
You don't need a turbo for that. What a turbo is handy for is a rapid climb through icing conditions, but then you get onto the matter of de-ice equipment and IMHO there is little point of a turbo unless you also have full de-ice.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10540
Like women its more about what lights your fires! I got married in Cornwall many moons ago and we were picked up and dropped for a connecting flight at Manchester in a 114.
Those were the days when you could pop into Manchester in the club spam can, park up alongside the airlines on the main apron and nip into the terminal for a coffee
No one has mentioned Mooney! Some love them some hate them!
I personally loved the 114 which looked good on the ramp, was spacious, solid and well built and had trailing link undercarriage which flattered your landings.
It was a doddle hand flown IMC!!
As for new PPLs on them? the one I had flown was a syndicate owned example. The one owner hadnt even got a PPL when he bought his share.
Didnt they send pilots solo in Spitfires after 8 hrs??? just a tad more complex than a 152
I personally like aircraft with a bit of soul and character and even some quirks (look at Barons and Bonanzas
The Grumman Tiger is another excellent choice for a low cost simple aircraft which has some character, low costs and still knocks along at 128 kts with fixed gear and prop.
More modern I would plumb for a Cirrus.
10540
Even in jets over the Alps you can get some quite severe turbulence and downdraughts.
I used to trundle a Seneca five to LJLJ a lot and always filed IFR which meant 20K!!! and oxygen.
If you want any reliability of crossing the Alps you have to go high.
Low level the conditions have to be perfect which doesnt make for reliability of crossing.
Ie on a non turbo only rely on crossing if you dont have to be somewhere
Pace
Like women its more about what lights your fires! I got married in Cornwall many moons ago and we were picked up and dropped for a connecting flight at Manchester in a 114.
Those were the days when you could pop into Manchester in the club spam can, park up alongside the airlines on the main apron and nip into the terminal for a coffee
No one has mentioned Mooney! Some love them some hate them!
I personally loved the 114 which looked good on the ramp, was spacious, solid and well built and had trailing link undercarriage which flattered your landings.
It was a doddle hand flown IMC!!
As for new PPLs on them? the one I had flown was a syndicate owned example. The one owner hadnt even got a PPL when he bought his share.
Didnt they send pilots solo in Spitfires after 8 hrs??? just a tad more complex than a 152
I personally like aircraft with a bit of soul and character and even some quirks (look at Barons and Bonanzas
The Grumman Tiger is another excellent choice for a low cost simple aircraft which has some character, low costs and still knocks along at 128 kts with fixed gear and prop.
More modern I would plumb for a Cirrus.
10540
Even in jets over the Alps you can get some quite severe turbulence and downdraughts.
I used to trundle a Seneca five to LJLJ a lot and always filed IFR which meant 20K!!! and oxygen.
If you want any reliability of crossing the Alps you have to go high.
Low level the conditions have to be perfect which doesnt make for reliability of crossing.
Ie on a non turbo only rely on crossing if you dont have to be somewhere
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 7th Jul 2011 at 09:03.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10540
Had a quarter share in a Mooney for a couple of years but that was the only owned one.
That wasnt to point that I was trying to make! If you are a businessman and want to use your aircraft with any sort of reliability of getting places in pistons IMO you need a turbo (preferably) de ice /anti ice capability and oxygen especially crossing areas like the Alps.
If you are a sunday and holiday flier and you dont have to be somewhere then a non turbo is great.
That surely is why there are so many on N reg because pilots do want to improve their mission reliability rates.
In the Seneca I had a mission reliability rate of 96% which was pretty good and was only stopped by mechanical problems or fog.
Pace
Had a quarter share in a Mooney for a couple of years but that was the only owned one.
That wasnt to point that I was trying to make! If you are a businessman and want to use your aircraft with any sort of reliability of getting places in pistons IMO you need a turbo (preferably) de ice /anti ice capability and oxygen especially crossing areas like the Alps.
If you are a sunday and holiday flier and you dont have to be somewhere then a non turbo is great.
That surely is why there are so many on N reg because pilots do want to improve their mission reliability rates.
In the Seneca I had a mission reliability rate of 96% which was pretty good and was only stopped by mechanical problems or fog.
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The TB20GT (year 2000 onwards, approx) has about 3" more headroom.
i tried that one to.. to small...
ps for the rest.. my tc has o2 and tks de ice. ( not that i fancy seeking icing conditions)
i tried that one to.. to small...
ps for the rest.. my tc has o2 and tks de ice. ( not that i fancy seeking icing conditions)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commander 114B pre-buy engineers?
Hi All,
I throw myself once more at the feet of your joint wisdom and knowledge!!
I've decide on a 114B and would like a thorough pre-buy inspection carried out. Apart from Mike Perry on Guernsey (purely because it's a long old way to get a pre buy done), do we know anyone who would be suitable?
This will be my first aeroplane purchase, so any advice on pre-buys are welcome.
I presume I need someone experienced on the type? Or is that. Ow necessary?
Is it ok to ask the organisation which has been looking after it (IAE cranfield)? I always feel a little like that's asking someone to critique their own work?
Any advice very welcome as usual.
Thanks!
I throw myself once more at the feet of your joint wisdom and knowledge!!
I've decide on a 114B and would like a thorough pre-buy inspection carried out. Apart from Mike Perry on Guernsey (purely because it's a long old way to get a pre buy done), do we know anyone who would be suitable?
This will be my first aeroplane purchase, so any advice on pre-buys are welcome.
I presume I need someone experienced on the type? Or is that. Ow necessary?
Is it ok to ask the organisation which has been looking after it (IAE cranfield)? I always feel a little like that's asking someone to critique their own work?
Any advice very welcome as usual.
Thanks!
Last edited by SDB73; 22nd Jul 2011 at 18:19.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
114 Maintenance
One point on the elevator spar problem. I have heard that there are no spars left in stock at Commander. Seemingly, there is agreement for a company in the States to make the spars but no approval yet for their designs from the FAA.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A worthwhile consideration would be looking towards getting the maintainance company who will look after your aircraft to do the pre purchase inspection. That removes some of the worry of large bills in the first 12 months due to anything being missed. They should be able to give you an estimate on likely costs as part of the inspection, if anything expensive is going to need replacing or working on during the first 12 months (or longer) due to parts reaching service life.
If they are not experienced on Rockwells, the pre purchase inspection should help bring them up to speed with the type, saving you money long term.
Getting a flight test done (perhaps to the CAA schedule) will flag up things like an under performing engine - the five minute climb graph always gives a good (practical) idea of how well the engine is doing,
An independent company (not the old maintainance company) is always a good idea.
If they are not experienced on Rockwells, the pre purchase inspection should help bring them up to speed with the type, saving you money long term.
Getting a flight test done (perhaps to the CAA schedule) will flag up things like an under performing engine - the five minute climb graph always gives a good (practical) idea of how well the engine is doing,
An independent company (not the old maintainance company) is always a good idea.