View Full Version : Looking for a very nice (uk/euro) Commander 114B
If anyone knows of one for sale which isn't on planecheck, avbuyer, or controller, etc please let me know! :)
If you are not in a hurry give SRWN at Henstridge a ring. They are rebuilding one but I don't know what the long term plan is.
01963 363605
G:ok:
englishal
2nd Jul 2011, 18:01
They could rebuild it to your specification too (Reg is G-DDIG see GINFO)...you can have whatever you want done to it during the rebuild. We used them for our rebuild (Alpine Commander completely rebuilt and at the same time transferred to the N reg) and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them due to their Rockwell experience. G-DDIG is a lovely aeroplane, with a rebuilt engine and I am sure you could have a 3 blade Top Prop put on there. I'd be tempted myself....
PS Hope they are not too quick to rebuild though as we're borrowing their elevator as ours had a crack in it :rolleyes:;)
Thank you very much for this, but I'm looking for a 114B. G-DDIG is listed as a 114.
Any particular reason for looking for a Rockwell Commander, and what is your budget?
It's really just the aeroplane that most closely satisfies my requirements.
Basic Requirements :
- SEP
- 140+kts, for about 4 hours.
- 4 real humans, and luggage.
Once the above is satisfied, then number 1 priority is comfort, followed closely by having a preference for a low-wing. As I'm a low-hour PPL, something that's relatively benign and a good platform to do my IMC, and possibly whatever IR EASA gives us.
The only other aircraft I've considered are the TB20, Saratoga and C182. I don't want a high wing, so that's the 182 gone, the Saratoga is potentially a bit of a handfull considering my hours, and I flew a TB10 and hated the doors and switches - although I have to say yours does look stunning.
Budget, somewhere beteween £100K and up to £150K if I can find one with exactly the right avionics, etc.
Why do you ask?
Actually, that all sounded a bit passion-free.
I also think they're beautiful to look at, and wonderful to fly.
goldeneaglepilot
3rd Jul 2011, 18:10
Having been a half share owner of a 112, and having also flown 320 hours in a 114, I think I qualify to comment. The 112 and 114 are complex, they will get you into trouble very quickly for a low houred PPL, in terms of complexity they are similar to the Saratoga. For IMC work the Saratoga is a better platform, the aircraft is more stable in pitch, the 112 /114 takes work to hold altitude / speed accuratly in turbulent IMC.
With all that said the Rockwell is MUCH more refined in terms of pilot / passenger comfort. Its also got an incredible U/C, very tolerant even to rough (firm) fields.
Another advantadge with the Saratoga is spares are more readily availible than the Rockwell.
The TB20 is also very comfortable and very nice to fly, but can be expensive to maintain
I asked because a TB20 (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/tb20-experience/index.html) will meet your requirements, with the benefit of an aircraft which is largely free of ADs (if you buy the post-2001 GT model), has freely available parts (contrary to a lot of pilot forum disinformation), factory support, and shares the great "style" and user friendliness with the Commander 114/115.
I looked at the 114 too as the two are very similar, but my enquiries around maintenance companies sent me towards the TB20 because the 114 was likely to be a hangar queen a lot of the time, which indeed some not far from me have been.
The TB20 doors are fine. The GT model has much improved gas struts. The switches could be better (I would have used £100 a time mil-spec toggle switches like you get on a $3M turboprop (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/tbm850/index.html)) but they work perfectly and actually I have had almost zero issues with the electrics on mine since I bought the plane new in 2002. The combined switch/circuit breaker solution is OK and the breakers cost relatively little.
Your budget is in the right range. A TB20GT exactly identical to mine but with the Ryan 600 TCAS has recently sold for a verified 140k euros plus VAT. You see a lot of adverts from mad sellers wanting 200k-250k euros and other bizzare amounts; they are looking for a mug. £140k should get you a good 2002 TB20GT with everything 100% working and obviously SB569A complied with.
If you want a TB21GT (turbo) there are few if any currently for sale in Europe but there are some in the USA, mostly for sale "quietly" because they are actually owned by a bank. I would advise against the 21 though unless you want serious high altitude IFR capability because almost no turbo engine of that kind has ever made TBO...
If you'd like to see mine, feel free to email and I will take you up. It's not for sale but you will get the idea. A decent GT is a world apart from the ones you have probably seen, and a TB20 is a completely different plane to a TB10 in performance terms; think of 2x.
For a low hour pilot the TB20 is easy. It has no handling vices, is a pleasure to hand fly, and I converted from the spamcans in about 10-15 hours. Obviously if you fall asleep it will crash quicker than a C150 but so what :)
I am still flying mine after 9 years because the only logical capability upgrade is a Jetprop, at $1.5M for a new one.
Thanks goldeneaglepilot,
Yeah, I'm keeping a healthy respect for the jump I'm taking, but having taken a hude number of comfort-zone-busting leaps in my time (in all sorts of areas of life and business), I've recognised that a) if you keep a healthy balance of confidence and respect, you'll be fine, and b) you'll enjoy way more of what life has to offer.
I flew a Lance for about an hour, and thought it was sensational, and my confident side tells me I think I'd be absolutely fine. Your point about parts and maintenance is the biggest selling point for me. But in the end, I think the extra weight is something I just don't need, so why carry it around, as it's just something else to potentially cause me a problem until I'm more experienced.
Thanks again for your post.
IO540,
Yeah, as I said, the TB20 was definitely on my shortlist, and I may have based my decision partly on the TB10 I flew. I'm also sure you'd get used to the doors, but they just seem a bit of a flawed design to me for all sorts of reasons - blowing away, can't reach them when open from the seated position, I couldn't work out a nice way of shutting them from outside on the wing. Probably all just "knack".
"Hanger queen". I think things have moved on a bit now - through necessity, due to the factory going bust about 50 times in a row. There are a few places where parts are as good as "readily available", and it also seems as though they are pretty reliable, having spoken to a number of owners. I think it's possible that the older models (which were bought for £60K, as a "lot of aeroplane for the money"), can sometime end up clogging up hangers due to them being a bit long in the tooth, and relateively expensive to maintain - relative to a £60K machine.
The commander also has an outstanding safety record, which I'm not completely immune to be seduced by.
It's great to hear that you've had your TB20 for 9 years and are still delighted with it - as I said, I think yours is just beautiful, and it was actually photos of yours which made me more seriously consider the type!
It would be great to have a fly. I'll email you now.
Deeday
3rd Jul 2011, 21:50
Does anyone know if the 115 will ever be produced again? I've just noticed that Commander Premier filed for bankruptcy protection (http://www.commanderpremier.com/Press_releases/Press%20Release_110616.pdf) a month ago.
Shame that such a beautiful aircraft seems doomed never to succeed.
goldeneaglepilot
4th Jul 2011, 06:21
SDB73, I agree totally about pushing yourself to maximize enjoyment!! I think from reflection on my own experiences (that is both flying myself and instructing), It might be sensible to limit how many new things you expose yourself to at one time. You will find the complexities of a VP prop and retracting u/c plus an aircraft that will be on average 40 -50kts faster than what you have learnt to fly on quite a jump. If your typical of most pilots, then flying it will come quickly, flying it so that you are totally relaxed, up to the same speed as the aircraft and with reflex responses to any problems will take a lot longer.
Owning an aircraft is a minefield, there are lots of companies willing to take your money to maintain it for you, some very good, more mediocre, some downright dubious. They wont tell you if the aircraft you have is one which they have familiarity with. They will be able to maintain it, but with a type such as the Rockwell you will often pay a hidden premium both in cash and time whilst they get to speed with the type and “learn” the intricacies of the type and find where to source the parts for the type.
A Rockwell will rarely be known in detail to a maintenance organization, and often falls into the unusual bracket. Saying that there are some companies around which are experienced on type, but your choice of companies with experience will be limited. I think Englishal gave a big clue when he talked about his maintenance company borrowing the elevator of an aircraft they were restoring to keep his Rockwell flying. There would be less likely a need to do that with a Saratoga or TB20, parts for which are without doubt are more readily available – without premium prices.
With regards your point on weight – on a rough day, in IMC with the family screaming at you, you will appreciate the extra stability of the TB20 or Saratoga.
I think when you start to do your IMC or IR rating you will understand what I mean.
Another point to consider is the question of having a turbo or not? That is an addition which might be worth saving for another aircraft, after you have gained your IMC or IR rating. The extra cost and complexity of a turbo aircraft might not be worth considering at this stage.
englishal
4th Jul 2011, 06:59
To be fair, most aeroplanes are the same when it comes to parts. I know someone with a TB20 who was grounded for quite some time due to a rudder hinge availability when corrosion was found in the hinge/bush/whateveritwas. When we owned a Rallye, Socata quoted us 6 months for a dynafocal engine mount (and £6000)!
One massive benefit of the Commander (Other than it looks better than all the rest :p) is that there is the Commanders Owners Group, a great resource. Spares are quite easily available and our elevator spar should be arriving this week...
Good luck with whatever you buy!
Thanks again.
Are you saying that the 114b is inherently unstable and difficult to fly when compared to a TB20 or Saratoga? If so, this is a big departure from advice I've had from other 114 owners / pilots who have ALL been extremely clear about it being a highly stable and benign platform, ideal for IMC / IFR training, and a perfect first complex. In addition all have said there would be no problem at all converting at low hours as long as I took my time with someone like Mike Perry in Guernsey. To support this, I've been in touch (through the Internet) with about 5 current owners who all bought their commanders at less than 100 hours, and a couple at less than 30 hours PIC. All are delighted with their machines, many years on.
Now, be clear, this doesn't mean I'm going to ignore what you're saying, but as you're polar opposed to all other advice I've received I'd be grateful if you could give anything which could support what you're saying.
In terms of maintenance. For routine I have a well respected operation with a 25 minute drive of my house, which has good experience of commanders. And I also plan to use Mike Perry's organisation in Guernsey who is as good as a factory service centre (actually better, as he doesn't go bust every five minutes).
The indicator you suggested in respect of the borrowed elevator will be because there is a very recent AD regarding elevator spar cracks. Regardless of what aircraft type you had, I'm sure you're not saying you would buy a new replacement elevator while yours was being fixed. So I don't think that's an indicator of spare part availability at all.
I'm going into this with my eyes open. I understand I'm placing more of a challenge on myself. I understand the aircraft is no longer made and servicing is more difficult than a Piper or Cessna. With that in mind, people still buy, keep and love owning Commanders and quite a few of them own them as their first aeroplane within a few hours of passing their test. Combine this with their excellent safety record and it's hard to stack up your comments without something more substantive - which I would be extremely grateful for.
PS. forgot to add that I totally agree in terms of the turbo and have ruled that out for the time being.
You will find the complexities of a VP prop and retracting u/c plus an aircraft that will be on average 40 -50kts faster than what you have learnt to fly on quite a jump.
A statement like that has to be heavily qualified.
If a pilot is so dumb he only just manages to hang in there flying a C150 at 100kt, then yes he will have a problem transitioning to a 150kt plane.
But most pilots are not that dumb. And 150kt feels barely different to 100kt. The difference is mainly noticeable on the ASI and in getting there a bit quicker :)
What is a major issue for most people making the transition is understanding more complex avionics.
You may be moving from a C150 with a few steam gauges, a knackered radio, useless fuel gauges ("fill to tabs and you are good for 2hrs, young man"), and flying everywhere at 100kt and 2000ft, to a plane with a panel full of avionics, proper fuel management, engine instruments which enable smart engine management, and flying at "proper" levels determined by controlled airspace bases, cloudbases, etc. so often you might fly at say 5000ft, and if you turn up overhead the destination at 5000ft and still going at 150kt, you will end up looking like a right d**k as you have to do half a dozen orbits to get down there :) So you need to fly differently: you need to plan ahead, plan the descents, plan the climbs, you need to learn about that mysterious red lever which your PPL instructor told you to never touch :)
So the real difference is thinking ahead. Most people can do it but most do have to be taught. And with this comes the need for more currency. With the C150, flying only on sunny sundays, down the coast and back, you can be safe on 1 flight every few months. With say a TB20, doing the sort of mission profile for which people buy those things, you need a lot more currency. Personally I like to fly once a week, though that is more than is needed.
But the plane itself doesn't behave any differently. If you relax, it isn't going to suddenly do a flick roll and spiral dive you into the ground. It's not an Extra 300 or an F16. Both the 114 and a TB20 are actually very stable. I once flew mine from Corfu to Santorini and all the way back, by hand (due to a failed autopilot), VFR, without any problems at all.
Like I say, the biggest transition is not to the higher speed, or the VP prop (which is a triviality) or the retractable gear (which is a triviliaty). It is to the different way of flying.
IO540,
Your post couldn't have resonated with my expectations more perfectly.
I'm not OVER confident, but I'm not a dullard either. I've flown C152, PA28, DA40, Lance, TB10 and now Commander, and while they all fly differently, none of them where particularly challenging in terms of the basic flying characteristics.
I expect a steep learning curve to get used to the systems and procedures (but I'm an intelligent man and don't think this will be beyond me!) followed by a period of getting usd to the in-flight planning and a few instances of ballsing it up a bit, so therefore keeping an extra margin for airspace and busy airfields for a while.
it being a highly stable and benign platform, ideal for IMC / IFR training
If it has a yaw damper: yes.
Don't forget to switch it off before landing, though...
A yaw damper?
No 4- or 6-seater piston plane I know of needs a yaw damper. The longer-hull planes (e.g. a TBM, a PA46) have them and they need them for passenger comfort.
I looked at installing one in my TB20 because it should reduce the roll excursions in light turbulence (for my girlfriend, mostly) because of the yaw/roll coupling which all planes have, but it is a rare option on my autopilot and would cost well above £10k.
On the other stuff, people with engineering/technical backgrounds seem to transition to the more complex types more easily.
goldeneaglepilot
4th Jul 2011, 08:22
I think my post may have not been clear enough, I did not say that the 112 /114 was not stable, it is. However I found that in turbulent IMC it required more work than the Saratoga or TB20. It does wander in pitch compared to the others. I did love my 112, what I did not like was the stream of AD's which came out for it. That happens with all aircraft, but some more frequently than others.
I think any pilot will get to speed with it, the point I was trying to make is that its easier to transition from say a TB200 or Arrow to the Rockwell, than say from a PA28 to the Rockwell. I agree with IO540, the avionics make a huge difference. It is easier for a pilot with an IR or IMC, but to me its the tough route to take to use one to learn the IMC or IR rating in.
The one thing which did shock me with the Rockwell was the cost of the exhaust - which has needed replacing at some time in all 4 Rockwells I have flown. The forums suggest it is a common problem with type.
With regards the loaned elevator - yes that makes a lot of sense, but the inference was that it was needed for some time. I would have thought that the cracked elevator would take no more than six weeks to get sorted by repair and modification.
I fly a Malibu now, and in reality my current maintenance costs are on par with what I paid during the 3 years of half owning the Rockwell - which included the dreaded spar mod.
wsmempson
4th Jul 2011, 09:07
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 (http://www.zen74158.zen.co.uk/videos/skimming-the-clouds.mpg) 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.
Fuji Abound
4th Jul 2011, 11:38
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.
maxred
4th Jul 2011, 17:43
All great comments but you REALLY want a Beech Bonanza:ok::ok::ok:
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! :)
maxred
4th Jul 2011, 18:42
Well, I love mine to bits,and yes it gets me places very fast:sad:
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:)
maxred
4th Jul 2011, 18:44
Actually SD, what model did you try??
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?
maxred
4th Jul 2011, 18:56
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.
Big Pistons Forever
5th Jul 2011, 05:20
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
Ellemeet
5th Jul 2011, 06:13
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.
Here we go again :) Everybody recommending their favourite plane :)
They went from slow selling oddball to prestige productI 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.
and retractable gear will double your insurance premium 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.
englishal
5th Jul 2011, 08:20
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.
Contacttower
5th Jul 2011, 08:49
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?
AFAIK the 115 was their last model.
I recall looking at these in 2002 and they were nice but awfully pricey. The TB20 was 200k+VAT; the Commander was a lot more.
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!
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.
englishal
5th Jul 2011, 09:45
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
Big Pistons Forever
5th Jul 2011, 21:54
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.
I should have said this was my experience in CanadaPossible; I know somebody in Canada with a DA42 and his insurance is eye watering - about 3x mine I think, for a similar hull value.
His 210 just had its first annual and the bill was stupendousThere's a suprise... :)
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. IMHO, few people will get a full grip on a well equipped IFR plane in 15 hours, transitioning from a spamcan. I certainly could not have done; my legal conversion was about 10hrs but I really did not understand much of the kit. The landing gear is practically immaterial, once you have explained how it works, the limiting speeds, the warning interlocks, etc.
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.
Ellemeet
6th Jul 2011, 00:29
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
Those are very high fuel flow figures for the speeds. 20-30% worse than a TB20, for a similar size cockpit.
Ellemeet
6th Jul 2011, 07:54
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.
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.
englishal
6th Jul 2011, 09:06
You can come and sit in mine when I come to Shoreham to get the PS checks done again ;)
Ellemeet
6th Jul 2011, 23:12
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.
the tb20 has in fact 2 versions of cockpits as far as i knw
The TB20GT (year 2000 onwards, approx) has about 3" more headroom.
the turbo will make her climb a lot better then the tb20.
Of course; the TB20 has no turbo. The TB21 has; that one does about +1000fpm to FL150. But few if any turbo engines make TBO.
I've done the Alps etc (http://s101.photobucket.com/albums/m74/peterh337/) 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.
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 :E
I personally like aircraft with a bit of soul and character and even some quirks (look at Barons and Bonanzas :E
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 :E
Pace
The thing is, Pace, have you ever paid for a half decent plane with your own money?
Flying somebody else's is very different.
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
Yes; I agree with that.
Only 96%? ;)
;) I would have thought that only four flights out of a hundred cancelled because of weather or mechanical problems isnt bad ???;)
Pace
Ellemeet
8th Jul 2011, 06:22
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)
SDB73
22nd Jul 2011, 15:58
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!
Spitmunk
25th Jul 2011, 08:45
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.
goldeneaglepilot
26th Jul 2011, 11:23
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.
wsmempson
26th Jul 2011, 13:54
SDB73 that sounds very exciting!
Just a short shower of realism over your planned inspection; short of removing all the wing and fuselage panels and performing an inspetion which is basically an annual, minus the paperwork, you won't get an inspection that is worth a great deal.
However, if there is an annual coming up in the near future, it may be worth bringing that forward and doubling it up with a pre-purchase inspection?
SDB73
26th Jul 2011, 18:02
wsmempson
I was planning a thorough inspection. So no shower of realism needed, thanks.
However, if you're saying "The annual inspection is basically the same as the inspection you intend to get done, so why not actually turn it into an annual anyway!", then that sounds like a pretty good idea to me.
Presumably, I could discuss with the owner, that an annual gets done, and I'll pay some of the costs, proportional to the inspection element of the annual, and he covers anything that comes up and needs doing - that way I end up with a new Annual, and a checked out aircraft. Great idea, thanks!
Is there anything that doesn't get checked on an annual that I might want to get checked on top?
GEP, the climb rate is a good idea, and as you've suggested before, and proper flight test wouldn't be a bad idea. Thank you.
wsmempson
26th Jul 2011, 18:45
SDB, that was absolutely what I was suggesting. The basic cost for an annual on a single engine, complex, retractable is generally in the range of £2-4,000, assuming no nasties are found along the way. Having said that, trying to define the cost of an annual is a bit like trying to define the cost of a bottle of wine - there can be quite a wide range of outcomes.
As well as the inspection of the aircraft, there is quite a thorough paperwork inspection, not least because you are trying to establish that there are no outstanding AD's or SB's that have yet to be complied with. For example, the elevator spar is one obvious type specific one and the Lycoming crankshaft AD is another which is specific to the engine.
You may chose to suggest to the owner that this is done by the maintenance outfit that YOU plan to use in the future, as that will make the most sense for you and a fresh pair of eyes on the job may be informative....
If you want suggestions as to who you might use (and who it is probably best not to use) do give me a call - I think you have my number from last time?
jtipper1
31st Jul 2011, 06:02
Firstly as has been mentioned in previous posts so long as you do a thorough conversion training, converting from a Cessna 150 to a complex aircraft will not be a major problem. You will soon learn to plan your descents, arrivals speeds etc with the help of an experienced instructor.
I for one, bought a share in a Mooney231 (turbo non fixed gate) while I was still learning on a 150..
However,my instructor was also a share holder, so I managed to get plenty of experience with him before i was happy to fly the aircraft alone.
I would agree with a previous post,that this was around 20 hours until I felt I was ahead of the aircraft, rather than the other way around.
I changed for my first Saratoga about 12 years ago having after my wife found the Money a little bit claustrophobic. I have to say that my first Saratoga,was a joy to fly, easy to land and the extra space when taking even just 4 passengers really appreciated .. That's something to consider if you plan to go touring.
I now fly a 1998 Saratoga 11TC, and with the fixed gate turbo, it is no more complex to fly than my old one, however it is considerably faster even at low level and of course the climb and speed at high level make touring a real pleasure,with fitted oxygen a real help.
One advantage with buying a later aircraft is, of course it comes better equipment with things like TCAS,( a must) air conditioning, coupled auto pilot etc..
Also I have to say that reliability has been much better than any of my friends older 114's.. They do seem to have suffered from a lot of downtime over the years, however, as these are both 1977 vintage this may have something to do with it.
I have flown many of my friends 114's over the years and I have to say they are very nice aircraft, they certainly flatter any landing with their amazing trailing link undercarriage.
I will agree however with other posters here, that the Saratoga is the more stable aircraft in my opinion, but that could be just me as I have over 12years of flying them.
I am sure what ever you decide on, you will enjoy your new purchase.
I enclose a link to mine !!
PlaneCheck Aircraft for Sale - New planes and price reductions (http://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=12446)