Rockwell Commander 114

[YesTAM]

ANyone know anything or have opinions about the Commander 114?

[Mustangbaz]

They look really nice? There used to be one at Wings at Essendon a few years back, looked a lot nicer that the warrior i was flying at the time. :ok:

[PA39]

The 114 is a great aircraft. There is the 114 and the later 114A. It was bestowed very early with a string of expensive AD's and mods which led to a class action by Commander owners. It has cantilever undercarriage and is a delight to fly. Drawback is that because it has a big wide roomy cabin (with 2 doors) the trade off is in speed. A good 114 will go 140/145kts on 50/55 lph (IO-540). They also have a wet wing that needs resealing every so often and a zero fuel weight limitation. As a comfortable, well handling touring aircraft they are very good. I have around 800hrs in the 114.

[Jamair]

Yeah, not a bad bit of kit IMHO; poor mans Bonanza;) I liked 'em.

Very roomy; very tall also, your knees and your pax will be given a workout.

Docile handling, easy to fly.

The 112 is pretty much exactly the same as the 114; just has a 200hp engine and 20 or so knots slower - think Arrow loading and performance.

The Brand has limited tech support these days, unfortunately.

[Ovation]

The Rockwell 112/114 is a nice aeroplane to fly. It doesn't have any bad traits or if it does, I've not found them. Never owned one (but almost did).

The cabin is roomy and comfortable with access from both sides, but the trade-off is there is a second door to leak water inside, and I reckon the door sealing is not as good as it needs to be. I like the U/C hydraulic system which is spring loaded down and hydraulic to retract. Release the hydraulic pressure and down it goes. Nice and simple!

One thing to watch for is the Main Landing Gear attachment points on the wing. It might be a bit of a weak point and can be expensive to repair.

[john_tullamarine]

Didn't do much time in the range but had a look at some certification test questions at one time .. pleasant bird to fly .... except for crosswind operations .. very limited and one ran out of controls at comparatively low wind speeds - 18 kts or so if my memory cells serve me well - certainly a potential problem depending on the sort of places you might choose to go.

[zlinflyer]

Hi,

I've been searching some information about the Commander for last couple of years and recetly found that Aviation Consumer published their Used Aircraft Guide with a Commander 112/114 in focus.

Does anybody have a copy with him/her, please? I can't find anything od the Internet. Or where to find it. They offer a subscrition to be able to read the online version. I would, however, prefer to find a pdf version of the original article (from 2009) :rolleyes:

I have flown just briefly with a Commander 112 but I liekd it very much so I was hoping to get further information about the 114 and what to be aware of.

Thanks a lot! ;)

[Dehavillanddriver]

Yestam,

The 114 is a magnificent aeroplane, plenty of space, solid as a rock - with the exception of a spar problem they had where, if I remember correctly, the stress associated with the gear extension/retraction caused some cracking.

Did plenty of flying in a 114, but never flew a 114A or a 112, but imagine the 114A was just an improved version of what is an awesome aeroplane.

[PA39]

solid old bird and a good load carrier. has a little trouble with ZFW with two up. Spar, seat, tail AD's all resolved. Wet wing can cause problems. Spare parts are reasonably hard to procure now but Commander owners Club will be helpful. Have around 1500 hrs in the 114, Variants were the 114A which had differering loads MTOW etc Differing vent windows etc etc. some had 5th seat belt STC etc etc. Wide bodied created a bit of a sled but you sacrifice load/comfort for speed in most aircraft.