Rockwell Commander 112
 

After some info from pilots who have owned or flown a Commander 112 in the past. How do they handle. Looking at a possible future purchase and just getting a heads up. Thanks Mick

Flying the Rockwell
 

Mick flown one a few hours.

They're american, built heavy and they fly like a mini airliner.

Land beautifully due trailing link gear.

If you can get a nice one and afford the guzzling of gas, they're quite lovely machines. :cool:

Always liked how they look on the ramp too!

Never flown one .... but that's never stopped me having an opinion!

Good looker - that fails to deliver (as I understand it).

The 114 is supposed to be a better proposition.

Dr :8

Nice to fly and land. Good entry and roomy inside. The 112 is sluggish compared to the 114.

Check AD's on Main U/C attachment. The doors seem prone to water entry if seals not in good condition.

There is a 114 on line at RVAC.....to very skilled, discerning and well behaved pilots.

Have to agree, nice to fly, lands like a dream, looks good all round, roomy, & typical Rockwell built, like the perverbial!............BUT for fuel used against distance flown.....their slow, probably due to that extra wide cabin & thickish looking wing. If yr not in a hurry then you will love them. Yes as said in here do yr homework outside of this forum & check all the AD's, there's a few if I rmember correctly that must be attended to. Just 'cause there signed off as being done check anyway!
They also remind me of the Trinidad, what you reckon Dr?:)

CW:)

"what you reckon Dr?:)"

Beggar it Wal, you've caught me out. I don't have any opinion on the Trinidad!

Hard to believe I know, but there you go!

Built by Frogs, what more can I say!

Dr :8

PS: Ignore Falcon jets, TBM 700/850, Eurocopter etc

The 114 is the pick of the litter if you compare the 112 and the 114.

It is a lovely aeroplane to fly, solid, thumping Lycoming I0 540 up the front, a good autopilot and the world's greatest undercarriage.

As many have said it isnt the fastest or most economical aeroplane on the face of the globe, but one well worth considering if you have the bucks to buy an aeroplane.

114 was a nice aeroplane. Did about 60hrs in VH-KTJ many moons ago, now in Cairns apparently.

Check out the Commander Owners Group homepage. They have an FAQ and discussion forum that might be of interest.

Hangar queen.......

114 commander
 

FTDK,
I have an acquaintance in the NQ area whao has re-engined his with the IO-580 Lyco.;). He is very happy with it.

185.

Interesting, there is an STC to fit an IO-540 into the 112.

I flew the 114 ZWH and 112 SLN years ago. Nice aircraft to fly and as mentioned above the 114 is the pick. They're a good looking single and they have a nice interior for those long trips.

It's amazing what you can find when you search the FAA list of STC's.
There's a guy in California who has a STC to install a Lycoming 540 into a Grumman Cheetah. I bet that's interesting to fly. :ooh:

I believe the IO540 Grumman STC is for the Tiger, the conversion is called the 'Sabre-Toothed Tiger', FWIW. Includes 3 blade CSU prop.

Flew the 112 once; loved it, wanted it but couldn't buy it - guy had some issues with letting go of his aeroplane. He loved it too.

Pick of the litter for the Commanders would be the 115TC, comparable with the Bonza, so I am told.

Good points were the interior room and the solid build. Well appointed and standard avionics were pretty schmick for the day. Seats were very comfy and there are two front doors, plus the luggage door. Not real quick though; the 200 Arrow with the same engine ate it for speed.

Sounds like it would be FAR superior to a Bonanza I think.
It would be roomy for a start.

:E

I know some say the 112a is a bit sluggish, but how would it compare to a 172rg Cutless in performance. I hope and think it would be better.

Have flown both the 112 and 114, lovely aircraft but over engineered in some ways and fairly expensive AD's I can recall.

I reckon some of the spares would getting hard to obtain due to the fact that most aircraft would be nearly 30 years old, and the aircraft has started and stopped production under various forms over the years.

Got to fly around in a brand new 114, Brents in YMMB left it with an operator to try and sell to a Doctor, lots of flying for fuel costs only. Don't you just love that new aircraft smell!!!

From memory they had a TAS of 140-150kts, probably better of buying a nice C182.

Flies, floats or is female it will cost you!!!

If it has tits or tyres it will end in tears!!!

I checked the STC, it's specifically for the AA-5A model only.

Having said that I only checked STC listing under Grumman, there could be another under one of the other names they've had over the years.