Looking for a very nice (uk/euro) Commander 114B

[SDB73]

If anyone knows of one for sale which isn't on planecheck, avbuyer, or controller, etc please let me know!

[gijoe]

114B

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

[englishal]

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

[SDB73]

Thank you very much for this, but I'm looking for a 114B. G-DDIG is listed as a 114.

[IO540]

Any particular reason for looking for a Rockwell Commander, and what is your budget?

[SDB73]

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?

[SDB73]

Actually, that all sounded a bit passion-free.

I also think they're beautiful to look at, and wonderful to fly.

[goldeneaglepilot]

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

[IO540]

I asked because a TB20 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) 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.

[SDB73]

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]

Does anyone know if the 115 will ever be produced again? I've just noticed that Commander Premier filed for bankruptcy protection a month ago.
Shame that such a beautiful aircraft seems doomed never to succeed.

[goldeneaglepilot]

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]

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 ) 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!

[SDB73]

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.

[SDB73]

PS. forgot to add that I totally agree in terms of the turbo and have ruled that out for the time being.

[IO540]

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.

[SDB73]

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.

[TWR]

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...

[IO540]

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]

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.