If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 07:54:22 -0700, "Tom S." wrote:
"Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "Stu Gotts" wrote: 260 HP is "underpowered"? HP isn't the factor. Look at the speeds those 260 ponies are taking you. ?Huh? The airplane is underpowered but HP isn't the factor? 260 HP vs. a 182RG's 235HP and it's UNDERPOWERED? UNDERPOWERED FOR THE AIRFRAME. 100 HP is more than enough for an Ercoupe, but certainly not enough for a 210. Now stop this **** and just admit the Commander (sans turbo) is a slowpoke! |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Stu Gotts" wrote:
260 HP vs. a 182RG's 235HP and it's UNDERPOWERED? UNDERPOWERED FOR THE AIRFRAME. 100 HP is more than enough for an Ercoupe, but certainly not enough for a 210. Now stop this **** and just admit the Commander (sans turbo) is a slowpoke! Of course it's a slowpoke, and we posted the reason. Enough horsepower to gain speed to match an A36 would impair the overall utility of the airplane. Your statement that "HP isn't the factor" after calling the airplane underpowered is still silly. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message news On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 10:15:32 -0500, Stu Gotts wrote: snip Tom, it sounds like you've made up your mind, so good luck with it. snip I'm just curious how many different makes/models of singles he's flown around in, and how much time he's spent in the Commander. I have 90 hours in the 112TC, and 230 in the 182RG. I have no PIC time in the 114B, but I've got about 20 hours with an associate and his 114B. I am/was also considering a 114TC. Pretty much has the highest specific fuel consumption of any comparable single, seems under-powered from the driver's seat, and personally, I don't like the way they handle. How much time do you have in the 112/112TC/114B ? Different strokes for different folks, but I wouldn't think about buying a relatively expensive, complex, everyday flyer that wasn't either in current production or very well-supported concerning parts. And that's why I asked to ascertain anyone's experience or objective knowledge of theri maintenance. As it is, I am pretty much eleiminating them from my perspective list. BTW have bopped around in a couple of 112's also, they seemed like a totally different (hard to quantify "better") handling airplane. How many hours? 112 or 112TC? BTW, My take on the 114B vs 182RG is that the 114 was MUCH more comfortable (I'm 6'1" and very wide in the shoulders), the 182RG seemingly more like a Chevy in terms of fit and finish and a feeling of being _solid_, where the 114's seem more like my Acura. I find the 114 much more comfortable in turbulence. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Craig" wrote in message om... "Tom S." wrote in message ... I notice that everybody that dinged them has dinged them regarding parts. Tom: Only reason for the ding is the low production numbers of the 112/114. I don't know exactly how many were built, but if they were around in the same numbers as Pipers and Cessnas, it wouldn't be a problem at all. Big/long production runs drive replacement parts costs down for the common items. Lots of the type clubs are solving that with obtaining the TC and what ever STC's they can as well as PMA's for replacement parts. The Twin Commander is a good example. One company now owns the TC's and will produce any part needed for virtually any of the twins. Might cost a bit, but they are obtainable. Yes, I contacted the FBO that would service it and he suggested that parts, while available, and in a LONG chain (meaning it might takes WEEKS). So, it looks like I'm back to square #1. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 18:44:54 -0700, "Tom S." wrote:
wrote in message news snip I'm just curious how many different makes/models of singles he's flown around in, and how much time he's spent in the Commander. I have 90 hours in the 112TC, and 230 in the 182RG. I have no PIC time in the 114B, but I've got about 20 hours with an associate and his 114B. I am/was also considering a 114TC. Never had the opportunity to drive a TC of any variety. However, have an associate that has ferried a couple new ones (114TC) across the Atlantic. To paraphrase, he'd never taken a GA ship across that used as much gas to go as slow. How much time do you have in the 112/112TC/114B ? All VFR (cain't legally fly with my head in the clouds), about as much time as I've gotten in about every variety of PA28 and PA32 (turbo included, ditto straight/T-tail and/or retracts), PA46-350P (no 310P), 35you-name-it, V35A, A36 (no F33), 201, 231, 172 & SP (? normally aspirated IO-360 TCM six-banger), 182 (but no RG) plus a few other odd-ball singles-Stearman, Husky, etc. Solo'd in a 7AC and finished up a Traumahawk FWIW. Useta be able to wring 'em out before & after performing annual/100 hr inspections/maintenance on them, plus occasionally some time ferrying them in for maintenance/inspection and back home again. Always took somebody along in the Stearman, other times depended what was going on and who wanted to ride along. Occasional "fun" flights also, although most were work-related. About the last one I flew was a nearly new 114B with about half tanks and three extra souls onboard (being a professional aircraft mechanic, feel free to consider me soul-less). Actually did a W & B for a change. Didn't care for the acceleration/climb gradient, dropped like a constant-chord PA32 (at a considerably higher airspeed) plus ran out of rudder on final. Actually looked down at my feet on short final to make sure I was pushing the rudder in the proper direction. Discussed this flight with the ferry dude, he indicated that his experiences pretty much matched mine. That was when he clued me in on the TC trips across the pond. Different strokes for different folks, but I wouldn't think about buying a relatively expensive, complex, everyday flyer that wasn't either in current production or very well-supported concerning parts. And that's why I asked to ascertain anyone's experience or objective knowledge of theri maintenance. As it is, I am pretty much eleiminating them from my perspective list. Bum some left seat time in an A36 some time. Prepare to be spoiled thereafter. Only problem in one is headroom in some cases. BTW have bopped around in a couple of 112's also, they seemed like a totally different (hard to quantify "better") handling airplane. How many hours? 112 or 112TC? Honestly, probly about 2.5 on three occasions. Two solo, once a long lunch trip with 4 on board. Didn't get a chance to work on the 112 (or drive it around much), this was a low-time cherry trade-in that left soon after-Commander ended up with it back when they were doing some kind of "certified" used airplane deal. Enjoyed it more than any 114 I'd been up in. BTW, My take on the 114B vs 182RG is that the 114 was MUCH more comfortable (I'm 6'1" and very wide in the shoulders), the 182RG seemingly more like a Chevy in terms of fit and finish and a feeling of being _solid_, where the 114's seem more like my Acura. I find the 114 much more comfortable in turbulence. 6' 2" 205lbs, ditto. Ain't gonna argue about whether or not a Commander looks and feels solid, I agree. They just aren't one of my favorites to fly-my opinion, worth exactly what it cost you. Regards; TC |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom S." wrote in message ...
So, it looks like I'm back to square #1. At least you aren't driving a 400 series Cessna. Just got an email with a warning about an AD getting ready to come out on all 400 series Cessnas with a projected parts cost of 14,000$, but with a 700 manhour install time... Lots of 400 series birds are going to get grounded.... Craig C. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Javier Henderson wrote: I never heard of the Command 114 being underpowered. I think the 112 was, though, but I could be wrong. Early 112s had 200 hp and weighed 2550 lbs. Later this was bumped to 210 hp and 2950 lbs. George Patterson A friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move the body. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 18:44:54 -0700, "Tom S." wrote: wrote in message news snip snip Bum some left seat time in an A36 some time. Prepare to be spoiled thereafter. Only problem in one is headroom in some cases. I've got some time in an F33 and while it flew well, the cockpit was VERY uncomfortable. BTW have bopped around in a couple of 112's also, they seemed like a totally different (hard to quantify "better") handling airplane. How many hours? 112 or 112TC? Honestly, probly about 2.5 on three occasions. Two solo, once a long lunch trip with 4 on board. Didn't get a chance to work on the 112 (or drive it around much), this was a low-time cherry trade-in that left soon after-Commander ended up with it back when they were doing some kind of "certified" used airplane deal. Enjoyed it more than any 114 I'd been up in. BTW, My take on the 114B vs 182RG is that the 114 was MUCH more comfortable (I'm 6'1" and very wide in the shoulders), the 182RG seemingly more like a Chevy in terms of fit and finish and a feeling of being _solid_, where the 114's seem more like my Acura. I find the 114 much more comfortable in turbulence. 6' 2" 205lbs, ditto. Ain't gonna argue about whether or not a Commander looks and feels solid, I agree. And that was (one of) my main points, and the main reason I just don't like a Mooney if there's more than just myself in the front seats. They fly like s dream, but the seats are like coach seats on a 737 with a fat dude/dudess next to you (been there...Oh god, have I been THERE). They just aren't one of my favorites to fly-my opinion, worth exactly what it cost you. The whole POINT of design in the Commander series was CABIN WIDTH and HEIGHT. That is going to spoil the speed/fuel burn aerodynamics. It's much of the reason a Mercedes doesn't get the same gas mileage as a Honda Accord. Diff'rent strokes fer different folks! :~) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Stu Gotts wrote:
Compare the climb and useful weight to a sicilian aircraft, say a Bonanza with the same HP. Maybe I'm slow today, but I can't imagine what you meant to write instead of "sicilian." Thanks, Mike Beede |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 19:04:44 -0500, Mike Beede wrote:
In article , Stu Gotts wrote: Compare the climb and useful weight to a sicilian aircraft, say a Bonanza with the same HP. Maybe I'm slow today, but I can't imagine what you meant to write instead of "sicilian." Thanks, Mike Beede I totally screwed up on the whole thread, maybe the combination of heroin, booze and wild women. That should have been similar, but maybe the spell checker changed whatever I pecked out to Sicilian. Or maybe it's secret code for the Cosa Nostra. Anyway, I need to back out of the thread, I totally have not expressed what I meant to say. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|