What about Brand "X"?

"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?

Commanders are slower than comparable airplanes because they sacrifice
speed for roominess; their fuselage cross section is larger. It would
take a lot more horsepower to raise the cruise speed appreciably, at
the cost of range or payload.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 10:11:37 -0500, Stu Gotts wrote:

Aren't they bankrupt and the doors closed?


As of July 5th, 2003, the latest SEC filings I found, they were still under
Chapter 11 protection. It appears that Tiger Aircraft LLC is bailing them
out to the tune of $2.8 million, and will assume majority control.

To read all about it, go to www.pinksheets.com and look up "SEC Filings"
for symbol AVGE.

"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.

Craig C.

Compare the climb and useful weight to a sicilian aircraft, say a
Bonanza with the same HP.

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 10:57:03 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

"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?

Commanders are slower than comparable airplanes because they sacrifice
speed for roominess; their fuselage cross section is larger. It would
take a lot more horsepower to raise the cruise speed appreciably, at
the cost of range or payload.

"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?

As you said...

Commanders are slower than comparable airplanes because they sacrifice
speed for roominess; their fuselage cross section is larger. It would
take a lot more horsepower to raise the cruise speed appreciably, at
the cost of range or payload.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

So the "it's underpowered" is BS.

"Stu Gotts" wrote in message
...
Compare the climb and useful weight to a sicilian aircraft, say a
Bonanza with the same HP.

Compare the cabin. Compare the room of an Acura with a Civic.


On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 10:57:03 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

"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?

Commanders are slower than comparable airplanes because they sacrifice
speed for roominess; their fuselage cross section is larger. It would
take a lot more horsepower to raise the cruise speed appreciably, at
the cost of range or payload.

"Tom S." writes:

"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?

How do the weights compare?

-jav

Javier Henderson wrote:

How do the weights compare?

Commander - 3260 lbs. Skylane - 2950 lbs. Weights are MGW.

George Patterson
A friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move
the body.

"G.R. Patterson III" writes:

Javier Henderson wrote:

How do the weights compare?

Commander - 3260 lbs. Skylane - 2950 lbs. Weights are MGW.


OK, so, about the same loading per hp, then.

I never heard of the Command 114 being underpowered. I think the 112 was,
though, but I could be wrong.

-jav

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.

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.

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.

BTW have bopped around in a couple of 112's also, they seemed like a
totally different (hard to quantify "better") handling airplane.

YMMV

TC