What about Brand "X"?

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!

"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

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.

"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.

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

"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.

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.

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! :~)

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

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.