Commander 112 .. Anybody heard of it?

[zoom]

Fellas (and ladies),

I have an ex student (CEO type guy), who has been flying his Cessna 172 around for the past year racking up 300 hours. Now that he's ready to take it a notch up, he found this great deal in Ohio on a Commander 112. Seriously, it only has like 960 TOTAL hours on it since 1973 for only 80K.. so it sounds like a good deal.

My question is.. has anyone ever heard of such an airplane? I see it on the website and I can't say I've ever really seen any of these out there.

http://steelaviation.com/1973_command_112_


I'm wondering if anyone out there can tell me the good and the bad about it. Would be good for me to know since I'll be the one flying it back to Colorado for him.

Thanks in advance.


Blue Skies,

zoom

 

[FSB99]

never flown one myself, but i seem to remember hearing they had some kind of problems back in the 80's, something to do with ad's regarding the empennage.. apparently they were cracking, or bending or something like that. i'd also heard the reason they never really got all that popular was they were just way under-powered.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

I don't have much time in one but I know a couple of guys that owned one and they were very happy with it. It performs about like a Bonanza but with alot more cabin room.

AOPA pilot did an article on the Commanders not too long ago.

 

[eaglefly]

Great looking aircraft and very comfortable (44-inch wide cabin). Despite some Wing Spar A.D.'s it is well built and handles beautifully. Trailing beam gear makes for more comfortable landings.

Now the down side :

It is very slow for it's power (200 H.P. IO-360) and is a down right dog at altitude (you'll run out of steam at 8-9000 depending on density altitude and weight and stagger getting there at that).

Not a very good useful load (68 gals. fuel makes for a skimpy payload).

Older models can be noisy.

Very expensive to own and operate compared to similar aircraft (Arrow, 177RG, Sierra).

If you're going to operate in the high country, consider a turbo-normilizer to greatly improve performance.

The downside to those is close to $20,000 in cost and chops another hundred pounds of an already weak useful load, making it a 2-place aircraft with full fuel.

This engine was to small for this large and heavy airframe. The 260 H.P. 114 (or newer 115's up to turbo 270 H.P.) make the airplane really shine, but you'll pay 125K to close to half a mil.

Among the prettiest things on the ramp though.

 

[jdog78]

I haven't flown one either, but it's a slick looking aircraft and the newer ones have 270 horses. This looks like a solid, low-time aircraft, as long as all ADs have been complied with. Just get a good pre-buy inspection, especially if there is damage history. Look up Commander Aircraft for specs on the newer ones.

-j

 

[Timebuilder]

Commander is a nice airplane, but it is for the really upscale owner for whom the aircraft costs are never an "issue". I would probably get a Bonanza instead if I was thinking of a high performance single.

If he has the money, the recent vintage model 114 series is much nicer.

When looking at airplanes you really have to watch out for those "recurring" AD's. They can be very expensive.

Let us know what you find out. You don't see a lot of 112's.

 

[bigD]

eaglefly hit on the main points I'd talk about.

This plane is the anti-Mooney. It has tons of space, is very comfortabale, but doesn't go fast at all. The early 112 I flew did about 130-135 knots at 8K at 75%. The airframe is *wide*, and it takes a good amount of power to pull it through the air at any reasonable speed. The later models can do this - the earlier ones with the 360 could not.

If the mission profile is for 2 to 3 people to go somewhere kinda slowly, but in better comfort than any other 4 place airplane (and most 6 places), this is a nice airplane. And like eaglefly said, it looks great too. Hard to find a more impressive looking plane for 80K.

Couple of tidbits...the trailing link landing gear will make you look good on landing. Not a lot of legroom in the back. The horizontal stab is mounted high enough to provide good shelter from the rain.

Chicks have loved this plane more than anything else I've flown, mainly because its width makes it kind of like being in a car. I can be grumbling to myself about getting 200fpm climbing through 6000', but they're raving about how much better the plane is to ride in than anything else. Once again, when it comes to women, it's all about the girth!

 

[flywithastick]

Probably redundant, but here goes. Very good looking single engine airplane, 112 & 114 models. They don't perform as well as they look though.

Rockwell (Commander?) used to make a low wing twin as well (not the Shrike or Twin Commander). Better looking than a Baron, IMVHO! What was the model no?

 

[LAXSaabdude]

Rockwell (Commander?) used to make a low wing twin as well (not the Shrike or Twin Commander). Better looking than a Baron, IMVHO! What was the model no?

I think you mean the 700 Commander. Not too many of those around. I think that they were made on contract by Fuji or some other Japanese company.

LAXSaabdude.

 

[Headwind]

Flew a 112 some in the late 70's. It was a very nice aircraft, but very under powered. It's a shame because it was a beautiful plane. The 114 is the same plane with more power, but its performance is still way short of a Bonanza.

 

[zoom]

Thank You All!

Gentelmen,

Thank you to everybody for providing such great information. I have a meeting with him this evening and I will print up everything you have posted for him to consider. In the end, and based on the information you have presented and I have confirmed, I'm going to recommend against it since he plans to fly it here in Colorado where the runway STARTS at 6,500 feet.

On the other hand, if he decides to plunk down an additional 22K for the turbo normalizer, I will tell him he has my blessing.

Thank you all again.

Blue Skies...

 

[Airpiraterob]

if there was ever an unrealized/underdeveloped bonanza fighter out there....that was it. unfortunately the performance resembled the Beech Sierra (130kt) but lands better. however the beech sierra would cost less to buy....and has F'd up main gear. (swings outward!)

but hey, the 112 is a single. complex equipment. its a step up without buying a doctor killer lawn dart. and if youre going somewhere far away its good to cruise there in this thing. would be real nice on XC flights and you could almost STC a lay-z-boy for seats theres so much room.

now if he wants to plunk down another 20k+ for a turbo-normalizer, thats about 110k+ hes about to spend. Start looking around in that range of money and see whats there. Guaranteed theres something that will have betetr performance as well. An old student of mine bought a Piper Dakota (warrior with 235hp) for that ammount and it got him a dual garmin 430 full stack of everything, S-tec autopilot, strikefinder, full on leather interior, digital egt, that pump up air seel on the door, and it would have no problem climbing to 10 or 11k easy....got 140 kts true up there. burning 9 an hour. (shoulda seen how it climbed empty on half tanks!)

anyway for 110k theres options...many more than youd find for 80k. in fact i just found a few Piper turbo arrows (2's, 3's, and a 4) for around 80k over on www.barnstormers.com

 

[rnobson]

Had a couple of years flying the 114 Have been told the 112 is pretty underpowered Lovely wide cabin and comfortable airplane would like to get back in one

 

[great cornholio]

I use to teach in a 112A I thought it was a very nice plane. If he has the money then he should try to find a 114 though. The 112 is underpowered at best. It climbs really shallow and takes up a lot of runway for a single on take off too. Later on my school got the vortex generator kit for it and it helped some. The cabin is really roomy, when it is trimmed out it is really really stable great for ifr, the landing gear is built like a tank Im not sure there is anything that you cant land on with it. The trailing link mains make all landings nice and soft. Overall the 112 is a good plane just a little underpowered. I would even say that it is one of my like top 2 or 3 single engine planes that I've flown.

 

[bugchaser]

I owned one of these back around 1990-91. It had 1100 TT and I bought and sold it for 30k. Flew it for about 350 hrs and got my inst and comm ticket in it. Great airplane for building time. Way under powered. They got all the wing spar problems fixed long ago. For that kind of money get yourself a good P or S model Bonanza and fly a lot fewer hours.

 

[FOB]

Love it!

The 112 is underpowered for the size of the aircraft. However, the 114 is wonderful and solid. I would put it on my top 3 GA singles list. Very comfortable and honest. Both models are hits with passengers as they feel like they are getting in a "big" airplane. The 112 would be ok at lower elevations if the guy wants a roomy and sexy "300 dollar hamburger" plane. Think of it as a big Piper Warrior. I suggest looking into 114s for a better overall package. Those can be had for about 115,000 in very good condition.

 

[TDTURBO]

Tell your friend to forget the under-powered hanger queen. That many hours in 30 years means a major overhaul, not to mention all the other problems from dis-use. Get a 182rg and be done with it if you can find one. 156kt cruise, 172kts (turbo), 1100 mile range, 1300 lb useful load, same interior room, bullet proof engine, best safety record in class........any questions?

 

[dayshift]

Tell the guy to get a fixed gear C-182, which performs superior to the 112 in most areas, plus if you fly into a cloud, and get dsoriented it will not build up speed as quickly.

 

[TDTURBO]

Dayshift,
The reason why I mentioned the RG was because his freind wanted to, "take it up a notch", inferring a complex HP single. Besides, the fixed gear has a Continental engine that makes ice and has problems with new jugs making 500hrs. This is a direct result of TCM QC problems as of late and by no means is a reflection of the older ones. You are right in that it won't build speed, disorientated or not, at best it is a 140kt airplane.

 

[Airpiraterob]

i agree,

i was looking around to see what cessna made in a turbo style. If you can find a 182RG thats your best bet, the turbo would be even better. youre not going to find a turbo 182 rg for less than more than he wants to spend, but it would still be worth it.

did they make a 177 cardinal RG with a turbo or was that an aftermarket STC?

cessna RG + Lycoming engine for the larger displacements = absolutely great airplane. has he looked into a 210?

 

[Nolife]

Cessna 210

IMHO,

The Cessna 210 is the best single engine high performance piston out there. I flew 1100 hrs in one for FLX. It's got long legs, good speed, great useful load, roomy cabin, and it's not that much harder to fly than a C172.

A good one is expensive, 100G- 200G, and people don't like to give them up however if I were to buy a family truckster it would be a C210 no doubt.

The AC112 is as everybody above said... great cabin but grossly underpowered. After a few years your friend will want something faster and that climbs better.

 

[Airpiraterob]

here you go!!!

1978 T182RG, 2600 TT, 900 SMOH, IFR, needs P&I, $110,000. Corona Aircraft Sales, Bob Cullen, (909) 735-1980, fax (909) 735-9243. 01203:10

pulled it off of
http://www.inflightusa.com/sale/sale.5.html

and he gets it to look like he wants it after he puts in paint and interior.....heh, fly as is for a while and save up the cash.

 

[Flight_Line]

I did my Commercial single and CFI in a 112. What a freaking dog. The 114 is a much better plane.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: Cessna 210

IMHO, the Cessna 210 is the best single engine high performance piston out there.

I would argue that the P-47 has it beat...but I guess they're harder to find.

 

[Long Time Gone]

I've flown both the 112 and 114....the 114 was much better, mostly b/c of the power difference. When looking it up, try looking for a RC-112A.

If the plane used to belong to Airline Training ACademy, either have the puppy looked into by someone you know, or look for another plane. Just my .02 from experience.

 

[340drvr]

As everyone has pointed out, they just don't perform. I logged some hours in a 112 a while back, here in Wyoming. They just don't fly well at high density altitude, I'd rather be in a 152, except for the legroom! Too bad, nice comfortable cabin. You've already figured it out, but there are many better choices for mountain country.

 

[Loafman]

Tell the guy to get a fixed gear C-182, which performs superior to the 112 in most areas, plus if you fly into a cloud, and get dsoriented it will not build up speed as quickly.

Should this really be a selling point? To anyone but JFK Jr.?