What’s the story on the Commanders, the 112’s and 114’s? Are they any good? Better than a Sierra? They seem to be higher-priced than most Sierra’s. Are the really worth it? I’ve seen some really nice-looking ones, but they seem fairly rare on ramps. Are they orphaned airframes?
Editor:
Here is an email I sent in mid-2005. Some of the status info may have changed since then, but most observations remain valid.
The Commanders look nicer than a Sierra, and nicer than most other planes, on the outside. That’s the only thing they have going for them. They do have a nice wide cabin (same interior width as the Sierra), with two doors. The interior appointments are usually quite nice as well. They do not have nearly the usable cabin room of a Sierra. There is virtually no knee room in the back seats, no large baggage door like the Sierra’s, no option of finding a 4+2 plane (as with some Sierras), and no significant baggage access in flight (which we routinely do in the Sierra). You also cannot remove the rear seats in a minute or two, as you can in the Sierra, to create tremendous space for vacation traveling (with or without pets). The Commander is a classic example of creating a lot of exterior drag with a wide cabin, but failing to take advantage of the space on the inside. The exterior is wider than a Sierra, but with no more elbow room inside.
The Commander 112 has a variant of the Sierra’s IO360 200HP Lycoming, but not literally the same engine. The 112s are all slower than the C-model Sierras on the same HP, and have significantly less payload in comparably equipped airframes; in many or most cases, as much as 200 pounds less payload. Almost none of them are 4-adult planes. The 112TC is the turbocharged variant, some of which are aftermarket installations by RSM Turbos. I approached RSM about a Sierra turbo package, but it is a very small operation that is backlogged with 112 work, and the engine compartment layout is very different (rear induction on the 112’s engine). The turbo puts another negative hit on the 112’s useful load. If you go up high in them, you can improve on the Sierra’s speed a bit, at the cost of purchase price, maintenance costs, and fuel burn (all are significantly higher than for the Sierra). Relatively few of the 112s are really well equipped. The 112 is to the 114 what the Sierra is to the Bonanza, in terms of typical equipment and intended financial and performance class.
The Commander 114 beats the 112, solely because it has the 260 HP Lycoming IO540 engine. If compared to its true peers (similar engines and HP), it is a rather poor performer for its HP and fuel burn. It cannot even match the performance of a 1960’s Piper Comanche on the same HP. As a result, the 114 burns at least 50% more fuel than a good Sierra, while providing perhaps ten more knots in cruise. The 114 does have a bit better climb rate, of course, due to the higher HP. It is not nearly in the same performance class as a Bonanza, or even a good Bellanca Viking.
There was a very serious spar AD that grounded all the 112/114 planes, that were manufactured prior to the advent of the (recently defunct) Commander Aircraft Company (when fixes were incorporated in production). The Type Club worked with the old and new manufacturer (at the time) to pursue some financial satisfaction (and an engineered fix); they had to get the courts involved at one point. All the currently registered planes should have been properly fixed years ago, but there remains some degree of financial risk. There have been some less serious issues as well, that proved very disappointing in an airframe that Rockwell touted as being over-built, and which was certified to the new FAA standard rather than the old standard used for our A1CE Type Certificate. The Sierra has not (yet) suffered from any serious airframe ADs at all. Even the Stabilator hinge bracket inspection is an anachronism for the Sierra. The original reason for the inspection was the weaker early bracket, coupled with some cases of loosened rivets on the aerobatic Sundowners sold to the Canadian Air Force. Loose stab hinge bracket rivets should be pretty rare on a Sierra.
Commander Aircraft is out of business, and this is the third time the plane has been orphaned. My strong belief is that it will prove to be the last time. Someone may pick up the Type Certificate, to restart the parts business, but (like our planes) the plane will never successfully re-enter production. In fact, one of the reasons we formed BAC, and are trying to build a “war chest” in the BAC Treasury, is to put us in a position to bid on the Type Certificate for our Aero Center planes, if or when the time should ever come. The Commander costs too much to build, and doesn’t provide nearly enough value for the price. Maintenance costs are also higher, based on articles I have read. The owners’ Type Club has tried to artificially keep the price up on these planes for years, by discouraging anyone from installing inexpensive interiors (“Leather only, please, in a Commander”), or any other lower-cost changes; and by discouraging lower-cost sales of the planes. They are beating a dead horse, as the plane is already over-valued. My prediction is that it will fail to appreciate at the same rate as planes like the Sierra (which are still under-valued, but appreciating). The same thing is happening with Mooney. It will also happen with Cessna and New Piper piston production, and Raytheon-Beech piston production as well. None of these planes provide the overall value of a used or new Cirrus or Lancair (on the high end), or planes like the Diamond et al on the lower end.
The total number of 112/114 airframes still registered is 682. Mighty small market for any unique parts, and with defunct factory support. There are 499 Sierras still registered, of which 250 are C-models. There are 2,003 19/23 airframes still registered (making our total 2502, not including the Duchess with its common parts), which have considerable airframe parts commonality. If people think that 2,502 is a small potential market for specialized spares or modifications, you can imagine what 682 looks like to a supplier. At least we do still have some factory support, albeit at a price. And if support does dry up, we are more likely to be able to persuade someone to make parts for us, as we’ll have a reasonable population as well as a marketing medium (BAC).
Hard to say what you could get for your plane. The biggest detractor I see to its value is the relatively high hours (compared to many), but those don’t mean anything to a well-maintained plane. It’s just that most people don’t understand that. Just like a damage history means nothing if it was ten years ago, the plane was properly fixed with good records, and flies well and true. The key factors to getting a good price are a premium airplane (paint, interior, and panel), and a buyer who understands what it would take to achieve that if they bought a cheaper plane and tried to upgrade it. The usual rule of thumb is that you get back half of your upgrade costs when you sell. That means you usually need to fly a plane another five years or so following major upgrades, or you take a big depreciation hit. My usual advice to people is to never spend money on major upgrades, if you don’t intend to keep the plane long-term. On the other hand, things like a GNS480 add tremendously to IMC safety from the first time you use it. Hard to say what that’s worth, since we’ll never know whether we would have died without it.
One key factor on the price comes if the buyer has to finance the plane. The lenders tend to value on the low side to reduce their risks. That can make it hard for someone to finance a highly valued plane, unless they can put up 25% or so up front. At any rate, you can always float the offer and see what happens. The GNS480 will be offering near-ILS WAAS-based approaches within the next 2-3 years, as they are implemented; a huge advantage. One other possibility might be to float an offer to swap for a C-model Sierra plus some cash. That might help even up the value equation a bit; and there are some people who, for any of several reasons, want to step down from the retracts.
Not sure what speeds you are seeing now. I emphasize True AirSpeed (TAS) because that is the only valid comparison. A clean C24R Sierra, equipped with EGT-CHT analyzer like the JPI EDM700-800, can give you 130 knots on 9 GPH, and 140 knots (or slightly better) on 11 GPH, at typical loadings (maybe 100-150 pounds under max gross). My legal taxi-out ramp-weight payload is 988 pounds, including 8 pounds of taxi fuel, and with the rear seats removed for cargo space (primarily the self-loading baggage). With 40 gallons/4 hours of fuel, I can put 748 pounds in the cabin. And I can tell you that the plane will easily lift a couple hundred pounds more than that, even at 2,500-3,000′ Density Altitude, but I do not advise people to regularly ignore the max gross weight rating.