Rockwell Commander -A beautiful Nonsense?
Introduction If people bought
airplanes based on looks and roominess, many Rockwell Commanders would be out in the field.
In addition to the iconic taper-wing Piper Cherokees, Cessna's original Citation,
and Beech's Model 200 Super King Air, the 70s also ushered in the Rockwell Commander 112/114
series of four-seat piston singles. Design Overview
The Rockwell Commander is an American four-seat, low-wing airplane,
designed and built by North American Rockwell (later Rockwell International) starting in 1972;
this stout general aviation aircraft has a stylish look that is noticeably absent among
many airplane designs dating to the 1950s and '60s. The Commander's rakish nose, towering tail,
and upright stance set it apart from its dowdy-looking competitors on the ramp. Likewise,
its interior volume is closer to that of a cabin-class twin than to other four-seat singles.
For years, what was then called North American Rockwell had been trying to find the right mix
of ramp appeal, performance, and features to enter the general aviation market in a big way
while remaining true to its military contract experience and building big airplane touches
into the small Commanders. In 1972, the Commander single series began life as the Rockwell 112,
emphasizing cabin volume, ingress and egress ease, and aggressive styling,
designed to compete against Cessna's Cardinal RG, Pipers Arrow, and Beech's Sierra. It was a
rocky road for the Commander singles, and a series of model changes ensued in the following years.
Exterior Design
With an emphasis on comfort, the Commander makes a strong visual impression on the ramp;
it is an impressive-looking airplane. All but the tallest pilots can walk under the cruciform tail.
The tall and stout trailing link main landing gear, complete with taxi lights,
looks like they might have come off a private jet. With its three-blade McCauley propeller,
tightly cowled engine, and sloped windshield, the Commander appears ready to leap off the ramp.
The low-mounted wing has significant dihedral features and fully faired retractable main
landing gear. The gear uses the trailing-link design for additional travel and softer
"even less-than-perfect" landings. The 112B, 112TC-A, and 114A received larger main wheels
and disc brakes as part of their upgrades. The aircraft has a length of 24 feet 11 in, a wingspan
of 32 feet 9 in, and a height of 8 feet 5 in. The Commander line is, nonetheless, a robust,
complex airplane whose building method has more in common with military aircraft than with a modern
Cirrus or Lancair. The wings and fuselage were built using new construction methods
that made sections complete assemblies rather than riveting together many individual parts. The
aircraft has far fewer rivets than contemporary designs. As part of the 1976 modifications,
various air scoops were moved and redesigned, offering a slight performance increase, while
the extended wing tips reduced the stall speed from 53-knots to 50 miles per hour in the 112A.
Interior The cabin is 47 inches wide and 49 inches high,
compared to a contemporary aircraft like the Piper Arrow at 41 inches by 38 inches.
This was the most spacious cabin of any design of the era. The wide cabin and plush leather seats
swaddle the passengers and the pilot in comfort that can only be matched in cabin-class twins.
Headroom is excellent, and the view through the expansive windows is unsurpassed. Because the
occupants sit high and the cowling slopes away, over-the-nose visibility is perfect on the climb.
Rear seat passengers have a comfortably wide cabin, but legroom is tight if the front seaters
are long-legged. This was only noticeable because every other volumetric aspect of this airplane
Engine
The 114 is powered by a 260-hp Lycoming IO-540 engine, a good marriage of airframe and power
plant. The 112 is equipped with a 200-HP Lycoming IO-360 engine, and all 112TC models were powered
by a 210-HP Lycoming TO-360. The 200-HP Lycoming engine on the 112 Commanders is generally
considered a reliable player day, as is the 260-HP version on the 114. But the turbocharged model had
reports of broken or cracked turbine housings. The engine compartment suits the overall size of the
airplane, and the engine's rear-mounted accessory case is readily accessible to fix what breaks.
Getting to that point, however, requires removing the single-piece top cowling half, which isn't
an extreme burden but is one more thing to plan for when doing much more than checking the oil.
Avionics
Rockwell stuffed the panel with an extensive Bendix/King Silver Crown avionics package
and called it the TC-A Alpine in 1979. The 115 and 115TC had modern Garmin avionics
and a Bendix Kings KFC225 digital autopilot, which proved to be a good match for the performance of
the airplane. Systems
True to its government-contracting and military experience, Rockwell built into the Commander Line
"big airplane" touches when it comes to systems. The gear system, for example, is massively built,
using a retraction/extension system similar to the Piper Arrow and based on an electrically driven
hydraulic pump. The ventilation, electrical, and fuel systems are well thought out.
Some later models are equipped with air conditioning and 130-amp alternators,
providing more than enough juice to run a well-equipped cockpit.
The fuel system is unique among low-wing aircraft for having a both-tanks-selected option.
Perhaps this feature is why you rarely see fuel starvation accidents involving Commanders.
Performance and Handling
Regarding performance, blazing speed has never been a selling point for any Commander single.
At 130-knots, the original 112 can barely get out of its own way;
a fixed-gear Piper Archer with 20 less horsepower can usually stay even. A Beech Sierra,
renowned for its casual cross-country pace, can eke out another five knots, or more than a 112.
The 114 offers what might be called a gentlemanly cruise of about 150 knots.
The climb performance and range of the 114 are both adequate. Listed rate of climb is just over
1000-FPM for the 1976 model and 1160-FPM for later ones, comparable to the Mooney and Cessna
Skylane RG. The 68-gallon fuel supply is enough for four hours or so at high cruise, but the 114
lacks the reserves of the Mooney and Skylane RG, both of which carry more fuel and burn less of it.
Owners give the cabin high grades for roominess and volume, if not payload: The 112s generally
have 30 to 150 pounds less useful load than other 200-HP retractables, although the margin
diminishes with the A and B models. Part of this is due to the high-parts-count build;
there's a lot of stuff in the Commander airframe. There's one flaw in the 114s loading picture:
a zero fuel weight limit of 2,732 pounds. This limits the cabin payload to about 750 pounds.
It's plenty for most situations, but it doesn't allow for extreme situations
like four 200-pound adults. A zero fuel limit means the wing spar bending load
limit may be exceeded even though the gross weight is safely below limits.
Everybody seems to like the handling, except for two negative points: a tail waggle in turbulence
and insufficient rudder for an adequate sideslip in a crosswind landing without crabbing.
The Commander's handling characteristics would make it an excellent trainer for pilots
who intent on moving into turbine airplanes. Because the cruciform tail is high enough to be
out of the prop wash, it requires a definite rotation to get the nose up for takeoff;
in fact, most newcomers to the Commander will tend to over-rotate, . In flight, flap deployment
causes almost no pitch change. On landing, the Commander should be brought in rather flat,
with a slight flare to keep the nose wheel from touching down first.
The trailing link mains smooth out even the best efforts at dropping the 114B
onto the runway. Stalls are very gentle and don't result in a wing drop.
Variants
The 112A model was built to address the 112's useful load deficiency and featured an increased
gross weight-from 2550 to 2650 pounds-but only an additional 77 pounds in useful load.
Squeezing even more, load carrying ability out of the airframe, Rockwell delivered the 112B,
still powered by the same 200-HP Lycoming IO-360 as earlier models.
It featured 16-inch wingtip extensions, which allowed the gross to be raised to 2800 pounds
for a respectable useful load of 1027 pounds. The B model actually rode on the coattails of
the turbocharged 112TC model, which came out a year earlier with the longer wing.
The TC-A model brought with it little more than another 37 pounds of soundproofing.
All 112TC models were powered by a 210-HP Lycoming TO-360-C1A6D.
As is so often the case with new aircraft, continuing improvements
and a larger engine resulted in a new model, the 114, which arrived in 1976.
Powered by a 260-HP IO-540-T4A5D Lycoming engine (and a IO-540-T4B5 for 1977 and later models),
it was often characterized as the airplane the 112 should have been in the first place.
Only minor changes were made in the all-too-brief four-year production run of the 114. In 1977,
aerodynamic improvements gave slightly improved performance. Also, soundproofing was added,
and fixes were made for earlier compass interference and trim-tab freeze-up problems.
In mid-1977, Rockwell improved door locks and handles, replacing the earlier flipper-style
handle with a pull-out/push-up style. Also incorporated were main gear inner door mods, which
filled a small, drag-creating gap. The additional attention to gear-up drag improved cruise speed
by a handful of knots. In 1979, the final year of Rockwell production, the 114A Gran Turismo
model was offered. It featured a three-blade prop, new cowl flaps, and an upscale interior.
In 1992, Commander certified the 114B, which included a 28-volt electrical system
(instead of the original 14-volt), plus several speed mods making it faster than
the original 114, including a newly designed, aerodynamically cleaner cowling. The net result
was a cruise-performance improvement of 8-10 knots. Most notable among the changes is the
standard-equipment three-blade prop. A turbocharged version, the 114TC
(powered by a Lycoming TIO-540-AG1A), was added in 1995, In 2000, Commander upgraded the model
again with improvements including a lowered instrument panel, improved seats, an upgraded
electrical system and TKS de-icing. These aircraft are designated the 115 and 115TC, respectively.
Market In the era of declining pilot population,
airframe marketers began looking outside the traditional marketplace for new customers,
and the Commander Aircraft Company is one of the most aggressive in this approach.
Commander Chairman Wirt D. Walker III believed that small- to medium-sized companies in small-
and medium-sized cities with poor or no airline service are a prime market for the aircraft.
Most of its customers are from the more traditional general aviation marketplace — pilots
moving up from lighter airplanes or pilots making their first airplane purchase.
A 1978 Commander 114 with Lycoming IO-540-T4B5D comes with a price tag of $164,500,
while a 1995 114B costs around $225,000.
Pros
Good news includes factory support as parts availability is reportedly no problem at all.
Moreover, the airplane is very stable, easy to fly and has almost no bad flying traits.
It's a bit short on speed but is extremely comfortable and spacious.
While it failed The ironic reality was that this sharp-looking
airplane lacked the punch to compete with the Cessna, Pipers, and Beechcraft of the 70s,
as behind the pretty facade was an airplane that was seriously underpowered, overweight,
and plagued with initial design problems that resulted in some onerous airworthiness directives.
No telling of the tale of the 112/114 would be complete without a recounting
of its structural problems that began cropping up in the fleet by the mid-1980s.
Wing spars were cracking due to stress caused by gear retraction. The wings weren't the only
problem. The tails vertical spar attachment was cracking, too. Then there were the seats.
The history of this problem goes back to the mid-1970s, requiring strengthening of the front
seat framework and seat belt attachment. Then in 1985, another Airworthiness Directive came out
following a couple of accidents in which front seat rollers failed and the seats came loose.
This involved aircraft in compliance with the earlier AD. The new Airworthiness Directive
ordered modification of the front seat base and relocation of the shoulder strap anchor to the
cabin roof between the front and rear seats. Other problem areas reported by owners
include nose wheel shimmy, corroding flap attach brackets and aileron hinge cracks.
Conclusion In conclusion, the Commander has an absolutely
undeserved reputation as a problem airplane, it's got style, comfort, and plenty of space and
assuming you accept that speed isn't everything, these unique airplanes can be real values buy.