Bob_Belville Posted May 2, 2015 Report Share Posted May 2, 2015 I have read (but never flown myself) that this is how some airplanes like the cherokee 6 behave when fully legally loaded. That the feel of it is so different with 6 on board rather than what the pilot may be used to as a peppy climber with 2 on board, that sometimes that change of behavior alone causes them make mistakes. I have quite a bit of time in a PA32R-300 (T Tail Lance) and less time in a C-207 Skywagon. Putting another 1000 pounds or so in something like that make a big difference in performance and control feel. Perhaps some of you remember how quickly that C150 lifted off the runway and climbed the first time the instructor got out mid-lesson and told you to take it around the pattern by yourself. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffy Posted May 2, 2015 Report Share Posted May 2, 2015 It's no different in a 757. Light with 2 pilots only and gas for 300 miles? Out of 12,000' from Sea Level, 2 mins 56 seconds from throttles fwd. With 188 bodies and fuel for 5 hrs? You wish. And that's with 80,000 lbs of thrust. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder Posted May 2, 2015 Report Share Posted May 2, 2015 Perhaps some of you remember how quickly that C150 lifted off the runway and climbed the first time the instructor got out mid-lesson and told you to take it around the pattern by yourself. Yep, big difference. First thing I noticed was what a level AI looked like. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted May 2, 2015 Report Share Posted May 2, 2015 Yep, big difference. First thing I noticed was what a level AI looked like. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk The family resemblance with your girlfriend is quite strong! (please don't blind me with her picture, too) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantom Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 Yep, big difference. First thing I noticed was what a level AI looked like. Whatever 'body shaping' club you belong to, it's time for a change...please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 Whatever 'body shaping' club you belong to, it's time for a change...please! These folks are just a constant reminder where I was headed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGF_Yankee Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 So all of this begs the question: Did they put all five of them in the helicopter? No. Three separate helicopters were used. A fourth was en route, but was cancelled last minute when it was decided to transport by ground locally. The pilot was then transported to the hospital via ambulance later as well. When people say "would it fly?", what they're really asking is would it continue to fly normally after climbing out of ground effect. The NTSB database is full of aircraft accidents that resulted from aircraft that were able to lift off and little else. Maybe a weak climb on the edge of stall before either stalling or settling back twards earth and ending up in the weeds/trees shortly thereafter. Exactly. A witness reported that it rotated a little before midfield (5,000' runway) and it attempted no less than three times to climb out of ground effect, and each time the aircraft sank back down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanM20C Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 I ran the W&B for my C with my best (conservative) guess on the weight of the occupants. I'm assuming 10lbs on the hat shelf and 30gal of fuel. Without the girl in the back they would roughly be 50lbs over gross and a CG around 48.7 (49 is the aft limit). Now if you add just 15lbs to the baggage compartment the CG will end up right at the aft limit. Based on the photos I have seen of the girl in the back I think a charitable guess of her weight would be 165lbs. So that puts the airplane over 200lbs heavy with a CG between 2-3" beyond the aft limit. I routinely load my airplane as aft as possible but I pay close attention not to go past 49". In fact it is hard to load it that far aft but I never thought about sticking a person back there. But I can feel a considerable difference in how the airplane flys between 48" and 45". I'm assuming it would be a total different airplane loaded to 52". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 I watched a plane leave my home field on Tuesday, temps were in the low 80s. Not a plane I'm familiar with, low wing with the horizontal stabilizer halfway up the vertical, and unusually shaped windows; the pilot appeared to be solo. Ground roll was about 2000' then the plane was yanked off with no rotation and went another 2000' at about 3-5' agl before climbing. As far as I could tell, he retracted the gear somewhere in the climb when I couldn't see. He flew a crosswind and came over the hangar gear up at a charitable 1000' agl [i'm not sure, so I'll give him credit for that]. Thankfully the field is 5000' long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronk25 Posted May 8, 2015 Report Share Posted May 8, 2015 Stick that crew of clowns in s Chevy suburban and you would "feel" it drive different..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted May 8, 2015 Report Share Posted May 8, 2015 I watched a plane leave my home field on Tuesday, temps were in the low 80s. Not a plane I'm familiar with, low wing with the horizontal stabilizer halfway up the vertical, and unusually shaped windows; the pilot appeared to be solo. Ground roll was about 2000' then the plane was yanked off with no rotation and went another 2000' at about 3-5' agl before climbing. As far as I could tell, he retracted the gear somewhere in the climb when I couldn't see. He flew a crosswind and came over the hangar gear up at a charitable 1000' agl [i'm not sure, so I'll give him credit for that]. Thankfully the field is 5000' long. Was it a Rockwell Comander? They have a reputation for being groundhogs. Probably the most comfortable cabin in class though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted May 8, 2015 Report Share Posted May 8, 2015 Yep, that was it. Wondered if it was a Commander. Was very surprised at the length of the ground roll and the unusual non-rotation jump into low ground effect, then worried by how long he stayed at 4' agl. Glad the airport has clear approaches on both ends, he'd never get out of my old field, 3000' with trees at both ends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted May 8, 2015 Report Share Posted May 8, 2015 201='s Commander 114 & Cardinal killer. In the marketplace back in the day and in the skies. 201=Economical performance and stout build sold in the 70's & 80's... Mooney dominated them in sales. Maybe carbon China Mooney can reboot... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted May 8, 2015 Report Share Posted May 8, 2015 Stout? Yes. (Love the trailing link gear) Comfortable? Yes Economical? Not so much. Any of the NA machines would be hard pressed to break 150kts save for the Super Commander which has an IO580 and the fuel flow to go with it. Ok (but not great) at hauling a load. Wing life limits attached...ugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaV8or Posted May 8, 2015 Report Share Posted May 8, 2015 Yep, that was it. Wondered if it was a Commander. Was very surprised at the length of the ground roll and the unusual non-rotation jump into low ground effect, then worried by how long he stayed at 4' agl. Glad the airport has clear approaches on both ends, he'd never get out of my old field, 3000' with trees at both ends. Most likely the Commander 112 is what you saw. They use the same engines as our mid and short body Mooneys and aren't good performers. The very first 112 was 180 hp carbureted like a C and a real sloth getting into the air. Later Rockwell went to the big bore engines and the plane became much more acceptable performance wise. The turbo 114 is well liked by those that have them. It's a plane that trades speed for comfort and some people prefer that. They also look really cool and absolutely have a commanding presence on the ramp. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted May 8, 2015 Report Share Posted May 8, 2015 Even more so than cool, they look expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted May 9, 2015 Report Share Posted May 9, 2015 No plane, no gain! Their advertising slogan in the late 90s early new millennium... They were still in production at the time. Like an old M20R, it's got a lot of digital BK stuff in it...but no screens. Chubby = slow... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFromCB Posted May 9, 2015 Report Share Posted May 9, 2015 I have always wondered what the parts availably is like, especially for the newer 115TC. To me it was seemed like a perfect airplane. When I think Mooney, I think BMW 3 series, when I think Commander, I think Mercedes S class. Just looks so comfortable. I guess I've never met an airplane I didn't like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaV8or Posted May 9, 2015 Report Share Posted May 9, 2015 I have always wondered what the parts availably is like, especially for the newer 115TC. To me it was seemed like a perfect airplane. When I think Mooney, I think BMW 3 series, when I think Commander, I think Mercedes S class. Just looks so comfortable. I guess I've never met an airplane I didn't like. I agree. The Commander seems perfect for retirement years. Easier to get into, comfortable and spacious and not in a big hurry to get anywhere. I've always admired the Commander on some level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob_Belville Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 I watched a plane leave my home field on Tuesday, temps were in the low 80s. Not a plane I'm familiar with, low wing with the horizontal stabilizer halfway up the vertical, and unusually shaped windows; the pilot appeared to be solo. Ground roll was about 2000' then the plane was yanked off with no rotation and went another 2000' at about 3-5' agl before climbing. As far as I could tell, he retracted the gear somewhere in the climb when I couldn't see. He flew a crosswind and came over the hangar gear up at a charitable 1000' agl [i'm not sure, so I'll give him credit for that]. Thankfully the field is 5000' long. Rockwell Commander 114? www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/Aircraft-Ownership/Aircraft-Fact-Sheets/Commander-114 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Pressley Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 Crazy that Commander would cease building the fastest single (ie Meyers 200D) in order to build the slowest underperforming 112. 114 was a little better but I would guess this was a 112 or 112A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry 5TJ Posted December 16, 2018 Report Share Posted December 16, 2018 I enjoyed a 114B for several years. It was solid, comfortable & faster than my E model but used more fuel, naturally. The Commander felt to my Mooney-attuned pilot sense as if it needed another 4-6’ of wing span. Engine out it would reach the ground fairly rapidly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyboy0681 Posted December 17, 2018 Report Share Posted December 17, 2018 23 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said: I enjoyed a 114B for several years. It was solid, comfortable & faster than my E model but used more fuel, naturally. The Commander felt to my Mooney-attuned pilot sense as if it needed another 4-6’ of wing span. Engine out it would reach the ground fairly rapidly. My hangar neighbor has a 114 and whenever I visit I am amazed at just how short the wingspan is. When the Mooney is in the hangar there's just enough room at each wingtip to get by, with the Commander there's something like two feet on each side. But one thing's for sure, it's a really comfy cabin. Slow but comfy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted December 17, 2018 Report Share Posted December 17, 2018 2 hours ago, flyboy0681 said: My hangar neighbor has a 114 and whenever I visit I am amazed at just how short the wingspan is. When the Mooney is in the hangar there's just enough room at each wingtip to get by, with the Commander there's something like two feet on each side. In my old T Hangar, there was approx. 18" between each wingtip and the wall. I could turn sideways and slip by. If the plane was in the exact center . . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steingar Posted December 17, 2018 Report Share Posted December 17, 2018 I remember the submarine Mooney, I was thinking about buying it. Got submerged in a flood, they just slapped some paint on it and pencil whipped it an annual. The sucker who bought it flew it under the influence, so the crash was blamed on him. I'd steer clear of anything coming out of Morristown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.