• Welcome to the new Commander Owners Group Forums. Please bear with us as the kinks are worked out and things are tweaked. If you have any questions or issues with the new platform, please post them here.

New Member - New Purchase

R

rodmcrae

New member
Supporting Member
Albury NSW Australia
Aircraft Year
1977
Aircraft Type
114
Reg Number
VH-OCY
Serial Number
14219
Hi from Australia
After admiring the 114 for many years and considering purchasing a plane but couldn't, I've reached that stage of life when I'm entitled to a post mid-life crisis and I've done it.
I've got a 1977 114 fitted with a 3 blade prop but I'm a bit confused as to what that really is.
I cannot find a POH for 114 with anything other than a 2 blade except a 114A, so I ask:
Was there a 114 with a factory 3 blade
What are the main differences between a 114 and 114A with regard to flying, performance and MTOW - is it only the prop.
Should a 114 with 3 blade qualify for 114A MTOW?
 
On my 1976 it is an STC from Jim Richards - Aeroydne, Corp as all of them came with a 2 blade. The 3 blade is supposed to be quieter and climb better. Since i have had mine I do not see any difference between it and the 2 blade that it came with.
To me, the big difference is how it adds to the appearance of our birds. I doubt if there is much if any, difference between a 1976 and 1977 regarding performance. Overall the 114 is a great airplane as it has power.
There are quite a few owners here that know a lot about the fleet of Commanders, and I suspect they will respond regarding MTOW question.
 
Thanks Frank
It's not the end of the world but it's been bugging me that I can't find the answer and a legal higher MTOW wouldn't go astray.
 
I have the three blade on my 112 TCA and it doesn't change MTOW at all. Generally the props are installed under an STC process and have nothing to do with any changes to the air frame itself.
I never found much of a difference in performance and I think most people buy them because they provide a little extra ground clearance, they are quieter and they just look cool.
 
The 3 blade is installed per STC and no supplemental insert for the POH. No change in MTOW or performance.
 
I'm still mystified as to what gives the 114A an increased MTOW.
I'd love to know what it is.
Can anybody enlighten me.
 
rodmcrae said:
I'm still mystified as to what gives the 114A an increased MTOW.
I'd love to know what it is.
Can anybody enlighten me.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that it's actually a number of factors which include the already mentioned greater engine power, but also thicker wing skins and some slight modifications to the wing structure.
 
I have a 1976 112TC with a MGTOW of 2850. The next year they came out with a 112TCA with a MGTOW of 2950. Identical Airframe and power plant, wing life went from about 12,000 hours to about 8,000 hours (dont quote me ). they added a three bladed prop and some sound proofing. many times its just a paperwork excercise.
 
Thanks Glenn.
It seemed to me comparing the POH, Type Certificate and anything else I could find that it was most probably only a rethink and recalculation due to the 114A higher weight ex-factory and if so, then I'm surprised an amendment to increase the MTOW of a 114 hadn't been sought. However, if there's a structural difference, then that could be the answer. I don't know how much stronger they made the 114A wing though, as the type certificate notes limit the wing structure to some 14,000 in lieu of the 114's 19,000.
Rod
 
atjudge said:
I have a 1976 112TC with a MGTOW of 2850. The next year they came out with a 112TCA with a MGTOW of 2950. Identical Airframe and power plant, wing life went from about 12,000 hours to about 8,000 hours (dont quote me ). they added a three bladed prop and some sound proofing. many times its just a paperwork excercise.
Click to expand...

i think it was definitely those pork chop doors :) that warranted the MTOW increase.

To be fair - i think them lowering the wing life limit seems to be part of it. You can carry more - yes but for a bit shorter life.
 
I doubt that it's horsepower as the TCDS and POH for both 114 and 114A have the same engine at the same horsepower listed as standard.
 
Correct. I thought you were talking airframe MTOW progression from 112 on. The weight increase caused the reduction in hours on wing life. In reality, landing cycles would have been better, but much harder to track.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top