New guy hello all…. Trying to determine the difference between a 112 hotshot and a 112TC. Are these essentially the same? Is 112TC fundamentally different? Also….is pricing power similar? Thanks
Last edited:
-
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.
112 vs 112TC
- Thread starter HarlessB001
- Start date
Glendale, AZ
- Aircraft Type
- 112TCA
- Reg Number
- N91GM
- Serial Number
- 13184
Similar in a lot of respects. The hot shot is a little easier to manage since it's an automatic wastegate. On the TC and TCA you have to manage manifold pressure to not over boost. A little more horsepower on the TC's then the turbo normalized 112. 112 engine is easier to have rebuilt and costs less. TCA has some changes to the airframe and increased gross weight. That's just a brief explanation but if you do some searches on the site you should find a lot more.
Nr. Albany, GA
- Aircraft Year
- 1974
- Aircraft Type
- 112 Hot Shot
- Reg Number
- N1182J
- Serial Number
- 155
Joel, I think that you have it backwards, the Hotshot is a manual wastegate and the TC is automatic. The 112B is the best platform for the Hotshot with the longer wing and higher gross weight. The TC can be more expensive to maintain with some parts being between expensive and ridiculous.
I am sure that some TC owners will jump in here, I am only experienced with the Hotshot but really do like it.
Life is a barrel of fun.
Ken
I am sure that some TC owners will jump in here, I am only experienced with the Hotshot but really do like it.
Life is a barrel of fun.
Ken
Glendale, AZ
- Aircraft Type
- 112TCA
- Reg Number
- N91GM
- Serial Number
- 13184
Sorry Ken I have to correct you on this one.
I fly a TCA and it has a manual wastegate and it's extremely easy to overboost if you're not paying attention. Take off power is 42 in of manifold pressure. On The turbo normalized version you can just go full throttle for takeoff since the wastegate controls manifold pressure to sea level pressure. Not true on the TC or TCA. On both of those you will need to increase manifold pressure as you climb or decrease manifold pressure on the descent as it changes about 1-in for 1,000 ft of altitude.
For that reason I suggest that the turbo normalized version is a little easier for most.
It hurts me to say that since I do own a TCA, but I will be honest when asked. The other big difference is maintenance costs, and TBO are different between the two. Standard cylinders versus unique cylinders and a TBO of 2000 versus 1800.
I fly a TCA and it has a manual wastegate and it's extremely easy to overboost if you're not paying attention. Take off power is 42 in of manifold pressure. On The turbo normalized version you can just go full throttle for takeoff since the wastegate controls manifold pressure to sea level pressure. Not true on the TC or TCA. On both of those you will need to increase manifold pressure as you climb or decrease manifold pressure on the descent as it changes about 1-in for 1,000 ft of altitude.
For that reason I suggest that the turbo normalized version is a little easier for most.
It hurts me to say that since I do own a TCA, but I will be honest when asked. The other big difference is maintenance costs, and TBO are different between the two. Standard cylinders versus unique cylinders and a TBO of 2000 versus 1800.
Last edited:
Thank you both!
Long Island, NY (USA)
- Aircraft Year
- 1976
- Aircraft Type
- 114
- Reg Number
- N127XY
- Serial Number
- 14039
No, they are not even close to the same. The engine on the 112 HotShot is the same as is used in the base 112s with the turbo added as an STC'd alteration, whereas the 112TC/TCA uses a Lycoming turbo charged engine. The HotShot is fuel injected, the TC/TCA is carburetted. The HotShot has an intercooler, the TC/TCA do not.
The 112 HotShot and 112TC/TCA are both manual wastegate. The 112 HotShot has overboost protection, the 112TC/TCA do not.
The 114 HotShot is automatic wastegate.
There are various articles throughout the Internet describing the difference between a turbo-normalized engine (112 HotShot) and a turbo-charged engine (112TC/TCA). Google is your friend.
New York, NY
- Aircraft Year
- 1976
- Aircraft Type
- 112TC
- Reg Number
- N976MA
- Serial Number
- 13043
Another TC owner here.
TC is Turbo-charged. Will maintain over sea-level pressure and will carry the resulting higher power to altitude. 210HP
HotShot = Turbo-Normalized. Whatever HP the plane produces at sea-level , under ideal conditions 200 HP - conditions are never ideal. So whatever it produces, it will carry to altitude.
So they're not the same "TURBO".
Pros / Cons : TC - more power and will give you that power all the way up. More useful load. Can carry 4 adults. That comes at a price - Cons : More expensive and required you to operate within limits. Joels comments are 100% on. You can't just firewall the throttle and fly it WOT. Engine cylinders are more expensive.
Pros/Cons TN (Hotshot) : same power as normally aspirated (you can't boost to higher pressures) but will give you that sea-level power all he way up. 6K is where normally aspirated peak out and struggle after 8K feet. The TN Hotshot will keep giving you sea-level power - but not the 210 HP you get from the TC. Cheaper to operate. Simpler to operate .
The TC can hence carry more. The TN is a 112 with a turbo-normalized engine - can't carry more but similar operating costs as a 112.
For newer pilots - the TN (Hotshot).
For pilots who have experience with turbo-chargers - TC all the way. You can carry more and you get your honest 210 HP all the time,
Having owned a TC , i would still replace it with a TC. TC - has 1000 lbs useful load. Over 20 year i had 2 precautionary cylinder replacements and 2 throttle cable replacements.
i finally replaced my engine after 20 years not because the engine was done but because Lycoming keeps increasing their prices by 10-15% every year.
With the hotshot - you are not gaining useful load. You have a 112 with an engine that isn't subject to performance degradation after 6K feet.
But you're not putting 4 adults in it.
So - depends on your mission. If a 112 load fits your profile - the 112 Hotshot (TN) is definitely cheaper to operate.
TC is Turbo-charged. Will maintain over sea-level pressure and will carry the resulting higher power to altitude. 210HP
HotShot = Turbo-Normalized. Whatever HP the plane produces at sea-level , under ideal conditions 200 HP - conditions are never ideal. So whatever it produces, it will carry to altitude.
So they're not the same "TURBO".
Pros / Cons : TC - more power and will give you that power all the way up. More useful load. Can carry 4 adults. That comes at a price - Cons : More expensive and required you to operate within limits. Joels comments are 100% on. You can't just firewall the throttle and fly it WOT. Engine cylinders are more expensive.
Pros/Cons TN (Hotshot) : same power as normally aspirated (you can't boost to higher pressures) but will give you that sea-level power all he way up. 6K is where normally aspirated peak out and struggle after 8K feet. The TN Hotshot will keep giving you sea-level power - but not the 210 HP you get from the TC. Cheaper to operate. Simpler to operate .
The TC can hence carry more. The TN is a 112 with a turbo-normalized engine - can't carry more but similar operating costs as a 112.
For newer pilots - the TN (Hotshot).
For pilots who have experience with turbo-chargers - TC all the way. You can carry more and you get your honest 210 HP all the time,
Having owned a TC , i would still replace it with a TC. TC - has 1000 lbs useful load. Over 20 year i had 2 precautionary cylinder replacements and 2 throttle cable replacements.
i finally replaced my engine after 20 years not because the engine was done but because Lycoming keeps increasing their prices by 10-15% every year.
With the hotshot - you are not gaining useful load. You have a 112 with an engine that isn't subject to performance degradation after 6K feet.
But you're not putting 4 adults in it.
So - depends on your mission. If a 112 load fits your profile - the 112 Hotshot (TN) is definitely cheaper to operate.
Lawrence Massachu$etts
- Aircraft Year
- 1975
- Aircraft Type
- 112/A
- Reg Number
- N1226J
- Serial Number
- 226
Also:
112 Hot Shot TBO = 2,000 hours
112TC/TCA TBO = 1,800 hours
If you're looking to purchase an aircraft that's nearing TBO, it would be a good idea to call a national overhaul shop and get some quotes on both engine types. It's very easy to get upside down on a TC/TCA
And if you haven't already found it, check out the COG FAQ - lots of good performance info on all models there
112 Hot Shot TBO = 2,000 hours
112TC/TCA TBO = 1,800 hours
If you're looking to purchase an aircraft that's nearing TBO, it would be a good idea to call a national overhaul shop and get some quotes on both engine types. It's very easy to get upside down on a TC/TCA
And if you haven't already found it, check out the COG FAQ - lots of good performance info on all models there
Toronto, Ontario
- Aircraft Year
- 1998
- Aircraft Type
- 114B/115
- Reg Number
- C-GODZ
- Serial Number
- 14659
I too owned a 112TCA and transitioned onto it with 245 hours in my logbook. For me, it was not very challenging to learn how to operate the turbo charger. The biggest re learning was NOT to FIREWALL the throttle. That could be a pretty expensive mistake. Flying the aircraft is all about manifold pressure (throttle) management. In the climb reducing from 42" (MP) to 35" for a cruise climb to altitude. As you climb into the higher altitudes, increasing throttle to maintain 35". At final altitude, I would use 32" MP. When descending, reducing the throttle to keep MP at 32". If you don't MP will increase leading to a potential over boost.
The other noteworthy item is wing lifetime limits: 112 - 6,945 hours; 112TC - 10,908; 112TCA - 7,947; 112b - 8,878. The 114 is 19,284 hours. With many GA pilots flying 50 hours a year, probably not that big of a deal. But if the aircraft is high time, a consideration.
Hope this helps.
The other noteworthy item is wing lifetime limits: 112 - 6,945 hours; 112TC - 10,908; 112TCA - 7,947; 112b - 8,878. The 114 is 19,284 hours. With many GA pilots flying 50 hours a year, probably not that big of a deal. But if the aircraft is high time, a consideration.
Hope this helps.
- Aircraft Year
- 1974
- Aircraft Type
- 112 Hot Shot
- Reg Number
- N1144J
- Serial Number
- 186
If you're heart is set on a turbocharged Commander, I'd narrow your search to either a 112 or 114 Hot Shot - unless money is no object for you.
114HS's are very rare, but a couple of them have shown up on the market recently they're the best performers of all the Commander models, and the maintenance, and fuel costs, are less than a 112TC/TCA.
A 112HS will keep up with a 112TC/TCA in almost every respect, with a much lower fuel, and maintenance cost. Most of the flying I've done has been in either a 112HS or a 112TCA. The TCA was owned by a good friend of mine - he spent a lot of money to keep it in the air. The 10 extra HP, as all Hot Shot owners know, can be compensated for, wink, wnk. The 100lbs useful can be overcome by chucking stuff overboard, adding an MT, and EarthX.
The 114TC's are the Queens of the fleet! Spectacular airplanes. Love and respect!
114HS's are very rare, but a couple of them have shown up on the market recently they're the best performers of all the Commander models, and the maintenance, and fuel costs, are less than a 112TC/TCA.
A 112HS will keep up with a 112TC/TCA in almost every respect, with a much lower fuel, and maintenance cost. Most of the flying I've done has been in either a 112HS or a 112TCA. The TCA was owned by a good friend of mine - he spent a lot of money to keep it in the air. The 10 extra HP, as all Hot Shot owners know, can be compensated for, wink, wnk. The 100lbs useful can be overcome by chucking stuff overboard, adding an MT, and EarthX.
The 114TC's are the Queens of the fleet! Spectacular airplanes. Love and respect!