maybe owner

[Commander91gm]

The extended wingtips up the gross a bit but in addition to the tips there were a bunch of other little things that were added to the airframe. A lot of it depends on your mission. The 112 TCA is slower than the 114 down low but above 8,000 ft or so it excels because of the turbo. If you're going in and out of high altitude airports like I do the turbo makes a big difference.

 

[Avee8tor]

Agree it is roomy and the two doors are a bonus. As is the Lyc. engine vs Cont., IMO. McCauley is a low-maintenance prop also. The essentials are there. What is the 'hot shot' mod? Do the 112TC/114B extended wingtips/span change performance much over the vanilla 114?

Hot Shot is an STC that added turbo-normalizing to it. Unlike the regular turbo you are not boosting the engine over 30" MP. In fact, the HS limits boost automatically to 28.5" MP and will hold sea level power settings into the mid-teens.

 

[FlyGuy]

ok, thanks, understand. Thinking about the change tail incidence mod, yes it would reduce drag some, but the tail trim drag is still there whether the stabilizer is aligned or not. Looking at CG of KEF, and in general for the 114, CG is well forward and you have to be trying to get the CG aft, even with 250lb in the baggage area. CG moves forward with fuel burn. Cruising around with the CG at 24%MAC when aft limit is 31.5% would have sig trim drag - I can't tell you the number in lbs without doing calcs, and I'm out of practice.

VH-KEF R114 #14133		Datum – 0, 62.5” fwd firewall face
Item	mass (lb)	arm (in)	lb.in
LMG	771.76	121.9	94077.544
RMG	755.26	121.9	92066.194
Nosewheel	479.16	39	18687.24
Fuel	12	109.5	1314
Empty	2018.18	lb	206144.978
Basic CG (in. AOD)	102.14	16.3%	MAC
P1	210	99	20790
P2	200	99	19800
Pax1	150	136	20400
Pax2	150	136	20400
Baggage	50	164	8200
Fuel	360	109.5	39420
	1120		129010
	3138.18	lb
XC CofG	106.80	24.8%	MAC
Min. Wt.
P1	210	99	20790
P2	200	99	19800
Pax1	150	136	20400
Pax2	150	136	20400
Baggage	50	164	8200
Fuel	30	109.5	3285
	790		92875
	2808.18	lb
Min Fuel	106.48	24.2%	MAC

 

[David Price]

No CG issues here. 1100 UL

 

[wab003]

It's all part of the journey as I learn about this airframe. I am at about 500 hrs since major overhaul with all new cylinders and a new prop after the previous owner had a runway excursion when the nosewheel steering cable popped and struck a runway light, but the powerplant as a whole was originally manufactured when I was in high school If I'm still flying this airframe when I get to major overhaul again (at the current rate I'm building hours, I'll be in my late 70s), I think I will spend the extra to get a factory new or reman just to get the extended TBO they are now advertising.

I'm starting to want a Turbo to get up higher and cooler, but I also want FIKI in my next airplane. I know that there are rare Commanders (one maybe?) that are Turbo / FIKI, but at the expected price point, I will probably also be looking at Malibu's Matrix's , A36s, or a Turbo 210

Adam Clark had a really nice 114 Turbo in his shop last time I was there, and it got me thinking

Chris,

I may have your next bird; but not yet ready to part ways with her. At 75 there are always unexpected life events. Turbo, FIKI, A/C, MT prop, she has all the toys and zero issues with CG (thanks to MT prop, AC hardware and FIKI TKS tank and pumps.) 25K service ceiling and above 12K, the parasitic drag starts to fall away and the TAS rises nicely. Always flight plan 150 and that is with the prop pulled back to 2200-2300. Isn’t even working hard.

There are more like her out there; but not many.

 

[FlyGuy]

In Oz, hills and icing are not a great problem. The added complexity, failure modes and cost hardly justified in my case.

 

[Codeeno]

The only time I have to concern myself about a forward CG is there’s only myself and a heavy passenger (250+). Then I consider ballast in the cargo area depending on luggage loads. So far, I’ve been at max weight for takeoff with full tanks and never had any challenge staying within the envelope.

Dean