Commander Aircraft goes belly up?

A short blip of news sent to me today indicates that Commander Aircraft has
asked a bankruptcy judge to convert its bankruptcy case from a Chapter 11
reorganization to a Chapter 7 liquidation. Can it be possible that a company
that has built such a fantastic aircraft could really cease to exist?
You would think that one of the other aircraft companies would be interested
in buying it out.
Maybe some out of work former Douglas Corporation execs?

David (KORL)

The quality of the aircraft does not make the entire picture. Two investors
that have made $20K and $200K deposits thought the deal was bad enough that
they would rather lose their deposits than proceed with the deal. The
company's financial picture was probably too unattractive for anyone to buy
them out. Included in that financial picture is the ability to sell a 30
year old design going forward. A tough sell to say the least.

Marco Leon


"CFLav8r" wrote in message
m...
A short blip of news sent to me today indicates that Commander Aircraft
has
asked a bankruptcy judge to convert its bankruptcy case from a Chapter 11
reorganization to a Chapter 7 liquidation. Can it be possible that a
company
that has built such a fantastic aircraft could really cease to exist?
You would think that one of the other aircraft companies would be
interested
in buying it out.
Maybe some out of work former Douglas Corporation execs?

David (KORL)

"CFLav8r" wrote in message
m...
A short blip of news sent to me today indicates that Commander Aircraft
has asked a bankruptcy judge to convert its bankruptcy case from a Chapter
11 reorganization to a Chapter 7 liquidation. Can it be possible that a
company that has built such a fantastic aircraft could really cease to
exist?


It wasn't a "fantastic airplane." A good old Cessna 182 would do a better
job of everything and cost a lot less. Face it, it was slow. That's why they
never sold in quantity. All that engineering went to waste designing a "part
23" pig.

Karl
"curator" N185KG

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:03:26 -0800, "kage"
wrote in ::

It wasn't a "fantastic airplane." A good old Cessna 182 would do a better
job of everything and cost a lot less.

The FBO from whom I rent will not put C-182's on the line, because of
their penchant for nose wheel collapse in the hands of renter pilots.
The Commander series provides a "greaser" nearly every time due to the
trailing-arm main gear.

Face it, it was slow. That's why they never sold in quantity.

They're roomy too, and if you fold the rear seats down, there's room
to sleep in them.

All that engineering went to waste designing a "part 23" pig.

Part 23 aircraft are stronger and safer (and heavier).

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:03:26 -0800, "kage"
wrote in ::


The FBO from whom I rent will not put C-182's on the line, because of
their penchant for nose wheel collapse in the hands of renter pilots.
The Commander series provides a "greaser" nearly every time due to the
trailing-arm main gear.

Your FBO need to provide better flight instruction. There are thousands of
182's available to rent.

They're roomy too, and if you fold the rear seats down, there's room
to sleep in them.

I don't sleep in airplanes. Buy a motor home if that is a benefit. I try to
go from "A" to "B" fast.

Part 23 aircraft are stronger and safer (and heavier).

That is CERTAINLY not the case, except for the heavier part. If it was a
good airplane it would have sold. They provided no better performance in ANY
category. The Commander was also not a particularly good looking airplane, a
necessity for sales.

Commander, kind of like the Citation 500's-----Slow but ugly.


Karl

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:51:04 -0800, "kage"
wrote in ::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:03:26 -0800, "kage"
wrote in ::

The FBO from whom I rent will not put C-182's on the line, because of
their penchant for nose wheel collapse in the hands of renter pilots.
The Commander series provides a "greaser" nearly every time due to the
trailing-arm main gear.

Your FBO need to provide better flight instruction. There are thousands of
182's available to rent.

So you don't contest the benefit of trailing-arm gear, nor C-182's
nose heavy issues?

They're roomy too, and if you fold the rear seats down, there's room
to sleep in them.

I don't sleep in airplanes. Buy a motor home if that is a benefit.

The motor homes of which I'm aware are incapable of achieving flight
nor are they as speedy as a Commander.

I try to go from "A" to "B" fast.

So you're considering purchasing a Bonanza? :-)

Part 23 aircraft are stronger and safer (and heavier).

That is CERTAINLY not the case, except for the heavier part.

Why do you think Part 23 was written?

http://www.commanderair.com/index.html
Commanders have the best safety record in their class1: 224%
better than the Bonanza series, 240% better than the Mooney
series, and 353% better than the Cherokee 6/Saratoga series.

http://www.commanderair.com/home/standards.html
Fatigue Evaluation, Wing and Associated Structure (23.572)
Fail-Safe Elevator Control System (23.667)
Increased Gust Loading Requirements (23.572)
Lightning Strike Analysis (23.876 & 23.954)
More Stringent Tests for Usable Fuel (23.959)
Throttle and Flap Actuated Aural Gear-up Warning (23.729)
Non-Siphoning Fuel Caps (23.967)
Improved Accessibility of Fuel Selector Switch (23.777)

If it was a good airplane it would have sold.

I wasn't able to find statistics on how many were produced, but given
the several models, I'd say there must have been a respectable number
built:

ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL (1972 through 1979): Model Name: 112, 112A,
112B, 112TC, 112TCA, 114, 114A, 114S

AERO COMMANDER: Model Name: 112

COMMANDER AIRCRAFT CO (1988 through 2005): Model Name: 114-B,
114TC, 114A, 115, 115TC, 115AT

The Commander Aircraft web site mentions 100 new aircraft being
delivered between October 1992 and August 1995.

They provided no better performance in ANY category.

http://www.commanderair.com/index.html
The Commander 115 cruises at 160 kts. (184 mph). The new
turbocharged Commander 115TC cruises at 187 kts. (215 mph).

http://skylane.cessna.com/spec_perf.chtml
Skylane Speed
Maximum at sea level 149 kts
Cruise, 80% power at 6,000 ft 145 kts

Additionally, the Commander is certified for Flight Into Known Icing
conditions.

The Commander was also not a particularly good looking airplane, a
necessity for sales.

Beauty is in the beholder's eye. :-)

It looks pretty nice in these photos:
http://www.commanderair.com/aircraft...aft_frame.html

Commander, kind of like the Citation 500's-----Slow but ugly.

I found the commander's lines pleasing, and the 115 is faster than a
C-182.

"Larry Dighera" wrote

I found the commander's lines pleasing, and the 115 is faster than a
C-182.

I hate to say it, but I gotta go with Larry, on this. :-0
--
Jim in NC

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...


I have not seen any 115's. Looks to be a big improvement. I wonder how many
were delivered?

It's too bad any manufacturer gos out of business.

Best,
Karl

The FBO from whom I rent will not put C-182's on the line, because of
their penchant for nose wheel collapse in the hands of renter pilots.

sounds like poorly trained pilots..

BT

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:59:46 -0800, "BTIZ"
wrote in 3uYHd.4397$ry.1242@fed1read05::

The FBO from whom I rent will not put C-182's on the line, because of
their penchant for nose wheel collapse in the hands of renter pilots.

sounds like poorly trained pilots..

Be that as it may, he does have a Bonanza on the line.