Cessna 177 vs Commander 112

I'm looking for one of the airplane.

1. What are the pros and cons ?

2. What's the meaning of this post concerning the Commander: "The only
downfall is I was looking through the TC & there is mention of a limited
life of the wing structure." ?

Thank you

Paul

Biggest advantage for the 177 is that there is probably a great deal
more support available from the type group.

I have about 25 hours in a 112. A retired airline captain friend has a
177RG. I think the 177 gives you more cabin space and big doors to get
things in and out. No wing or strut to block the door openings.

Paul wrote:
I'm looking for one of the airplane.

1. What are the pros and cons ?

2. What's the meaning of this post concerning the Commander: "The only
downfall is I was looking through the TC & there is mention of a limited
life of the wing structure." ?

"Paul" wrote in message
...
I'm looking for one of the airplane.

1. What are the pros and cons ?

2. What's the meaning of this post concerning the Commander: "The only
downfall is I was looking through the TC & there is mention of a limited
life of the wing structure." ?

Thank you

Paul

I've compared those two in the past and my belief (having never flown
either) is that the fixed gear 180 hp Cessna will give up 10-15 knots in
cruise speed and some cabin room, but it will have far lower ownership
costs. Less fuel, less insurance, less maintenance, etc. If I was buying
one today, I'd go Cessna.

The wing life span issue on the Commander has to do with the more modern
regulations it was certified under. I believe the modern rules (and the
Commander was the first aircraft certified under those rules) dictate a
service life limit. I know my old Tomahawk had a 12,000 hour limit on the
wing. There are STC's on the market today to extend the Tomahawk's wing
life. Dunno about the Commander.

KB

A friend of mine just email this:

- - - - - - - - -
A12SO 15 Note 3: Service Life - all categories

Model 112, the service life of the wing and associated structure has been
established as 6945 hours maximum.

Model 112B, the service life of the wing and associated structure has been
established as 8878 hours maximum.

Model 112TC, the service life of the wing and associated structure has been
established as 10908 hours maximum.

Model 112TCA, the service life of the wing and associated structure has been
established as 7947 hours maximum.

Model 114, the service life of the wing and associated structure has been
established as 19284 hours maximum.

Note 3: Service Life - all categories (cont'd)

Model 114A and 114B, the service life of the wing and associated structure
has been established as 14812 hours maximum.

Model 114TC, the service life of the wing and associated structure has been
established as 10349 hrs

- - - - - - - - - -

End of story for me.

Thank you for your help.

Paul


"Paul" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
I'm looking for one of the airplane.

1. What are the pros and cons ?

2. What's the meaning of this post concerning the Commander: "The only
downfall is I was looking through the TC & there is mention of a limited
life of the wing structure." ?

Thank you

Paul

There is much more front seat headroom in the Commander. I used to fly one for charter and instruction in Seattle, plus did a lot of long cross countries in them. With the extended tanks -- man take your lunch, they'll fly clean through a duty day but are comfortable enough to be good at it. I can't say the Cardinal offers the same luxury.

The Cardinal is nicer to preflight in the rain, but harder to de-ice in the winter.

I'm partial to the Commander also because of its overly rugged yet forgiving landing gear. It will take a lot more abuse than what you'd expect.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"john smith" wrote in message ...
Biggest advantage for the 177 is that there is probably a great deal
more support available from the type group.

I have about 25 hours in a 112. A retired airline captain friend has a
177RG. I think the 177 gives you more cabin space and big doors to get
things in and out. No wing or strut to block the door openings.

Paul wrote:
I'm looking for one of the airplane.

1. What are the pros and cons ?

2. What's the meaning of this post concerning the Commander: "The only
downfall is I was looking through the TC & there is mention of a limited
life of the wing structure." ?

In article ,
"Jim Carter" wrote:

I'm partial to the Commander also because of its overly rugged yet forgiving
landing gear. It will take a lot more abuse than what you'd expect.

I'm biased against the 112 due to hydraulic problems on the aircraft I
flew.