By:       Norm Goyer

You have heard me often mention the fact that I love to write about aircraft that I have had a personal experience with, and the Aero Commander Twins fit that category. We had three Grand Commanders, which we maintained, based at our Apple Valley facility. Continental Telephone Company then upgraded their Aerostar to a 690A Turbine Commander which our oldest son Peter flew as co-pilot for several years. We also stored and maintained a North American Rockwell B-26 On Mark conversion which Rockwell used for instrument testing.

This is an Air Force U-4B or L-26-AD Aero Commander 680. It was one of 15 680s purchased by the Air Force; this one was used for transportation by President Eisenhower.

It is impossible for any knowledgeable writer to discuss the Aero Commander without discussing its designer, Ted Smith. This aircraft engineer worked for Douglas and was part of the team who designed the World War II Douglas A-26 Invader. This aircraft’s inspiration was the Douglas A-20 Boston, a light bomber, that saw extended service during the early days of the European conflict. The shoulder wing with large vertical stabilizer became a trademark look for both the A-20 and the A-26. They were very fast, maneuverable, yet very easy-to-fly. The A-26 fought in World II, Korea and Vietnam. This aircraft was also modified into the On Mark a seven- to eight-passenger business aircraft in the 1950s. It was modified again into a water bomber for use in fire fighting. I have flown in the B-26, which is now owned by Kermit Weeks, at his Fantasy of Flight in Florida. The designation A-26 (Attack bomber) was changed to B-26 during Korea, as the aircraft’s primary use was as a bomber. The Douglas B-26 must not be confused with the Martin B-26 Marauder of World War II. No relation; other than both were used heavily during the war. The Martin “Widow Maker” is the one with the round fuselage, and a horizontal stabilizer with dihedral. Many pilots paid a heavy price for not paying attention during their B-26 checkout time. This was one aircraft that you didn’t slow down and pull the nose up in a turn, or you became a statistic.

One of the best light attack bombers every built was the Douglas A-26/B-26 Invader, co-designed by Ted Smith. It fought in three wars. Note the similarity to the Aero Commander Twins.

After the war gods were appeased, Ted Smith remembered how well the A-20 and the A-26 flew. He was an early visionary who could see the demand for light, safe, fast personal transportation for small industries and businessman who needed to get from here to there in a hurry and in comfort. In 1946, Smith gathered together 14 of the best design engineers he knew and started building a new type of private aircraft. The Twin Commander was intended to fill the business aviation void he perceived. In 1948, the first Twin Commander took flight. When extensive test flights proved the airplane was better than any other light twin ever designed, the tough job of financing was tackled. In 1950, three wealthy investors were found and Aero Design and Engineering Company was formed. The plant was located at Wiley Post International Airport, just outside of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. In May of 1951, to kick off their product’s advertising, the company flew their new aircraft at full maximum takeoff weight from Oklahoma City to Washington, D.C. with one propeller removed.

The record-breaking single-engine flight was such a success that the company found itself in a backorder situation almost immediately. The first production Twin Commander delivered was the Model 520 with two Lycoming engines. The second production version was the Model 560 and 560A which had a slightly larger cabin and more powerful engines. In 1955, the Air Force was so impressed with the single-engine capability of the 560, that fifteen were ordered, with two for the exclusive use of the then-President Dwight Eisenhower. It was the first civilian aircraft ever approved for Presidential use. In 1958, the first pressurized Twin Commander was introduced for those who wanted the safety and smooth flying that increased altitude afforded.

Ted Smith designed the Twin Commander; all future versions were modifications of the original. Smith later designed the Ted Smith Aerostar, which was purchased by Piper.

In 1964, the first 680T Aero Commander was introduced, powered with two small prop jet turbine engines made by Air Research. The introduction of turbine power got the attention of the entire aircraft industry.

In 1966, Aero Design was purchased by Rockwell Standard and renamed Aero Commander Division. In 1967, Rockwell Standard merged with North American to become North American Rockwell. Aero Commander Division then became General Aviation Division. In 1979, the Model 690 Jet Prop series was introduced. This new version was upgraded in every area including cabin size. Wing span, and wing area were increased, anti-icing devices were installed, along with a heated windshield. Upgraded avionics, more powerful Air Research engines and propellers also distinguished the new model.

Ted Smith designed the Twin Commander; all future versions were modifications of the original. Smith later designed the Ted Smith Aerostar, which was purchased by Piper.

In 1980, Rockwell sold its Aero Commander holdings to Gulfstream. Further upgrades were included in the Model 900 and the version, Model 1000, which was the most powerful advanced twin-engine aircraft for business and corporate use ever released. Gulfstream decided to concentrate on their larger pure-jet corporate aircraft and only produced the 900 and 1000 before selling their rights in 1988, to Commander Aircraft.

Literally millions have watched the great Bob Hoover perform in his Shrike Commander, a revised Twin Commander. These airshow performances convinced many to purchase an Aero Commander for their business or personal use.

The Aero Commander or the Twin Commander was indeed the benchmark aircraft for early business and corporate travel. The aircraft, and its designer Ted Smith, pioneered the way for business aircraft of the future. Ted Smith went on to design the Ted Smith Aerostar which became the Piper Aerostar which followed the familiar Smith trademark, sleek-looking and very fast.

Click Here to return to the Archive

If any readers have requests for special topics please let us know. theradar@acmp.com

By:  Norm Goyer

Our family was “up to its ears in alligators” during the aviation boom in the mid-1970s. We were operating four High Desert airports serving as FBOs which included aircraft sales, flight instructions, fuel sales, aircraft repair shop, and tie-downs and hangars for rent. Our prime aircraft for our very active flight schools were Pipers and Cessnas. We also had a VA and FAA Approved Flight School. Another good profit center was the excellent rental business due to the new Piper Arrows and Cessna 182s on our line. Then we hit a snag.

This foreign registered Commander shows off the graceful lines of its design.

A new FBO on the field took on Grumman American and purchased a Sierra 200-hp retractable and then an off-field instructor bought a Rockwell 112. We suddenly had competition for our rental business. The Sierra was not much of a threat, as it was a little slow and ungainly-looking, compared to our sleek little Arrows. But the high-sitting, wide-cabined Commander 112A was a very appealing aircraft. It was much larger than the Arrow, and looked like it was doing 200 mph sitting on the ground. The pilots loved the trailing-arm landing-gear suspension as it made their lousy landings look good. Some of the larger TFTF (Too Fat To Flare) pilots, really liked the big cockpit. The Rockwell Commanders did have a cruciform tail (horizontal stabilizer mounted halfway up the vertical stabilizer.)  I have never really trusted cruciform or “T” tail aircraft, and most pilots were also aware that Rockwell had lost their first prototype when the cruciform tail failed. Of course the problem was solved in production aircraft and it never happened again.  The biggest PR problem the Commander 112 had was its 200-hp Lycoming; really not enough power for its 2880 pounds takeoff weight , which translated to a rather slow 135 knot maximum cruising speed. Our smaller and more economical Arrows were faster. It was evident that Commander had some problems to solve, with their beautiful, but just a tad slow 112A.

This Commander 112A had a 200-hp Lycoming four-cylinder engine.

In 1974, Commander introduced their 112TC (turbo charged) aircraft. This new model had its wing tips extended for a bit more wing area. The turbo helped performance at higher altitudes and on hot days. The added wing-area allowed an increase in takeoff weight. But the 112A still needed a larger engine. In 1976, Commander finally accepted the fact that their airplane was underpowered, and the only solution that would satisfy potential buyers was a significantly larger engine. In 1976, in addition to the 112A and 112B plus the turbo-charged 112TC, Commander brought out the plane they should have been building right along, the Commander 114A Gran Turismo with a new Lycoming six-cylinder IO-540 swinging a three-blade constant-speed propeller. This 260-hp engine pushed the 114A to a higher maximum cruise speed of 157 knots, and a long-range suggested cruise speed of 137 knots. Translation: the 114 needed larger fuel tanks to allow a greater cruise speed at longer distances. The maximum range with reserves was only 730 nautical miles. The performance of the 114 wasn’t really all that bad; it was just that other aircraft such as the Mooney and even older Piper Comanches were faster with a much smaller engine, and less fuel consumed. Note: there have been various performance figures for all aircraft published over the years which vary widely in top-speed, cruise-speed and range capability. From past experience in writing about aircraft for over 30 years, we found that factory released performance figures could be off as much as 15%. No; they were not fabricating these numbers, they simply used absolutely maximum advantages in aircraft, weather, and pilot ability to obtain their published performance figures. This practice was widespread in all companies. For the past 20 years or so, aircraft reviewers have used real-time GPS results: When compared, the discrepancies became obvious.

The cockpit and cabin of all Commanders are well laid out and are roomy enough for four large persons.

For many people, the Commander’s slow reputation did not interfere with their decision to own a 112A or 114, for, indeed, this was a very nice aircraft with a proud heritage. The original designers were not looking for barn-burning speed; they were looking for an aircraft which small families could take on trips in comfort. They wanted a plane that would be easy to land, so they designed the extremely forgiving trailing-arm-suspension retractable-landing-gear system. When production ceased in 1979, along with that of many other aircraft, Rockwell sold the rights to Gulfstream America, along with other designs that Rockwell owned. Gulfstream did not restart production on the single-engine aircraft because all they wanted were the rights to the twin-engine Turbo Commander. In 1988, Gulfstream sold the Commander 114 rights to Commander Aircraft, owned by Randall Greene. Green was going to build new Commander 114Bs and produce parts for Commander owners. This company was able to produce about 200 114Bs and 114TCs before closing down. In 2005, Commander Premier Aircraft Corporation was formed by 50 Commander owners to supply parts for existing aircraft. At that time, production was moved to a new home in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. The new company planned to build new versions certified as Commander 115, 115TC and 115AT. We are not sure whether or not any have been delivered as yet, or if the company is no longer in business.

This photo of a landing Commander shows the cruciform-tail and the trailing-arm-suspension landing gear.

Norm Notes: I believe that the majority of aircraft owners buy the fastest aircraft they can afford. To be thought of as being slow, whether accurate or not, is the kiss of death for an aircraft, other than a trainer. People become pilots to go fast, period. Compare the speeds of the new breed of composite aircraft such as the Cirrus and Cessna/Columbia 400, and you can readily see why many aircraft are no longer competitive. Americans like to go fast, through life, in their driving and in their flying.

Click Here to return to the Archive

If any readers have requests for special topics please let us know. theradar@acmp.com

By:  Norm Goyer

The United States Military had a history of modifying a front-line fighter into a float plane. In fact, Jimmy Doolittle, flew an Army Curtiss biplane on floats to a victory in the 1925 Schneider Cup Races. Supermarine of England also entered these prestigious races, and won the overall Schneider Cup in 1932 with their Supermarine Model S-6. This aircraft was later extensively modified by Supermarine, and it became the WWII Spitfire. Italy and France were also competitors in these races, which started in 1914, and,with a few years off to fight WWI, they continued until 1932. Italy’s Macchi Castoldi  M.C. 72 was the fastest aircraft, which still holds the seaplane record of 424 mph, which exceeded many speeds attained ten years later during WWII. Seaplanes were looked upon as very viable platforms by most countries.

This huge RC Rufe, (Zero on floats) built by Ray Hinds, shows the sleek lines of the float-equipped Rufe, a favorite of model builders.

Japan did not enter these races, but did find themselves in need of seaplane fighters, due to their island nation, and the occupation of small islands, dominated by the Japanese, prior to Pearl Harbor, in 1941. The problem, once troops had landed and taken over an island, the military felt they needed some form of aircraft protection. Most of these small islands had difficult terrain for an airfield, and Japan did not have trained troops capable of building landing strips almost overnight. The solution? Fighter planes adapted to floats.

Grumman also installed floats on their F4F Wildcat for testing purposes. The formation of the Seabees eliminated that need.

Japan had a number of single-engine fighters that were fitted with floats, including the famous Zero/Zeke. Japan favored using a large single float with streamlined struts attached beneath the fuselage for the main floatation, and two small wing tip floats to keep aircraft upright. The main reason was that a single float was much lighter and easier to adapt to a catapult-launch system. Most of Japan’s battleships and cruisers had liaison aircraft, and the catapults were available. Besides the Mitsubishi Zero, there was the Aichi E13A-1 and Kawanishi E1K, all highly effective fighters that were based in lagoons near the troop encampments.

Meanwhile, in England, Supermarine added floats to their Spitfire.

At the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, the USN only had a small number of Grumman Wildcat fighters to defend its fleet and ground installations. The US Navy was faced with the same problem as  that of the Japanese; no airfields were available on newly-acquired island bases. Grumman attached a set of twin floats to a small number of F4F Wildcat fighters, so they could be assigned to help the ground troops. United States military leaders knew that there would be an island-hopping offensive leading our troops closer and closer to Japan for an invasion.

Japan also had a very powerful float-fighter in their Kawanishi N1K1. This plane was so effective as a float-fighter, it was redesigned for wheel operation.

Their answer was a new highly-trained military construction unit called the Seabees who were provided with heavy earth moving equipment. Their job was to build airfields almost overnight, so land-based fighters could be flown in for protection in anticipation of the upcoming offensives. Many credit the Seabees with shortening the war by many months, if not years. At this point, the USN dropped all experiments with float-equipped-fighters and concentrated on liaison and observation float planes. The Vought Kingfisher and Curtiss Sea Mews, catapult-launched, single-float-aircraft based aboard battleships and cruisers, were effective in providing long range “eyes” for the fleet. Now, the helicopter takes on these duties far more effectively.

The Grumman F4F Wildcat is pictured during a water-takeoff. Note the small auxiliary fins on the horizontal stabilizer to offset the added lateral area caused by the floats.

In England, Supermarine was busy installing double floats on their Spitfire for use in outlying areas of their water-surrounded homeland. There is very little research on this aircraft and its accomplishments during WWII. Naval ships of all countries used catapult-launched observation aircraft. The Germans even experimented with small aircraft and towed rotary-wing kites. These unmanned gyrocopters were towed to great heights to increase the submarine’s radio transmission range. These were the beginning of the Benson type of sport gyroplanes that are still popular today. All navies also depended on a fleet of multi-engine flying boats to supply remote areas with troops and supplies. Such  aircraft, like the outstanding Consolidated PBY Catalina, saved hundreds of pilots who were forced down at sea. Huge four-engine Martin and English Short flying boats labored throughout the war, with many of them still flying or in museums.

The Vought Kingfisher, carried by many battleships and cruisers, was a very effective observation aircraft. It was launched via catapult.,After landing in the water alongside the vessel, it was recovered with a crane.

For those of you wondering why the Schneider Cup Trophy races were held on water? The answer is quite simple, but still complicated. Not one of these later seaplane racers could take off from any available airport at that time; none had runways long enough. The aircraft had high wing loadings, huge engines and propellers that were pitched extremely high. This caused the aircraft to slowly gather speed over the water until the high pitched props could operate with the most efficiently. The takeoff run could be measured in miles, not feet. It is best illustrated by trying to start a racing car in high gear. In later years, the constant-speed propeller would address this problem. This type of propeller acts in a way similar to that of automatic transmissions that start your car off in low gear, then shifts into higher ranges automatically, when needed. Most of the Schneider Cup racers used machine-carved, hand-finished, wood propellers. A prop has two critical dimensions, the diameter and the pitch. The diameter, or the length of the prop, is determined by ground clearance or horsepower requirements of the engine; while the pitch is the theoretical distance the propeller will screw itself into the air for each 360-degree turn. It is the pitch that creates the speed of the aircraft, coordinated with the weight and hp of the aircraft and engine. It was the aeronautical knowledge obtained during World War II, the Thompson Trophy Air Races and the Schneider Cup Trophy races that accelerated the development of aircraft so rapidly from 1932 to 1945.

The Curtiss Sea Hawk was designed to offer more range and speed than the current Kingfisher. Both the Curtiss and Vought were delivered on wheels and converted to floats by EDO.

Click Here to return to the Archive

If any readers have requests for special topics please let us know. theradar@acmp.com