Bellanca Super Viking

K

ki4lzk

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
172
Location
Milford, KS
Display Name
Display name:
Joshua Jones
One of my flight instructors students just purchased a 1970 Super Viking. Steve (the flight instructor) has never flow one before and there is not anyone on the field who has. What would you compare it with? Does it just drop out of the sky when you pull the power out like a Bonanza or is a little more graceful?
 
If whoever intends to fly it thinks that Bonanzas fall like a rock, they got more problems than just learning to fly a Vike. It's time for some dual.

ki4lzk said:
One of my flight instructors students just purchased a 1970 Super Viking. Steve (the flight instructor) has never flow one before and there is not anyone on the field who has. What would you compare it with? Does it just drop out of the sky when you pull the power out like a Bonanza or is a little more graceful?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
If whoever intends to fly it thinks that Bonanzas fall like a rock, they got more problems than just learning to fly a Vike. It's time for some dual.
Click to expand...

+1.

FWIW, one of the toughest things to get used to when you transition into a plane like the Bonanza, is that they don't slow down much when you pull power. Descent planning is a real issue.

The BSV (Bellanca Super Viking) is a great ol' bird, but very different from (for example) a Bonanza. Very cozy inside (you wear it), very light in roll but stable.

Not as fast as a Bonanza, but about net with a Comanche.

The one I fly has, like, 21 fuel tanks (OK, it has five), so fuel active management is important.

You might check in at www.VikingPilots.com for a more-educated (if, perhaps, a bit biased) view.
 
I had a '70 model as well, awesome airplane. One of the nicest landing airplanes out there. I always flew final a little on the high side and would pull the power to idle over the numbers. It does have some sink rate when the power is pulled off especially with full flaps( 46 degrees IIRC) but easy to get used to. I also flew fairly tight/high patterns because it glides about as well as it would without wings, if the engine quits. Takeoffs are a little different then some airplanes because of the direct nose wheel steering. Easy to over control and cross wind takeoffs/landings are a little different. I flew mine from Oklahoma to Cabo San Lucas. One of the best trips of my life!
 
I first flew a Viking when I had 120hrs. Seemed then like a fire breathing monster...180mph indicated at cruise, and as mentioned, one could pull the throttle back to 15 inches and still coast over New Mexico. Also, depending on which model of the Viking, it had a really stupid automatic landing gear system that would extend the gear anytime below 15 inches or something. Had rudder trim that pulled out of the panel like carb heat. Didn't fly another one 'til many thousands of flight hours later, and then it felt like an Alfa Romeo - sporty little cockpit with cabane struts, delightful ailerons, probably a fun plane to take a woman on a date. One of the sweetest airplanes I've ever flown is the Vikings older sister, the Cruisair. Just the silkiest controls ever.
 
First flew one when i had a few hundred hours and had never seen one before. I thought i was going to have to get out and pedal it was so slow. I took it back to the departure field to check the rigging before continuing the ferry flight. Turns out it's just a poor design and was performing per spec. Comanche speed on 50 more hp with mooney cabin space. The worst of all worlds.
 
I owned a Turbo - it will beat a Steinway Piano to the ground in free fall - plus - it is a maintenance hog. This is not rumor - it literally always something, if its not one thing, its another.
 
I have owned and flown a 1971 Super VIKING for a few yours a shave 600 plus hours in it. It's a awsome airplane. Cruises at 160 knots all day long. It's a bit faster then the Bonanza which you would expect considering its smaller and lighter. It has five tanks and is much easier to manage then I thought before I flew it. Roll rate is crisp and very stable in flight. You won't have any trouble slowing it down. Gear down at 140 knots and it slows in a hurry. Full flaps and you will need power all the way to touch down. I don't think it drops like a brick when you pull the power at all. It's a fairly light bird considering how fast it is with a whopping 300 hp pulling you. I found it a little squerrly when landing but didn't take me long to get landing dialed in. When you practice stalls you will see she doesn't want to stall. You really have to force it and when it does as long as you are coordinated the stall is very benign. I dont know if it's true with all Vikings but my landing gear is a little quirky and I've had issues with the feature that automatically lowers your gear under certain curcminstances you will find in the owners manual. The best decision I made was finding a CFI with a lot of experience in the VIKING to fly with me ten hours until I dealt comfortable with everything's. It's a lot of plane for what it is so don't think you can just hop in a figure it out on the fly safely. You can find many CFI with experience in Texas. I think it makes sense to travel a bit if needed to get the right training because it's a unique airplane that's very safe as long as your familiar with the systems and unique differences you likely haven't experienced when flying your typical mass produced aluminum airplanes. I spent a lot of time and lots of research before I pulled the trigger on the VIKING. They are undervalued with performance you can't match at the price point. I would however make sure you find a good mechanic with lots of experience with Vikings. My only real complaint would be the initial hassle funding the right guy. Once you do it's a breeze. Hit me up if I can help any further. Holdenbuckner@yahoo.com
 
Haven't flown one but was looking into buying one with some partners once. The advice about getting some quality dual is more than just advice. Call your insurance agent and tell them you are thinking about buying a Viking.
 
It's tight inside but comfortable once you wiggle in! :D
Not as expensive as a Bo either, but I do like the Bo.
 
luvflyin said:
Haven't flown one but was looking into buying one with some partners once. The advice about getting some quality dual is more than just advice. Call your insurance agent and tell them you are thinking about buying a Viking.
Click to expand...
Yep. My insurance required 20 hrs dual. Although I was about 80-90 hrs TT when I got it so I'm glad they did.
 
No way will an insurance company let you fly it with zero hours in the airplane, regardless of your prior experience. I bought an early 70s Viking with some partners last year. I'm a CFI with a fair amount of time in high-performance singles and twins, and I had to have 5 hours of dual (negotiated down from 10, IIRC). Each of my less experienced partners (all >250 hours, instrument rated, already had HP and complex time) had to have 10 hours of dual. There's a good reason for that. It's by no means a "hard" airplane to fly, but it's got some quirks that will bite you if you're not careful. Fuel management is one of them, the nosewheel is another. Read the VikingPilots forum; there are plenty of stories of accidents involving first-time pilots who didn't bother to get any dual. A pretty recent one resulted in a newly-purchased $100k+ bird being totaled with NO insurance. That'll sting.

Mine's a great flying airplane, though. As someone above noted, you do wear it. A Bonanza is bigger for sure, and a tad faster, but the Viking is one of the best values out there. Super cheap to buy, fast (I plan at 155kts, but it'll make 160kts at 6-7k), and with the aux tanks, lots of range.
 
linuxjim said:
Yep. My insurance required 20 hrs dual. Although I was about 80-90 hrs TT when I got it so I'm glad they did.
Click to expand...

Was there anything about after that a certain number of solo hours before taking passengers? The company we called had that stipulation also. Don't remember the numbers.
 
I called several companies. Some had the # of solo hours before passenger clause. The one I ended up with had that clause but I negotiated just to 20hrs dual period. It went down about $1000 after the first year and 150 hours. If you are shopping for insurance for a viking head over to www.vikingpilots.com forum and there are a couple threads discussing where they got the best insurance...
 
Wow... I stepped in to a Turbo Lance with no HP Complex time at all. CFI checkout and 15 hours PIc before passengers is all I got hit with.
 
Definitely a good plane to get a real checkout. Me and a cfi with no viking stime flew one Fl to the northeast and it was a learning experience. Really light controls (even at 160kts) which made it feel sporty. On landing it drops like a rock if you fly book speeds. Small power adjustments will get you a normal descent especially with the gear down.
 
Did a IPC with a 70+ year old Dr who owns a beautiful Super Vike, well equipped. He's originally from Germany and he flew it from Alabama to Germany. And he's also landed gear up 3 times I was told by some airport bums. :eek:

And the flight we did he was behind the plane, and he's owned it a long time.
 
1800hrs on Vikings.
Have not experienced Drops Like a Rock yet. Maybe my wood has more air holes?
Comfort: If I get a Bo (which is awesome in so many ways) I will have to customize the seats, I have a hard time getting comfortable in them - feeling lucky that I have a Viking because there is something about the fit of the seat to my body, if I have a sore back a few hours in the Viking fixes it!
Ground handling; have never experienced any of those reported problems of directional control -but on the viking chat some are saying they go away if you keep the nosewheel light in all regimes, as we were taught with our Cessnas - and I have always protected the nosewheel so maybe that's why I never saw the problem.
Auto-axion (auto gear deployment) some models have this, and I understand it is a problem if you do a short field takeoff and let the speed get below..90? (mine doesnt have this) below some speed the gear pops back out. I believe most have been modified with a bypass switch which kills the auto-axion.
First time plane? Sure, I know people that did ab initio in a Viking successfully but I have read people have learned in twins and jets too. Not sure how efficient or reasonable that is, just that it can be done.
Speed; I don't think most are faster than a Bonanza, I flew 2000mi last summer in trail of a V35 and he gained I think 5 minutes on me over each 500mi leg. (Of course, my purchase price was less than one half of his!) Some of the newer model Vikings might have a leg up on a lot of Bos, ie the late 70s and up. Not sure.
Fuel. Wish it had an FS450 for each tank as they are smallish and you can be low on a tank in certain scenarios and not realize it!
Stalls and vertical speed? Here is a Viking in a full stall. At least, it is widely believed to be so - I think you can see the elevator is full up? There is no apparent halt to the descent rate as the surface is approached because the yoke is in pilot's lap already. There is a roll oscillation which is common near the stall. Pretty good vertical speed with power off, but not 'like a rock' I don't think.

 
Cool thing about Super Vikes- if you land em gear-up, the gear still protects the airframe (because it still sticks down below the wing and nose). Fiberglass repair.

'Course, there's still the prop and engine...
 
I've owned my '89 Super Viking for 4 years now, and I absolutely love it. I get a TAS 200mph at 9000ft. The ailerons are controlled by pushrods, and it's very light in roll. Pitch forces are a bit on the heavy side. It is "cozy" inside, but I've done 5 hour flights without complaint, and I'm 6'2" and certainly no light weight. It's a great traveling plane which will carry a load and go the distance. Just checked my log book and I've got over 500 hours in 318 flights in it. No serious maintenance issues.

I had a little more than 250 hours when I bought it, but 110 of those were accumulated 23 years ago prior to a significant hiatus in flying. 5 hours with a Viking knowledgable instructor, and I was good to go. The nose wheel is directly connected to the rudder pedals, so it has to be straight when landing, or it'll pull to one side. I try to make every touch down a soft field landing. It can do surprisingly short field landings also. I'm based at KSJC (San Jose, CA), and tower regularly asks me to make a short approach to 30L because of the jets on straight in. I touch down just past the threshold and easily make the first turnoff. With full flaps and an agressive slip it comes down quickly. It's important to plan ahead because it takes a while to slow down. Gear extension speed is 140 mph for the older models. Mine has beefed up gear door hinges which raises that to 160mph. Top edge of the white arc is 120mph.

Another website with some useful info is http://160knots.com/

Below are some pictures taken in flight by a Gruman Mallard when we took a day trip to Death Valley to see the flowers. It was a little less than a 2 hour flight. It would have taken us 8-9 hours by car...
725ddf6d988216500e0935d2d1db93e3.jpg
927be5c8d01b692a46e214813ba61c71.jpg


ed93d58525b9523b6ae067bd21f6f8a4.jpg



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Suh-weet Vike, Jim!

An '89, hence, one of the newer ones.
 
SCCutler said:
Suh-weet Vike, Jim!

An '89, hence, one of the newer ones.
Click to expand...


Thanks! I believe there were only 20-21 built after mine before they stopped producing them. I'm the 5th owner.

Interesting story on the paint scheme. The guy who sold it to me was told by the guy who sold it to him (and maybe it goes back more iterations) that the first owner, an Ed Lefkovitz (89 Viking, Ed Lefkovitz, see the connection to the registration number of 89EL?) was a former Blue Angel pilot, and that's the reason for the paint scheme. Great story, right?

Turns out not to be true. I wrote the Blue Angels, and one of their organization spent a weekend going through their archives with the news that there had never been an Ed Lefkovitz associated with the Blue Angels. Oh well, maybe he was a fan.

I certainly get lots of nice comments when I land somewhere, but those dark colored wings really heat up in the sun.
 
I always figured the wings heated up from airspeed-induced compression!
 
SCCutler said:
I always figured the wings heated up from airspeed-induced compression!
Click to expand...

Yeah, well that too. The actual limiting factor is the canopy. Above Mach 2.2 the plexiglass starts getting soft from the heat, gotta keep it below that if I don't want to be enjoying the breeze!
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Stalls and vertical speed? Here is a Viking in a full stall. At least, it is widely believed to be so - I think you can see the elevator is full up? There is no apparent halt to the descent rate as the surface is approached because the yoke is in pilot's lap already. There is a roll oscillation which is common near the stall. Pretty good vertical speed with power off, but not 'like a rock' I don't think.

Click to expand...

Versions of have been floating around the web for a while. I showed one to my wife prior to our buying the plane. "Look dear, how safe these are, you can survive a crash in it.". That actually worked!

I haven't seen this version with the MSNBC wrapper around it. Interesting to see the rest of the story, but the comment about the "two ton plane leaking jet fuel" about half way into the piece just further reinforces my low opinion of the media. 3325 max gross is well below 2 tons, and 100LL isn't jet fuel.

Kind of like when lazy newspaper reporters quote the click-bait Aviation business gazette website: http://aviation-business-gazette.com/A43/B22/

They are strong birds, though. This 24 hour student pilot with way more money than sense was flying at night with a passenger and hit some power lines head on. The steel tube framework saved their lives. In a Spam can, they would likely have been decapitated.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2013/03/bellanca-17-30a-super-viking-n96jg.html
 
Last edited:
Always
jimhorner said:
I've owned my '89 Super Viking for 4 years now, and I absolutely love it. I get a TAS 200mph at 9000ft. The ailerons are controlled by pushrods, and it's very light in roll. Pitch forces are a bit on the heavy side. It is "cozy" inside, but I've done 5 hour flights without complaint, and I'm 6'2" and certainly no light weight. It's a great traveling plane which will carry a load and go the distance. Just checked my log book and I've got over 500 hours in 318 flights in it. No serious maintenance issues.

I had a little more than 250 hours when I bought it, but 110 of those were accumulated 23 years ago prior to a significant hiatus in flying. 5 hours with a Viking knowledgable instructor, and I was good to go. The nose wheel is directly connected to the rudder pedals, so it has to be straight when landing, or it'll pull to one side. I try to make every touch down a soft field landing. It can do surprisingly short field landings also. I'm based at KSJC (San Jose, CA), and tower regularly asks me to make a short approach to 30L because of the jets on straight in. I touch down just past the threshold and easily make the first turnoff. With full flaps and an agressive slip it comes down quickly. It's important to plan ahead because it takes a while to slow down. Gear extension speed is 140 mph for the older models. Mine has beefed up gear door hinges which raises that to 160mph. Top edge of the white arc is 120mph.

Another website with some useful info is http://160knots.com/

Below are some pictures taken in flight by a Gruman Mallard when we took a day trip to Death Valley to see the flowers. It was a little less than a 2 hour flight. It would have taken us 8-9 hours by car...
725ddf6d988216500e0935d2d1db93e3.jpg
927be5c8d01b692a46e214813ba61c71.jpg


ed93d58525b9523b6ae067bd21f6f8a4.jpg



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


That's a good looking plane, are those factory colors?
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Stalls and vertical speed? Here is a Viking in a full stall. At least, it is widely believed to be so - I think you can see the elevator is full up? There is no apparent halt to the descent rate as the surface is approached because the yoke is in pilot's lap already.
Click to expand...

Good lord. Multiple people with crushed L2 vertebrae -- get the nose down, man! Give yourself a little airspeed to work with! Wow. That water impact looked wicked.
 
jimhorner said:
Yeah, well that too. The actual limiting factor is the canopy. Above Mach 2.2 the plexiglass starts getting soft from the heat, gotta keep it below that if I don't want to be enjoying the breeze!
Click to expand...

"The speed of heat" :D
 
I owned a 1970 17-31A Super Viking for several years. It was a nice airplane but I always thought it was slow for a 300hp retract. Bought it in Chicago and flew it back to Alaska. Made a few trips from AK to the lower 48 later. Always seemed to get speeds of around 140kts (or less, .. seems the newer models must be a lot faster). One procedure I highly recommend- always leave 1 of the 4 (or 5) tanks full until the others are exhausted. I always used the left main. That way, when you run out on one of the other tanks(and you will), you know which tank to select without thinking. Comes in handy. When I traded in the Viking for a C-185, I was surprised to find that, while the Cessna was slower, there wasn't much of difference at all.
 
I have spent my entire time learning to fly wanting a Cruisemaster just because it looks so cool and requires almost every CFI endorsement there is to fly. So I've also studied the Viking family. There is a local guy with a 1967 Viking and he and I did a fly-in poker run recently. I was in the J-3 and he had to fly full flaps and gear down to get some pictures of me. But he wasn't at all afraid of interesting airports including a gravel/grass strip we had only seen before on Google Maps. He said he actually likes landing on grass. And he's an A&P so presumably isn't just abusing the plane. Must be built pretty solid.
 
edo2000 said:
I owned a 1970 17-31A Super Viking for several years. It was a nice airplane but I always thought it was slow for a 300hp retract. Bought it in Chicago and flew it back to Alaska. Made a few trips from AK to the lower 48 later. Always seemed to get speeds of around 140kts (or less, .. seems the newer models must be a lot faster). One procedure I highly recommend- always leave 1 of the 4 (or 5) tanks full until the others are exhausted. I always used the left main. That way, when you run out on one of the other tanks(and you will), you know which tank to select without thinking. Comes in handy. When I traded in the Viking for a C-185, I was surprised to find that, while the Cessna was slower, there wasn't much of difference at all.
Click to expand...

Strange that you maxed out at 140kts. Wonder if something was mis-rigged. I know others with 70's models who also easily get TAS in the 160kt range.

One advantage of the newer models is the fuel system. I have Left, Right, and Aux tanks with one selector. Much simpler that the older models with multiple selectors. On my longer trips, I make it a habit to run the Aux tank dry first (POH says can't land or takeoff on Aux), then left-right switching every half hour to keep latteral balance. I want at least an hour reserve so once I'm down to half a tank on one side, I don't switch to it again till just before landing. (half tank = approximately one hour)
 
I've never heard of one that slow. Reallly lean of peak + gaping gear doors? Not running full throttle + <2300rpm??
I would have traded too!
 
Viking is a nice looking plane. I thought about one but with the Wood and Fabric I thought I'd have to keep it hangared and was not sure that was possible in my area of the North East. I had also heard they burned a good amount of fuel I want to say 14-15 gph. My Bo burns 12.5 for about 150Kts.

They are very fast and have nice bucket seats, at least the ones I've seen. One thing I was told by a Viking owner was that the fuselage is also shaped like a wing being curved on the top adding to lift which may be why it has such docile stalls. Not sure if thats an OWT or not. I was also told that unlike aluminum planes having a plane from a dry climate may not be such a good thing as if all the moisture is depleted from the wood it can be problematic, again not sure if any of this is accurate or just OWT. Sure is a beautiful plane though
 
AdamZ said:
One thing I was told by a Viking owner was that the fuselage is also shaped like a wing being curved on the top adding to lift which may be why it has such docile stalls. Not sure if thats an OWT or not.
Click to expand...
Not sure how effective it was, but that was Giuseppe Bellanca's design philosophy all the way back. He didn't even let wing struts go to waste without being put to work to create lift.

P1010677.JPG
 
Last edited:
edo2000 said:
When I traded in the Viking for a C-185, I was surprised to find that, while the Cessna was slower, there wasn't much of difference at all.
Click to expand...

Well that and the huge amount of $$ difference between the two.
There is always a trade off and when it comes to that, it's a finincal trade.

iamtheari said:
I have spent my entire time learning to fly wanting a Cruisemaster just because it looks so cool and requires almost every CFI endorsement there is to fly.
Click to expand...

Always liked those too, as I recall they have a huge spread between their stall to cruise speed.

2717042.jpg


Horsepower: 230 Gross Weight: 2700 lbs
Top Speed: 179 kts Empty Weight: 1640 lbs
Cruise Speed: 170 kts Fuel Capacity: 40.00 gal
Stall Speed (dirty): 42 kts Range: 452 nm
blank.gif

Takeoff Landing
Ground Roll: 760 ft Ground Roll 470 ft
Over 50 ft obstacle: 1025 ft Over 50 ft obstacle: 1150 ft
blank.gif

Rate Of Climb: 1400 fpm
Ceiling: 20000 ftI'm
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I've never heard of one that slow. Reallly lean of peak + gaping gear doors? Not running full throttle + <2300rpm??
I would have traded too!
Click to expand...
Not sure. The gear doors functioned normally (tried to be around for the retract tests at annual), but I did hear the doors and other aerodynamics were improved on later models. It only had a single probe EGT and I always operated ROP with that a/c. Normally didn't cruise at full throttle, more like 24x2300, which is similar to what I did in the 185, with similar fuel flows. I just remember being very surprised that I was flying nearly as fast in the Cessna, but I could haul a whole lot more and land on beaches. :). My partner and I sold a 310 to buy the Viking, hoping for much lower operating costs with comparable speeds. The speeds were not comparable.
 
In the 70's when I flew out of VNY there was an outfit called Rent-A-Plane. Mel (owner) took all kinds of planes on leaseback and rented them out. Among his many planes were two Vikings. One wound up a ball of tubes and splinters in San Diego (fuel mismanagement) and the other - don't remember. Mel killed himself racing motorcycles and the company went out of business. For cross-country trips the Vikings were last on my list of the many choices but if that's all that was available, that's what I would rent. They ate a lot of fuel and didn't go very fast for the fuel they ate. Beautiful handling plane of course. I picked up a passenger in Santa Fe very early one winter morning and on the return to LA did a loop in the middle of the Grand Canyon - not above, but in . . . certainly wouldn't try anything like that these days . . . but the Viking enjoys such things. Good times.
 
We actually have quite a few Vikings at my field (Wings KLOM) as the Mx outfit was formerly with Witmer Aviation who were Viking Specialists. Good looking planes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top