Bellanca Viking vs Grumman Tiger 1st airplane purchase

bradg33 said:
I was under the impression they're pretty spendy to replace. It's just a "quirk" in that it's different from other airplanes that don't have them, and it's something that can be an expensive fix when they need to be done. For someone shopping, knowing when they were last replaced is a factor, no?

Looks like 11 pucks @ ~$100/per plus labor.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a thousand dollar squawk. In the grand scheme of things that's not all that bad. Find me an airplane that won't have one of those every so often. You did hit the mark with the wings leaking. That costs a bundle to fix properly, and it is true that there are only a few places in the country that will do it. Then again, it is the sort of thing the average owner only does once.
 
bradg33 said:
You don't have to be a fan of the Viking, but let's at least use some facts instead of broad generalizations. As I said earlier, my unmodified '72 Viking will do 155-160ktas on 13.5-14gph, with 79 gallons of usable fuel and a useful load of just over 1100lbs. The C33A Debonair I used to fly cost twice as much to acquire, was maybe 5kts faster, carried 5 gallons less usable fuel, and had a similar useful load. It had a little more room inside, but that's not worth the extra acquisition cost to everyone.
Click to expand...

i have 100lbs more useful on my Bo, goes faster on less gas. And there's half a dozen Bo's at my airport and a mechanic that works on nothing but Barons and Bo's. All that on 40 less horsepower. A plane that's still supported by the factory and spare parts around every corner. Almost every GA mechanic has seen one. I can sell my Bo in a month if I need to.

They may be fine planes, the market does not think so. I would not recommend it as a first purchase unless the buyer has been involved with them in the past and knows what he's getting into. The fact that he's asking here tells me he does not.

I looked at them too, just like Doc. Thought to myself "this is too good to be true". It was. My mechanic wouldn't touch it.
 
RotorAndWing said:
So why do you feel compelled to "save them from themselves?" Does it really matter that much to you what someone else thinks would be better for them? Do you lay awake at night worried someone might purchase an aircraft that you dislike?




Shouldn't you put yourself in the "fan boy" category?
Click to expand...

Don't you have a 337 broke down somewhere to work on instead of worrying about my opinions on a message board?

I walked by a broken down one this weekend at the airport, I can probably get the owners number if you need some side work.
 
steingar said:
Hit and miss. Wet wings leak eventually, and there are remedies. My aircraft has one. Just takes money.
Click to expand...
Don't you have the bladder conversion? It will certainly take a bag of money to repair 6 or 8 individual bags.
 
bartmc said:
Don't you have a 337 broke down somewhere to work on instead of worrying about my opinions on a message board?
Click to expand...

But yet you're obsessed about others opinions, especially if they don't fall in line with yours. Please re read the title of the thread, and the OP. He didn't ask about a Bonanza, yet you feel you must sway his opinion based upon your misconstrued beliefs.
 
I have been kicking around a similar buying decision as the OP. I currently own and fly a Grumman AA1 so I feel I know the brand pretty well. What would keep me from buying the Grumman AA5-B is the somewhat limited service ceiling, and the not so great hot weather climbing ability. In the world of 180 hp 4 place planes it isn't so bad but you are getting into a price range where even early Cessna 210s can be considered for what an AA5-B goes for. Granted the AA5 is going to be a much newer air frame. Keep in mind there is a service life limit on the wing spar assembly of around 12,000 hours. I have found the Grumman type to be dead simple to maintain and cheap on annuals. If you decide to paint one it's a little more work and replacing skins should the need arise is in my opinion more difficult than drilling and driving rivets.

The most practical answer to your search is going to be the Bonanza. Early models are nearly as fast as the Viking on less HP and some can even run on mogas. There is no fabric to replace once it's weathered and no wood to worry about if you can't store it in doors. There are countless STCs for upgrading Bonanzas and they are average for interior room. Parts are a dime a dozen since some many were built.

When it comes time for me to buy my money will likely go to the Viking. You don't see many of them so they are the Cessna 172's of the retract world like the Bonanza is. Yes there is a reason for that but if we all bought off of reason and reputation the only car company in business anymore would be Toyota. I like the security of the steel tube structure and if in sound shape I would put money on the Viking holding more G's than any of it's competitors based off design and material selection. I like the interior quality of the Viking better as there is less cheap plastic. Since the viking was never made in huge numbers most of the components were never cast or molded as tooling would have been cost prohibitive. This means a very large quantity of components can be easily fabricated if needed (with proper documentation and approval of course.).

In the end it comes down to if you want a machine to take you anonymously from place to place, or you are willing to pay slightly more in fuel to do it in a unique machine that always gets attention.
 
Just another note to consider. In this price range you will be looking at mid 70's possibly even early 80's Bellanca's and Grumman's versus late 60 early 70's Mooney's and even older Bonanzas. Not really a big deal if properly maintained but still worth some thought. When shopping for vikings your best bet would be a Lycoming powered one. They do not have the 5 minute 300 HP limit the continental does and case cracking issues of the early continental powered planes. I wouldn't turn down a good price on a Cont. powered one though.
 
bartmc said:
Because we're looking at his price range vs aircraft capabilities vs upkeep costs. None of the ones you mentioned compare, save for maybe the C177RG but who'd ever recommend a Cessna High wing retract?

Aside from what the fan boys say, and even if they're correct. You can't give a Viking away in this market. People are scared of them and even if it's irrational, it's a fact. They're not fast for the fuel burn and odd. All you ever hear about them is "they handle so well". People buy planes for payload, speed and fuel burn. Those are the major categories and Viking isn't great at any of them. Saying "they handle great" is like telling a girl "you have a good personality" :lol:
Click to expand...

The question was to compare Viking and Tiger using his stated parameters.

You throw the word "people" around a lot.

"People are scared of them" -- I've walked right up and touched one
"People buy planes for payload, speed, and fuel burn" -- mighty tough doing aerobatics in Bo. And those STOL fools don't know what they're stuck with do they?
I thought "good personality" was a euphemism for ugly. Vikings aren't ugly, and many ugly girls "handle great"

Meanwhile Grum Man has offered thoughtful commentary on the relative merits of the two planes in the thread title. THANK YOU!
 
Last edited:
Grum.Man said:
When shopping for vikings your best bet would be a Lycoming powered one. They do not have the 5 minute 300 HP limit the continental does and case cracking issues of the early continental powered planes. I wouldn't turn down a good price on a Cont. powered one though.
Click to expand...

The 5-minute limit is really a non-issue, just dial the prop back to 2700 during the climb. The potential "issue" with the Lycomings is the tail cracking; there is an AD for cracks in the vertical support tube in the tail, and there is speculation that it's connected to the Lycoming engine during start-up and shut-down.
 
to the OP's question, the obvious answer is the Tiger. It is a much simpler airplane with a lot lower maintenance costs. Better to learn about aircraft ownership on it. Do be careful about spar corrosion, I understand it can be an issue on the Tiger. Just make sure to do your homework and have someone that knows what they are looking for inspect it 1st.

The exception is if you really have a need for the faster speed and have the money for the extra maintenance. I like the Viking, but it does have quite a few more systems than the Tiger, both to Maintain and learn how to operate. Be aware some have pretty complex fuel systems. One I flew had 5 fuel tanks 2 had 1.5 hours of fuel, the other 3 were less than 45 min of fuel each. It had over 5 hours of fuel, but it was challenging get full use of that fuel. If flying one like this I would high recommend a Fuel Flow Computer and practice running tanks dry in a safe environment, because there is a good chance you will inadvertently run them dry occasionally. I understand some newer models were better about fuel management.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

PS: Plugs for the viking
It may be better at the short field performance if that is an issue, do your homework.

if you are thinking about doing you commercial and or CFI ratings, buying a complex plane may be a consideration depending on availability of one to train in. Around here they are hard to find for training.
 
Last edited:
bradg33 said:
The 5-minute limit is really a non-issue, just dial the prop back to 2700 during the climb. The potential "issue" with the Lycomings is the tail cracking; there is an AD for cracks in the vertical support tube in the tail, and there is speculation that it's connected to the Lycoming engine during start-up and shut-down.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean for it to sound like a deal breaker. I don't think it's an issue either except for the rare case where you need all the climb you can get. If you are in that situation to start with you have bigger fish to fry. Did not know about the tail crack issues! That's why you always listen to those who have own than those who have aspired to own.
 
dell30rb said:
Hey if you want to do that, get a 210hp Swift. :)
150kts 9gph plenty of useful load, 50-60 gallons capacity, they are in the OP's budget
Click to expand...

You got a third seat in that Swift? OP says he needs to carry three. I do like Swifts though and would gladly bargain gas money for a ride next time I am at TTA.
 
brcase said:
to the OP's question, the obvious answer is the Tiger. It is a much simpler airplane with a lot lower maintenance costs. Better to learn about aircraft ownership on it. Do be careful about spar corrosion, I understand it can be an issue on the Tiger. Just make sure to do your homework and have someone that knows what they are looking for inspect it 1st.

The exception is if you really have a need for the faster speed and have the money for the extra maintenance. I like the Viking, but it does have quite a few more systems than the than the Tiger, both to Maintain and learn how to operate. Be aware some have pretty complex fuel systems. One I flew had 5 fuel tanks 2 had 1.5 hours of fuel, the other 3 were less than 45 min of fuel each. It had over 5 hours of fuel, but it was challenging get full use of that fuel. If flying one like this I would high recommend a Fuel Flow Computer and practice running tanks dry in a safe environment, because there is a good chance you will inadvertently run them dry occasionally. I understand some new models were better about fuel management.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

PS: Plugs for the viking
It may be better at the short field performance if that is an issue, do your homework.

if you are thinking about doing you commercial and or CFI ratings, buying a complex plane may be a consideration depending on availability of one to train in. Around here they are hard to find for training.
Click to expand...

The super vikings had a much simpler fuel system than the early Vikings.

If the OP narrows his choice down to the Grumman an AA5A with a run out engine might be the better deal. AirMods NW has the STC for the 180HP conversion and you can add on the 3 blad constant speed prop stc and really have a performer.

Also consider if a HP endorsement is sought after the early 4 cylinder Mooney's do not qualify.
 
bartmc said:
Because we're looking at his price range vs aircraft capabilities vs upkeep costs. None of the ones you mentioned compare, save for maybe the C177RG but who'd ever recommend a Cessna High wing retract? /QUOTE]

I would :D I'm 6'5" and my wife is a 6-footer. We sat in all of them, and nothing mentioned so far had the room or load-carrying capacity of the 182RG we ended up with. If you need even more load, don't fill the 92-gallon tanks up all the way.

I wouldn't have responded during a Viking/Tiger debate, but you specifically asked. :yes:

Jim
Click to expand...
 
bartmc said:
All you ever hear about them is "they handle so well". People buy planes for payload, speed and fuel burn. Those are the major categories and Viking isn't great at any of them. Saying "they handle great" is like telling a girl "you have a good personality" :lol:
Click to expand...

That was cold. ;)

And they are a great pilot's plane. It's easy to get really in tune with the plane and put it where you want it in all fight regimes. I felt snug, solid, and always in control of what was going on in the BSV. Very honest fliers.
 
Grum.Man said:
I like the security of the steel tube structure and if in sound shape I would put money on the Viking holding more G's than any of it's competitors based off design and material selection. I like the interior quality of the Viking better as there is less cheap plastic.
Click to expand...

Just a slight correction, or perhaps a bit more info. The Bonanza from model 35 up to the V35B including all Debs are rated to full gross weight to Utility category specs. The Viking is offered as Util cat rating with two people, but only normal category with gross weight. All BSVs are rated to normal category rating.

The same wing, fuselage, and stringers are used in the acro version of the Bonanza, except there are some mods to the root, and the door. It is rated acro with only two people.

Last thing, the Bonanza structure was the basis for the Air Force T34 which served candidates in basic acro for many years. Of course, there was a fatigue issue with the 50 year old planes requiring reinforcement, but the Bonanza family has the objectively strongest structure out there. However, after many, many years, overloads, and some over stressing, there is now an AD for the heavier planes to check for spar cracking. About 3% of the fleet have been found with spar cracks, and there is a full mitigation program in place to resolve the issue, but as with all things aviation, it's not cheap.
 
docmirror said:
Just a slight correction, or perhaps a bit more info. The Bonanza from model 35 up to the V35B including all Debs are rated to full gross weight to Utility category specs. The Viking is offered as Util cat rating with two people, but only normal category with gross weight. All BSVs are rated to normal category rating.

The same wing, fuselage, and stringers are used in the acro version of the Bonanza, except there are some mods to the root, and the door. It is rated acro with only two people.

Last thing, the Bonanza structure was the basis for the Air Force T34 which served candidates in basic acro for many years. Of course, there was a fatigue issue with the 50 year old planes requiring reinforcement, but the Bonanza family has the objectively strongest structure out there. However, after many, many years, overloads, and some over stressing, there is now an AD for the heavier planes to check for spar cracking. About 3% of the fleet have been found with spar cracks, and there is a full mitigation program in place to resolve the issue, but as with all things aviation, it's not cheap.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I would be pulling heavy Gs in a V tail Bo but that is just my own insecurities. I'm not bashing the Bo's as I really like them a lot!! But if I was choosing between the two I would have to go BSV. But I am one to always favor the unusual and unique.
 
Another consideration for the OP is what he may carry as cargo. The Grumman is the best at swallowing over sized loads (not overweight) with its fold flat seats and sliding canopy. Which brings up another plus, sliding canopy!!!! It's like air conditioning in the summer!
 
Grum.Man said:
I'm not sure I would be pulling heavy Gs in a V tail Bo but that is just my own insecurities. I'm not bashing the Bo's as I really like them a lot!! But if I was choosing between the two I would have to go BSV. But I am one to always favor the unusual and unique.
Click to expand...

Well, that's fine, I'm just relating that the Bo wing is tested stronger than the BSV, in all cases. I like the BSV as well, but the Bo is objectively stronger.
 
genna said:
Because if there is anything I have learned reading this forum it's this:

The answer is always Bo or Mooney.

:D:dunno::idea:
Click to expand...

Wait until these Mooney owners are required to reseal their fuel tanks, they will know their op costs went up.
I know of two Mooneys that it cost in excess of 10k to get it done.

They will all need it sooner or later.
 
docmirror said:
Well, that's fine, I'm just relating that the Bo wing is tested stronger than the BSV, in all cases.
Click to expand...

too bad the tail has so many problems, as does the magnesium skins which are prone to corrosion & cracking.
What is the only aircraft in this class that has an AD for a speed restriction, and the longest AD of any of the class?
 
Tom-D said:
too bad the tail has so many problems, as does the magnesium skins which are prone to corrosion & cracking.
What is the only aircraft in this class that has an AD for a speed restriction, and the longest AD of any of the class?
Click to expand...

Bummer.

I wonder if you can find a Bo anywhere in the world where the tail AD hasn't been C/W? I've seen many, many Bos, and never seen one unmodified.

Ever.

BTW, the first 2680 planes are exempt. Not sure, but I think, pretty sure - that's way more Vikings than were ever produced.

Ever.
 
joshplee said:
My mission includes flying from Ohio to Florida a few times a year and from Ohio to Oshkosh for airventure, and weekend day trips within a 2-300 miles. Usual load is 3 people (about 500 lbs + some luggage), I also like to fly into a few smaller airports in (89D - Kelleys Island 2200')
Click to expand...

You don't say the added heavy hauler is a gotta have.

for 500 pound average load, the C-170-B would do your mission and be a delight to fly, easy maintenance, cheap insurance, and good gas milage, mine gave me about 7.5 GPH over all, the IFR thing, not so much.
 
Last edited:
Josh,

If you want to ask about and learn about Vikings from people who own and fly them, please visit:
http://www.vikingpilots.com
No one will candy-coat anything, and you will get learned opinions on your questions. There are mx forums so you can see real world problems people deal with. (with due respect to the Viking owner here posting that you need a wood structures competent mechanic, it is fairly rare to do any wood work on a Viking)
The site also has a few people who not only bought Vikings as their first plane, but did their ab initio pilot training in a Viking!

You can also PM me with any questions you have. I have owned mine for 16 years, have been to Canada and Mexico several times with it, over much of the US. I have over 1500hrs in mine, take it onto grass, into the mountains, have been into the flight levels. Winter, summer, rainstorms, day, night, ifr.

As you might guess I have enjoyed it and it has served well. I know it is - like all aircraft - not a perfect airplane.
I have had to discontinue comments on POA threads regarding the airplane because in the past there have been people who really didn't know the plane continue to post irrational comments about it. So please check out the website or PM me. Actually anyone can, not just Josh.

Good luck shopping, I hope you get the airplane that fits!
 
I am happy with my '75 BSV. Full disclosure: I can't compare, having not flown a Gruman but can share my experience with the BSV coming up on one year of 1st plane ownership next month. A lot of the "quirks listed are accurate.". There are some parts of the plane you will want an A&P familiar with the plane to work on. I learned this lesson the hard and expensive way when it came to the gear. The cockpit isn't huge but I'm 6' and a big guy and haven't had a problem yet. It is my first plane and couldn't recommend strongly enough a good checkout because while I love the way it handles, the landings take a little practice. I also use it for regular 400+ NM trips that get me there a heck of a lot faster than the 172 I was renting. People have a problem with the wood wings. I don't get that. Statistically speaking there have been no more departing the plane than metal ones. You will need a hangar though. It certainly can't sit on the ramp. So after 1 year and 130 hrs I have definitely had a couple frustrating moments mechanically but would do it again. If you do go down that route you can get quite a nice one in your price range. You can head over to www.vikingpilots.com to get a feel for common issues, questions etc. I would suspect there is probably a Tiger forum as well. Could just be another data point in your research. Good luck.

Oh one other point. Shop around on the insurance. I did not have HP/Complex or IR when I bought (got as part of checkout) and only had ~90hrs TT. Mine ran around $2100.
 
Tom-D said:
Wait until these Mooney owners are required to reseal their fuel tanks, they will know their op costs went up.
I know of two Mooneys that it cost in excess of 10k to get it done.

They will all need it sooner or later.
Click to expand...

Nah, no need to spend the money. just botch a landing and collect the insurance money after she's been on the market a while.
 
docmirror said:
Bummer.

I wonder if you can find a Bo anywhere in the world where the tail AD hasn't been C/W? I've seen many, many Bos, and never seen one unmodified.

Ever.

BTW, the first 2680 planes are exempt. Not sure, but I think, pretty sure - that's way more Vikings than were ever produced.

Ever.
Click to expand...

There is one here in NC. Granted it isn't in airworthy condition but I was amazed to see the AD hadn't been complied with.
 
docmirror said:
Bummer.

I wonder if you can find a Bo anywhere in the world where the tail AD hasn't been C/W? I've seen many, many Bos, and never seen one unmodified.

Ever.

BTW, the first 2680 planes are exempt. Not sure, but I think, pretty sure - that's way more Vikings than were ever produced.

Ever.
Click to expand...

That's about double the amount of Vikings built.
 
depends on the mission, 50k will buy a hell of a nice vike and if getting there relatively quick but not terribly efficiently is your mission it's the best value of the 3 IMO. The vike feels a little small too, never bothered me.
I'd take a nice turbo vike any day, they just don't come up too often. Or not at a price I'd pay I guess.
 
Last edited:
Grum.Man said:


N5118C no pictures of the tail close up but no AD present.
Click to expand...

Oh, I take it back. By the door hinges, entry handle, and location of the battery tray, that's a late A35, or early/mid B35. Both exempt from the ruddervator cuff AD.

nyak, nyak, nyak.

Next!:rofl:
 
Josh, First I can't say much a bout the Viking because I don't know much about it. The Tiger is a fantastic airplane! I absolutely love them. Others are correct for that budget you can get a well equipped older Bo, if that interests you. As for your insurance quotes I think they are way high!


Good luck and Welcome to POA!
 
PeeGee said:
needs a little work

mainly, you know, BUILD IT into an airplane :goofy:
Click to expand...

On the plus side, a quick stop at Sutherlands lumber and you're all set. :lol:

Couple screws, half dozen two bys, and some Elmers should do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top