Bellanca Viking vs Grumman Tiger 1st airplane purchase

[gkainz]

Personally I've flown the older Bellanca's (14-19-2 and 14-19-3) as well as the Viking and Super Viking, and helped some friends maintain them. Great airplanes in my book.

and on that part of the post, I would hit the LIKE button ... or at least a thumbs-up...

 

[Clark1961]

and on that part of the post, I would hit the LIKE button ... or at least a thumbs-up...

The guy a couple hangars down the row from mine has some flavor of Viking. It's turbo normalized with two really cute little blowers. In his spare time he flies trans-Atlantic for Delta so he prolly could have gotten a Bo if he wanted one...

 

[RyanShort1]

I was test-flying a Cardinal two weekends ago for a friend who was thinking about buying it and the Cardinal's owner's last aircraft had been a Viking. He literally had NOTHING bad to say about his old plane and it sounded like he really loved it and wished he had it still. FWIW.

 

[docmirror]

Why is it only a select few should have opinions?

In this thread we've seen some good insight on the aircraft that are subjects of the thread from people who have actually owned and operated these models. Then we have the inane diatribes by a couple who have walked by one once, then insist the OP should follow their lead and go with their airplane pick.

Personally I've flown the older Bellanca's (14-19-2 and 14-19-3) as well as the Viking and Super Viking, and helped some friends maintain them. Great airplanes in my book.

Look at your first post in this thread. Look back at the content. You take someone to task for their opinion in your very first post in the thread!, and ask a pejorative 'so why do you feel.......'.

How do you think that makes people feel when you put them on defense and think they need to validate something op-ed that you may not agree with? Can't you start a comment with your own experience, and let it go from there? No one owes you ANYTHING by justification. You aren't the only one with history, and now all you want to do is keep on urinating after the scab starts to heal.

Here's a suggestion or two, for free cuz it's the internet. Take it for what it's worth; Substitute 'think' for 'feel'. You want to know someones thoughts on a subject, not how their emotional attachment to an idea(unless of course you want them to emote here - ick). When you come into a thread, how about starting with your own reasoned opinion, and don't start out by quoting someone and challenging them to justify their existence. Lastly, I've been around enough, and most others have too that the 'rolleyes' really doesn't make your position about something any stronger. In fact, it's become a hackneyed crutch when you don't have a strong position. Again, only a few ideas I hope you'll mull over. You have so much experience in some areas of GA that I really wish you wouldn't try to be so sniff-sniff veddy, veddy superior - knowledge or not, you aren't.

Now, as for the comments above, it's telling that you take someone to task(again) for not being able to match your hours in a plane. Well, unless you somehow got our various logbooks and looked, how the **** do you know? Again, you try to sound superior, when really it makes you sound like an ass. Do you have more time in the Bellanca brand than me? Doubt it, I grew up on a Citabria for many years. Citabira <> BSV of course, but I flew a few, I formed my OWN opinion and it's somewhat different than yours. So has Bart, and so have others. I think it's best if we let the OP decide on what opinions he values, and you decide on what you value. If you have an opposing opinion about the merits of the BSV, then share them. Roll em out, and we'll see if the OP wants to go there. Maybe you think it's roomy like a Bo? Maybe it goes faster than a Bo? Maybe wood is better than Al? "Great planes"? Sure, but comparatively speaking, the Bo beats it no contest. I explained the 'strong wing' to Grum man as gently and without rancor as I could. Maybe go check that, and see if you think it's worth emulating.

Have a nice night.

 

[MikeS]

Late 70's when I lived in Tarzana there used to be a crazy neat place down at the SW end of the main runway at VNY called Rent-A-Plane. Mel, the owner, had tried to go with a nationwide set-up by the same name. Those with long memories may remember seeing the ads for a few months, mid-70's. Nothing came of the nationwide idea for reasons I don't remember but Mel wound up with a very busy operation by that name at VNY and it was a hoot. He took planes on leaseback from private owners and what an assortment he had. He also bought and sold planes and I built a lot of time retrieving and delivering planes for him that he'd bought and sold over the phone. I rented from him all the time, usually showing up with no notice and taking whatever there were keys for hanging on the board. Cash in hand always superseded any reservations. I had no interest in the 172 or Cherokee crap since I was always going somewhere far away and even if it wasn't that far away, it's no fun taking all day to get there plus I'd had my fill of the slow and boring stuff bird dogging for Mel. But there was plenty of good stuff to pick from. Comanche twins and singles, Aero-Commander twins, a new Turbo Arrow IV with pretty velour upholstery (right on the edge of the crap department) an old C-310, and two Vikings. I don't remember any Mooneys or Beech, although I could get a 231 from another place on the field, along with Tigers. Just about all of the Rent-a-Plane equipment had something that wasn't working but if the engine(s) would start they were good to go, and cheap. I got my instrument ticket using those planes and got checked out in everything he had so whatever was there when something came up and I needed to go somewhere I could take my pick. Good times in the Valley. Of the planes that were of interest to me, I liked them all, including the Vikings. It's a plane that pleads with you to get upside down with it once in a while, and it was certainly more interesting than a Turbo Arrow IV. When there wasn't anything faster available I would take a Viking, but I remember all these years later they used a hell of a lot of gas for the amount of speed you got out of them. You could force it to go fast but it really sucked up the fuel if you did. The Comanches, single and twin were the best at going distance at a decent speed. Passengers liked the Aero Commanders the best - they were roomy, noisy little little mini-airliners.

The C-310R available for rent next door to Rent-a-Plane was THE plane for serious journeys and the Grumman Tigers and Cheetas available down the ramp were always a pleasure. With a passenger new to light planes, slowing down and sliding back the canopy a little over the ocean of lights in the L.A. Basin on a warm night with the smog layer lifted was about the nicest introduction to flying one could bestow. Plus they were fast and efficient and great fun to fly.

The Bellancas have a long pedigree and I admire them. With that power and gorgeous wing they're capable of anything you ask of them. They are real gas hogs is the only negative so if you like to get up high and not come down until you've gone a long way, they aren't the plane you want. I think I could make it to Sante Fe without refueling if I was careful. Those roll cage bars obstructing the windscreen are a leftover that makes it feel you're flying a plane from an earlier era - and you are. Vikings are cheap these days and if you can afford the gas and the annuals I think they'd make an excellent first airplane. I'm guessing a nice Viking could be had for less money, probably a LOT less money, than just an ordinary Tiger. The Bellanca oozes character and is very easy to fly and fun. And capable. It's a real airplane.

They're both excellent airplanes. Less potential headaches with the Tiger, cheaper insurance. I'm all for speed and efficiency these days, like everyone I imagine. I wonder if anyone has done any Lopresti-like mods to the Bellanca? It really shouldn't be such a gas hog, just looking at it. I don't know what their problem with drag is . . . wouldn't be surprised to learn there's some speed mods available.

Somebody got confused with fuel management on one of those Vikings and turned it into a ball of tubes and fabric and wood on a San Diego street, some time later.

Mel ended up killing himself on a bike, track racing. Rent-a-Plane went away along with Allen Paulson's Hustler, that boneyard full of weeds and weird and interesting planes along the west side of the runway, and all the other quirky and fascinating people and operations that were there during those years. That movie with the godawful background music . . . 16 Right? That mess didn't catch any of it and what they did happen to touch of interest they ruined with the elevator music drivel and brainless narration. As usual.

 

[docmirror]

Actually, Bellanca did the Lopresti clean up on the gear, and some cowl changes around 78. The nose gear doors, and I think they added some blister doors for the mains and it helped a shyte-ton with speed(or efficiency).

 

[edo2000]

I owned a '68 Super Viking with a Lycoming engine for several years back in 80's. Trained in it for my instrument rating and commercial license. What I remember- it just wasn't that fast at all for a 300 hp retractable; I used 140kts for flight planning. Maintenance costs weren't wonderful. I had a few unpleasant/expensive suprises, including a leaky fuel cell inside a wood wing. The fuel system was strange, 4 separate 14 gallon tanks, with 2 selector valves, and 15 gal/hr fuel consumption. You have to exhaust the fuel tanks in flight to get full range- you become pretty quick at moving those fuel valves and turning on the boost pump while the engine surges.

Having said that, it was a nice airplane to fly(but a tight cabin and visibility out wasn't great...). The '74 C185 I traded it for was much less expensive to maintain, nearly as fast, could haul a lot more, and could operate out of much shorter runways.

Between the Tiger and the Viking, I recommend the Tiger (I have flown AA5Bs a little). The Grumman isn't THAT much slower, but much more economical to fly and to maintain. Good luck.

 

[steingar]

Very few bargains in aviation. If something is that inexpensive, there's usually a reason. Not always, but usually.