Bellanca Viking vs Grumman Tiger 1st airplane purchase

[PeeGee]

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

Couple screws, half dozen two bys, and some Elmers should do.

you don't see sitka spruce for sale many places anymore.

they do say in a lot of regards spruce is superior to aluminum for aircraft construction.

But I like weird airplanes, why have what everyone else does? Plus the vike just handles so nice...

 

[Tom-D]

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.

I wonder how many mooney owners would ride a tank of gas down the runway with all that metal dragging.

On purpose anyway.

 

[Tom-D]

Hey Boys and girls, there ain't no perfect aircraft, just ones that suit us best.

 

[Grum.Man]

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!

It's registered as a 1950 B35

 

[Dr. O]

Flew my Super Viking for a dozen years.
Loved it!
The wing is a non issue.
Do your homework - the middle 70's models were slower than before or after. (73-74-75 as I remember, you need to look it up)
I had the IO520-D Continental engine in a 69 and thought is was a fine engine.
It did like a fresh set of rocker arm bushings every 800 to 900 hours, or so (shrug)

 

[steingar]

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.

The Mooneys that cost in excess of 10K put in bladders, which is a permanent fix. There's a reason the Lucky Strike has them.

 

[PeeGee]

The Mooneys that cost in excess of 10K put in bladders, which is a permanent fix. There's a reason the Lucky Strike has them.

we paid about 9k to reseal ours.
pros and cons to both.

 

[brian]]

It's registered as a 1950 B35

Then all that is needed is an A&P to balance the ruddervaders per the AD. Then you have a really nice glider there

There is only one answer to this question: you gotta go fly all of them - literally all of them

 

[steingar]

we paid about 9k to reseal ours.
pros and cons to both.

Based on my research I think you paid a bit much, but I haven't shopped it out. The two advantages I see to the reseal is it is a bit cheaper (few AMUs) and preserves useful load. The advantage to the bladders is, as I said, a permanent fix. The biggest disadvantage is you loose some useful load, I think about 30 lbs.

That said, if yo had the tanks resealed they'll probably never leak while you won the airplane, which is good enough.

 

[PeeGee]

Based on my research I think you paid a bit much, but I haven't shopped it out. The two advantages I see to the reseal is it is a bit cheaper (few AMUs) and preserves useful load. The advantage to the bladders is, as I said, a permanent fix. The biggest disadvantage is you loose some useful load, I think about 30 lbs.

That said, if yo had the tanks resealed they'll probably never leak while you won the airplane, which is good enough.

they're guaranteed not to leak for 7 years. that's longer than I'll own it for sure.

 

[steingar]

they're guaranteed not to leak for 7 years. that's longer than I'll own it for sure.

Yeah, kinda my point. The down side is, were I thinking of buying the airplane, I'd go for one with bladders were it available. Those seals will leak eventually, and it will cost another $9K (or more) to properly seal them. Like I said, the bladders are a permanent fix.

 

[kyleb]

To the OP. One consideration is that when it is time to "get out" of the airplane, there is an active market for Grummans. They are *the* fast, sporty 4 cylinder certified option, and if you price one reasonably, it'll sell reasonably quickly.

The Bellanca has a niche market at best, meaning you'll need to wait until a "niche" buyer comes around or give it away to a guy who's considering a Tiger, but is captivated by the Bellanca's performance per dollar.

Now, if you buy the Bellanca at a fire sale price, you'll be OK when the time comes to unload it, but in the meantime your costs of care and feeding will be higher.

 

[brien23]

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.

Insurance companies are the only ones paying full price for airplanes.

 

[Tom-D]

Insurance companies are the only ones paying full price for airplanes.

 

[bnt83]

To the OP. One consideration is that when it is time to "get out" of the airplane, there is an active market for Grummans. They are *the* fast, sporty 4 cylinder certified option, and if you price one reasonably, it'll sell reasonably quickly.

The Bellanca has a niche market at best, meaning you'll need to wait until a "niche" buyer comes around or give it away to a guy who's considering a Tiger, but is captivated by the Bellanca's performance per dollar.

Now, if you buy the Bellanca at a fire sale price, you'll be OK when the time comes to unload it, but in the meantime your costs of care and feeding will be higher.

You can go even further, I'm not buying anything that REQUIRES the use of blue gas. Does anyone have an alternative on the market? What's the price?

 

[brian]]

You can go even further, I'm not buying anything that REQUIRES the use of blue gas. Does anyone have an alternative on the market? What's the price?

I have the slowest (earliest) Bo - just over 140KTS at 10 GPH. Dialed it back this past weekend and spent a whopping $21 to fly around (goofing off) for an hour in the air...

Only hitch: the old E-Sieres props are kinda hard to find. You could get an early 470 and still have a MOGAS option and get over 160KTS...

Price ranges from $20K to $60K based on what I've seen. Couple of good examples on BT.

(Edit: sorry - I miscalculated. Only spent $17 on gas for an hour of flying.. was only going between 120KTS and 130KTS... slow.)

 

[KeithASanford]

If you're going to settle for the limited useful load of a Tiger, you might as well get an early Mooney.

 

[DJTorrente]

You can go even further, I'm not buying anything that REQUIRES the use of blue gas. Does anyone have an alternative on the market? What's the price?

If you're willing to play around with experimental engines, there will soon be a whole lot of used VW diesels looking for new applications*.

(*rendered in the internet's official green sarcastic font)

If LSA is your thing, Rotax is said to run better on UL than 100LL, and is certified for both including E10.

 

[asicer]

If you're going to settle for the limited useful load of a Tiger, you might as well get an early Mooney.

Tigers are in the 900-950lb range for useful load. Full tanks are 300lbs while fuel to the tabs is 210lbs. It isn't *that* limited.

I've got a few dozen hours in Tigers and early Mooneys. Tigers are more fun, have better visibility and easier ingress/egress. Early Mooneys are ~5kts faster, a bit quieter since you can pull back the blue knob and they get a lot more respect on the ramp.

 

[bradg33]

Tigers are in the 900-950lb range for useful load. Full tanks are 300lbs while fuel to the tabs is 210lbs. It isn't *that* limited.

I've got a few dozen hours in Tigers and early Mooneys. Tigers are more fun, have better visibility and easier ingress/egress. Early Mooneys are ~5kts faster, a bit quieter since you can pull back the blue knob and they get a lot more respect on the ramp.

A M20C is more like 10-15kts faster than a Tiger. The Tiger is a 130-135kt airplane; the M20C is a 145-150kt airplane.

 

[asicer]

A M20C is more like 10-15kts faster than a Tiger. The Tiger is a 130-135kt airplane; the M20C is a 145-150kt airplane.

I must have had all of the fast Tigers and slow Mooneys. The Tigers I flew easily made 135kt+ while the Mooney only did 140kt.

 

[Anthony]

Tigers are in the 900-950lb range for useful load. Full tanks are 300lbs while fuel to the tabs is 210lbs. It isn't *that* limited.

I've got a few dozen hours in Tigers and early Mooneys. Tigers are more fun, have better visibility and easier ingress/egress. Early Mooneys are ~5kts faster, a bit quieter since you can pull back the blue knob and they get a lot more respect on the ramp.

My 1978 Tiger had 960 lbs useful load, which is pretty typical. With fuel to the tabs (38 gallons) you still had a good three hour endurance with reserve, and could carry 732 lbs in people, and/or bags. Not too shabby. I think most M20C's are more than 5 knots faster than a typical Tiger. Probably at least 10 knots faster.

 

[Rcmutz]

To the OP. One consideration is that when it is time to "get out" of the airplane, there is an active market for Grummans. They are *the* fast, sporty 4 cylinder certified option, and if you price one reasonably, it'll sell reasonably quickly.

The Bellanca has a niche market at best, meaning you'll need to wait until a "niche" buyer comes around or give it away to a guy who's considering a Tiger, but is captivated by the Bellanca's performance per dollar.

Now, if you buy the Bellanca at a fire sale price, you'll be OK when the time comes to unload it, but in the meantime your costs of care and feeding will be higher.

This is very true. I may actually be looking to sell my 79 Tiger. Getting older now and the knees may desire a step up into airplane, like a 177 or 182.

One thing the OP REALLY needs to consider is his mission. I looked at Bo's and 182s. Went with the Tiger since I knew the breed from owning a Cheetah for 14 years. Fast, easy on maintenance and fuel costs, insurance at $650/yr with $1M and $50K hull, good load, great for local flying and the occasional 500nm XC, very light on the controls... Hhhmmmm why do I want to sell, oh yeah...my knees.

 

[Rcmutz]

My 1978 Tiger had 960 lbs useful load, which is pretty typical. With fuel to the tabs (38 gallons) you still had a good three hour endurance with reserve, and could carry 732 lbs in people, and/or bags. Not too shabby. I think most M20C's are more than 5 knots faster than a typical Tiger. Probably at least 10 knots faster.

Not so sure. Check these reports out.

http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/flight_test_reports.html

 

[bradg33]

Not so sure. Check these reports out.

http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/flight_test_reports.html

Shows the M20C averaged 146kts on their flight. That's, give or take, 11kts faster than an average Tiger.

 

[poadeleted21]

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.

If you don't like my contributions, you're free to press the ignore button.

Did it ever occur to you that folks like myself and Doc went through the same reps our OP is going through, on a similar budget and are just relaying what we wound up with and why?

If you'll note, the post you replied to didn't have the word "Bonanza" in it.

If you'll also note, I mentioned Bo, Mooney and Tiger in my first post.

Why are you so obsessed about what I post on an internet message board?

Did you notice that the 1st two words of the 1st reply were "Older Bo" and guess what? I didn't write it, why don't you go ride his nuts too?

You should take the advice Henning gave you.

 

[RotorAndWing]

If you don't like my contributions, you're free to press the ignore button.

As you are free to do the same for mine.

Did it ever occur to you that folks like myself and Doc went through the same reps our OP is going through, on a similar budget and are just relaying what we wound up with and why?

No, you clearly were ranting on your dislike of the aircraft in the title using anecdotal information, such as this:

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"

Please go back and read the few replies from others to your postings in this thread, it's fairly revealing.

 

[poadeleted21]

As you are free to do the same for mine.




No, you clearly were ranting on your dislike of the aircraft in the title using anecdotal information, such as this:



Please go back and read the few replies from others to your postings in this thread, it's fairly revealing.

 

[gkainz]

"Urinating for distance..."

why do more and more threads degenerate into a "urinating for distance" contest? That, kids, is why we just can't have nice things around here any more.

 

[Clark1961]

"Urinating for distance..."

why do more and more threads degenerate into a "urinating for distance" contest? That, kids, is why we just can't have nice things around here any more.

I think R&W goes for volume and distance...

 

[MotoFlier]

I never heard of the Viking so I looked it up on Wikipedia. That bad boy is fast and has a respectable load.

 

[poadeleted21]

I never heard of the Viking so I looked it up on Wikipedia. That bad boy is fast and has a respectable load.

About 100lbs less useful and 5 knots slower than a Bo, it manages to achieve that with 40 more horsepower and less cabin space. All while being odd.

There's a reason they're at least half the price of a comparable B/C/P.

 

[MotoFlier]

About 100lbs less useful and 5 knots slower than a Bo, it manages to achieve that with 40 more horsepower and less cabin space. All while being odd.

There's a reason they're at least half the price of a comparable B/C/P.

The way you stated that makes it seem not as neat hahaha

 

[Tom-D]

Another thread de-generated into a Pizzing contest by a certain member with an attitude.

 

[Rcmutz]

Shows the M20C averaged 146kts on their flight. That's, give or take, 11kts faster than an average Tiger.

Yes, at 4500 ft. At 7000 where I fly my Tiger for most trips, 143.5, about 6 kts true faster than my Tiger, turning 2650 rpm.

 

[Gsxrpilot]

I fly a 1964 Mooney M20C. I easily get 150kts TAS on 8gph. I have 1015lbs useful load and carry 52gal useable fuel. I'm 5'10" and there's room for an adult behind my seat. It's snug, but useable.

The landing gear pucks had already been replaced and should be good for another 10 years or so. The tanks have never leaked. I've got a very modern but analogue panel with WAAS, HSI, STec30, etc.

All this is a $50K airplane. Affordable, fast, with range.

Just my experience...

 

[RotorAndWing]

"Urinating for distance..."

why do more and more threads degenerate into a "urinating for distance" contest? That, kids, is why we just can't have nice things around here any more.

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.

 

[poadeleted21]

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.

You don't have opinions. You have axes to grind with me, henning and Tom to name a few.



Look at the posts you've made in this thread, all you've done is ride my ass, rather telling.

 

[kyleb]

You don't have opinions. You have axes to grind with me, henning and Tom to name a few.

I'm not sure it is particular to any set of posters. He's just one of those posters who might have something worthwhile to add, but would rather be a jackhole. Anyone remember Bertie the Bunyip from the old Rec.Aviation Usenet groups? There are some similarities...

 

[gkainz]

Bertie the Bunyip...

oh crap - you just invoked Beetlejuice! TAKE IT BACK!!!!!