Bellanca Viking vs Grumman Tiger 1st airplane purchase

J

joshplee

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
10
Display Name
Display name:
Josh = Flying
All,

I'm a 200+ hr private pilot, currently working on my instrument rating, I'm looking to purchase my 1st airplane next spring (I want to complete instrument rating 1st :)

Currently all of my experience has been in Cessna 150, 172, and the majority in a 1968 Cessna 182. I like the hauling capacity of the 182, and gentle handling of it, but I don't really care for the Truck Feel, not a deal breaker but....

I've read a lot of good post in regards to a Grumman Tiger, and I've recently been researching a Bellanca Viking, it looks like a lot of airplane for the money. So what I'm asking for is opinions on both of these airplanes.

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')

I've got insurance quotes through AOPA and it looks like the Viking is around $2800 per year, Cherokee 6 300 $3000 per year and Tiger was at $1800)

Budget 50 - 75k... I've often looked at Cherokee Six 260 and 300's but they are at the upper end of the price range, but I do like the flexibility of the additional capacity.
 
Older Bo or Debonair can be had in that budget.

The insurance will be higher on the complex aircraft for your first year. After you have 100 hours in the plane, it will drop significantly.
 
$50-75k will get you a sweet Viking. I like the Tiger, but it's not even close to the same class as the Viking. Most Tigers are 130kt airplanes (you might eek 135 out of them). The Super Viking is 155-165kts+, depending on the specific model. My Viking has a useful load of a bit over 1100lbs, making it a true 4-place airplane. You'll find that most Grummans will be in the 800-850 range, making it more like a 3-seater if you want to carry much gas.

The Viking will take a little more transition training, but it's really pretty simple to fly once you get the hang of it. The cabin is a little tight (relative to say a Bonanza), but the airplane handles like a dream. Don't let the wood and fabric scare you away, as both are a non-issue so long as you have them properly inspected and have a hangar.
 
You can get a decent older Bo in that range. As a first time buyer, I'd stay away from the Vikings. Mooney might be another option. Nothing wrong with a tiger either. If you get a retract, youre going to take an insurance hit the first year.
 
I vote Tiger. Not as fast or sexy, but easier to maintain and has a usable back seat. Much cheaper fuel costs too.
 
I'd second the Mooney, but am biased. Usually if something is "a lot of airplane for the money" there's a damn good reason. For example, I'd say that about the Mooney, but there's good reasons. Its tight inside for larger people, has a nearly nonexistent back seat if the front seaters are said larger people, and of course the Johnson bar gear isn't for everyone.

I suspect the Viking's wooden construction to be its hamartia, its proponents say that isn't such a big deal, though they are the only ones saying that.
 
steingar said:
I suspect the Viking's wooden construction to be its hamartia, its proponents say that isn't such a big deal, though they are the only ones saying that.
Click to expand...

That's total nonsense. And really, the owners are the only ones actually qualified to say the wooden wing is a non-issue. Of course, not actually knowing anything has never stopped anyone from spouting off opinions on the internet :)

The spar gets tested at the annual for wood rot, just like a metal spar gets inspected for cracks and corrosion. So long as the airplane is being cared for, it's very unusual for there to be any issue (again, just like a metal airplane).

For an educated buyer, the Viking represents a phenomenal value, in part because the negative perception that has been created by uninformed non-owners has pushed values down. You'll struggle to find an airplane as capable as the Viking for the price.
 
Remember, you are comparing two planes in different classes. One has a 4 cyl. 180 HP Lyc, and the other a six cyl, 300 HP Lyc or Continental. Vastly different performance, fuel burn, etc. For longer distances, I'd get the faster plane, but I've flown a Tiger all over the continental U.S., and while I would have liked another 30 KTAS, it was fine for most of my flying needs. It depends what your priorities are.

I agree on the Mooney M20C or E suggestions.
 
Based on those two choices, I'd surely go with the Tiger. The purchase price value of the BSV will be far outweighed by it's love of fuel and maintenance quirks. I was almost lured into the BSV after flying a few with Ferrari like handling, but the Tiger won in comfort, economy, visibility, and maint.

If you are a larger person, go put on a BSV before making any decisions.

<edit: I would(and did) go for an early Bonanza with similar speeds, but less fuel burn and somewhat easier maint. But, that's not what you asked about.>
 
Last edited:
Go fly a Viking and a Tiger. And even a Mooney and Bo if you are considering them. You'll then buy a Viking.
 
docmirror said:
The purchase price value of the BSV will be far outweighed by it's love of fuel and maintenance quirks.
Click to expand...

This part is nonsense. The BSV doesn't burn any more fuel than any other airplane in its class. I get 155-160ktas on ~13.5-14 GPH LOP all day long. If I'm at 10k+, fuel burn gets into the high 12s. A Tiger in "go fast" mode will burn every bit of 11gph.

The "maintenance quirks" are an old wives tale. It's got no more quirks, and no more expensive quirks, than anything else out there. You do, however, need an A&P who knows the airplane (and wood/fabric in general), or is truly willing to learn, for certain aspects of the airframe work (landing gear). The same can be said for Mooneys, Bonanzas, etc., though a BSV-experienced mechanic is a bit taller order.

docmirror said:
If you are a larger person, go put on a BSV before making any decisions.
Click to expand...

This part is definitely true. The cabin is a little snug (though not overly so), and the positioning of the door opening makes getting in and out of the front seats a little more difficult if you're larger.
 
bradg33 said:
This part is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Oh jeez, you again? Look, I'm happily married, stop chasing me around. :dunno:

We get it, you like the plane. The market has spoken, loudly in favor of the Bonanza. Sadly of all the planes mentioned in here, the Bellanca products are about the same value as my ball sweat.

Fly, enjoy, proselytize. But how about leaving the personal commentary out of it. You remind me of a SNL sketch; 'Jane - you ignorant slut'.

Buh bye
 
Regarding these AC. All retracts and they all go in the neighborhood of 160 knots.

Mooney: You trade interior space for economy. Also they handle like a truck with firm controls (OP did not like this about 182)

Bonanza: More fuel burn than the Mooney, but slightly faster and very roomy inside. Controls are light and responsive.

Super Viking: Its tight inside and burns as much fuel as the Bonanza.
 
bradg33 said:
The "maintenance quirks" are an old wives tale. It's got no more quirks, and no more expensive quirks, than anything else out there. You do, however, need an A&P who knows the airplane (and wood/fabric in general), or is truly willing to learn, for certain aspects of the airframe work (landing gear). The same can be said for Mooneys, Bonanzas, etc., though a BSV-experienced mechanic is a bit taller order.
Click to expand...

If the aircraft didn't have any "maintenance quirks" you wouldn't need an A&P who "knows the airplane". Hence the inexpensive acquisition cost.

I've heard this about Mooneys but don't yet understand it. I looked over the 100 hour inspection procedures recommended by the factory. It all looked fairly standard to me.
 
docmirror said:
Oh jeez, you again? Look, I'm happily married, stop chasing me around. :dunno:

We get it, you like the plane. The market has spoken, loudly in favor of the Bonanza. Sadly of all the planes mentioned in here, the Bellanca products are about the same value as my ball sweat.

Fly, enjoy, proselytize. But how about leaving the personal commentary out of it. You remind me of a SNL sketch; 'Jane - you ignorant slut'.

Buh bye
Click to expand...

I'll stop chasing you around when you start giving opinions and advice that's actually informed. :loco:
 
bradg33 said:
I'll stop chasing you around when you start giving opinions and advice that's actually informed. :loco:
Click to expand...

Please - hold your breath. It's the internet, you don't win arguments here, you just make a fool of yourself. Buying/owning a BSV speaks -- volumes... :lol:
 
steingar said:
If the aircraft didn't have any "maintenance quirks" you wouldn't need an A&P who "knows the airplane". Hence the inexpensive acquisition cost.

I've heard this about Mooneys but don't yet understand it. I looked over the 100 hour inspection procedures recommended by the factory. It all looked fairly standard to me.
Click to expand...

Mooneys have fuel leak issues and landing gear issues.

As far as quirks, I didn't say it has "no" quirks, I said it has "no more quirks than anything else." If I had a Bonanza, I wouldn't let an A&P that didn't know the Bonanza work on anything other than maybe the engine. Same with a Mooney, or even a Tiger (the Grumman's have their own maintenance quirks). The only real issue is there are fewer BSV-experienced mechanics than Bonanza mechanics.
 
bradg33 said:
Mooneys have fuel leak issues and landing gear issues.
Click to expand...

You can deal with the fuel leaks with bladders. Many have already been converted. Landing gear issues? The Johnson bar is stone simple.


As far as quirks, I didn't say it has "no" quirks, I said it has "no more quirks than anything else." If I had a Bonanza, I wouldn't let an A&P that didn't know the Bonanza work on anything other than maybe the engine. Same with a Mooney, or even a Tiger (the Grumman's have their own maintenance quirks). The only real issue is there are fewer BSV-experienced mechanics than Bonanza mechanics.
Click to expand...

Grumman maintenance issues are not really "quirks", its just nice to have someone who knows the planes and their differences.
 
Anthony said:
Grumman maintenance issues are not really "quirks", its just nice to have someone who knows the planes and their differences.
Click to expand...

Differences, quirks, just semantics.

I am a big Grumman fan. I've got a bunch of time in a Cheetah and a AG5B Tiger. They really are great airplanes, just not fast enough for my tastes. If all I wanted to do was 100-200 mile trips, I'd be all over one.
 
So, the question was Should I buy a Viking or a Tiger....

And the answers were Mooney and Bonanza?

Why not an Icon, RV-6, C177RG, PA28-180 or PA32-300? They're all nice planes that are equally irrelevant to the OP's question.
 
rolivi said:
So, the question was Should I buy a Viking or a Tiger....

And the answers were Mooney and Bonanza?

Why not an Icon, RV-6, C177RG, PA28-180 or PA32-300? They're all nice planes that are equally irrelevant to the OP's question.
Click to expand...

This kind of hits home for me. When I started shopping again about 12 years ago, I started with the BSV, and the Tiger. I generally disregarded any of the Cessna planes, and the Bonanza was not even in question.

Then, I started learning more, and each time a plane would come up, I'd compare it to the Bonanza. In pretty much every case, the comparison favored the Bo, so I finally admitted to myself that the Bo was becoming my default comparison so why not buy one of those?

I did buy a Grumman Traveler for a while, but while being a nice plane and all, the speed of the Bo was like a drug. My wife also commented that trips which used to take 90 min were now well over two hours on the Traveler. Surely the Tiger is faster, but we can scoot pretty well in the Bo, and the comfort is there, so we'll stick with that. I love the handling of both the Tiger and the BSV, but the Bo is still pretty darn good.
 
rolivi said:
So, the question was Should I buy a Viking or a Tiger....

And the answers were Mooney and Bonanza?

Why not an Icon, RV-6, C177RG, PA28-180 or PA32-300? They're all nice planes that are equally irrelevant to the OP's question.
Click to expand...

Because if there is anything I have learned reading this forum it's this:

The answer is always Bo or Mooney.

:D:dunno::idea:
 
rolivi said:
So, the question was Should I buy a Viking or a Tiger....

And the answers were Mooney and Bonanza?

Why not an Icon, RV-6, C177RG, PA28-180 or PA32-300? They're all nice planes that are equally irrelevant to the OP's question.
Click to expand...

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:
 
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...

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?


bartmc said:
Aside from what the fan boys say,
Click to expand...

Shouldn't you put yourself in the "fan boy" category?
 
bartmc said:
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...

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.
 
bradg33 said:
Mooneys have fuel leak issues and landing gear issues.
Click to expand...

Hit and miss. Wet wings leak eventually, and there are remedies. My aircraft has one. Just takes money. I've never heard of an issue with the Johnson bar, and neither has the FAA. That's why my aircraft doesn't have an emergency gear mechanism. Can the Viking say the same?

bradg33 said:
As far as quirks, I didn't say it has "no" quirks, I said it has "no more quirks than anything else." If I had a Bonanza, I wouldn't let an A&P that didn't know the Bonanza work on anything other than maybe the engine. Same with a Mooney, or even a Tiger (the Grumman's have their own maintenance quirks). The only real issue is there are fewer BSV-experienced mechanics than Bonanza mechanics.
Click to expand...

If it has no more quirks than anything else you should be able to take it to any mechanic, which is not what I've heard from other Viking owners. Problem is the very fine carpentry used to make the thing is all but unknown now. That's why Mooney moved to the metal wing in the M20C, lost quite a bait of speed doing so too.

Moreover, I will add that I think it a poor candidate for a first airplane ownership experience for the same reason I think experimentals are poor candidates for a first ownership. A rare airplane with specialty maintenance. Procuring and maintaining an airplane is fairly complex and has lots of pitfalls. Adding an unusual airplane into the mix doesn't help anything.
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
Hit and miss. Wet wings leak eventually, and there are remedies. My aircraft has one. Just takes money. I've never heard of an issue with the Johnson bar, and neither has the FAA. That's why my aircraft doesn't have an emergency gear mechanism. Can the Viking say the same?



If it has no more quirks than anything else you should be able to take it to any mechanic, which is not what I've heard from other Viking owners. Problem is the very fine carpentry used to make the thing is all but unknown now. That's why Mooney moved to the metal wing in the M20C, lost quite a bait of speed doing so too.
Click to expand...


Can you please elaborate on your experience owning and operating a Viking? Oh wait................never mind. :rolleyes:
 
steingar said:
Hit and miss. Wet wings leak eventually, and there are remedies. My aircraft has one. Just takes money. I've never heard of an issue with the Johnson bar, and neither has the FAA. That's why my aircraft doesn't have an emergency gear mechanism. Can the Viking say the same?
Click to expand...

My comment here was more about the pucks, not so much the system. The Johnson Bar is dead simple, and I personally am very fond of it. I got my CPL in an M20C.

steingar said:
If it has no more quirks than anything else you should be able to take it to any mechanic, which is not what I've heard from other Viking owners. Problem is the very fine carpentry used to make the thing is all but unknown now. That's why Mooney moved to the metal wing in the M20C, lost quite a bait of speed doing so too.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't take a Mooney or a Bonanza to any mechanic, either. Some of the Viking owners are a little over-the-top on how "special" the airplane is and how it MUST go to one of the "Big 4" shops, and honestly for 90% (maybe more) of the maintenance, that's totally unnecessary. Like any other airplane (other than maybe a 172 or a PA28), a mechanic familiar with the airframe is important. With the BSV, there are just fewer of those available. The A&P/IA that works on mine didn't have any BSV experience beforehand, but I trusted him from prior dealings and he was willing to put in the time to learn the differences ("quirks") and such.

Once you actually take the thing apart, you quickly realize it's really not a particularly complicated airplane.
 
bradg33 said:
My comment here was more about the pucks, not so much the system. The Johnson Bar is dead simple, and I personally am very fond of it. I got my CPL in an M20C.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, what about the pucks? They're rubber, they get old and you replace them. Am I missing something?
 
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...

Sort of like the Commander 114's. Great useful load, a bit slow and fuel hungry compared to a Bo, but the highly-acclaimed handling characteristics and interior space aren't normally enough to justify the higher purchase price.
 
steingar said:
Just out of curiosity, what about the pucks? They're rubber, they get old and you replace them. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
rolivi said:
So, the question was Should I buy a Viking or a Tiger....

And the answers were Mooney and Bonanza?
Click to expand...

So, the OP said he was a pretty new pilot. Why not offer suggestions from experience? I am a big Tiger fan, but don't know a heck of a lot about Vikings other than they are in a different class. This sounds more like a mission requirement question than which plane. Lots of long distance and speed necessarry - Viking. More shorter trips, and occassional long distance - Tiger.


Why not an Icon, RV-6, C177RG, PA28-180 or PA32-300? They're all nice planes that are equally irrelevant to the OP's question.
Click to expand...

Maybe they would become relevant if the OP got more familiar with them.
 
thaxton89 said:
Yes, that cost money.
Click to expand...

They are about $105 each. Just budget for $2500 in rubber parts (+labor) every 10ish years.

Landing gear pucks
Engine fuel & oil hoses
Engine mount vibration isolators


There's probably more too. Like brake hoses that need attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top