Debate: 182 vs Super Viking

P

pit2atx

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
22
Display Name
Display name:
pit2atx
All - I am getting ready to obtain my PPL and would like to purchase my first plane OR potentially partner in the Austin area. My mission would be a long XC 1-2 times a month ~250nm (some longer) and of course local fun. Useful load wise, I'd be looking at mostly 2 adults with the occasional extra pax or two. Also I am an avid skier and snowboard and would love to be able to carry gear out to NM and S. Colorado. Being able to land at some cool airstrips would be fun too ;) Price range is under $75k. All that being said..

I think I've narrowed down my decision to either a 182 (non-RG) or a Bellanca Super Viking. The 182 would be the easy decision and handle my mission. The Super Viking is so intriguing to me though as well. Fast, excellent useful load, many come pre-packaged with a ski tube. Also I've always been the type to go the more unique/road less traveled route :) I've flown in a Mooney M20k on a long XC but I'm 6'2" and felt a bit crammed up front next to an average size pilot. My wife is tiny so maybe that wouldn't be an issue for the majority of the flying I'd be doing.

Any advice out there from the aviation world before I make the big decision?
 
Both would fit your mission, but if you felt cramped in a Mooney you probably will in the Viking too.

The 182 IMO would be sufficient for the majority of your missions, while the Viking of course would be a little faster on the longer flights.
 
If you don't like the space in a Mooney then I doubt you're going to like a Viking.

I personally do not feel like a Viking would be a particularly good choice for a first venture into owning an airplane either.
 
pit2atx said:
All - I am getting ready to obtain my PPL and would like to purchase my first plane OR potentially partner in the Austin area. My mission would be a long XC 1-2 times a month ~250nm (some longer) and of course local fun. Useful load wise, I'd be looking at mostly 2 adults with the occasional extra pax or two. Also I am an avid skier and snowboard and would love to be able to carry gear out to NM and S. Colorado. Being able to land at some cool airstrips would be fun too ;) Price range is under $75k. All that being said..

I think I've narrowed down my decision to either a 182 (non-RG) or a Bellanca Super Viking. The 182 would be the easy decision and handle my mission. The Super Viking is so intriguing to me though as well. Fast, excellent useful load, many come pre-packaged with a ski tube. Also I've always been the type to go the more unique/road less traveled route :) I've flown in a Mooney M20k on a long XC but I'm 6'2" and felt a bit crammed up front next to an average size pilot. My wife is tiny so maybe that wouldn't be an issue for the majority of the flying I'd be doing.

Any advice out there from the aviation world before I make the big decision?
Click to expand...

Call an insurance agent and say "I just got my PPL and I wanna get a Viking." I ain't tryin to talk you out of it, but your gonna have some budgeting to do.
 
Viking has some extra issues being made of wood and all. Moreover, the two aircraft have fairly different missions. The Skylane will power out of just about anything, including unimproved strips. It is the only aircraft I know of in which you can fill the seats and the tanks and be good to go. The Viking is going to be a lot more about going between here and there.

A lot of this also depends on who you are. I fly a Mooney because I'm a tiny little person, so I can take full advantage of the Mooney's incredible economy. I also don't need much back seat. What about you?
 
Most of the insurance quotes I got on a viking were in the 5k neighborhood.
 
Aren't that many "airstrips" in CO, only a few that are public... we tend to pave stuff, even in the mountains.

But I did see a nice Mooney recently with dents in the leading edges and weeds and crap still stuck to the wings that landed at one of them, since they're narrow and crap grows up on either side of them in the summer.

Something to keep in mind if you're hunting "airstrips" with a low-wing. Make sure the runway is wider than the weeds growing on either side of it.

I wouldn't recommend "extra pax" beyond two if you're also carrying baggage and skis/snowboards and associated gear in a 182 in the mountains.

And note that many of the mountain town airports are either a very long way from actual ski areas, so you have to figure out transportation. Most of them will have rental cars available, but they won't be cheap.

Or in the case of Aspen, hang on to your wallet if you even want a ramp reservation for prime ski season... because the private jets fill the ramp and will happily pay dollar amounts that will water your eyes in a 182 or Viking.
 
I only have ~2000 hrs in my viking
about 250 in a 182

Join http://www.vikingpilots.com to ask us about them.
(Wood is unlikely to be a problem*, it hasn't been for me.)

Sure enjoyed all that the Viking has done for me. (Mexico/Canada/across the US, grass, heavy loads, hi DA, flight levels, 150kts, great IFR, great in turb)
The 182 was a solid airplane, anyone can fix them but aren't they pricier now? (have not shopped them lately)

*"Buy good wood, keep the seals in good shape, hangar it, fly it regularly and the wood will last as long as a Bristlecone pine (4,000 years)."
 
luvflyin said:
Call an insurance agent and say "I just got my PPL and I wanna get a Viking." I ain't tryin to talk you out of it, but your gonna have some budgeting to do.
Click to expand...

That. You can’t really say 182 and Super Viking in the same sentence. Different birds so to speak. Insurance on the Viking is going to be stupid high due to your low time, new to retracts and that insurance companies don’t like the Vike.

Go with the 182.
 
No real time in 182's, but thousands in 180s, got a little time in Vikings too. For your stated mission, I vote 182. The Viking is a very cool airplane, but the cargo room is nowhere near the 182s w/ extended baggage. I recommend getting the flat extended baggage, thats what I've got in the 180, and haul snowboards and skis routinely to NM/CO in the winter. You can get atlee dodge folding rear seats, and turn it into a cargo hauler. A Sportsman STOL really helps the wing up high too.

Get some experience up in the mountains (training) before hauling much (if any) cargo/passengers. If possible, try n get a 182 with a bigger than stock engine for the mountains, not required, but sure is nice! Long range fuel tanks are also great for longer trips to the mountains.

KTEX (Telluride) is a great place to get dialed in on how your plane will perform at altitude, but take the long way around and avoid the passes till you get your chops up in the mountains. Been going to KSKX (Taos) the last few years, its a great airport that is not too far from town and the mountain, with very reasonable local rental car rates. Taos is great when there is snow, but not so much this past winter. Gunnison and Steamboat have nice airports as well. Im based in Texas as well, and fly out of the Austin area frequently. So my statement is from having flown a similar mission for many years. You can always head out to Big Bend and get some practice at higher DA, KMRF and E38 are often 7-9K DA this time of year, prolly higher with the recent heat wave. Beware though, the thermals and mountains in that area will get your attention on a hot afternoon!!!

Not trying to talk you out of the Viking, but think the 182 fits your mission much better, as others said, insurance will be much cheaper. You might look into a Cessna 205, they are potentially in your budget, and have a ton of room, fantastic airplane!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Duster has a good evaluation there.
I forgot to mention my 45K hull costs <$1K/yr.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Most of the insurance quotes I got on a viking were in the 5k neighborhood.
Click to expand...

That surprises me, as it's tons more than my Aztec costs with $100k hull loss coverage. The average Vike is a less expensive hull so should be cheaper, and everybody knows multis are death machines on one engine so the liability for the Vike should also be lower. When it comes to older retracts the insurance companies know they are going to write it off and pay you out if something like a gear up occurs, so the premium for that value shouldn't be anywhere near this onerous.
 
GRG55 said:
That surprises me, as it's tons more than my Aztec costs with $100k hull loss coverage. The average Vike is a less expensive hull so should be cheaper, and everybody knows multis are death machines on one engine so the liability for the Vike should also be lower. When it comes to older retracts the insurance companies know they are going to write it off and pay you out if something like a gear up occurs, so the premium for that value shouldn't be anywhere near this onerous.
Click to expand...
My insurance last year as a student pilot in my 182 was under 1/3 of that. $120 hull
 
I have a friend who had a few thousand hours as PIC, owned a insurance brokerage, and had 2 incidences in Vikings within 2 years. Cross wind landings are a b****.

If you are going to fly into paved strips, get the Mooney and enjoy flying. They are awesome.

If you are going to fly into grass and paved, get the 182 and prepare to apologize to your wife about slow flying.

I happen to own part of a Bonanza regularly at 6'3" and it fits me fine. My wife is 5'4". I fly into grass strips and narrow strips. The Mooney is more economical.

Come up to Denton, I will take you up on a 182, a Bonanza, and a Malibu.

Long story short, buy what you like to fly and what your wife will enjoy flying in.
 
Here are a few numbers for comparison purposes. I am a 150 hr PPL and currently own a PA28-180. I have a complex endorsement and 47 hours in a Beech Sierra. Currently my insurance runs about $700 for 45K hull value. I wasn't really looking but recently ran across a very nice Debonaire that could be bought right. I asked for an insurance quote from my current broker and they came back with almost $3,000 for 70K hull value. They said if I got an instrument rating and 500 hours total time it would go down to $2,000. A the current rate that i fly I could get to 500 hrs in about 5 years. Guess I'll stick with the Cherokee
 
Rod Broberg said:
Here are a few numbers for comparison purposes. I am a 150 hr PPL and currently own a PA28-180. I have a complex endorsement and 47 hours in a Beech Sierra. Currently my insurance runs about $700 for 45K hull value. I wasn't really looking but recently ran across a very nice Debonaire that could be bought right. I asked for an insurance quote from my current broker and they came back with almost $3,000 for 70K hull value. They said if I got an instrument rating and 500 hours total time it would go down to $2,000. A the current rate that i fly I could get to 500 hrs in about 5 years. Guess I'll stick with the Cherokee
Click to expand...

The Deb is a great airplane. My hangar partner had a Deb as the first of his 4 consecutive Bonanzas over the past 40 years.
I owned a series of Cherokees as I was building time (160, 180, Arrow, 235). With each I flew more hours every year because I went more places and did more things because the capability of the airplanes kept increasing. You'll use the Deb a lot more than the Cherokee, but at this stage I would suggest you try to step up the usage of the 180, and after another 50 to 100 hours revisit the potential upgrade. The Cherokee 180 is also an excellent plane imo, and mine took me all sorts of places across the west where I live.
 
texasag93 said:
I have a friend who had a few thousand hours as PIC, owned a insurance brokerage, and had 2 incidences in Vikings within 2 years. Cross wind landings are a b****...
Click to expand...

Haven't heard that about Vikes before. That's a pretty large vertical fin; do they run out of rudder? The gear stance doesn't seem to be any narrower than a Piper or even a Cirrus, but I am trying to judge that from a photo, so maybe I'm missing something?
 
GRG55 said:
That's a pretty large vertical fin; do they run out of rudder?
Click to expand...


ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Come visit next time we have 40kts and I will happily demonstrate.
(Have done 45kts direct xwind. Not saying I didn't have to work a little, but it is doable. Usually its the turbulence with that kind of wind that makes one say uncle.)
 
GRG55 said:
Haven't heard that about Vikes before. That's a pretty large vertical fin; do they run out of rudder? The gear stance doesn't seem to be any narrower than a Piper or even a Cirrus, but I am trying to judge that from a photo, so maybe I'm missing something?
Click to expand...

I do not know. When it comes to incidences, I do not pound on another pilot when they discuss such things. I am only relaying a long time pilot that had the issue 2 times with 2 different airplanes.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Come visit next time we have 40kts and I will happily demonstrate.
(Have done 45kts direct xwind. Not saying I didn't have to work a little, but it is doable. Usually its the turbulence with that kind of wind that makes one say uncle.)
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. As I wrote, I had never before heard there was a cross-wind issue with the Vikings. I have two friends with Vikes, one here and one on the west coast, and that has never come up in the conversations. And on the lee side of the Rockies where I am based, we get a LOT of wind.
 
ATflyer - I will admit there has been a fair number of runway excursions in the model but not related to xwind. Some have definitely been due to mechanical neglect (missed cracks in steering arms) or overexuberance (tightening the steering collar too much by non BSV mechanics). Others have been put down to pilot error (you must not let the nose down until full aft elevator will no longer hold it up - but that is just good pilot technique in many airplanes anyway).
 
pit2atx said:
All - I am getting ready to obtain my PPL and would like to purchase my first plane OR potentially partner in the Austin area. My mission would be a long XC 1-2 times a month ~250nm (some longer) and of course local fun. Useful load wise, I'd be looking at mostly 2 adults with the occasional extra pax or two. Also I am an avid skier and snowboard and would love to be able to carry gear out to NM and S. Colorado. Being able to land at some cool airstrips would be fun too ;) Price range is under $75k. All that being said..

I think I've narrowed down my decision to either a 182 (non-RG) or a Bellanca Super Viking. The 182 would be the easy decision and handle my mission. The Super Viking is so intriguing to me though as well. Fast, excellent useful load, many come pre-packaged with a ski tube. Also I've always been the type to go the more unique/road less traveled route :) I've flown in a Mooney M20k on a long XC but I'm 6'2" and felt a bit crammed up front next to an average size pilot. My wife is tiny so maybe that wouldn't be an issue for the majority of the flying I'd be doing.

Any advice out there from the aviation world before I make the big decision?
Click to expand...

You better love the Viking because will have a lot of difficulty reselling it.
 
mondtster said:
If you don't like the space in a Mooney then I doubt you're going to like a Viking.

I personally do not feel like a Viking would be a particularly good choice for a first venture into owning an airplane either.
Click to expand...

I bought a Super Viking for my first plane in May of 2012. I had 256 hours total at the time, with only 150 of those hours being recent (I had accumulated 100ish hours 23 years prior before taking long hiatus from flying). Six years later, I have over 1000 hours in the log book with over 700 of those in my Viking. Our typical mission when we first bought it was to fly two good sized adults, a teenager, a hefty hockey bag full of hockey gear, hockey sticks in the ski tube, and enough luggage for three people from San Jose California to places in Southern California, Phoenix, or Vancouver BC.

I think it’s a great first plane. Fast, very maneuverable, capable of carrying a good load a good distance, and unique on the ramp. It’s a great instrumene plane and really fun to fly.

It is cozy inside.
 
steingar said:
Viking has some extra issues being made of wood and all. Moreover, the two aircraft have fairly different missions. The Skylane will power out of just about anything, including unimproved strips. It is the only aircraft I know of in which you can fill the seats and the tanks and be good to go. The Viking is going to be a lot more about going between here and there.

A lot of this also depends on who you are. I fly a Mooney because I'm a tiny little person, so I can take full advantage of the Mooney's incredible economy. I also don't need much back seat. What about you?
Click to expand...

A lot of people seem to worry about the wood. What the wood wings mean is that you need to keep the plane hangared, although it’s fine to leave it out when away from home on a trip. The key is to fly it regularly. Wood has advantages, also. The Viking wing is incredibly strong with two massive wooden spars. Unlike metal, which has can be permanently bent and fatigue, wood will flex and return to shape.

As far as unimproved strips, we took our Viking to Gravelly Valley, CA last weekend (1Q5). The picture below is a closeup of the runway from Google maps. Lots of 2-3 inch deep ruts caused by ATV riders, and golf ball to baseball sized rocks and 5-6 inch weeds were pretty much what the runway was made of. It’s not a river bed in Alaska or Idaho, but let’s just say it was a bumpy landing. The Viking handled that runway like a champion.

bf6c533320689f01e060246eddfe0a6d.jpg
7beccddb23cad1ff178b8b9d204cc8a7.jpg
6b05a32dcc5ee278741d33fcb189f70d.jpg



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
SixPapaCharlie said:
Most of the insurance quotes I got on a viking were in the 5k neighborhood.
Click to expand...

You probably weren’t talking to the right insurance brokers, then. I had 250ish total hours in my logbook, of which only 150ish were recent, when I bought my 1989 Viking. My insurance was around $3K the first year; it is less than $2K now with 700+ hours time in type and an Instrument rating. Getting my Commercial certificate didn’t seem to have much effect on the rates.

I also have a high hull value of more than $100K. My Viking is a late model (they only built 20 or so after mine), so it was more expensive than most.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
swingwing said:
My vote would be for the 182 but if you buy a Viking this is the guy to do a prebuy and your maintenance

https://www.facebook.com/davesaviationmaintenancelog/
Click to expand...

There are three well-known Viking shops in the US.

Dave, formerly at Witmers is one. He’s in PA.

There’s also Rocket Aviation in TX and Dan Torrey in Santa Paula, CA. These are the “big three” of Bellanca maintenence shops.

If you plan to purchase a Viking, it’s well worth it to have one of these guys do the prebuy. I bought my Viking from a guy in Georgetown, TX, and it had been maintained at Rocket. I still paid to have Dan fly to TX for the prebuy, because (a)I wanted an unbiased mechanic who had not been working on the plane, (b)I wanted a Bellanca expert, and (c)if I ended up buying the plane, Dan would be my mechanic since he is on the West Coast.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
JCranford said:
That. You can’t really say 182 and Super Viking in the same sentence. Different birds so to speak. Insurance on the Viking is going to be stupid high due to your low time, new to retracts and that insurance companies don’t like the Vike.

Go with the 182.
Click to expand...

Not my experience at all. I pay less than $2K to insure my 1989 Viking, and, since it’s newer with lots of nice avionics, I have a high hull value of more than $100K. Older models with lower hull values will be even cheaper.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
texasag93 said:
I have a friend who had a few thousand hours as PIC, owned a insurance brokerage, and had 2 incidences in Vikings within 2 years. Cross wind landings are a b****.
Click to expand...

The Viking handles crosswinds just fine. One saying about it is that “you will run out of guts before you run out of rudder.” I’ve never had a issue in my 700+ hours in my Viking. One thing to watch for, however, is that the nose wheel is directly coupled to the pedals without springs or bungees like the Cessnas. If the pilot doesn’t make sure the nose wheel is straight when it is lowered, the plane can dart to the side. A cessna is more forgiving of poor piloting technique.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
GRG55 said:
Haven't heard that about Vikes before. That's a pretty large vertical fin; do they run out of rudder? The gear stance doesn't seem to be any narrower than a Piper or even a Cirrus, but I am trying to judge that from a photo, so maybe I'm missing something?
Click to expand...

The saying in the Viking community is that you will run out of guts before you run out of rudder. It’s true. I’ve never had an issue with crosswind landings in my 700+ hours in my Viking.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Clip4 said:
You better love the Viking because will have a lot of difficulty reselling it.
Click to expand...

That’s probably true. The wood and fabric tends to scare people off. It’s good when you are buying, because it’s pretty easy to get a great flying plane which trues out around 200mph for a good price. Not so good when you are selling.

But then again, if you own a Viking, you will fall in love with it, and, then, why would you sell?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
jimhorner said:
I bought a Super Viking for my first plane in May of 2012. I had 256 hours total at the time, with only 150 of those hours being recent (I had accumulated 100ish hours 23 years prior before taking long hiatus from flying). Six years later, I have over 1000 hours in the log book with over 700 of those in my Viking. Our typical mission when we first bought it was to fly two good sized adults, a teenager, a hefty hockey bag full of hockey gear, hockey sticks in the ski tube, and enough luggage for three people from San Jose California to places in Southern California, Phoenix, or Vancouver BC.

I think it’s a great first plane. Fast, very maneuverable, capable of carrying a good load a good distance, and unique on the ramp. It’s a great instrumene plane and really fun to fly.

It is cozy inside.
Click to expand...

Did you have any complex time? How much retract time? How much dual did they require you to get in the Viking? A freshly minted PPL isn’t going to get a Viking insured without considerable expense
 
kgruber said:
The Viking has a beautiful harmonious control "feel," that none of the other above airplanes have.
You will NEVER see an airshow being performed by a Mooney or Cessna 182.
Click to expand...

That says it all. The Viking is a FUN plane to fly. While I would never do acro in mine (It’s not certified for it, and I wouldn’t want to trash my gyros), the temptation is always there. 182’s are great, but they fly more like an SUV or family sedan. The Viking is a Ferrari.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top