If I HAD to buy a Tail dragger?

FloridaPilot

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
FloridaStudentPilot
It would definitely be a Cessna 195. I just recently saw one in person in red and I have to admit it's a beautiful looking airplane. Has anybody flown one? What was your overall experience like?


Thank you!

Here is a photo of it, (Not the actual one I saw)

1200px-Cessna_195_businessliner_g-btbj_of_1952_arp.jpg
 
I have a friend with one. He says it is the most challenging tailwheel he has ever flown, and he has time in T-6s, L-19s, and all kinds of vintage draggers. Notice the narrow and stiff gear, small tail surface, and lack of forward visibility. Still it is one of his favorite airplanes and one he will never get rid of.
 
They are big, burn a lot of gas and have unreliable engines. They do look cool, although I think the Staggerwing is the one to buy. (or a Monocoupe)
 
coloradobluesky said:
They are big, burn a lot of gas and have unreliable engines. They do look cool, although I think the Staggerwing is the one to buy. (or a Monocoupe)
Click to expand...

They are big, but the fuel burn and speed are Cherokee 6 numbers. I'm not sure the engines are any less reliable than similar HP flat engines. I actually thought about one before I chose to build the RV-10.
 
FloridaPilot said:
It would definitely be a Cessna 195. I just recently saw one in person in red and I have to admit it's a beautiful looking airplane. Has anybody flown one? What was your overall experience like?


Thank you!

Here is a photo of it, (Not the actual one I saw)

View attachment 60410
Click to expand...
It wasn't Chuck Taylor's was it? Beautiful airplane
195.JPG
 
The 195 is a beast to fly, but a sweetheart to work on, pull two pins on the engine mount and the whole engine swung 90 degrees to the side.
 
coloradobluesky said:
They are big, burn a lot of gas and have unreliable engines. They do look cool, although I think the Staggerwing is the one to buy. (or a Monocoupe)
Click to expand...
The Jake is very well supported. You can buy any part you need from Air Repair in Cleveland, MS. They aren’t much if any more expensive to maintain than any other comparable displacement engine. They can burn Mogas. Yeah, they have a reputation for using oil. But that can be mitigated a lot at the next overhaul if Air Repair does it.

Visibility on the ground is surprisingly good if the pilot is tall and can stretch his neck a bit.

I liked to say about the 195 that on the ground, inertia works for you until it works against you. You have to stay on top of it to keep it rolling straight, but if you track straight, inertia will help keep it straight. But once it starts to swing, it will be all over before you know what happened. Please don’t ask me how I know this.

One thing that helps the ground loop problem is to have a crosswind landing gear on it. It is not impossible to groundloop with a crosswind gear, but it is much harder to do so. But in a really strong crosswind it CAN do some things that can surprise you. I recommend anyone buying a 195 to seriously consider the crosswind gear while learning to fly it.
 
Everything about the 195 is classic. I would imagine that owning one is a labor of love. Would like to fly in one someday. I remember hearing one start up and take off at the Watsonville Antique Flyin and it really is a special bird. I'm glad there's still support for the Jacobs as it would be a shame to not have a few examples of this classic still flying.
 
Brad Smith said:
Everything about the 195 is classic. I would imagine that owning one is a labor of love. Would like to fly in one someday. I remember hearing one start up and take off at the Watsonville Antique Flyin and it really is a special bird. I'm glad there's still support for the Jacobs as it would be a shame to not have a few examples of this classic still flying.
Click to expand...
We had around 100 of them at Oshkosh if I remember correctly
 
I flew a friend's a few hours. Visibility while taxiing is a bit blind on the right side but other than that it is a sweet flying airplane and I found it easy to land. Had the 330 Jake and burned about 13gph in cruise at around 140kts if I remember. As far as the Jake being unreliable the guy that made that remark probably has never flown a radial. I have found radials will talk to you a long time before they do anything catastrophic if you listen.
 
DFH65 said:
There is a guy up in South Carolina has one $495/hour for dual instruction in it.
http://acebasinaviation.com/rates/
Click to expand...

This is something I would do. Just to see what it is like to fly a classic bird like that. I have experience in J-3 and Champs so maybe that will help.

coloradobluesky said:
They are big, burn a lot of gas and have unreliable engines. They do look cool, although I think the Staggerwing is the one to buy. (or a Monocoupe)
Click to expand...

Why do you say the engines are unreliable? I thought rotary engines are among the safest out there?

ktup-flyer said:
It wasn't Chuck Taylor's was it? Beautiful airplane
View attachment 60411
Click to expand...

No but Beautiful nonetheless. This one was more white with red stripes I didn't check the serial number because it low passed the airport. Maybe they will have a few in OSH and I can take a look inside.

Tom-D said:
The 195 is a beast to fly, but a sweetheart to work on, pull two pins on the engine mount and the whole engine swung 90 degrees to the side.
Click to expand...

Why do you think Cessna stopped making engines like that?
 
SkyDog58 said:
:rolleyes:
Yes, why did Cessna stop making rotary engines?
:ihih:
Click to expand...

Cessna never made nor installed rotary engines.

Cessna stopped putting radial engines on their production aircraft because for the size of the airplanes they were building, the flat engines were able to produce sufficient power much more efficiently. Had everything to do with efficiency and zero to do with reliability.

FWIW, Beechcraft was since hanging radial engines on new production aircraft in 1965. Then the King Air and PT6s took it from there.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Cessna never made nor installed rotary engines.

Cessna stopped putting radial engines on their production aircraft because for the size of the airplanes they were building, the flat engines were able to produce sufficient power much more efficiently. Had everything to do with efficiency and zero to do with reliability.

FWIW, Beechcraft was since hanging radial engines on new production aircraft in 1965. Then the King Air and PT6s took it from there.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that. I was sarcastically replying to the post above mine that seemed to conflate rotary and radial, and that asked why Cessna stopped making engines like that.
 
I don't do sarcasm, I don't follow the heard!

I did make a mistake about rotary and radial so forgive me if I'm not knowledgeable enough about engines. I never seen a 195 before until a few days ago.
 
SkyDog58 said:
But do you follow the herd?
Click to expand...

herd-mentality.jpg
 
SkyDog58 said:
Yes, I know that. I was sarcastically replying to the post above mine that seemed to conflate rotary and radial, and that asked why Cessna stopped making engines like that.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see....I missed his earlier post
 
Fearless Tower said:
Your fine.

There has just been so much BS posted here lately about vintage stuff that I’m a bit touchy...
Click to expand...

I personally love the vintage planes but haven’t had much of a chance to be around them like I would have liked to have been. I spent far too long working for the airlines and away from GA. I just got back into real aviation a few years ago. While it seems like most on here want a Cirrus, Mooney, Bonanza, etc., I have been keeping my eyes open for a very reasonably priced (read cheap) Stinson 108 or a Cessna 170, etc. I’d like to have something along those lines plus a little amphib like a Searey. I’ll leave the hot rods to others.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I personally love the vintage planes but haven’t had much of a chance to be around them like I would have liked to have been. I spent far too long working for the airlines and away from GA. I just got back into real aviation a few years ago. While it seems like most on here want a Cirrus, Mooney, Bonanza, etc., I have been keeping my eyes open for a very reasonably priced (read cheap) Stinson 108 or a Cessna 170, etc. I’d like to have something along those lines plus a little amphib like a Searey. I’ll leave the hot rods to others.
Click to expand...
I think it just SEEMS that most to the people on this forum are Cirrus/Mooney/Bonanza fanboys because they are always very sure to point out their preference for, and inherent superiority of, Cirrus/Mooney/Bonanza the way Porsche (pronounce that "E")/BMW/Mercedes guys are always sure to point out their preference for , and the inherent superiority of, Porsche/BMW/Mercedes. I'm a Chevy guy.

The Searey is actually a cool little tail-dragger. Any plane that was designed to belly-land is bound to be rugged. And the visibility must be just amazing.
searey-aircraft.jpg


I always find myself browsing the Barnstormers ads for Cessna 140's when I know no one is watching.
iu
 
FloridaPilot said:
No but Beautiful nonetheless. This one was more white with red stripes I didn't check the serial number because it low passed the airport. Maybe they will have a few in OSH and I can take a look inside.
Click to expand...
There will be. Pretty hard to miss
 
Fearless Tower said:
That’s ridiculous for a 195. You can get dual in a T6 for $5-600/hour.

A 195 shouldn’t be more than $300. Costs no more to operate than a Stearman and probably less.
Click to expand...

I don't know the guy at all just saw his sight when looking around awhile back. I wouldn't disagree it is pricey. I am betting it is a supply and demand thing. Not many 195s I am aware of that are for rent dual. Probably more T6s available to fly dual than 195s.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That’s ridiculous for a 195. You can get dual in a T6 for $5-600/hour.

A 195 shouldn’t be more than $300. Costs no more to operate than a Stearman and probably less.
Click to expand...
When you realize that your insurance company wants Type specific training you'll be looking for the 195 guy. no matter what they charge.
 
ironnerd said:
I always find myself browsing the Barnstormers ads for Cessna 140's when I know no one is watching.
iu
Click to expand...
most as nice as my customer's -- his has polished wheel pants, and a new C-85/0-200 that I built for him last year.
 
Tom-D said:
When you realize that your insurance company wants Type specific training you'll be looking for the 195 guy. no matter what they charge.
Click to expand...
Of course, but if that’s the case, you do it in your own airplane.
 
I sat in one once - like being in a drain pipe, only you can't see out quite as well.
 
Radial engines do have some advantages over flat engines. For example, you can diagnose a cold cylinder without even having to remove the cowling. Take a grease pencil and touch the bottom of each cylinder immediately after shut down and the cylinder that's cold won't melt the pencil as quickly. Same diagnosis can be done with a temp probe. Cooling is also better than a flat engine in that every cylinder (on a single-row radial) gets equal cooling. Also, radials tend to be smoother running than a flat engine. Disadvantages are oil collecting in the lower cylinders and more oil leaks from the lower valve covers. Start up procedure includes walking the prop through to avoid hydraulic lock. Big round engines are just plain old beautiful to look at and the sounds they make are unforgettable. Too bad their time has come and gone.
 
coloradobluesky said:
They are big, burn a lot of gas and have unreliable engines. They do look cool, although I think the Staggerwing is the one to buy. (or a Monocoupe)
Click to expand...
I can only speak of the reliability of the Jakes, and IMHO they are as reliable as any other popular round aircraft engine, and probably more reliable than some HO engines.
 
Tom-D said:
Why wreck yours? when his is for rent.?
Click to expand...

I suppose that’s one way to look at it, but honestly, if you are that worried about wrecking it on an insurance checkout, you aren’t ready to step up in the first place.
 
That depends upon which radial you are talking about, my Warner did not leak, and it would not burn a quart in 25 hours between oil changes.

watch
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top