Prop Strikes and Values

bartmc said:
I offered to race him any time he wanted, because "he had a few knots on me"
I'm not sure if he didn't want to put that theory to the test or if he didn't want to put the cowling back on. I'm not a veternarian, but I know a horses ass when I see one. I also have never owned or driven a Reliant Robin, but I'm pretty sure it's not as good as a Porche 911. The market value will typically let you know. There's no deals in aviation, the Viking isn't the exception. I'm also sure I didn't want to hook up with my buddy's girlfriend's fat friend because she had a good personality.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes2:
 
bartmc said:
Here's your chance to tell the world how great the viking is instead of attempting to bust my balls for having an opinion and sharing it. I assume you're in the market for a Viking now?
Click to expand...

I'm just pointing out you are relying on internet rumors versus real experience. Try using facts, it's a novel concept. :rolleyes:
 
RotorAndWing said:
I'm just pointing out you are relying on internet rumors versus real experience. Try using facts, it's a novel concept. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I've read much about vikings on the internet. I too gazed at the low price tags on the "great handling" 300HP retracts. Then, I dug deeper, my wife's boss owned one, in addition to me being hangared beside one and BSing with him almost every weekend (he was typically working on it, I can't say I ever saw it fly). It didn't take long to figure out why the Super Viking was $45K when a Bonanza/Comanche/210 with equal specs was $175K. Perhaps you should try using facts instead of trying to bust someones balls on the internet based on your assumptions. I'm sure the Reliant Robin is a great car until you actually buy and own one. Please use facts to disprove my assertions instead of just attempting to bust my balls. Typically assertions are discredited with "facts" instead of criticizing the person asserting them. It's called an Ad Hominem, and most would consider it bad form in a debate.
 
bartmc said:
Owners will tell you how great they "handle". I would compare that with that girl your buddy's girlfriend wanted to set you up with that had " a great personality".
Click to expand...
You haven't flown one, have you? I only flew one for a few minutes and it was probably one of the sweetest flying airplanes I have touched. I didn't think it was ugly either.
 
bartmc said:
I'm not sure I've read much about vikings on the internet. I too gazed at the low price tags on the "great handling" 300HP retracts. Then, I dug deeper, my wife's boss owned one, in addition to me being hangared beside one and BSing with him almost every weekend (he was typically working on it, I can't say I ever saw it fly). It didn't take long to figure out why the Super Viking was $45K when a Bonanza/Comanche/210 with equal specs was $175K. Perhaps you should try using facts instead of trying to bust someones balls on the internet based on your assumptions. I'm sure the Reliant Robin is a great car until you actually buy and own one. Please use facts to disprove my assertions instead of just attempting to bust my balls. Typically assertions are discredited with "facts" instead of criticizing the person asserting them. It's called an Ad Hominem, and most would consider it bad form in a debate.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
Not sure where the compulsion of owners of aircraft A having to put down plane B and C comes from. A poorly maintained bonanza, comanche or viking will eat you financially, no difference. All of them have some parts you need to get from the manufacturer at a kings ransom and many parts that can be purchased as PMA or repaired used. People like to generalize their own experience of owning A, B or C for 2-3 years to all aircraft of the type. And then there are the owners who are proud of maintainig their plane with wood-glue baling wire and hardware store bolts and have a buddy sign their log entries once a year and think that anyone who pays a mechanic to use approved parts is obviously crazy.
 
weilke said:
Not sure where the compulsion of owners of aircraft A having to put down plane B and C comes from. A poorly maintained bonanza, comanche or viking will eat you financially, no difference. All of them have some parts you need to get from the manufacturer at a kings ransom and many parts that can be purchased as PMA or repaired used. People like to generalize their own experience of owning A, B or C for 2-3 years to all aircraft of the type. And then there are the owners who are proud of maintainig their plane with wood-glue baling wire and hardware store bolts and have a buddy sign their log entries once a year and think that anyone who pays a mechanic to use approved parts is obviously crazy.
Click to expand...

Yep. :thumbsup:
 
Geico266 said:
Wooden wing /spar for a start? :dunno:

Nothing particularly wrong with wooden wings, but they have a perception problem. The Viking is probably the most under valued aircraft on the market.
Click to expand...

I believe you have stumbled upon the main reason they sell so low, the old wooden with termite problems.

but nothing could be farther from reality. They are built using modern glues and methods that will be here functioning long after we are both dead and gone.

read up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellanca_Viking#Development_and_design
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
I believe you have stumbled upon the main reason they sell so low, the old wooden with termite problems.

but nothing could be farther from reality. They are built using modern glues and methods that will be here functioning long after we are both dead and gone.
Click to expand...

The main problem with wooden construction as I see it is the small number of A&Ps who understand it and are willing to do repairs or sign off on it. The only Viking owners I know are less than 100 miles from the furniture factory and have their shop to fall back on if they need something done.

Finding a good mechanic willing to work on your plane is probably the most important part of owning any of the old complex aircraft. Some of them just hate Bonanzas, some hate the Comanche landing gear and all of them hate the Mooney cowling. If you are stuck with either of them, keeping your plane maintained is going to be an expensive project.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
Bart do you watch Fox News by any chance? Because you seem to be in a habit of getting the wrong facts from the wrong places so I just was wondering?

...

the Twinkies are 3850 lbs plus many have wing tips tanks bringing them to 4050 lbs it is the identical landing gear for a 180hp Comanche and the twin Comanche
Click to expand...

Sorry Tony, I've gotta bust your balls a little bit here, especially after the first statement above... You're pulling numbers out of your ass on the second one!

Stock Twin Comanches have a 3600-pound MGTOW. With tip tanks, that goes up to 3725, with the last 125 pounds required to be fuel in the tips. The Robertson STOL mod raises MGW to 3800 pounds, regardless of the presence of tip tanks or fuel in them. There has never been a Twinkie with a 3850 or 4050-pound gross weight.

(I'd still take a Comanche over an old Bonanza, but that's mainly 'cuz I don't fit well in the Bo - My head hits the roof. :( )

weilke said:
Not sure where the compulsion of owners of aircraft A having to put down plane B and C comes from.
Click to expand...

I think it's mainly defensiveness. I know I get very defensive about Mooneys because there are so many oft-repeated OWT's on the Internet and in meatspace about them. My favorite is the "too small" one - I'm 6'4" and nearly 300 pounds and I fit in the Mooney better than the vast majority of 4-seat singles. In fact, Al Mooney was 6'5", and he built himself an airplane - But anyone who's ever heard the word "Mooney" will swear up and down that they're too small, they cost a fortune and/or are difficult to maintain, etc. and none of it is true.

So yeah, when a Bo owner puts down Mooney/Cirrus/Cessna/Whoever aircraft in the process of saying how superior the Bo is, you've gotta expect the Mooney/Cirrus/Cessna/Whoever owners to fire back.
 
RotorAndWing said:
People love OWT's and internet myths and refuse to even consider the facts of the matter.


It's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

Looks like you guys have found an undervalued market. There's plenty of these built like a tank, wonderful handling machines to be had for fractions of their Cessna/Piper/Beech counterparts. What a savvy investor would do is grab all he could and wait for the market to catch on. It's only been 45 or so years now, bound to happen any time now.

But it's SOOOOOO much easier to attack the person pointing out the deficiencies of the breed than to address the reality that you can't give a Viking away... and never will be able to.

I went through the same exercises this guy is going through, investigated Vikings because of the bargain basement price tag and realized, there's no deals out there. You gotta pay for what you want. He's getting my unfiltered opinion and I've never stated that it's anything other than that. If you guys insist on white washed comments that praise every plane out there, try the Classifieds section.
 
bartmc said:
But it's SOOOOOO much easier to attack the person pointing out the deficiencies of the breed than to address the reality that you can't give a Viking away... and never will be able to.
Click to expand...

No one "attacked" you, just pointed out the flaws in your analysis.

Your "deficiencies of the breed" are based upon speculation. You admitted you have never flown one and your speculation is based upon one being hangared near you. Let me refresh your memory:

Most planes are a trade off between speed, useful load, comfort, range, upkeep and styling. The Viking is extraordinary in that it trades all of them off in return for nothing. There's a reason why a late 70s 300HP low time decent equipped viking goes for 1/5th of what a Bonanza does. If you buy one, be sure you like it, you can't give them away. It needs to be hangared and babied, is slow for the fuel burn, cramped, doesn't haul much and is ugly. Owners will tell you how great they "handle". I would compare that with that girl your buddy's girlfriend wanted to set you up with that had " a great personality".
Click to expand...
I've actually flow these airplanes, had friends who've owned them (they let me fly theirs) and I have worked on them (I'm a A&P/IA). I've worked on the 14-19-2, the 14-19-3 and the Viking (17-31).

I wouldn't consider them slow, actually in the same speed range of the Bonanza. Fuel burn (NA) is about 15gph, again not far off from a Bonanza. I find it a comfortable airplane to fly, not cramped.

IIRC the useful load is in the 1100 pound area. Actual the handling and flying are hallmarks of these airplanes, but you would have to actually flown one to understand. As far as ugly? Well again that depends upon the individual. I consider V tail Bonanzas to be an albatross but that's just my personal opinion.

bartmc said:
I went through the same exercises this guy is going through, investigated Vikings because of the bargain basement price tag and realized, there's no deals out there. You gotta pay for what you want.
Click to expand...

Same with Bonanzas, 210's, Comanches, etc. No difference, there is more junk out there than clean examples.


[/QUOTE]
He's getting my unfiltered opinion and I've never stated that it's anything other than that. If you guys insist on white washed comments that praise every plane out there, try the Classifieds section.[/QUOTE]

Your "opinion" is based upon walking by and looking at one in a hangar and internet lore.
 
RotorAndWing said:
No one "attacked" you, just pointed out the flaws in your analysis.
Click to expand...

Yes you did. You said nothing that addressed my issues with the Viking. Nothing that would contradict my statements. You immediately went to building a case based on my previous experience and not what I said. That's a textbook Logic 101 Ad Hominem. I never claimed to be a Viking expert. I'm just SGOTI who's seeing a guy go through the same reps I did. That's my experience and my opinion, money back guarantee.

Your "deficiencies of the breed" are based upon speculation. You admitted you have never flown one and your speculation is based upon one being hangared near you. Let me refresh your memory:

I've actually flow these airplanes, had friends who've owned them (they let me fly theirs) and I have worked on them (I'm a A&P/IA). I've worked on the 14-19-2, the 14-19-3 and the Viking (17-31).

I wouldn't consider them slow, actually in the same speed range of the Bonanza. Fuel burn (NA) is about 15gph, again not far off from a Bonanza. I find it a comfortable airplane to fly, not cramped.

IIRC the useful load is in the 1100 pound area. Actual the handling and flying are hallmarks of these airplanes, but you would have to actually flown one to understand. As far as ugly? Well again that depends upon the individual. I consider V tail Bonanzas to be an albatross but that's just my personal opinion.



Same with Bonanzas, 210's, Comanches, etc. No difference, there is more junk out there than clean examples.


Your "opinion" is based upon walking by and looking at one in a hangar and internet lore.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion. Seems like we agree "Handling and flying are the hallmarks" There's no other plane out there save for aerobatic planes where a buyer ever considers "handling" as a good trade off for any of the other ones. "They handle good" is about the only thing folks can muster up good to say about them. Some folks claim the Bonanza "handles well", it's usually a footnote if it's even mentioned at all. A minor selling point.

I've never driven a reliant robin either, but I know enough about them to know I'm not buying one.

Go ahead and grab them up, Vikings can be had for a fraction of a Bo/Comanche/210. Jump on these great deals while they last, the market is bound to figure it out and you'll be cashing checks all day long when it does.
 
bartmc said:
Yes you did. You said nothing that addressed my issues with the Viking. Nothing that would contradict my statements. You immediately went to building a case based on my previous experience and not what I said. That's a textbook Logic 101 Ad Hominem. I never claimed to be a Viking expert. I'm just SGOTI who's seeing a guy go through the same reps I did. That's my experience and my opinion, money back guarantee.



That's your opinion. Seems like we agree "Handling and flying are the hallmarks" There's no other plane out there save for aerobatic planes where a buyer ever considers "handling" as a good trade off for any of the other ones. "They handle good" is about the only thing folks can muster up good to say about them. Some folks claim the Bonanza "handles well", it's usually a footnote if it's even mentioned at all. A minor selling point.

I've never driven a reliant robin either, but I know enough about them to know I'm not buying one.

Go ahead and grab them up, Vikings can be had for a fraction of a Bo/Comanche/210. Jump on these great deals while they last, the market is bound to figure it out and you'll be cashing checks all day long when it does.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes2:
 
I'm not set on any one plane to buy, I'm just stuck on finding a good option. A complex IFR plane with low-mid engine time is what I'm looking for, preferably with a 430 already installed. It's primarily for hour building and IFR training but also for travel. Mooney's seem to be the best bang for the buck while Arrow's seem a bit more expensive. I saw some Super Vikings that are really cheap and have some good equipment already in it so that's why I was looking at them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top