Upgrading to a faster plane

I gave basically Wayne's exact advice to a friend last night who may be considering upgrading planes. Figure out what your mission trip is, figure out how long you're willing for it to take and what reliability level you're willing to have, then pick your airplane accordingly.
 
JHW said:
you need/want a cramped, slow, gas hog ?
Click to expand...

Gotta respond to this...

Took some Young Eagles up this past weekend in my Super Viking for a San Francisco Bay Tour. Saw 205mph Groundspeed with about 185mph indicated and 14.5 gph at 3,500 ft. Slow? Hardly.

Cramped? I prefer to say cozy. :) Hey it was designed by an Italian. Ferrari's are cramped also, right?

It does need to be hangared, but it's an incredible airplane, and you can get them quite cheap. A lot of people are turned off by the wood, so there are some great deals out there.

Incredibly strong airplanes. Do some research with the links that were posted earlier. It's a great airplane. Flys like a fighter...
 
Welcome JimH. You have the fastest BSV in the fleet! Betting it's a post 74 plane. Also, when I think 14-15GPH, I start thinking of the twin Comanche. Roll the throttle back on that and you'll get similar with a little bit less speed but the safety of two engines.

As I said, I like to mosey along in my old Bo at a sedate 135-140 knots, where I can run LOP and burn about 8-ish of auto fuel(when I can get it).
 
docmirror said:
Welcome JimH. You have the fastest BSV in the fleet! Betting it's a post 74 plane. Also, when I think 14-15GPH, I start thinking of the twin Comanche. Roll the throttle back on that and you'll get similar with a little bit less speed but the safety of two engines.

As I said, I like to mosey along in my old Bo at a sedate 135-140 knots, where I can run LOP and burn about 8-ish of auto fuel(when I can get it).
Click to expand...

Yeah, 1989. :) Serial 89-301009. Only 20-25 made after it. 1st owner was a former Blue Angel, hence the color scheme... For my longer trips, I tend to fly it high (10-12K) and run about 12 - 12.5 gph. Still get something like 180mph or so TAS.

It's my first plane (purchased in May of last year), and I'm absolutely loving it.
 
JHW said:
The Viking is unique in that it does not compromise. It manages to be cramped, slow, thirsty, noisy, and a maintenance oddball, all in one convenient package.

There are no bargains in a GA. The market is very efficient at assigning value. And you can't give away a Viking.
Click to expand...


The above is correct if you do not consider fun/handling to be of any value. While many who have flown them will cite the many negatives, like you did, few, if any will deny that they are one of the most fun to fly airplanes in their class. Whether that fun balances the fuel consumption, lack of interior space or useful load, is a personal decision. One other advantage you hope to never need is the CrMo cage you cruise along in. They're not for everyone, but many appreciate them.
 
jimhorner said:
Yeah, 1989. :) Serial 89-301009. Only 20-25 made after it. 1st owner was a former Blue Angel, hence the color scheme... For my longer trips, I tend to fly it high (10-12K) and run about 12 - 12.5 gph. Still get something like 180mph or so TAS.

It's my first plane (purchased in May of last year), and I'm absolutely loving it.
Click to expand...

I love they way they fly, but you gotta keep on top of the BSV mx specific stuff. Each year, it seems they cured a few little things along the way, so your plane is truly one of the fastest in the fleet. Being an 89, it's also one of the most costly.

The best thing for the BSV is regular flying, get it up in the air, and keep the wood dry. We can't see the color scheme BTW. After 5 posts, you can link pics if you like.
 
docmirror said:
I love they way they fly, but you gotta keep on top of the BSV mx specific stuff. Each year, it seems they cured a few little things along the way, so your plane is truly one of the fastest in the fleet. Being an 89, it's also one of the most costly.

The best thing for the BSV is regular flying, get it up in the air, and keep the wood dry. We can't see the color scheme BTW. After 5 posts, you can link pics if you like.
Click to expand...

Yes to the costly part when compared to other Vikings. However, when compared to other late model SPAM Cans planes with similar performance, I'm pretty sure I got a great deal. The avionics, and recently fully overhauled engine alone made it worth it for me. Definitely not the plane for everyone, but it is fast, carries what I need, and is a lot of FUN! Plus, someone already mentioned that you're basically flying in a roll-cage. I hope never to need that feature, but it's reassuring to know it's there if required.

Downside is that it needs to be hangared, and it's best to take it to someone who knows the plane for the mx. As with any plane, needs to fly a lot. Not a problem with me, flying at least once a week...

Re the color scheme: Thought the avatar would show it. Do a google of N89EL pics also; there are a number of pics of my plane floating around out there
 
jimhorner said:
Yes to the costly part when compared to other Vikings. However, when compared to other late model SPAM Cans planes with similar performance, I'm pretty sure I got a great deal.
Click to expand...

Heha! Well said! I flew two BSVs, one in OK and one in SoCal. Man, I love the hands on feel of the plane, but when I pulled the power back on downwind, I thought we were gonna wind up in the bean field. I'm not that big, and I just couldn't get over the scrunching to look out the top and the side. Most BSV owners keep their planes for a long time, and develop a real feel for them. I drove an old Bonanza, and the fuel cost benefit sold me for my mission.
 
docmirror said:
Heha! Well said! I flew two BSVs, one in OK and one in SoCal. Man, I love the hands on feel of the plane, but when I pulled the power back on downwind, I thought we were gonna wind up in the bean field. I'm not that big, and I just couldn't get over the scrunching to look out the top and the side. Most BSV owners keep their planes for a long time, and develop a real feel for them. I drove an old Bonanza, and the fuel cost benefit sold me for my mission.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the other nice thing about the Viking. It's got GREAT short field performance. Drop full flaps and you can put it down quickly. It does force one to plan ahead, however; takes quite a while to slow down after the power is reduced.
 
I'm glad i asked about my choices, being informed will help me make the best decision. I think sometimes I get caught up in the numbers and not enough about the other important facts (room,fuel burn and having to hanger it) stuff like that.

I sat in a deb today and it was not as roomy as I thought, you sit higher than my Cherokee but the shoulder and leg room are about equal from where I was sitting. The backseat did look like it had about 10" more leg room though! I also did not like the blue tinted glass, maybe it's the age but most the glass in the beeches appear to have a bluish tint?

I really liked the way it sat higher off the ground than the Cherokee and of course the speed :)
 
on the contrary, I didn't say a word about wood. That's because wood is by far the best material to make an airplane from. And therin lies the problem. The way a viking is made, with smooth rivet-less construction, a tiny cabin, and a monster engine up front, it should be nosebleed fast. Lancair fast. But it doesn't deliver.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
I'm glad i asked about my choices, being informed will help me make the best decision. I think sometimes I get caught up in the numbers and not enough about the other important facts (room,fuel burn and having to hanger it) stuff like that.

I sat in a deb today and it was not as roomy as I thought, you sit higher than my Cherokee but the shoulder and leg room are about equal from where I was sitting. The backseat did look like it had about 10" more leg room though! I also did not like the blue tinted glass, maybe it's the age but most the glass in the beeches appear to have a bluish tint?

I really liked the way it sat higher off the ground than the Cherokee and of course the speed :)
Click to expand...
and don't forget autofuel-capable. The deb is a tough package to beat.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
This one is fuel injected, it was explained to me that this version could not use autofuel?
Click to expand...
they are all fuel injected. If it's still 225hp it can use autofuel, if they've upped it to a 260HP N-engine then no.
 
I'll take horsepower over being able to haul auto fuel to the airport all day any day and twice on Sunday. I have an IO-470N in mine, Wish it had an IO-550 in it.
 
When you attend a DFW-area fly-in and see Doc and me standing side-by-side you'll quickly understand why he likes the Bo cabin and I don't. It might also be apparent which of us might have paid for college by playing linebacker.

Jhernandez04 said:
I'm glad i asked about my choices, being informed will help me make the best decision. I think sometimes I get caught up in the numbers and not enough about the other important facts (room,fuel burn and having to hanger it) stuff like that.

I sat in a deb today and it was not as roomy as I thought, you sit higher than my Cherokee but the shoulder and leg room are about equal from where I was sitting. The backseat did look like it had about 10" more leg room though! I also did not like the blue tinted glass, maybe it's the age but most the glass in the beeches appear to have a bluish tint?

I really liked the way it sat higher off the ground than the Cherokee and of course the speed :)
Click to expand...
 
No reason not to keep the BSV on the radar. It's a fine plane, and the later ones provide decent performance, but it's not the be-all, end-all of aviation that they should be. It's a pilots plane.

The shoulder and leg room in the Deb and Bo are almost exactly the same as the Cher airframe. They are very close, with the Bo/Deb having a skosh more head room. The Bo is not a widebody plane, which accounts for some of it's speed.
 
JHW said:
and don't forget autofuel-capable. The deb is a tough package to beat.
Click to expand...

You also have to have convenient ethanol-free auto fuel to make it a consideration. In Ohio, I'd have to go far enough out of my way to make it not worthwhile to consider. Since the cost advantage is mainly for fueling up at your home field, one should investigate the availability of such fuel.
 
docmirror said:
No reason not to keep the BSV on the radar. It's a fine plane, and the later ones provide decent performance, but it's not the be-all, end-all of aviation that they should be. It's a pilots plane.

The shoulder and leg room in the Deb and Bo are almost exactly the same as the Cher airframe. They are very close, with the Bo/Deb having a skosh more head room. The Bo is not a widebody plane, which accounts for some of it's speed.
Click to expand...
but the back seat leg/foot room is significantly better in the bo. PA28 back seats are mostly for kids or amputees.
 
wabower said:
When you attend a DFW-area fly-in and see Doc and me standing side-by-side you'll quickly understand why he likes the Bo cabin and I don't. It might also be apparent which of us might have paid for college by playing linebacker.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there is that. But - you shoulda demanded something more than cowskin for a helmet.

The nice taxpaying folks of CA, and the other nice folks at the US Army were kind enough to fund my way through undergrad at UCLA. General Atomics helped out with my grad stuff and beyond. Who got the better deal in the long run? :yesnod:
 
koehn said:
I couldn't fly IFR with a shotgun panel. I don't know what it would cost to rearrange it though.
Click to expand...

I did it with my 172 - to have a new panel made, cut, painted, and installed (and not just rearrange them in the current layout) was about 3k.

It was a nice looking panel once I got done with it though.

Pay no attention to the altimeter

599561_3319016294725_626562632_n.jpg
 
DavidWhite said:
I did it with my 172 - to have a new panel made, cut, painted, and installed (and not just rearrange them in the current layout) was about 3k.

It was a nice looking panel once I got done with it though.

Pay no attention to the altimeter

599561_3319016294725_626562632_n.jpg
Click to expand...

That Bonanza panel is going to be considerably more.
 
bartmc said:
That Bonanza panel is going to be considerably more.
Click to expand...

Reasonable pricing and avionics work don't go together.

(FWIW I looked at doing it on my mooney too because I'm not a big fan of the black panel, and to do the entire thing was like 7k - I can deal with black.)
 
and that's just making new metal panels and painting the rest of it that grey. I loved the color of that panel in my 172.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail...ton/1960/Beechcraft/C33+Debonair/1572180.html

What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

OK, here ya go. The good: Solid airframe, standard tail, shoulder harnesses(I won't fly without). The bad: It's a Deb, so fixed cowl flaps, a bit heavier and slower than the same Bo. The in between: Tip tanks. I can't use them, my bladder range is ~ 4 hours. More than that in any GA piston is waterboarding. Also slows down the plane. E-225 engine, somewhat harder to service, but will burn auto fuel. High TT means a lot of cycles on the gear stuff. Things do wear out. I would check the nose scissor bushings if they haven't been replaced. Non-standard panel, which will make a difference when you start IFR. Non-standard radio location, again makes a difference later. Prolly has a generator not an alternator. limits elec load eventually.

If the paint and int are as good in person, will last a long time. No A/P, although I have one in a box I'll sell you pretty cheap for that plane.
 
DavidWhite said:
Reasonable pricing and avionics work don't go together.

(FWIW I looked at doing it on my mooney too because I'm not a big fan of the black panel, and to do the entire thing was like 7k - I can deal with black.)
Click to expand...

Yeah, but, look at the radio stack in that Debbie, or rather that "radio debris field".
 
DavidWhite said:
I did it with my 172 - to have a new panel made, cut, painted, and installed (and not just rearrange them in the current layout) was about 3k.
Click to expand...
That's ridiculous. We re-arranged my cherokee 180 for a zero less than that.

In the deb though it's even easier, you can fit the floating left-side panel section from a newer bo
 

Attachments

  • N7477W_2.JPG
    N7477W_2.JPG
    140 KB · Views: 33
JHW said:
That's ridiculous. We re-arranged my cherokee 180 for a zero less than that.

In the deb though it's even easier, you can fit the floating left-side panel section from a newer bo
Click to expand...

To have a new panel fabricated, painted, and installed? We didn't just swap them around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top