195

GRG55 said:
Hmmmm. Boeing's latest is 592 more than a 195.
Definitely food for thought!
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I'd agree with the premise anyway.

There was a nice 180 sitting on the ramp when I last left Reid. I wouldn't say it's less than a 182.
 
Bill Jennings said:
I really enjoyed my ride in Greg's 190/5, it was a really nice aircraft. Go for it!
Click to expand...
So did I. I had another ride in a 195 that was set up for scattering ashes (speaking of that other thread). There was a hopper between and behind the front seats with a tube going out the belly.
 
Lowflynjack said:
If you look at their biggest competitor when they were in production, it was the Bonanza! Both came out in 1947. It's hard to see a Bonanza and a 195 next to each other and imagine this. The Bonanza was a sleek machine that even from the 40's still looks fairly modern. Cessna was still going with the art deco look, big round engine, luxury. I love the 195s!

A friend of mine just bought a 165 Airmaster... now that's a dream plane for me!
18034265_1210069175779010_6892682670118869316_n.jpg
Click to expand...
Love the Airmaster!!! Just watch your head getting in the front seats. It's fast, has a round engine, 4 seats, 3rd wheel in the right place, and sticks instead of yokes.

To the O.P. The only thing I will caution is to budget for the oil consumption. These puppies hold a whole lot of oil and uses/leaks the proportionate amount.
 
asicer said:
Weren't these things business-class airplanes back in their day? Seating for 5, 1250lb useful and 148kts on 16gph (per Wikipedia) sound like some pretty impressive numbers.
Click to expand...


I have a friend that is in his 90's, a retired corporate pilot. He has a couple of thousand hours in a 195 for an oil company in Houston back in the day. It was his first corporate job.
 
If feeding the 195 isnt scary enough, there is always the Howard DGA. mmmmm.....P&W radial....
 
Plano Pilot said:
I have a friend that is in his 90's, a retired corporate pilot. He has a couple of thousand hours in a 195 for an oil company in Houston back in the day. It was his first corporate job.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, an oil company with 195. That sounds like an excellent pairing, eh Greg?
 
coloradobluesky said:
You think that's bad. I want to buy a MONOCOUPE!
Click to expand...
I flew a 1927 Monocoupe....only plane I ever flew that was older than me. If you find one, cherish it....one of the other instructors at the field where I was based took it out and stalled out of a steep turn. And the owner did not have any kind of insurance.

Bob
 
Yes, they are seriously old. Those old Warner round engines have Babbit metal bearings. Very hard to find parts for. There was a fairly original one out in California. There are only about 55 of them still flying or flyable.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Yes, they are seriously old. Those old Warner round engines have Babbit metal bearings. Very hard to find parts for. There was a fairly original one out in California. There are only about 55 of them still flying or flyable.
Click to expand...

I'm not too knowledgeable about the internals of classic airplane engines, but aren't nearly all crank and rod bearings made of babbitt?

I'd expect weird sizes to be more of an issue than that material.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I am a firm believer in the crosswind landing gear.
Click to expand...
What did you like about the x-wind gear?

Most of the folks I've talked to that had it thought it felt weird.

My Beech actually left the factory with the Geisse gear on it, but the previous owner removed those wheels because he didn't like it.
 
edo2000 said:
Those are lovely airplanes. But having flown behind a few radials, I would probably not do it. The old guys who know how to work on them are retiring. Mx will be expensive and depending on where you are, you might need to travel to get it. Having said that, I would the the first to put my hand up for a ride. :)
Click to expand...
It's not that bad. Certain engines are getting harder to find support for, but overall, they aren't difficult to maintain.

I own three radials and haven't found it too difficult to find people to work on them.

That said, I've flown behind Continentals, Pratts and Wrights, but have zero experience with Jacobs.
 
Fearless Tower said:
It's not that bad. Certain engines are getting harder to find support for, but overall, they aren't difficult to maintain.

I own three radials and haven't found it too difficult to find people to work on them.

That said, I've flown behind Continentals, Pratts and Wrights, but have zero experience with Jacobs.
Click to expand...

I was speaking a little out of turn. I never had to pay the bills to keep them running, but I have a few years and few hundred hours in DC-3s(Alaska freight in the 80's) and some in Beavers. I just remember clearly that if a journeyman mechanic would quit the company, it seemed to be of much more concern than when a pilot would quit. :)
 
arnoha said:
Good God, I just posted a thread where everyone on POA chooses to agree with each other. A little light grumbling about how you'll all hate ME should I do it, but besides that...

I'm not in the serious buy phase just yet, but I was realizing I wanted something to fly more people. I'd been looking boring: Cherokee Six/Saratoga/Lance mostly, as the 206 is priced to the sky and the A36 is a bit limited on weight (but not speed!). I don't actually need a six seat...five would do, so I took a peek at the 195. And it work...and it's in my price range...and it's pretty...and it's interesting..and...and...and...you peoples are supposed to convince me that I need to pick sensible and you're not doing that!
Click to expand...

If you want more room, Twin Bonanza is the answer :)
 
bradg33 said:
If you want more room, Twin Bonanza is the answer :)
Click to expand...

I'd rather just take care of one 195s engine than care and feed a light twins dual engines.
 
Fearless Tower said:
What did you like about the x-wind gear?

Most of the folks I've talked to that had it thought it felt weird.

My Beech actually left the factory with the Geisse gear on it, but the previous owner removed those wheels because he didn't like it.
Click to expand...
Well it does feel weird at first. It was very hard for me to actually let it land in a crab. It was so automatic for me to land in a slip. Took about 100 hours to finally get used to it.

I felt real comfortable with a lot more crosswind than if it had a straight gear.

And it is really hard to groundloop one according to someone who has rebuilt a lot of them.
 
Great stable airplane! Do you have your instrument rating? They nearly require a IFR flight plan to taxi. Seriously though it will be a great airplane. If you do wheel landings plan on a bit of nose down trim, makes wheel landings a bit easier to stick. And try to touch down on one wheel vs both simultaneously. Not a big fan of crosswind gear though.

If any of you Cessna taildragger owners have a wheelpant from the late 1940's with a cracked out inboard half I have a couple of new ones-120, 140, 170 & 190/195.
 
MAKG1 said:
I'm not too knowledgeable about the internals of classic airplane engines, but aren't nearly all crank and rod bearings made of babbitt?

I'd expect weird sizes to be more of an issue than that material.
Click to expand...
Dunno about the specific engine in question, but while many plain bearings in gasoline engines will use materials similar to babbitt, a distinction is often made between bearings made with replaceable bearing shells and hand poured / scraped babbit. In this case, size is not an issue.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Well it does feel weird at first. It was very hard for me to actually let it land in a crab. It was so automatic for me to land in a slip. Took about 100 hours to finally get used to it.

I felt real comfortable with a lot more crosswind than if it had a straight gear.

And it is really hard to groundloop one according to someone who has rebuilt a lot of them.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Do you have the x-wind gear on your 170?
 
How are we on page 2 without anyone mentioning that the 195 is an airliner, at least in terms of the control column and the pilot entering through the passenger door and walking between the seats to get into the cockpit? I'm also in the camp of really wishing I could afford to keep a vintage radial-engine plane so I could have a 195. I've also heard that the giant oil tank close to your feet makes it a great winter traveling machine. I've never been in one, but if anyone here has one and needs a safety pilot just give me a call and I'll be there.
 
iamtheari said:
How are we on page 2 without anyone mentioning that the 195 is an airliner, at least in terms of the control column and the pilot entering through the passenger door and walking between the seats to get into the cockpit? I'm also in the camp of really wishing I could afford to keep a vintage radial-engine plane so I could have a 195. I've also heard that the giant oil tank close to your feet makes it a great winter traveling machine. I've never been in one, but if anyone here has one and needs a safety pilot just give me a call and I'll be there.
Click to expand...


I'd wager, end of the day, if you took good care of the plane on the ground and in the air, did owner assist stuff and owner mx, a 195 would end up costing about as much as a 182/arrow mx and ops wise.
 
It is pretty to look at, but seems to have the usual Cessna visibility - like sitting in a giant paper towel tube.

If you're handy, or can draft a bit, and have access to shop, you can build your own parts, if something is hard to find. They just gotta be substantially equivalent to the orginial in materials, etc. And have an A&P that'll install them.

If it feels right, why not get it? If it turns out it doesn't "fit", you'll find a buyer!
 
I flew one a bit in the early 80's and really liked it. Owner wanted it exercised 2 or 3 times a month and I got picked for the job. He even insisted on paying the gas. It was really a tough job but I toughed it out. He sold it not to long after I started flying it so I got around 20 hrs in it. 300 Jake was a smooth engine and it ran pretty clean. Advantages to owning one is they are very docile, comfortable, you can roll down the window and fly with your arm on the sill like any old car, burns around 13 gph at around 145 kts as I remember. When on a cross country you almost always get invited to keep it in a hangar overnight, You get to park in the front line at airshows. The Jake is a well supported engine what with all the New Wacos being built. Drawbacks are poor visibility taxiing but you get used to that, you should have a fair amount of tailwheel time or a very good instructor who knows the airplane and knows how to teach you the proper operation of a radial, cleaning all the fingerprints off if it is polished. Buy it and see if you like it. If not you'll probably get your money right back out of it. Flying old airplanes gets in your blood. I'm 66 and have way more time in airplanes older than me and with "conventional gear". Don
 
arnoha said:
Good God, I just posted a thread where everyone on POA chooses to agree with each other.
Click to expand...
Can we send you along as a special envoy on the next middle east peace talks?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top