Hello everyone!

My friend is upgrading from a piper 140. He is looking at a 1970 Bellanca SV. Anything I should caution him on?

I would love to see him in a Bonanza. Any advice on key differentiators between bonanzas vs Bellancas?

I don't have any specifics on the Bellanca he is looking at other than it has a 520 and is in Florida.

I will post more about it as I uncover more info.

Thanks!

Here is a screenshot of the barnstormers ad.

Be sure all the termites know how to hold hands!

There are no "deals" in used airplanes. The market prices them cheap because they're a poor performing plane. With a big engine, smooth rivet-less skin, and a small cramped cabin, they should be nosebleed fast. But they dont deliver. The SV burns as much fuel and goes as fast as the huge piper lance, but look at the difference in cabin size.

SV's are bought by 2 types, people who like cult planes, and cheapskates. It never works out well for the latter.

I have only enjoyed a single short flight in a BSV, but I remember it as a beautiful airplane with sweet handling. Although some have an issue with wood wings, I'm very comfortable with them if they are well maintained (and there are many BSV specialists who can source and maintain good aircraft). With BSV prices being so low, it's well worth while finding the best you can.

On the negative side, I did find it a little cramped, perhaps even claustrophobic, because the steel tube fuselage creates a strong but view-limiting cage. The instrument panel has "old fashioned" ergonomics with not much room for avionics. but is well-equipped by seventies standards.

If my mission was for an affordable aircraft that would be mostly hand-flown in VFR conditions with just one or two people on board the BSV would be very high on my list. For the BSV owners here, I do understand that they can be flown IFR and fitted with an autopilot, etc, but with two small kids, and so many good deals available right now, I think there are better options for me. I would urge anyone to get some stick time if they can.

They don't deliver? They're faster, have better range than most competitors with same size engine. They have great rudder harmony and almost all who fly them rave about their handling. And the wing spar is stronger than on most metal planes. It's just the usual wood wing hate…

I have a 1972 Super Viking that I bought, with some partners, last December. I'd been flying a club-owned C33A Debonair beforehand, but came across the Viking and it was a steal.

Overall, the Bellanca is a great airplane.

Upsides:

Typically cheap to acquire (lots of people are afraid of wood/fabric)
300hp IO520 (same IO520 as in the Debs and Bos, but turns at 2850 on takeoff)
Relatively fast (mine makes between 155-160kts TAS LOP on 13-14.5 gph)
Good useful load (mine is over 1100lbs)
Good fuel capacity (we have all 5 tanks, so 79 gallons usable)
Excellent handling characteristics (handles like a sports car)
Relatively simple airframe (though it has its quirks)
Parts are, generally, surprisingly easy to get
Excellent crash-worthiness (you're basically flying in a roll cage)
Wood wing is very strong
It's unique (for whatever that's worth)

The Bad:

The cabin is a bit smaller than the Deb
Baggage compartment is a little smaller
It's louder on takeoff (2850rpm on takeoff will do that)
It's a little slower than a Deb/Bo
Really needs to be kept inside most of the time (doesn't hurt to leave it on the ramp for a night or three, but "normal" storage needs to be inside
Requires an A&P/IA that's comfortable with wood and fabric (a bit tough to find in some areas)
Some quirky systems

But, those downsides are usually offset by much lower acquisition costs (our BSV cost 50% of what we would have paid for a Bonanza or Debonair).

A few things he should be aware of:

The pre-'73 models have a complicated fuel system. It's not insurmountable by any means, but there are at least 4 tanks (5 if it has the fuselage tank) and 2 selectors. But there's only 2 fuel gauges. It also gets crankier than a Bo when you run tanks dry (air gets in the lines quickly, it'll cough for a bit unless you turn on the boost pump).

The pre-'73 panel layout is a bit odd, kind of like the really old Debs and Bos where the radios are down low on the panel. The AI and DG are also usually flipped (DG on top, AI on bottom) because the DG is too long to fit in the lower spot (it hits a support piece).

The front seats sit a little further forward in the door than on a Beech, so they're a little harder to get in and out of (though it makes the back seats easier to enter/exit).

Like lots of makes/models anymore, there is a LOT of junk on the market. He really should get a pre-buy by one of the "Big 4" if possible (4 BSV expert shops around the country) or a mechanic that really is familiar with the airframe (I can recommend one willing to travel).

While it's nowhere near as active as Beechtalk, the VikingPilots.com forums are a good source of information.

This the perfect example of cult plane owners and how its tough to get any objective information. Anyone who criticizes their baby is called a "hater". You'll note that i made no mention of wood. In fact i love wood. I'd wager i've built far more wood wings from scratch than adam or most Viking owners.

The simple fact is, the viking doesn't hold up to it's contemporaries (bo, comanche) in terms of fuel vs cabin size vs speed. Thats why they can be bought cheap. All the rest of it, handling, etc, those are cult plane arguements. There's nothing wrong with that, just call a spade a spade and stop trying to sell it as a "value"

Sweet-flying birds; slower than the bonanza on the same power, somewhat louder inside, tight cabin. There are some remarkable deals on Super Vikings, if you know what you are getting. The generally-acknowledged experts are at Rocket Aviation in Plainview, Texas.

Check nose gear very closely for wear and proper rigging; they have been known to depart the runway to the left on landing as a result of mis-rig.

The one referenced in the post appears not to have the main landing gear fairings and doors, which will slow it down a little. Also, I am not sure when the changeover occurred, but earlier Super Vikings had hydraulic landing gear which relies upon a powerpack under the seats, made principally of unobtanium (apparently, only one guy in the country overhauled them, and he knows it), all fed by an engine-driven hydraulic pump. I am pretty certain that the 1970 model already had electrically-operated landing gear, though.

Later models also have a center-stack for the avionics, rather than having them scattered along the bottom of the panel.

Assuming proper maintenance over the years, the wood wing is not a concern; they are very strong, indeed.

Check the tailfeathers closely for rust and corrosion at the attachments and endpoints.

I love the way they fly, and have a few hours in my log in them.

Check out: www.VikingPilots.com ; kinda like Beechtalk, only covered with fabric.

I see adam also added the usual cult plane picture, which i have to admit i've used myself when people look sideways at a wood aeronca wing mid-build in my garage.

However, for airplane utility, that photo is relevant something like this:

Pilot 1: I want a plane to take the family from illinois to florida for a week's vacation.
Pilot 2: Look for a V35 or 250hp comanche, they'll get you there quickly and haul all the stuff your family needs for a week's trip.

Alternatively

Pilot 1: Sometimes a bus load of cheerleaders stops by my place and they have nowhere to sit.
Pilot 2: Look for a bellanca viking.

Depending on who you talk to, they'll tell you the nosegear doesn't cause runway departures, poor rudder technique does. The pedals are VERY touchy, though and it can take a little getting used to.

In my '72, and I think in all '68+ models, the gear is driven by an under-seat powerpack that turns a hydraulic pump. The powerpack itself is basically an outboard boat motor (I can't recall offhand which company) and is pretty easy to get overhauled, though hard to remove.

My '72 is only a few knots slower than the C33A (I usually got about 162-163kts TAS LOP) I used to fly, on the same fuel burn. The cabin is a little smaller (fortunately I'm not as big as I once was), but I have a little better range and we paid just about 50% of what the C33A cost, with a lower time engine and somewhat better radios.

Thanks fellas! Good stuff! He is going on a test flight in a Bellanca soon. I told him we will go in mine after.

I owned a '74, Continental powered, Viking many years ago. I only kept it for about 4 months as I discovered a "title discrepancy" and the dealer offered to take it back.

Still, I flew it all the way across the country on a summer vacation with my wife and found it to be a very capable aircraft. It is a little slower than the Bonanza, a little less room, and a little higher cabin sound level. It is also very stable and a joy to fly.

I don't quite understand some poster's seeming animosity. It's an airplane, good points and bad points, and I don't see why just because a Bonanza is "better" that there is anything wrong with enjoying one for a bargain price. Just my two cents.

Jgreen

They seem to be a lot of value for money. Check out this site: http://160knots.com

I'd still pick the Bonanza because of the support issue and a vibrant community of enthusiasts that you get with a Beech, but could be a good plane for the right person.