Gear spacing differences between Cruisemaster and Viking

leadsledfan

leadsledfan

New member
In my conversations with Alexandria, I was under the impression that the wings on the 14-19-2, -3, and vikings are the same, with the exception of an additional flap bracket on the viking, 2 beefed up ribs, and an additional fuel tank and return lines.
Is the spacing between the gear legs also the same? I.e. did they simply turn the gear around in the same hole to make it a nose wheel? (I know the gear itself is different).
-Adam
 
They made the rear spar on the nose gear planes about an inch thicker, since the landing impact switched from the front to the rear spar. I believe the increase was on the front side of the rear spar, so the _3 and Viking tanks are a little shorter. I think they say 19 gallons rather than 20 like the tailwheel planes. The aux wing tanks are actually 2 small tanks (didnt have to remove a rib) plumbed together. I think the _3 Cruismasters had the additional flap bracket. Just another bit of Bellanca TRIVIA. ____Grant.
 
This leads me to the hypothetical question:
Could the gear from a -2 be fitted to viking wings and then the wings bolted to a -2 airframe?
This would give you the stronger wing and long range tanks of a viking, along with the updated flaps and plumbing for a fuel injected motor
-Adam
 
I dont know if the gear would compress another inch to fit into the slightly shorter wheel well. Also, the geometry of the gear would change and require a redesign and modified retract struts and whole new rear spar brackets. I am sure it could be done, but it would take years and thousands of dollars to get it thru the feds. All of what you mention can be done with -2 wings for a lot less trouble,because it has been done before. There are several -2s with the long range tanks, one of which was done by Webber, so I assume it is well documented. The aux wing tanks require the newer main tank, so it would all be compatible with fuel injection. The early aux tanks were plumbed separately from the mains and the feed line ran thru a tube welded into the main tank. I have never seen the newer setup where the tanks are all plumbed together so that you dont actually have aux wing tanks, you have one big capacity in each wing. The plumbing would be different. I would think that the extra flap bracket would be the easiest part of the job to just add. The aux tanks are installed from the bottom of the wing without moving ribs (the 17 gallon aux tank is really 2 small tanks plumbed together) and on newer Vikings the mains are installed from the bottom so that you have a one piece wingwalk area and not our horrible tank covers. The factory sells a different type of tank bracket so that you can install or remove the mains from underneath. They didnt recommend them for my Cruisair because they needed a few extra holes in the spar brackets, but with a -3 or Viking main tank being 1 inch shorter, you could fabricate tank mounting brackets without drilling the spar brackets. It is all doable and I would think it would be much less grief to put the tanks into -2 wings than trying to put Viking wings on a Cruismaster. I would start by ordering the aux wing tank blue prints from the factory and CDs (from the feds) of all of the -2s that have the aux tanks already approved. Maybe ROB 58 can help you find which planes already have them. I hope this gives you a few ideas. ____Grant.
 
gjordan said:
I think the _3 Cruismasters had the additional flap bracket. Just another bit of Bellanca TRIVIA.
Click to expand...

The -3s did not have the third flap bracket. At least, my late -3 doesn’t (6th to last before the -3A). I don’t think the -3A had the third bracket either, but I’m not positive. For the -3, they did add a second spar in the flap to try and reduce flexing, which is why flap speed is 110 instead of 87. So while the flaps between a -2 and -3 look identical on the outside, a -2 flap shouldn’t be used on a -3.
 
I had parted out a -3 and it had the third hinge but I never knew the serial number of the plane.The only reason I knew that was from the remains of three hinges per side after the crash. The flaps had become toothpicks. I did sell two sets of flaps and one set had the extra ribs, but again, I dont know what planes they came from. I would think that adding the extra hinge would not be difficult, but trying to get a change in the flap speed would be much more difficult unless you actually changed to the newer flap. It would probably take a DER to get any kind of approval. I just had a thought, it might be that the -3 that I parted, had early Viking wings swapped to it, or maybe -3A or B or C model wings. I keep forgetting about the late 14-19-3s that had the swept tail. I dont think many people (including myself) would know the difference. ____Grant.
 
Just re read your post and didnt realize that the -3 had the extra rib and increased flap speed. Lots of differences in Bellancas. ____Grant.
 
Always fascinated to read about Adam's latest idea and glad we have his "youthful" input to stimulate activity here on the forum. Let me offer feedback on each subject, one at a time…

Regarding the fuel capacity, I agree that the Cruisemasters (both -2 & -3) are rather short-legged. For most of us that is not a major problem, but for Adam and his trans-continental commutes I understand the frustration. As I see it there are three basic options: 1) replace the existing aux tank with the slightly larger tank (a lot of work for minimum gain), or 2) install the outboard wing tanks, which also involves a mod to the inner tanks, or 3) place another aux tank under the rear seat. Option #3 is really the most cost effective. Option #2 is perhaps the cleanest long-term solution and has the least impact on CG – many Vikings were so equipped.

Regarding the outboard wing tanks, my research suggests that maybe six or eight -2s have been modified (at considerable expense) with these extra tanks. N9842B was modified many years ago at Webers at a cost of about $7K and is currently being put back in airworthy condition by our fellow forum member “planebones” (Ken).

Grant has the experience and knowledge to discuss the details of such a modification. Randy at AAC runs the wing repair shop at the factory and probably is a great resource. After studying many different -2 Cruisemasters over the years, and more recently the -3s, I have come to the conclusion that virtually every airplane is different. Many of the variations existed in the original manufacture of the plane and the majority of the fleet has been modified in some way over the years.
 
Regarding the conversion of a Viking wing to a tailwheel landing gear configuration, this is really not practical and certainly not cost effective for reason that Grant has described in detail. If the motivation for doing this is to acquire a set of wings that already has the larger fuel capacity the cost, headaches, and legalities of such would far outweigh the work involved converting an existing -2 wing to accommodate the extra tankage. As for the tricycle wing being stronger than the taildragger wing I’m not sure how to quantify or validate this. To my knowledge there has never been a wing failure that was not attributable to neglect or poor maintenance – the strength of the Bellanca wing has never been disputed. The same basic wing structure is certified to a gross weight of 3325 lbs in the Vikings, so I wouldn’t worry about the strength of the -2 wing.
 
Now regarding the upgrade to the fuel injected engine (which you have brought up before). Let me share my personal observations on this…

First of all I love taildraggers, having learned to fly in one and spending a lot of enjoyable time flying my -2 some years back. Unfortunately Bellanca did not produce a taildragger with the FI engine – they went to the tricycle gear simply in a desperate attempt to compete with the Bonanza, Comanche and C-210 back in the late 50s. Despite the fact that the 14-19-3 is a tricycle gear plane (with a marginally designed nose gear), it is a great airplane and definitely has the power and other benefits of the IO-470. I wanted the reliability of the FI engine bad enough to overcome my disdain to be part of the trike crowd. And these airplanes are a bargain in the marketplace. As much as I am a diehard triple-tail fan, I can also admit that the Viking is a very fine aircraft, retaining the all of the excellent flight qualities of the Bellanca line. Given your inner yearning for speed and range it might well be your destiny to have an IO-550 powered Viking.
 
Part of the push for the Viking wings is just that they are so readily available. There are at any given time at least 4-5 sets of wings being sold from salvage airframes, while -2 airframes and wings rarely come up for sale.

The long-range tanks would be nice, but according to Randy at AAC, there are only 2 Cruisemasters with them installed, the one that planebones is repairing that gear-upped in AZ, and a crazy modified -2 that one of the AAC factory guys is building. They seem to think that installing the additional wing tanks is much more trouble than people realize, due to the tanks all having to be custom made or fabricated on.

The fuel injection is more valuable IMO, as it would help with the speed and range. Another plus is that it eliminates the propensity for carb-ice that I experienced on the Bellanca this past winter. Flying back from the west coast in -20 or -30 degree temperatures required running at least a little bit of carb heat for a significant portion of the trip.

The IO-520 Viking would probably fit my cross-country mission better than the Cruisemaster, but it wouldn't fit my landing well. About half of my landings in the Master have been on grass, and a good portion of those have been on less than favorable grass that I think would shred the Viking nose gear.

Is it too much to ask of my 60-year-old airplane to travel 1000nm at 160 knots, carry 1000 pounds of cargo, fly a GPS approach, and land at 60 knots on an unimproved grass strip?
-Adam
 
Hahaha. Actually Adam I think you need a fleet of aircraft so that you can choose a mission-specific machine depending on what you are doing on any given day. I once owned a twin Aero Commander that would fit your requirements quite nicely - in fact it would land at less than 60 knots and did pretty well on grass strips. Loved that plane.
 
Adam, I believe there are several more -2s with the aux wing tanks. Maybe Rob has some N#s so you can pull the CDs. I dont believe that they are custom fit because many Vikings had them and some -3s also. If you could find some previously approved data that was clear enough and a FSDO that had real people in it, the actual installation would not be too difficult. As I said, I had the factory wing drawings (before the fire) for the aux wing tanks and if you didnt want to go with the extra trouble of mounting the main tanks from the bottom , that would save a step. Finding Viking wing tanks or rotten Viking wings with the aux tanks would get you started. Pull Planebones CD and see what it says. Also the I0-470 powered 14-19 that was recently for sale may have had the aux tanks. Dan Torrey would know more about it than the factory and might know where there was a set of tanks to purchase. Dan would also know what the configuration is in the later Vikings that have only one filler for each wing. Something to think about is that the rest of the conversion to injection (different motor) is going to cost many times more than just changing tanks. ____Grant.
 
Another small note. I measured the center section of an early Viking and a Cruisair today. The rear spar carry-thru where the wing bolts go is 3 and 3/8 on a Cruisair and 4 and 5/16 on the Viking. 15/16 thicker rear spar on the Viking._____Grant.
 
Adam, N6RJ is up for sale on this forum. The plane has already been approved for the IO-470. I dont know if it has the aux wing tanks or not, but all the FAA hoops for the bigger engine have been jumped thru, and that is the hardest part of any modification. Meaning the FAA is the hardest, not the actual mod. If you bought 6RJ and sold your plane, the price difference would probably be much, much less than the cost of modifying your plane. Just something to think about. _____Grant.
 
Grant,
I considered 6RJ when it first came up for sale. If it has been a -2 instead of a straight 14-19, I might be more interested.
The problem with selling my plane, is that the cost of installing a Garmin 430W is half of an engine, and getting an autopilot approved and installed is likely impossible / cost - prohibitive.
6RJ will make someone happy though!
-Adam
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top