Over coffee a couple of days ago, a good buddy of mine and I were discussing ground loops. I have a 450 Stearman and he has a Cessna 195B, and we both believe that our steed is the ground loop champ of the two. Now, I have never flown a C195 and he has never flown a Stearman, so we were basing our opinion on our own aircraft type, without having any experience in the other. Any opinions out there?

Can we keep the discussion to these two airplanes? I know there are other wonderful ground loopers out there, but I would really like to hear your opinion between these two.

Neither - gotta be a J3 cub or a PA-18.

There were only 1180 195s built. There were over 10,600 Model 75 stearmans built - not counting all the other models

Compare that to almost 20,000 J3's built and the fact they were primary trainers for the "never evers" and you have a recipe for "loopage de terra" as Julia Child would say.

EDIT - sorry just read the bit about keeping the discussion to your 2 types.

Gotta give it to the Stearman based on #'s and use of aircraft. It's probably not even close.

soyAnarchisto wrote:Gotta give it to the Stearman based on #'s and use of aircraft. It's probably not even close.

That's what I think, but then again, I'm biased!

Well there is the castering main gear on some 195s which was supposed to improve crosswind performance. That aught to tell you something about the inherent ground handling issues associated with the 195.

The "Spirit of St.Louis" had better visibility on the ground than a 195. I was in Texas about ten or so years ago when I witnessed one taxiing into and taking out a fuel pump station. while I was waiting to taxi up for fuel. I also saw one flip over on it's back as I flew over the top of it to go around right after it took the runway while I was on short final. I made radio calls, but the pilot was reading back a clearance and when he was released he was unable to see me and took the runway just in time for me to startle him with my call to go around. He looped it and flipped it over in the grass margin next to the runway. He was high time Continental Capt. Those two factors make me inclined to herald the 195 as the loop champion. A friend of mine owns a 195 (castering gear changed out to normal) and I landed it from the right seat last month with no real issues other than landing long and bouncing a little, but the owner would not let go of the controls fully and it seemed like I was getting coached. The plane absolutely needed to be wheel landed as you can't see out the windscreen when the tail settles. This probably makes some pilots want to taxi on the mains with the tail up to expedite clearing an active runway instead of taxing slowly with the tail planted and making "S" turns for visibility. These factors may give creedence to the idea that the 195 loops more often.

Both are really great airplanes and don't deserve a bad rap. I'm sure F-16 jets in the hands of pilots without expert training are seemingly unmanageable, but in the hands of a Blue Angel they perform flawlessly.

Have to go with 195 just on educated guess. Never flown one, but sitting in one in a landing attitude doesn't offer much in the way of a sight picture and I've heard some stories about the gear. Stearman from the rear cockpit really isn't that bad provided you're comfortable using peripheral cues in your scan.

I'm a tailwheel newbie having only recently gotten a TW sign off and bought my first plane. I've noticed that it's pretty unusual for a TW pilot *not* to claim that his bird is the ground loop champion. So that answer is "whatever is in your hangar".

Ok, more seriously, I camped in vintage on Interstate 195 this year and I can't think of one that wasn't ground looped. Even having spent a bunch of time around them in the past six months I was still surprised at how universal it was.

PatínLoco wrote:Over coffee a couple of days ago, a good buddy of mine and I were discussing ground loops. I have a 450 Stearman and he has a Cessna 195B, and we both believe that our steed is the ground loop champ of the two. Now, I have never flown a C195 and he has never flown a Stearman, so we were basing our opinion on our own aircraft type, without having any experience in the other. Any opinions out there?

Can we keep the discussion to these two airplanes? I know there are other wonderful ground loopers out there, but I would really like to hear your opinion between these two.

I'm really interested in hearing from people who have actually flown both the 190/195 and the Stearman, since these are two of my favorite planes! I've been tracking the Stearman market for years now. My daughter will be graduating college in 2 or 3 years and I'm just hoping current pricing is going to continue till then! The plan is to find a good stock airplane with the W670 220hp rather than the fuel-guzzling R985 450hp...

obx, you definitively make a good case, having had personal experience with them, though not in them.

Vick & rw2, visibility sure is a problem with the 195. It must be difficult to keep it centered on the runway after the tail goes down. In the Stearman it's fairly easy, since you're sitting in the center of the airplane, thus have equal viability on either side. Shallow S turns are enough to see forward.

Plus with a 195, you get the privilege of ripping the gear box out in a ground loop, rather than just scraping a wing tip.

I can't quite claim experience in both, though I did teach in a Stearman for several years. A good friend has a 195 that I've flown, but never landed. He teaches in them quite a bit, and says that they are somewhat unforgiving on the ground, but any competent TW pilot shouldn't have too much trouble.

Having said that, I can't imagine anyone claiming the Stearman was that tough. It was very honest and other than having finicky brakes, was very easy on the ground, IMO. It has a large rudder and you sit far enough back that ANY yaw can be seen immediately.

My 180 is more of a challenge than the Stearman ever was.

BRD wrote:Plus with a 195, you get the privilege of ripping the gear box out in a ground loop, rather than just scraping a wing tip.

Yeah, I had heard and read that in a 195, it is easy to rip the gear and the gearbox off in a ground loop. You can see that's what happened to the third 195 in the picture. I have not seen that happen in a Stearman.

IMHO the Stearman wins handsdown. (Will also win going over on it's back.) There's not a Stearman in existence that hasn't been ground looped. And not very many Stearman pilots that haven't ground looped. But there is a big plus and that is it has lower wings so does't tip nearly as much as a 195 does, and it's wood and fabric, and the gear is super strong, so the damage is generally a lot more minimal, and a lot less costly.

Interesting take on the 180 Cannon. My feeling would be exactly the opposite. I've never felt like the wagon was about to get away from me, and even with 29's I have good forward visibility (6' 5" tall helps) on T/O & L. The Stearman on the other hand, even with the seat all the way up, has zero forward visibility on T/O & L. Of course I got my tailwheel endorsement in a Stearman so scary time was all spent in her. Having said that the Stearman is much easier to handle in a crosswind then a Wagon.

And having said that, a friend that has a P-51 and a 185 told me he felt the 185 was a far more difficult plane to control on T/O & L then his P-51. And he told me that while sitting in the cockpit of the Mustang for 15 minutes letting the adrenalin subside after just scaring the crap out of himself after bouncing a landing and getting one of the mains off the runway into the dirt and riding her like that for 3,000 feet.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is Eduardo, I think we can draw one conclusion from this, instead of a Stearman or a 195, or even a Wagon, it appears the best plane to get your daughter is a P-51! Should be able to marry her off fairly quickly too!

Cannon wrote:My 180 is more of a challenge than the Stearman ever was.

I have several hundred hours in 180/185, and I don't if I could say that they are more of a challenge than my Stearman. I would say that they are about equal to pilots with experience in each. But, I guess you're saying, as per your friend that has a 195, that the 195 is more unforgiving.

I agree with Cannon that the Stearman is very manageable. The only irritating thing with sprayers was that the hole in the cockpit your head struck through was a venturi. Just as you brought the tail up on the takeoff roll,you had to close your eyes. All the dirt on the floor was sucked by your face.

I guess if you pay more than ten thousand for a Stearman, you probably don't spray with it and you probably have clean floors.

Barnstormer wrote:IMHO the Stearman wins handsdown. (Will also win going over on it's back.) There's not a Stearman in existence that hasn't been ground looped. And not very many Stearman pilots that haven't ground looped. But there is a big plus and that is it has lower wings so does't tip nearly as much as a 195 does, and it's wood and fabric, and the gear is super strong, so the damage is generally a lot more minimal, and a lot less costly.

I tend to agree with you Phil. But, I find my opinion biased, because I have never landed a C195. I sure have read some hairy stories about it, though. As rw2 says, "I can't think of one (195) that hasn't been ground looped". And as you said, "there's not a Stearman in existence that hasn't been ground looped". My Stearman has been ground looped (me 2x) and flipped (by previous owner), so my plane and I are both part of the statistics!

From the comments I have gotten, I guess I can venture to say that both airplanes are finicky on the ground in the landing roll, and that it requires a certain amount of training and experience to handle them safely on the ground, as long as you don't get complacent. That's what happened to me. Complacency caused both ground loops.

contactflying wrote:I agree with Cannon that the Stearman is very manageable. The only irritating thing with sprayers was that the hole in the cockpit your head struck through was a venturi. Just as you brought the tail up on the takeoff roll,you had to close your eyes. All the dirt on the floor was sucked by your face.

I guess if you pay more than ten thousand for a Stearman, you probably don't spray with it and you probably have clean floors.

Yeah, I have very clean floors.

Cannon wrote:It has a large rudder and you sit far enough back that ANY yaw can be seen immediately.

My 180 is more of a challenge than the Stearman ever was.

One of the first things that struck me about the 195 was the smaller empennage, sitting next to a 180A in the hanger, it looks positively underdeveloped.

That can't help with directional control.

I have a friend in Madera, who owns a C190 it is N190. It has since been converted to a C195 by way of bigger engine. He has owned it since 1975 or 1976 i believe...it was the plane i took my first airplane ride in. I will probably buy it one day from him for that reason.

It is the only one ive ever been around that has no damage history or no groundloop history. He flew bird dogs before he got the 195. I have flown it all the way down to about the flare, it only has a throw over yoke. He will not let me touch it in the landing phase! His feet look funny when he is landing it because they are moving so fast!


Mike

It's runways that's the problem. Not the airplanes.

182dude wrote:I have a friend in Madera, who owns a C190 it is N190. It has since been converted to a C195 by way of bigger engine. He has owned it since 1975 or 1976 i believe...it was the plane i took my first airplane ride in. I will probably buy it one day from him for that reason.

It is the only one ive ever been around that has no damage history or no groundloop history. He flew bird dogs before he got the 195. I have flown it all the way down to about the flare, it only has a throw over yoke. He will not let me touch it in the landing phase! His feet look funny when he is landing it because they are moving so fast!


Mike

Old thread, but was searching for info on an airplane I recently bought and found this. I bought Don's N190 a couple of months ago. I must have looked at ~20 190/195s before I picked Don's, and one of the reasons I picked it was because of the straight sheet metal + no ground loop history. I think Don told me he had owned it for 38+ years and that nobody else had landed it except for him in those 38 years (I think he wept when we left Madera with it when I took delivery!).

In any event, never flown a Stearman, but I have ~700 hours in a 170B and ~700 hours in my old C-180. I only have ~25 hours on the 195 up to now, but the thing that strikes me the most is that there ain't enough rudder on the 190/195 (the rudder is a C-170 rudder with the bottom whacked off of it), and the (light) gear move around quite a bit. It is not unmanageable, but the tail is way back there, so if things get going the wrong way too far (moment/inertia), no amount of rudder or braking will bring it back! (which is why you saw Don's feet moving so fast, lol... Quick/small corrections to keep it going straight are probably a big part of why that airplane has no ground loop / damage history). There are some other peculiarities about the 195 that maybe add to the "issue"... The pilot/co-pilot seats/seat tracks don't line up with the centerline of the airplane (they cant inwards), and there is no/little cowling centerline (row of rivets, etc.) to use as a reference to figure out where the middle of the airplane is. The C-170/180 is much easier to land - I could land the 180 anywhere, anytime, no matter where the wind was blowing from or how hard (can't say that I can do that in the 195!).