Many moons ago one of my fellow sailplane competitors Art Pasquali had a 190 or 195, and took me for a ride in it one day at California City. I never got over the difference in visibility going from a huge canopy on a sailplane to the little porthole ten feet in front of you in a 195.

Even more of a memory that I will never forget was his answer to my question about the 195's reputation for groundloops... "If the tailwheel ever gets outside of the main gear track on landing, just relax and take your hands and feet off the controls... call the insurance company."

I know that I'm one of the least skilled tail dragger pilots around, and that I've never ground looped anything is simply that I have too few hours in tail draggers, probably <20. But all this discussion makes me glad that I own a trike!

Cary

It really isn't that big of a deal, as long as you put the controls wherever they need to go so the (tail dragger) airplane does what *you* want it to do!

I've had 2 195's, 1 with straight gear and the other with crosswind gear, now I like strange and different aircraft!!
Loved the 195, both of them! The feet have to be moving, Mr Dulin has it right proactive! If you are ahead of it you can stay ahead of it, if you ever get behind, YOU are lost!! They have such a long fuselage and small tail so once it gets away ya have a helluva time catching it!
Also I think Phil is correct on the Stearman, the wing gets in the way to get way over on it's side so it kind pivots instead of diggin in
I am fairy tall so never did have much problem seeing on the ground taxing.
When it comes to landing I always sidestepped just a bit and landed with the yellow stripe between my feet!
Took awhile to takeoff with the crosswind gear, once I did it was great, about 20 crosswind take offs before I grew them enough to try the CW landing!! What a kick!! Loved it!!
Neither one of them are for the faint of heart, ya gotta like being out on the edge with either one, they aint no 172, Either of them!! Hell they got round motors on them so they gotta be good!!
Have only been in a Stearman a couple of times and they scared the crap outa me when landing them!! Nothing happened, they just scared me!! I suppose after a 100 hrs in one they would be a bit more comfortable!.
Lovem both they got wings!!

An old friend of mine, who had flown 195's when they were new, said he always liked the crosswind gear, not because of taking off or landing with it (he said it was kinda a pain then) but because he'd kick it sideways when he taxied!! We tried it on a 195 I used to take care of and the visibility is great!!!
John

How would a 195 compare to a 170 for ground handling (visibility aside)? Or is it apples and oranges?
I'm thinking about a 195 for a while now that my 170 is sold.

Is it an insane thing to consider a 195 as a club plane between 4 or 5 pilots?

Bagarre wrote:How would a 195 compare to a 170 for ground handling (visibility aside)? Or is it apples and oranges?
I'm thinking about a 195 for a while now that my 170 is sold.

Don't known never been in a 170!!

Is it an insane thing to consider a 195 as a club plane between 4 or 5 pilots?

Yes Insane!!

Bagarre wrote:How would a 195 compare to a 170 for ground handling (visibility aside)? Or is it apples and oranges?
I'm thinking about a 195 for a while now that my 170 is sold.

Is it an insane thing to consider a 195 as a club plane between 4 or 5 pilots?

I suppose if you got the right 4-5 pilots together, it might work, but probably not. I owned a C-170B for a number
of years, then my '54 C-180 for a number of years, and now I have the '52 C-195. There is a reason Cessna quit
building round engine airplanes and went to the more "user-friendly" horizontally-opposed engines... Less
maintenance, less things to worry about (hydraulic lock) before you start one up, etc. You don't see C-170/180 guys pulling
the prop through before engine start, or parking the #1 prop blade on the #4 cylinder @ TDC after each shut-down,
etc. Ground handling in the 195 is not unmanageable, but it is "different" than the 170 or 180. There is *way* more weight
on the tail wheel, and the tail wheel is at least a foot and a half further back. You don't do anything fast on the
ground in the 195... Plus you can't see *anything* out the right side when you're taxiing it by yourself (I put a small
WiFi camera near the RH air vent that is blue-toothed to my iPad so I can see over the RH side of the nose when I
am taxiing it by myself).

Per my previous comments, there are some peculiarities about the 195 that can even cause issues for guys with 20,000
hours who have flown all other kinds of taildraggers before (more than one 195 has been wrecked / ground-looped shortly
after purchase and/or during "checkouts" by high-time airline pilots who have flown all other kinds of taildraggers). I know
of one that was ground-looped by an airline pilot on the way home from the purchase, that project was sold to another
guy who rebuilt it and had another high-time airline pilot "test fly" it, and it was promptly wrecked / ground-looped again!

Unless all 4-5 club members are proficient & current in larger/heavy taildraggers, and in particular, proficient & current
in the 195, I am thinking a 195 in a club environment is a ground-loop accident waiting to happen... There is a group of
guys in California who own a number of airplanes in a club environment, and they had a C-190 in the club for awhile, but
they traded it away (I understand only 1 or 2 club members were able to get checked out in it).

Sorry, guys, but it isn't a matter of the airplane being a ground loop waiting to happen.....it's the pilot

Even the most benign tailwheel airplane is a ground loop waiting to happen, depending on the pilot at the controls. In fact, with sufficient talent, even tricycle gear airplanes can be ground looped.

Which is why I continue to insist that if you are jumping into an aircraft--ANY aircraft--that you're not familiar with, please get a good, thorough checkout in the plane, administered by an instructor who is very familiar with the airplane.

I can't count the number of pilots I've flown with who noted that I'd pointed out issues that their "check out pilot" had never noted, and almost invariably, the check out pilot either had no specific experience in that particular aircraft type, or was a high time pilot but not a particularly good instructor....sometimes not an instructor at all.

Yes, you may get checked out in an airplane type by someone with no experience in the type, or you may not get a check out at all in a new to you aircraft and you may fly it for years without issues.

But, the point is, every airplane has some idiosyncrasies that someone familiar with the type can point out and show you how to deal with them. The fewer surprises the better when it comes to flying.

So, in my mind, neither the Stearman nor the 190/195 are the ground loop kings.....that is a moniker that belongs strictly to pilots.

MTV

I think the point is if you have C-170B time, you should have no trouble transitioning to a C-180. If you have 7ECA time, you should have no trouble transitioning to a Scout or Husky. But the Stearman & 195 are just a couple examples of airplanes that require specific instruction/checkout (like you mentioned), and tailwheel time + competency in other tailwheel makes & models (no matter who the pilot is) won't necessarily lend itself to a trouble-free transition to the 195 (again, without a proper checkout!).

mtv wrote:Sorry, guys, but it isn't a matter of the airplane being a ground loop waiting to happen.....it's the pilot

Even the most benign tailwheel airplane is a ground loop waiting to happen, depending on the pilot at the controls. In fact, with sufficient talent, even tricycle gear airplanes can be ground looped.

Which is why I continue to insist that if you are jumping into an aircraft--ANY aircraft--that you're not familiar with, please get a good, thorough checkout in the plane, administered by an instructor who is very familiar with the airplane.

I can't count the number of pilots I've flown with who noted that I'd pointed out issues that their "check out pilot" had never noted, and almost invariably, the check out pilot either had no specific experience in that particular aircraft type, or was a high time pilot but not a particularly good instructor....sometimes not an instructor at all.

Yes, you may get checked out in an airplane type by someone with no experience in the type, or you may not get a check out at all in a new to you aircraft and you may fly it for years without issues.

But, the point is, every airplane has some idiosyncrasies that someone familiar with the type can point out and show you how to deal with them. The fewer surprises the better when it comes to flying.

So, in my mind, neither the Stearman nor the 190/195 are the ground loop kings.....that is a moniker that belongs strictly to pilots.

MTV

Yes What he said!

1954C180 wrote:I think the point is if you have C-170B time, you should have no trouble transitioning to a C-180. If you have 7ECA time, you should have no trouble transitioning to a Scout or Husky. But the Stearman & 195 are just a couple examples of airplanes that require specific instruction/checkout (like you mentioned), and tailwheel time + competency in other tailwheel makes & models (no matter who the pilot is) won't necessarily lend itself to a trouble-free transition to the 195 (again, without a proper checkout!).

Well, I've seen a lot of Huskys with very low time that got parked in a hangar because the pilot scared the crap out of him/herself very soon after purchase. That airplane isn't hard to fly at all, but it is a classic example of an airplane that really wants a good checkout.

And, same is true for the others you noted as well. Some's a little harder than others, but they all can be a little sporty, and properly prepared, a decent pilot can usually do fine.

MTV

M6RV6 wrote:

mtv wrote:Sorry, guys, but it isn't a matter of the airplane being a ground loop waiting to happen.....it's the pilot

Even the most benign tailwheel airplane is a ground loop waiting to happen, depending on the pilot at the controls. In fact, with sufficient talent, even tricycle gear airplanes can be ground looped.

Which is why I continue to insist that if you are jumping into an aircraft--ANY aircraft--that you're not familiar with, please get a good, thorough checkout in the plane, administered by an instructor who is very familiar with the airplane.

I can't count the number of pilots I've flown with who noted that I'd pointed out issues that their "check out pilot" had never noted, and almost invariably, the check out pilot either had no specific experience in that particular aircraft type, or was a high time pilot but not a particularly good instructor....sometimes not an instructor at all.

Yes, you may get checked out in an airplane type by someone with no experience in the type, or you may not get a check out at all in a new to you aircraft and you may fly it for years without issues.

But, the point is, every airplane has some idiosyncrasies that someone familiar with the type can point out and show you how to deal with them. The fewer surprises the better when it comes to flying.

So, in my mind, neither the Stearman nor the 190/195 are the ground loop kings.....that is a moniker that belongs strictly to pilots.

MTV

Yes What he said!

x3

Of the 3000 +/- ag pilots in the US, virtually every one will at some point get checked out in a new T/W airplane, a single seat one... They'll still get a a check out, but that first flight is always going to be solo...The ones that cultivated good flying habits will probably do this many, many times in their career. The ones that didn't develop good habits? probably not so many...

Beyond that, although I don't own one, I've flown enough Stearmanns to have come to the conclusion, that landing a Stearmann is exactly like landing a J3 on steroids, solo (back seat)... If you have good brakes, they're really a sweetheart. If you have stock brakes, they're a sweet heart with crappy choppy brakes.

Lastly, I guess I'm lost on the trepidation re; length on the 19X series? The poorest ground handlers I've experienced have always been the shorter ones? Landing downhill with a 2o kt. quartering T/W in something like a AT602 is pretty much business as usual, the same in a Pacer could lead to a religious experience

Take care, Rob

Rob wrote: Lastly, I guess I'm lost on the trepidation re; length on the 19X series? The poorest ground handlers I've experienced have always been the shorter ones? Landing downhill with a 2o kt. quartering T/W in something like a AT602 is pretty much business as usual, the same in a Pacer could lead to a religious experience

Take care, Rob

Probably a combination of the amount of weight on the 195 tailwheel, how far back it is, and the lack of rudder authority as the tail comes down. I am told if the tail wheel gets outside of the track of the main gear, nothing is going to bring it back. That being said, basic/proficient tailwheel piloting skills should ensure that the tailwheel never gets outside of the track of the main gear! (lol...). I'm still learning on the 195 (only have ~20 hours in it so far). I wouldn't hesitate to land my old C-180 anywhere, anytime (downwind, 30 knot gusty crosswind, whatever). With time + experience, I aspire to become that comfortable with my 195.

1954C180 wrote:Probably a combination of the amount of weight on the 195 tailwheel, how far back it is, and the lack of rudder authority as the tail comes down....

Thank you for that. I hadn't considered the tail weight on a 195. With that long arm it is a consideration for sure. That's the biggest reason I cringe when I hear people trying to solve nose heavy airplanes by putting lead in the tail

1954 C-180,

I know you are being dynamic and proactive, but we instructors have to watch how we describe things. Some terms or phrases become popular even if inaccurate like putting the nose where we want it. On takeoff, approach, and landing, we don't put the nose where we want it. We put the nose where we don't want it; just a bit too far left followed closely by just a bit too far right, repeatedly.

There is a favorite term used by helicopter instructors they call the "hover button." It just doesn't exist any more than putting the nose where we want it on takeoff and landing.

My apology for being such a common inaccurate phrase Nazi,

Contact

I flew with an instructor years ago who's feet started rapidly moving on the rudder pedals about 10 feet in the air just as he was preparing to flare for landing (this was in a C-170B). The pedal / control inputs didn't seem to counter or have anything to do with dynamics going on with the airplane, I think it was his way of waking his feet up / get them active to counter whatever would be encountered during the landing. My joke was his control inputs were precisely correct, at some point in time (lol...).

Over the years, I have gotten into the habit of providing quicker (but smaller) control corrections to keep things going straight (strive for perfection & try to learn from the times when you didn't achieve it).

1954C180 wrote:....My joke was his control inputs were precisely correct, at some point in time ....

You're on the line every time you cross it.

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've been away for a while, but now reading this old post of mine, I find it funny! The C195 that I was talking about in 2014 is now mine!! Lol! My buddy was trying to sell it because he found it too hot and finicky. He preferred his Husky, and only wanted to have one airplane. Well, in 2014 I was trying to determine from your opinion which of the two took the honors of being the ground loop champ. In other words, which was more prone to ground loop with everything else equal. Now ... I own both!!!! So, what do I think now?

Let me this. Last year, a buddy of mine who is a well known airshow performer, asked me if he could fly the C195. Being who he was, and the fact that he's such well know aerobatic pilot, and his aerobatic airplane is a very finicky Pitts, I said sure, and allowed him to take the left seat. The shocker was the while taxiing it, he ground looped it right under the tower!!! While ON THE GROUND!! That's why I'm not revealing his name. So, he immediately stopped, and he insisted that we switch seats. I've never hear of anyone ground looping the Stearman while taxiing.

So, now I ask myself which of the twoI think is the one more likely to ground loop? I have to admit that when my buddy sold me the C195, he recommended very seriously I get some training from an experienced 195 instructor before I take it up. I took his advice and had Jim McClain from TX come down and give a few days of training. I'm glad I did. Now I feel very comfortable with both. So, what's the final word? Both the Stearman and C195 are finicky airplanes while landing, specially in a xwind. But, with experience and some training, both can be wonderful airplanes to own and fly. But, the 195 takes the crown, in my opinion.