I had a chance to climb into my buddies Scout yesterday, while I got in with some finesse, my knees were jammed into the panel. Way too tight for me!

Deputydog wrote:I had a chance to climb into my buddies Scout yesterday, while I got in with some finesse, my knees were jammed into the panel. Way too tight for me!

Have you climbed in a Husky yet? I've never found a Husky that has as much leg room as a Scout...

A1Skinner wrote:

Deputydog wrote:I had a chance to climb into my buddies Scout yesterday, while I got in with some finesse, my knees were jammed into the panel. Way too tight for me!

Have you climbed in a Husky yet? I've never found a Husky that has as much leg room as a Scout...

Not yet but I’ll try one out this weekend

Stinson w 4" Gary Reddon seat extensions work well.

I know it isn't tandem but I sat in a J4 over the weekend. It is huge. I am 6'3" and 230. Not too common though.

Van’s RV-15

Put down your deposit

Mapleflt wrote:A Scout or Birdbog are the "safe" bets, if your into something a bit more "unconventional" the Wilga is cavernous. It's also available in both round and flat engine depending on how you like to swing your prop. It is four seats but if the rear bench is removed you'd have tons of cargo space.

I do like the Wilga but due to my bad back I was told to stay away from radial engines. That's why I haven't bought a CJ or a Nanchang which are cheap to buy and there are a lot of them out there for sale, but have radials. If I could find one with a flat engine I'd be very interested in buying it.

Utah-Jay wrote:Van’s RV-15

Put down your deposit

But I want to fly now, not in 3 or 4 years. At my age every year counts.

asa wrote: ....elbow room was never an issue. It still took some climbing and yoga to get in, especially on 31's, like any other tandem plane I've flown..

That is my issue, the getting in and out of them. I went to see a Pilatus P3 (I owned one 20+ years ago) and I love it but I'm worried about the GO-435 engine if I have issues or come overhaul time. It's experimental so I'm thinking getting a lighter replacement alternator, alternative mags and things like that wouldn't be too bad, but an overhaul or cylinders worry me.

I'm also speaking with a seller about his L19, but just this year I've seen about 5 crashes and these were being flown by experienced Bird Dog owners, so it scare me a little that I might break what small amount of them are left out there.

BTW I search "GO-435" here and nothing shows up. I know this engine has been mentioned before, am I doing the search wrong?

EastTexasPilot wrote:

asa wrote: ....elbow room was never an issue. It still took some climbing and yoga to get in, especially on 31's, like any other tandem plane I've flown..

That is my issue, the getting in and out of them. I went to see a Pilatus P3 (I owned one 20+ years ago) and I love it but I'm worried about the GO-435 engine if I have issues or come overhaul time. It's experimental so I'm thinking getting a lighter replacement alternator, alternative mags and things like that wouldn't be too bad, but an overhaul or cylinders worry me.

I'm also speaking with a seller about his L19, but just this year I've seen about 5 crashes and these were being flown by experienced Bird Dog owners, so it scare me a little that I might break what small amount of them are left out there.

BTW I search "GO-435" here and nothing shows up. I know this engine has been mentioned before, am I doing the search wrong?

The GO-435 was one of a series of geared piston engines that Lycoming built, the other most common one being the GO-480. These engines were used on a few certificated aircraft in production (Helio Courier used the 480) and some STC mods (McKinnon used them on the Super Widgeon conversions). That line of engines went out of production a long time ago, and are now difficult to find parts for.

Here’s a link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_O-435

MTV

EastTexasPilot wrote:....due to my bad back I was told to stay away from radial engines. .....

Why's that?

hotrod180 wrote:

EastTexasPilot wrote:....due to my bad back I was told to stay away from radial engines. .....

Why's that?

Yes, I'm also curious as to what a radial has to do with it. Not trying to be insulting, just curious.

Mapleflt wrote:A Scout or Birdbog are the "safe" bets, if your into something a bit more "unconventional" the Wilga is cavernous. It's also available in both round and flat engine depending on how you like to swing your prop. It is four seats but if the rear bench is removed you'd have tons of cargo space.

I’m awfully late. Operated a Wilga 2000 (modernized, 300hp Lycoming powered variant) for a good while supporting my mountain hunting outfit.

It is the near perfect bush plane, but room for long pilots isn’t amongst its selling features. The spar runs through the top of the cabin under the headliner, and being a strutless eastern euro design it’s a rather prominently constructed example of a spar. Anyone over 5’10 will bump their head on it lots as it’s right where you want your noggin. In the daily gripes category was my biggest misgiving with the aircraft after the fuel caps.

Overall, it outperformed my 185F in everything but cruise speed. In that, it falls short by a large margin. But to lift a Herculean load out of a small lake, there isn’t a more impressive 300hp class machine. Or one with better handling and visibility. Roomy though, I wouldn’t call it that.

I visited a neighbor who has a radial in his NangChang. He also has a RV4. He told me his RV4 is for when he gets the urge to go fly because he hops in and it just starts every time and he's off. The radial engine in the Nangchang was more temperamental and he had to pull the blades through to make sure he didn't have a hydraulic lock due to oil then it was a crap shoot if it would start or not. Could this be because of the type of radial he has and this doesn't happen in the Wilga's radial? He also told me he uses a ton of engine oil compared with a flat engine.

Since I have my back issues I don't see myself pulling props through, unless it's not as bad as maybe I interpreted it to be.

The absolute easiest radial to start without a starter was the P&W R-985 on the Stearman crop duster. I just pulled the big Hamilton Standard blade and walked around and got in. One cylinder a blade, two cylinders a blade, four cylinders a blade...music to my ears. Now there is a roomy cockpit.

I've owned my Birddog for about 5 years. It's got a very roomy tandem cockpit. I'd go sit, or preferably fly, any plane you're thinking about. And try getting into the back seat of each too.

Regarding the scout, I used to own a citabria. Isn't the fuselage the same for the scout? If it is, I'd have to say the birddog is roomier.

There's even a decent amount of storage behind the rear seat. For easy access, I just pull the back of rear seat out and then slide bigger items back across the seat bottom. I can also open one of the rear windows and slide bags through there and into the baggage area. The windows on either side of the pilot open out. The windows on either side a back seater open in. There's also non-opening windows all over the place so the visibility from both seats is fantastic.

My plane has the stock O-470 and a fixed pitch prop. It's a fantastic engine, super smooth and easy to start hot or cold. It's basically the same engine that was used in the early Bonanza's, Navions and T34's - Continental E-Series. My is rated for 213HP for 5 minutes and 190HP continuous. My prop was bent for cruise so I can tool along at about 115MPH burning 8 gallons an hour. Useful load is 702lbs. So with full fuel, 42 gallons, I've got 450lbs left for me, a passenger and stuff.

The only knock against the birddog is that they aren't the most user friendly aircraft ever made. The vertical fin and rudder are a bit too small. The last version used the much larger vertical fine and rudder from the Cessna 185 to help with the ground handling.

As far as I know, there aren't any AD's for the Birddogs.

One last thing, don't underestimate the value of an all metal airplane. I've owned four fabric airplanes. I still have one, a Stearman. Yes, fabric is easy to repair but its also easier to damage.

Looks like I'm going with the Wilga 35a instead of the 2000, even though mine also has a Lycoming IO-540 in it. It's registered Experimental so I'm getting the best of all worlds. It's very roomy inside and looks wierd so I like it even more because it's not a spam can. 850-6 tires and new avionics will make it even easier to fly. I'll post pictures once it's reassembled because it's being refurbished and painted inside and out.

EastTexasPilot wrote:Looks like I'm going with the Wilga 35a instead of the 2000, even though mine also has a Lycoming IO-540 in it. It's registered Experimental so I'm getting the best of all worlds. It's very roomy inside and looks wierd so I like it even more because it's not a spam can. 850-6 tires and new avionics will make it even easier to fly. I'll post pictures once it's reassembled because it's being refurbished and painted inside and out.

Funky, can't wait to see the pics.

EastTexasPilot wrote:I visited a neighbor who has a radial in his NangChang. He also has a RV4. He told me his RV4 is for when he gets the urge to go fly because he hops in and it just starts every time and he's off. The radial engine in the Nangchang was more temperamental and he had to pull the blades through to make sure he didn't have a hydraulic lock due to oil then it was a crap shoot if it would start or not. Could this be because of the type of radial he has and this doesn't happen in the Wilga's radial? He also told me he uses a ton of engine oil compared with a flat engine.

Since I have my back issues I don't see myself pulling props through, unless it's not as bad as maybe I interpreted it to be.

The Vedenyev (spelling?) engines are an Eastern bloc engine which seems to have amplified some of the characteristics of radials in general. One of those characteristics is oil can leak past the rings while the engine is shut down, particularly in lower cylinders….gravity, ya know. These are dry sump engines, but there’s still enough oil in the case to cause issues.

So, engine sits for a while, some oil leaks into lower cylinders. A tiny bit, no problem. Very much, and you hit that starter, you MAY bend a connecting rod, as a piston comes up in that lower cylinder and tries to compress oil…..doesn’t work. Now, you just bought an engine.

The MP-14 Vedenyevs are notorious for leaking oil, both while running and resting. The P &W 985, not so much, but first start of the day, I always pulled those engines through to verify no hydraulic lock. Never found a lock on one, but I know guys who did.

The good news is, though, these engines are supercharged. What that means is they are very low compression, so pulling an engine through on even a big radial is deceptively easy. A 985 is actually pretty easy to hand prop.

MTV

I also never had a lock on a R-985 and I flew a Stearman with no starter. I would swing the big heavy Hamilton Standard prop, walk around the bottom wing, climb onto the wing (I am a short guy), and crawl into the cockpit. I never had to go back and pull that prop again.