[imghttp://www.backcountrypilot.org/gallery/albums/userpics/12214/normal_DSC_0064~0.JPG][/img]
280 hp Backcountry Bird Dog on duty in the Yukon a few years ago. The operator did not like it nearly as much as his 180hp light 170 which was on rebuild. The BD was much heavier and esp in the tail and no option of taking the extra passengers he said. Big flaps though.[/quote]

280hp and still not a good performer?? Why was the Bird Dog heavier in the rear? Cool picture, but do you have a larger picture (never mind. It comes out good in your album)?[/quote]

It performed but he didnt like it as much as the 170. He had hired it while the 170 was out of the air and had only done about 20 hours in it at that time and was still getting to grips with it. By the end of the season he may have changed his mind. He was looking forward to getting the 170 back with Sportsman, VG's and Wing Ext. He thought the tail on the BD felt heavier and it was over all a heavier machine. I don't know what engine it had but he said 280 hp Lyc. I didnt know they could put as much as 280 HP in the BD. He seemed like he knew what he was talking about and had operated up there for a lot of years.

GumpAir wrote:The problem with the Bird Dog is the same as the C170s and the 172/175 conventional gear conversions... You can't trim the tail. Now stick C180/185 tailfeathers on a Bird Dog and you'd have a sweet airplane.

Gump

It's all coming together now. I would definitely want a trimable tail. Which leads me to yet another question......Why did Cessna not include a trimable tail on the Bird Dog, and C170's??

Caution, this post is for adult viewing only, if you get your feelers hurt easily, you are likely to be offended. If you have a soft spot for L-19s / C305s, and get your feelers hurt easily, you are likely to get pissed.. But not to worry, it is likely to make it to hot air, where even I won't see it, real soon

Gump, I hate cliches.... but... GMTA... I said the same thing earlier, when I pointed out that the Marchetti (turbine bird dog) with the 180 tail was probably the 'bird dog to have" There is no rocket science here... the 305 bird dog has a fixed 170 tail, The thin skin of the early 180 wings, anyone ever seen an early 180 that didn't have cracks in the upper wing surfaces? 2 different types of gear legs, either of which is too soft to effectively hang a set of bushwheels on... it's kinda like it got all the worse attributes of the 170 and 180...
But I still love Bird dogs

Z, I agree on the vis. Nothing like being able to look back at a glider or banner and see it right there! I knew when I first posted on this thread, that I really didn't want to go there because it would come across like I was either bashing the 305, or singing the cubs praises...

but alas, I see you have been drinking the kool aid... only people who either lack in equipment, skill, or both throw the "it only fllies as good as the nut behind the wheel" comment out. Pishaw... That is a given and we all know that, the question is about the airplane, how does it compare? Not how well superpilot flies, or how crappy I do...

I asked about the merits vs faults of a Robertson on another site, and some primadona bozo read me the riot act over how "wing candy" will never replace pilot skill...Well that's just wonderful... All that told me is that he had never managed to master the stock wing, let alone the "wing candy"

Ooohh now there's a thought, I bet a Robertson / ponked L19 would be pretty groovy!

did I mention I love bird dogs?

So lets re-cap... cut the bull shevic, and get right to the real deal...

58Skylane wrote:Very cool video's, Z!!
Would it make for a good back country plane?
how does the Bird Dog compare to a Super Cub and a Scout?....

Wow!! Even with a 520, it struggles??
For the money, you might be better off with a Cub or a Scout? I noticed most Bird Dogs in great restored condition are selling for well over $100K..... (Rob here, FWIW I have less than 100K in my cub and my 180!)

How about stalling speed for the Bird Dog??

1SeventyZ wrote:Is the L-19 wing the same at the 170B? If so, coupled with the slightly beefier airframe, I'd guess that the dirty power-off stall speed would be somewhere in the mid-50's (mph) Almost and good guess

L-19 wrote:I think the stall speed is published at 52 or 54 mph. T/o & landing distance is very short, I would think it would be a great performer BC.

Rob wrote:Average 'uber trick' cub stalls at 35 mph +/- and I am being very generous there, as most can attest to

That's an astounding 20 mph faster stall speed at an empty weight that is often greater than a cubs gross...All in an airframe that does not lend itself well to finding parts, when the back country chews on yours, an airframe that will cost more to fuel, fly, insure, and own than the average rag and tube...

Just for shits and giggles lets all throw an extra 500lbs in our airplanes, paste them on the runway at an extra 20 mph and see what kind of landing distances we come up with, let alone what the terrain is doing to our ride at those speeds... Should compare pretty favorably ?

Pure and simple physics at work here.... and we all know that the only thing physics fails us on is down wind turns

I would truly love to have a Stearman, and it will in fact be my next airplane... but it too compares poorly to a cub in the backcountry, regardless of the nut behind the wheel. And dems just the facts


Z, sorry to have taken the bait and ran so easily... but really? Surely you know shortfielder, and surely you'd agree that his c180 is at least the backcountry machine a bird dog is (I would say it is twice the machine)... has it occured to you why he was willing to get economically screwed to get out of his 180 and into a cub? And although Bill M ultimately kept his 180 (good move by the way) I'm sure he wouldn't feel comfortable following a cub (on the edge) with it either... No... I love the Cessna, but even in the rightest of hands, it will never follow a cub, husky, or scout (in equal hands) and that is where the rubber meats the road

Oh and BTW... I love Bird Dogs

Now I am off to take a chill pill and pray that the rain and fog quits so I can get some work done, instead of posting threads that are likely to get me sent to the 'time out' corner
Take care, Rob

BTW Rob........I love Bird Dogs. too!!

Very interesting stuff here. No feelings hurt on my part. Just learning and asking questions about a plane that I have little knowledge about. I know what I've gotten from some of these guys in the past is nothing compared to the Azz chewing I've been getting from my big boss the last couple of weeks.

BTW......I love them Bird Dogs!! Does anybody have one in the Boise area?

Another thing, too. Don't let anybody get your feathers all ruffled up!! It's just not worth it. No matter what forum your on, what tarmac your on, or what FBO lounge your hanging out in. There's always going to be at least one cooleo, been there-done that, I'm the best pilot, I'm smart-your stupid, Mr. Ego 20,000hr veteran pilot there to let you know that he's the best. Personally to me, the big headed, ego types mean absolutely nothing to me anymore. Sure some of them have some great info to pass along and some great story's to tell. But as soon as they start to pull that ego crap on me......I'm done with them!! Could care less to talk or hear their bull again.

I tell you what. The one guy I met in June that has "been there, done that" (at least from what I gather) would be a guy named Bobby (don't know last name). He flew into JC the weekend of the Supercub Fly In and stayed the week through the BCP.org weekend. He flew all the way from N.C. in his Cub. That guy has some story's!! Never once did I feel he had any ego action going on despite the fact that he was 80 years old and (If I heard right)has over 11,000hrs flying small planes. Including countless trips to AK.

Anyway......that's my rant for the month!

Not offended, its obviously not the ultimate bc craft, wasn't designed n built for it. But for 360 visibility, shortfield landing and takeoff w/ crew of two, from treetop runways, poorly built strips or on the USS Midway it does the job. It's a. Beauty to fly & a great piece of history, that's why I love it. If mine had a CS prop I doubt I'd be looking for a 2nd plane now.

Btw, I'm pretty sure it's a 170 wing & 195 tail assembly. Trimable would be a nice touch. The full 60 degrees of flaps scares a lot of pilots but they are not that bad.
Anyone else on here have one?

L-19 wrote:The full 60 degrees of flaps scares a lot of pilots but they are not that bad.

Wow!! 60 Degrees?? That was going to be another one of my questions. But, I got side tracked.

Rob, you're getting soft on us if you think this thread is any kind of real type pugilism. Pretty tough to go hot air with actual flying topics, and I don't think anyone really questions the slow flight envelope victor in the Cub vs Cessna wing shootout.

1SeventyZ wrote:On the other hand, a lightweight, low wing-loaded aircraft like a cub makes you work a lot less for the same results.

I thought I conceded the fact right there?

Tough to abstract the skill factor, but you are right. The same pilot will perform better in an aircraft that has a better power/weight ratio, lower wing loading, and lower stall speed. But that's never the only evaluative metric, is it? A 180hp Cub will prob trounce a 180hp Scout, but I'll choose that Scout any day because they're so roomy inside. And it would take a long time for me to find the performance gap anyway...given my lack of skill, and kool-aid stained lips. And yet I still watch guys at the airport landing their cubs at 60 mph, wondering if they ever get them any slower, and do they know they could do that with a Cessna? Sometimes simply knowing your machine is capable, even if as a pilot you are not, is enough to be satisfied. But we all digress... did I mention that my 170 is for sale?

L-19 wrote: If mine had a CS prop I doubt I'd be looking for a 2nd plane now.

Here ya go :

not the prettiest, but with 300 hp, and 25 gallons of smoke oil on board pretty becomes subjective

There is an Ag operator who is setting up his retirement home just a couple miles from our house. He has a hangar full of the coolest toys, including a Beaver on wheels, and a Siai ...At over 300hp and reverse how cool would one of these be:


Robs new word of the day : pugilism I am going to use it!

Rob wrote:

L-19 wrote: At over 300hp and reverse how cool would one of these be:

Damn it Rob!! Now your torturing me!!




I see what looks like a door handle below the rear window. Is it a door for the rear passenger? Or a cargo door?

The Siai has a back door... It is very high on my wish list

Here's another picture of a SIAI-Marchetti SM-1019A


Click on the link below and scroll down for some more pictures.
http://www.siai-marchetti.nl/sm1019pro.html

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraftsearch=SIAI-Marchetti+SM-1019

Dang!! Here's one for sale!
http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/detail.aspx?OHID=1094257
420 HP!
T.O.: 280ft
Land: 300ft
Climb over 2000 FPM
But......Fuel Burn: 20 GPH


Sorry Z. I know we've been a bit off original topic.