Just backed into a deal to aquire a 305B-F. Do any of you have flight experience and recommendation on the in's and out of flying the Birddog?

I have racked up around 20+ hrs so far. Purchased it for a quick turn but the more I fly it the more it carves out a home in the hangar.

Picture a 170 with tandem seats strapped to 215hp (O-470) or more with heavy duty everything and four hard points for rockets or. Built for off road forward fire control. Used in post WWII - mid 60's called a L19-birddog or O-1. Replaced by Cessna O-2 (337).

L-19 has a gross wt above 2400lb and will operate in/out of 400'. The one I bought is one of two F models on the US reg. and has a constant speed prop which allows for 140mph cruse. The plane handles just like a 150 with the capabilities of a 180.

I heard a story that during training in GA. if a pilot failed to stop by the 400' mark he was taught to ground loop the aircraft in order to stop at the mark. Must be nice to have all those spare parts around.

"The plane handles just like a 150 with the capabilities of a 180."

Hardly. The 180 has four seats, the L-19 has two. The 180 has a significant advantage in useful load, as well.

That said, the L-19 is an interesting old airplane, with a lot of history to go with it. It is the "economy warbird" if you will, amongst other things.

It is fairly fast, it's got great visibility, but that engine has a pretty low tbo, compared to some other 470's.

So, like every airplane, it depends on what you expect the airplane to do for you.

But it's definitely NOT a 180.

MTV

Great airplane MTV! We had one on floats in summer and skiis in winter.. I never spent much time in it, but it didn't spend much time in the shop with me either! One thing I definately liked was the flaps...crank that last notch and it seemed like you could almost point it straight down!!
Enjoy!!
JH

Yep, the 50 degree flap setting can establish a "significant" descent rate. You just best be ready to catch it at the bottom.

Beavers share this characteristic.
The admonition in the Beaver POH, as I recall, regarding use of full flaps is that it is for "emergency crash landings only", or words to that effect.

MTV

Mike, to be honest, while the 180 has hauling & speed advantages over the Birddog, the average L-19 will out-STOL your average 180. It all depends on the mission as to which is best. BTW, the Birddog has 60 degrees of flaps available, not 50.
They both burn too much gas for my tastes, though, esp in this day of $4+/gal 100LL. And the Birddog is overpriced, due to the warbird aspect.
It's not really anconomy warbird anymore, compared to the other (smaller) L-2,3,4 & 5.

Eric

For me the cost of gas is a small part of my flying addiction. The cost of insurance and hangar seem to be just as crazy. I sure hope the feds bump up the minimum wage soon, I need a raise to help offset the increased cost of flying.

Zero One Victor,

In a word: BS. Okay, that was two words, sorry.

Let's compare apples to apples here: Load the 180 (230 hp, by the way) with the same load as the L-19. Now, let's try the STOL thing. Maybe on landing the L-19 will win, but I'd put money on the 180 every time on takeoff performance. Landings are so dependant on pilot skills that frankly this would be a wash as well.

Remember: You want to play STOL, you got's to compare comparables. A 747 with a couple hundred gallons of gas and a minimum crew is a hell of a STOL machine. But that's not what we do with them.

The problem with the L-19 is ALL you can carry is two folks. Not much room for your stuff and you'll burn just about as much gas as the 180 at similar speeds.

Don't get me wrong, the L-19 is a fun airplane, and a very capable one. But let's be realistic here, and compare real virtues, head to head.

It's hard to beat a good 180.

And, no--I don't own one. Used to, wish I'd never sold it, but cest la vie....

MTV

I didn't intend to get a debate going here but when asked what a birtddog was the 150 to 180 was as close as I could get. It was built around the 170 platform but its capabilities far exceed the 170.

If you step back in time to when both the L-19 and the 180's were designed, the L-19 was designed to operate on and off of very short semi-improved areas. The 180 in conception was designed to go in and out of improved grass and asphalt strips. Two different missions and two different airplanes, exclude the obvious (2 seats - 4-6 seats) both in my opinion have simular performance.

Since I won't be marking my favorite picnic area with rockets. I do not think I have a need for the 60 degrees of flaps. I have figured out most of the basic flying characteristics but still looking for knowledge and information on flying the L-19.

For more information on the 'Dog, go to the IBDA (International Birdog Association) website at http://www.ibdaweb.com.

Air Repair, Inc does rebuilds and there is some information on their website at http://www.airrepairinc.com/L-19.html

There is an on-line weight and balance calculator for the 2400 weight limit (AR has a 2800 stc) at http://www.cadets.net/atl/rgs/aircraft/ ... ance_e.asp

Needless to say, I've been thinking ...

KRST Thanks for the info. I will look into the GW stc. From talking to one pilot who flew them in Laos, mentioned that the were constantly flown near #3000.

Call Pete Jones at Air Repair, He knows a lot about their care and feeding. If you have one of only two, he would probably want to hear about it. He is kinda a strange bird though.

Not intending to be argumentative here, but you should carefully examine the two aircraft before making such assertions.

The wing design (airfoil section, length, chord, etc) of the L-19 and early 180 is identical. The gearbox in the L-19 is classic Cessna taildragger--as good or bad as any of the other Cessna tailwheel aircraft. The tail on the L-19 and on the 170 is the single huge limiting factor on these designs, though. With the 180, Cessna introduced the trimmable stabilizer, and much larger tail surfaces. These changes permitted safe high gross weight operations, better handling, and MUCH faster cruise speeds. Being able to trim the stabilizer is a HUGE aerodynamic feature.

As to the 60 degree flap setting, such a flap setting is more useful for launching ordnance than for STOL.

If anything, the 180 was a follow on improvement of the L-19, which was a modification of the 170.

I'm sure you are correct that Cessna designers never envisioned the places we'd take 180's. That is doubtless true of L-19's as well, though.

There's nothing exotic in the L-19--design wise, that would make it a better off airport machine, except an excess of power for carrying whatever will fit inside it, which isn't much, compared to a 180.

Oh, yeah--the 180's came with 230 hp, not 213. Keep em light, and they are spectacular performers as well.

Not taking anything away from the L-19. It is indeed a good performing airplane. You can certainly see out of them, and if your preference is for a control stick instead of a yoke, it's the only Cessna that had one (I think).

If it's what works for you, get one and fly it. You certainly won't meet yourself on every ramp in America.

MTV

mtv wrote:........
Oh, yeah--the 180's came with 230 hp, not 213. Keep em light, and they are spectacular performers as well.
..............
MTV

Hence my comment about average L19 versus average 180. I haven't seen too much fluff on Birddogs, but I have seen some heavied-up 180's: Ponk kits, excess radio's,plush interiors,float kits,STOL kits,etc etc. Book empty weight on an early 180 is around 1550, but I doubt there are many that are very close to that, I'd guess more are closer to 1700 or even more. Book empty weight for an L19 (fixed pitch model) is around 1600, and I'd bet that the one's I've seen come pretty close. And the 90"-47 pitch prop standard on a birddog must give it tremendous outa-the-hole power, more so than the smaller c/s prop on most 180's.
Oh, BTW, "In a word: BS" struck me as being just a little bit argumentative.

Eric

Eric,

I can't argue with any of those points, including the last one .

Airplanes, like pilots, tend to increase in mass with age. There is no doubt that there are a lot of porker 180's around.

As to props, get in a 180 with a Kenmore 520 kit and an 86 inch three blade Mac, and you wouldn't think much of that long prop on the L-19.

I still think the near ideal personal airplane is an early 60's 180 with a 260/270 hp and three bladed prop, and kept light. They'll perform well against 185's.

But, the L-19 is a fun old airplane.

MTV

zero.one.victor wrote:

mtv wrote:........
Oh, yeah--the 180's came with 230 hp, not 213. Keep em light, and they are spectacular performers as well.
..............
MTV

Book empty weight on an early 180 is around 1550, but I doubt there are many that are very close to that, I'd guess more are closer to 1700 or even more. Book empty weight for an L19 (fixed pitch model) is around 1600, and I'd bet that the one's I've seen come pretty close. And the 90"-47 pitch prop standard on a birddog must give it tremendous outa-the-hole power, more so than the smaller c/s prop on most 180's.
Eric

My 1955 model 180 was recently weighed at 1560 empty. Yes, the later model ones do top 1800 lbs and take on different flying qualites with the camberlift wing.

Don't get me wrong...I love the Bird Dog and my Father flew them in Viet Nam. It has a soft spot in our families heart. That said, MTV is correct on pretty much all accounts. When it comes to actual performance, the pilot is such a large part of the equation that it's a wash on STOL. I'n short field competitions I've actually never been beat by a Bird Dog....in landing or takeoff. But, I've never gone up against a CS prop Bird Dog...just the fixed pitch.

Like MTV says....you have to compare apples to apples. A bird dog with two folks, and in the right hands will beat me out of the hole and on landing when I'm at gross. But, if I load to the same level (approximately 400 lbs under my gross weight) I will beat them or at least tie. That's just been my experience. Not to mention I'm traveling at 140 Knots to my next gas stop.

Bill

I have been considering the L19 and C180 for stol operations and am leaning toward the L19 because of the visibility mostly. I like the old 180s but the nose blocks out an area far bigger than my intended landing zone once you get it going slow enough to land short. There is STCs available to put an io-540 and a third seat in the L19 solving the low TBO problem [not that a continatal ever made it to TBO] an old time 180 pilot I knew called them "the cockshutt of the sky" . that should get the 180 guys going.

mtv wrote:
Let's compare apples to apples here: Load the 180 (230 hp, by the way) with the same load as the L-19. Now, let's try the STOL thing. Maybe on landing the L-19 will win, but I'd put money on the 180 every time on takeoff performance.

Apples to apples should mean stock setup to stock setup in this case with the all up weight being equal if you want a true comparison. More HP does not always mean better short field performance.

zero.one.victor wrote:
Hence my comment about average L19 versus average 180. I haven't seen too much fluff on Birddogs, but I have seen some heavied-up 180's: Ponk kits, excess radio's,plush interiors,float kits,STOL kits,etc etc...

And the 90"-47 pitch prop standard on a birddog must give it tremendous outa-the-hole power, more so than the smaller c/s prop on most 180's.

mtv wrote:As to props, get in a 180 with a Kenmore 520 kit and an 86 inch three blade Mac, and you wouldn't think much of that long prop on the L-19.

What happened to an apples to apples (stock to stock) comparison? As to Waco's, get in a Waco with a jet engine strapped to the bottom and you wouldn't think much of that stock Waco any longer either.

I am not claiming to be an expert in either aircraft although I have some time in both...just pointing out the obvious contradiction in your last post from your first one.

Both of you have very valid points and both aircraft perform very well within the realms that they were designed for. When buying an aircraft for your personal use it simply comes down to what you want / need your plane to do and what your personal preference is within the choices that meet those wants / needs. The key word is preference.

I should clarify the job we have in mind for the L19 is to haul a pilot a hunter and a guide as well as 2 backpacks and 2 rifles and operate out of a supercub strip. A 180 has many other advantages but we have a very specific job in mind.
Any other suggestions on on planes with supercub performance for 3 people?

ccurrie,

You can't legally do that job in one load with an L-19. It is a two seat airplane.

If your plan is to do this job in two trips, find a good Super Cub, with the gross weight increase, and you'll have a much better performing, much safer operation, assuming when you say "Cub strip" you really are talking about something that's pretty challenging.

You could take an L-19 in and out of SOME strips that people call Cub strips, but the spring gear will give you a workout, and the airplane will be closer to its limits than I'd like.

What you describe is a Cub job. Cubs are all over the place, and can be had readily. Further, if you bend or break it, parts are more available than any airplane on the planet, and cheaper. Work that kind of deal a lot and sooner or later, you'll be likely to bend something. Bend or break the L-19 and you'll pay through the nose for repairs and parts. Not that many of them around, though AIr Repair does support them well.

I would point out that an L-19 DOES NOT provide Super Cub performance, by the way. Even empty, that airplane is NOT going to perform up with a good Cub or Husky. If you think you'll be able to take an L-19 in and out of challenging Cub strips safely, you should think again, particularly with a load. It is still a Cessna wing, and its still a heavy airplane.

The engine on the L-19 is a "different" engine: I believe Continental will no longer support them. I'm sure you can get them overhauled somewhere, though. Point is, you'll probably want to upgrade to a more common variant of the O-470, which means big bucks.

Stick with a Cub for the job you describe. Put a combination cargo/fuel pod on it, and extended baggage, and the 2000 pound GW kit. Hard to beat, though slow.

MTV