Cruisemaster vs Viking

Rob58

Rob58

Moderator
Happy New Year to my forum friends! When it comes to the history of the modern Bellanca design I am trying to find details of the design changes specific to the morphing of the Cruisemaster to the Viking. Some changes are obvious: empennage, powerplant, cowling, instrument panel. However I am really curious if there were structural changes to the main fuselage and wings. Is the cabin in a Viking any wider than a 14-19? Other than landing gear attachment factors, were there other changes to the wing’s structure? I am trying to document these details more out of curiosity than anything else. Can’t image I would ever give up my 14-19s for a 17 series... Rob
 
They changed the flaps through the series. The early series had two hinges and a single spar. They then added a 2nd spar to try and reduce flex (my late series 14-19-3 had the 2nd spar). Then they added a third hinge at some point. The changes apparently allowed for the increases in flap speed along the way...
 
They got longer, but it wasnt really the fuselage, it was the longer motor mount for the IO_520. Also the swept tail makes the overall length a little more, but the measurement between the main spar attachment points and the horizontals attachment point is the same between a 14-13, a 14-19-3 and an early Viking. I know nothing about later Vikings. The comfort factor changes started with the change from the Cruisair to the Cruisemaster and moving the rear support for the front seats back by about 3 inches. You only gained about 2 inches , since they moved the rudder pedal bars(torque tubes) back an inch so the masters dont have the indentation in the firewall for your feet to get full rudder travel. Much nicer leg room. They widened the interior on the 14-19, but not the exterior by moving the structural bar that goes around the windshield outboard an inch or so on each side. That is the vertical bar that digs into your thighs on long flights. In the Viking it is even wider and went to a single round tube instead of a welded up arch of smaller square tubes. Again, makes a wider cabin. I learned that there is some difference in the outside of the fuselage between the 19-19 and early Viking when I sent a Viking baggage door to a 14-19 owner and the angle of the bend in the door was different. I dont know if that is from structural tubing changes or from the wooden stringers that shape the fuselage. At one time I had a 14-13 , a 14-19, a 14-19-3, and an early Viking fuselage in my hanger at the same time, so I had fun measuring the differences. There are really amazingly few differences. ______Grant.
 
Grant those are some very interesting details... your explanation really helps me visualize the differences. As for the profile change to the fuselage that you mention I suspect they had to rework the curves in the tubing and stringers to get everything to work aesthetically with the straight tail modification. I found in my research that S/N 4229 (end of the -3 production) was used to make the first Viking prototype so I pretty sure that all of the changes that eventually became the Viking were simply evolutionary rather than a serious re-design effort. My questions have been the result of a research project to try and find out the fate of all of the -2s and -3s. My original goal was to figure out how many of these birds were involved in accidents and rank the type of accidents and likely root causes. I wanted to also try to find out how many are still airworthy or near airworthy - a very elusive quest for sure. Of course like any research project pursuing the answer to one question only opens the door to many other questions. I have a pretty good history of the -3s now and will post some of my findings once complete. Thanks again for your feedback! ...Rob
 
Rob, Did I ever send you my Excel files from the FAA data base with the list of current and expired Cruismasters(14-19,14-19-2,14-19-3 and 3A?
 
Larry, I don't have the Excel file you are referring to, but I would really appreciate receiving it. My email: rswanland@usa.net

Thanks!
 
Rob, just a little to add to your info. I never knew the N number of the dash 3 that I parted out, but it came to its demise in the Redding Calif area when the owner was tanked up on beer and forgot to tank up the plane. The engine went silent on climb out and the plane was badly damaged by trees. There was another dash 3 that sat at the Smith Ranch airport in San Raphael Calif. When I saw it there were small trees actually growing up through the wings and the fabric was just hanging off of the fuselage. I could not see an N number. In looking at it , I leaned against the prop and the engine was still free after all of those years of neglect. I tried to locate the owner with no success and when the airport was remodeled I never saw it again. Many years ago I was talking to a man that did blue-print restoration. When I mentioned Bellanca, he told me that he was the chief engineer at Bellanca at the time of the change to the swept tail. Any records I might have had on the fellows name were lost in last years fire, but Bob Szego might have his name. I think that I tried to hook the fellow up with the club to get the old blue prints restored. I think cost got in the way. I thought this might interest you if you are doing research. _____Grant.
 
This info is very interesting and most helpful - thanks Grant! Tracking down this information is somewhat like a genealogy project - just takes a lot of research and the help of people like you that might have some of the pieces to the puzzle. I will send Robert Szego an email and ask him about the engineering fellow that you have mentioned. How long ago was the accident in Redding? Thanks again for sharing this history... Rob
 
All,
Seeing as though I have access to most of these aircraft, I measured the width at the front spar
center section.
Bellanca 14-9 = 37"
14-12F3 = 37"
14-13 = 37"
14-19 = 40"
14-19-2 = 40"
I suspect the -3 is the same as the -2. Brian, maybe you can supply your measurement.
Dan
 
Dan Cullman said:
I suspect the -3 is the same as the -2. Brian, maybe you can supply your measurement.
Click to expand...

I completely forgot to measure the -3 today while I was at the hangar. Hopefully, I'll have a better memory this weekend while I'm pulling the freshly misbehaving left mag.
 
I never thought to measure the center section width since I have always been under the impression (probably wrong) that the listed wing span of the Cruisairs and Cruismasters was the same. Making assumptions is always a dangerous thing. Thanks for the info Dan. ______Grant.
 
OK, that makes more sense to me. Looking over those numbers again it is a bit surprising that 3 inches can make such a large difference in comfort. It just proves that the difference between a 1937 built 14-9 to the newest Viking is just a slow evolution, not a dramatic change. Old Guisepe really laid the ground work. ______Grant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top