Both types I have hankered to add to the log book although for no particular rational reason. Neither are aerobatic and with many hours in a 182, expect they handle like the solid cruisers they were designed to be, and like the 182 – your father in laws Buick, although the larger wing area of the 195 may be more Cadillac like in its ride.
The 190/195 didn’t start off with a reputation as a ground loop king, but as the generation of pilots trained on Stearmans and Harvards dwindled the vast majority of the surviving 500 or so have had ground loop rebuilds. Some to be ground looped shortly after a full rebuild! Only a few insurance carriers quote coverage for the type – and getting conversion training would require travelling to the USA. Also they all will need to become ADSB compliant if they want access to all US airspace.
Accordingly the type has declined in value to a point where a nice serviceable type can be found for $70-80k, and a slightly less attractive (cosmetics) might be found for $50-65k. Not so long ago the type might have commanded $125-150k.
The preferred engine is the Jacobs R-755-B2 which is well supported, and despite its 12.6 litres, is relatively cheap to overhaul ($30k or less). This is rated at 275HP and will deliver 140-150KTAS on 14-15 USGPH. The rate of climb 1,200 fpm and service ceiling 18,000 feet are solid.
Panel realistically is VFR or light IFR. Useful load of 1,200 lbs makes it a full fuel (75 usg useable) and four person aircraft. The passenger comfort is supposed to be excellent with a cruise RPM of 1,800 and a large three person bench seat with four passenger windows aside.
With simple split flaps the 195 is not a STOL aircraft although it was operated in Alaska. Realistically with safety factors it needs a 2,000-2,200 foot field – the Maule/C-180 with much lower empty weight do much better. The 195 weighs in at 2,100 lbs empty, not much more than the modern 182, but around 300lbs more than an early 180.
Cruise performance is similar to a C-180, but with lower RPM. Useful load is better than the early C-180 but less than the later Skywagons, but not by much.
Range is better than the early C-180, slightly less than the later Skywagons. (Basically the C-180 became a carburettor 185 in the mid 1960’s).
Living with the 195 means understanding radial engine operation, dealing with hydraulic lock, careful descent power management, having carried out minor upgrades so that the oil consumption is reasonable and leaks controlled. A power tug for ground handling seems essential.
The C-180 is probably easier to live with as most mechanics can spanner it.
So in exchange for somewhat less passenger comfort the C-180 is easier to live with, has better STOL, better crosswind performance, better ground handling and slightly better fuel consumption. However an early C-180, with lower useful load and range, today commands $125k in good condition. The later C-180 now cost $170k for good examples…and up.
You can also see where you are going on the ground in the C-180.
Despite all this, the $75k 195 seems very good value for what is a well built, comfortable 140 KTAS classic tailwheel tourer.
RobertL18C wrote:
The passenger comfort is supposed to be excellent with a cruise RPM of 1,800 and a large three person bench seat with four passenger windows aside.
RobertL18C wrote:
So in exchange for somewhat less passenger comfort the C-180 is easier to live with, has better STOL, better crosswind performance, better ground handling and slightly better fuel consumption. However an early C-180, with lower useful load and range, today commands $125k in good condition. The later C-180 now cost $170k for good examples…and up.
The 195 is called a Businessliner and I think it’s consistent with accommodations for the pilots being cramped at best, they were just the drivers, while the comfort for the passengers in back is great. This was a pre-war design concept and I think its also a significant reason why 190/195 is a specialty item, not a highly valued commodity like the 180/185.
They sure look cool regardless.
@Silvaire the 180A through D remain my favourites, although the rebuilt 195 seem a bargain at the moment. I had heard the pilot station wasn’t that comfortable in the 195, and yet the type was Clyde Cessna’s favourite. The setas can be adjusted over 14 inches, so leg room should be OK?
The 180 and 185 really appeal to me.conventional gear, reasonably short field, good load. A fun touring machine I’d think.
I’ve only seen one 195 in person and it was being rebuilt. It did look very nice.
RobertL18C wrote:
large three person bench seat
This is C195 bench. 112 cm wide. One can definitely seat 3 kids there
RobertL18C wrote:
I had heard the pilot station wasn’t that comfortable in the 195, and yet the type was Clyde Cessna’s favourite. The setas can be adjusted over 14 inches, so leg room should be OK?
The whole front seat area is tight. The wing spar is directly behind your head if you are taller than the average 1940s person. If you move the seat back for leg room your head hits the spar, even with the seat back being quite vertical. Visibility is not good because you have to sit in a slump to get your line of vision below the wing. It’s a lot better for compact people, like many planes, but more so. It’s something that an individual would have to check.
Robin_253 wrote:
This is C195 bench. 112 cm wide. One can definitely seat 3 kids there
A 195 owner I met recently said his wife and daughter fight over who will get the luxurious back seat.
Great info, the wing spar on the 195 also has an AD which requires recurring inspection. While all metal, the 195 prefers living in a hangar.
Here’s a photo from the net that shows the C195 front seat situation.
This is a new thread 
You really need to scratch this itch.
Love the look of the 195’s. Such plush interiors, as well. Like riding in a Pullman cart going to the Orient!
