I once owned a share of a 1946 Aeronca Champ. The other owner tried to takeoff
on a wet grass short field. Didn't make it and took out
a wing which was the best thing that could have happened since the only thing
that was hurt was his pride and a higher insurance premium. But in looking at
the wing during recovering we saw, mice nests, chewed wires, wooden spars taped
together, others wired together with bailing wire and other things that
immediately caused us to redo the other wing and did a very close look into the
rest of the plane. Wonder how long before we would have lost a wing in flight.
Jim Truxel
N3439H 415c
FDK
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill BIGGS
To: ercoupe tech
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 10:39 AM
Subject: RE: [ercoupe-tech] 10 year life expectancy for other planes
(slightly off topic)
I rebuilt an Aeronca L-3 Defender once that was built as a WWII artillery
spotter plane.
It had wood spars and ribs. The rib trusses were glued and stapled with
"fishpaper" a type of cardboard sometimes used in electric motors.
Life span was probable anticipated to be 6 months to a year.
This was in the late 70s and the ribs were falling apart.
It is my opinion that any wood structured aitcraft needs to be opened up and
inspected every 10 years. In the days of cotton fabric that was the life
expectancy of the covering.
would be a real chore with a wood wing Mooney or Ballanca.
Once saw wood ants crawling up the tiedown and into the wing of a wood wing
Mooney.
Bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:46:19 -0400
Subject: RE: [ercoupe-tech] Builders 10 year life expectancy for Ercoupes
Hi Ed -
I think that the life expectancy of all of the classic airplanes built in the
late 1940s was about that. One of my beliefs has always been that basic
economic rules don't change.
I know more about the tube and fabric classics than I do about Coupes. My
thought is that Coupes, and to some degree T-crafts, were about the only
airplanes of that era that were primarily sold new to private owners rather
than to FBOs and flight schools.
Look at what it costs today to do a first class, to new standards,
restoration of a Champ or Cub. Having gone thru the experience, let's see:
1. Start with the purchase price of a basket case, just to get the basic
fuselage and wing structures - about $8000.
2. Now, let's add a new engine, not some overhaul with a turned down crank,
re-ground cam, and honed cylinders, let's compare apples to apples, so figure
about $25,000, with all new accessories.
3. Now let's re-cover the airplane, with a nice paint scheme. Figure at
least $12,000.
4. Let's figure the cost of bringing the structure up to snuff before
re-cover. New spars, IRAN of the tubing, ribs, tip bows, etc.. Another
$15,000 at least.
5. Of course, now we need a new interior - with labor to install, at least
another $2,000.
6. New control cables, bell cranks, turnbuckles, etc, and labor to install,
another $2,500.
7. New glass all around and installation - about another $1,000 at least.
8. Overhaul all instruments, both flight and engine, new compass, everything
in the cockpit - about $2,000.
9. New tires, wheels and brakes - about another $3,000 at least.
10. New wooden prop - $1,000.
So, to restore a Champ to like new, but in 1946 condition, with no electrics,
radio, or any modern upgrades, we've spent at least $71,500.
I know I've forgotten some small items, like basic shop supplies, new tail
wheel and springs, etc. so let's add a final $2500 for all of that. Now we're
at $74,000.
Today you can buy a new Legend Cub with a battery and starter (no charging
system) for around $86,000.
That's about as close to a 1946 airplane as one can get in the new market, so
for the extra $12,000, you get a BRAND NEW airplane.
That's why Champs and Cubs, that went new to FBOs and flight schools, and had
the pants flown off of them really weren't expected to last beyond about 10
years, because it made economic sense to salvage them for parts at that point,
and buy a new airplane rather than restore the old.
But technology left this idea in the ashes. By 1957, things had changed
drastically - hand prop airplanes were archaic, radios were needed, as was
lighting for night operations, etc., etc. Piper hung on with the Tripacer and
Colt thru the 1950s, but as soon as the much delayed Cherokee came on the scene
in 1963, I think, the days of tube and fabric were over, except for specialty
airplanes like a Super Cub, Maule, or Citabria.
Now to Coupes - while we all believe in the 2 control, I think if ERCO had
pushed the 3 control option for FBOs and flight schools, and left the 2 control
for private owner sales, you'd see a whole lot more Coupes still around today.
While the 2 control Coupe is a marvel of simplicity and ease of flying, I
never understood why ERCO bucked the market. You have to be realistic and sell
to the market you have. Those who try to create a market, and then sell to it,
and be successful, are few and far between. While it can be done, as in modern
PC computers, conventional wisdom dictates against that business approach.
Sorry to go on for so long,
Jerry
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]on
Behalf Of Ed Burkhead
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 7:55 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ercoupe-tech] Builders 10 year life expectancy for Ercoupes
Hartmut wrote:
> I understand that the ERCO factory did not add corrosion
> protection because they expected the airplanes not to be
> used longer than ten years.
Fred Weick told me that they just didn’t expect people to want to fly an
Ercoupe past 10 years as they expected much more advanced planes to be
available by then.
In the ‘30s and ‘40s no one conceived of the near freezing of aircraft
development which I attribute to the FAA’s certification standards and cost.
Plus, each technology reaches a mature stage. The Ercoupe was one of the
first designs on the leading edge of the mature stage of aluminum and rivet
technology just as was the Continental C-65 engine (and C-75, C-85, and O-200).
(Remember when the Voyager flew around the world, unrefueled, in the 1980s,
they used a version of the O-200!)
Development of newer and better just didn’t much happen which leaves our
beloved Coupes very valuable to us as flying machines, not just antiques for
exhibit.
A hope of consensus standard certification for LSA was to spur development
of newer and better. We’ll see.
Ed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
Learn more.
