Jim - That was part of my point about the true cost of restoring these old planes, to do it right and truly make them like new.
So many people think that a shoddy engine overhaul and a re-cover constitute a restoration. Not. Jerry E. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]on Behalf Of Jim Truxel Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:50 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] 10 year life expectancy for other planes (slightly off topic) 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.
