I agree Bill. Fortunately I could have afforded any LSA I wanted, and since I was not going to use it all that much, the new one would be sitting a lot, with no real assurance how they hold up like the proven coupe longevity, and the depreciation would be huge for the hours used. Being retired and an A&P, I would be disappointed if something did not keep me tinkering on what I fly. Also there is the challenge - ANYONE can go buy a new one, but it takes some courage and skills to fly around in a 64 year old plane! Anyhow, I am happy and feel I made the best choice for my needs, quite the same as Jerry did..
--- In [email protected], Bill BIGGS <webacr...@...> wrote: > > > Jerry and all, > > > > It all comes down to "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". For your > commercial use a new LSA is the way to go. For many of us, as this forum > proves, more than half the fun is tinkering. > > > > I wholeheartedly agree, if you like to tinker the Ercoupe is for you. If you > just want to fly and not be bothered a new plane is probably better. (or an > Ercoupe with an A&P on retainer) > > > > Bill > > > > To: [email protected] > From: jeichenber...@... > Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:37:40 -0400 > Subject: RE: [ercoupe-tech] $ 52,000 Ercoupe?? > > > > > >  > I'll take a different tack on the question of full-blown restorations. > > I've been through it twice - back 20 years ago with a Comanche and about 4 > years ago with a Champ. > > I've learned my lesson and won't do it again. > > No matter how thoroughly you may think an airplane has been restored, the > final product is still not a new airplane. It still takes the constant > maint. one would expect of a used machine 60 years old. > > Owning an FBO with a flight school has taught me a valuable lesson - new is > always better. When you have a restoration that you're actually trying to > use as an everyday airplane, thinks still break with the same frequency you'd > expect from components and parts that are 60 years old. > > If one can afford it, there is no substitute for new. Consider than with a > new airplane, you ought to get about 1,000 hours of flight before anything > major needs to be replaced, fixed in a major way, or overhauled. That 1,000 > hours should be just routine oil changes, tires and brakes, and very little > else. > > We have a new Tecnam Eaglet in our training/rental fleet - it currently has > about 200 trouble free hours on it. And, it's about 20% faster than any of > the classic airplanes that are LSA eligible, and that makes a huge difference > when flying into a 20 knot wind on a trip. > > Of course, new gets you the latest avionics and other equipment. > > As an old dog who threw bones at Rotax engines for years, operating this > airplane has completely changed my mind. The Rotax is a great engine, and is > so simple to operate and maintain with its altitude compensating carbs that > have no mixture control, electronic ignition, etc., etc. > > A couple of weeks ago I personally took the airplane on a 3 hour trip. It > burned 4.56 gph while cruising at 110 Knots, or in excess of 125 mph. No > classic will do that. Rate of climb with one person is often around 1400 > fpm, and about 1,000 fpm with two aboard and full fuel. No classic with do > that either. > > Before I'd ever put $50K in a classic restoration again, I'd get a partner or > two, and have each put the same money in a new airplane with all of the bells > and whistles, and enjoy years of trouble free flying. > > Just my opinion, but one that comes from experience. > > Jerry E. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]on > Behalf Of heave...@... > Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 7:09 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [ercoupe-tech] $ 52,000 Ercoupe?? > > > > > > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1946-Ercoupe-Light-Sport-/280518508821?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Motors_Aircraft&hash=item415034c115 > > A $ 52,000 Ercoupe ???!!! > > Eliacim > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with > Hotmail. > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5 >
