Yes but what one often forgets is we really don't own these aircraft but are just caretakers. Iike any piece of history there are negatives but when I want to go fast I fly united.
Len Sent from my iPhone On Jun 14, 2010, at 7:37 AM, "Jerry Eichenberger" <[email protected] > wrote: > > > 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:ercoupe- > [email protected]]on Behalf Of [email protected] > 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 > > >
