Thanks, Jerry: I might just do that. Looks as if I won't be getting my medical back so seeing your place would be interesting. Dick In a message dated 6/15/2010 6:53:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
Hi Dick - I'd love to hove you come to MRT some weekend and see our place. We're now Tecnam Sales Agents as well. After operating the airplane on our rental fleet, I'm so impressed with it that we decided to sell them too. Jerry -----Original Message----- From: ercoupe-tech@ ercou ercoupe-tech@<WBR>y ercoupe-t On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 10:04 AM To: ercoupe-tech@ ercoupe-tec er Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] $ 52,000 Ercoupe?? Hi, Jerry: I completely agree with your observations. Some years ago I owned with a friend a 1954 Cessna 180. We had a blast with it, even flying it down to the Amazon River. It kept us broke, especially the old radios, and we eventually had to sell it much to the consternation of our radio repairman. Dick Snell In a message dated 6/14/2010 9:32:21 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jeichenber...@in a messaIn a messag Hi Bill - I forgot to mention a Cessna 170B that I owned back in the early 1980s. With the Comanche, Champ, and 170, I used them as personal airplanes. I'm not talking about trying to expect an old airplane to hold up to the rigors of rental/training use. My wife and I used to refer to flights in the Comanche as $500 hamburger flights. Not because it burned that much gas, but because some $500 part was always breaking - starter, generator, transponder, radios, regulators, fuel bladders, the list goes on and on. We got so sick of fixing it that we finally sold it after 8 years, even though when it was running nicely, it fit our needs exactly. The Cessna 170 was close to the same - something always breaking, never totally sure that we would complete even a short trip with everything working. My point was about personal use - I'd still rather partner with someone and have a reliable, new airplane over constantly pouring money into an old one, plus have the peace of mind that it will actually complete a flight. I grant you that many guys enjoy the tinkering - I'm not one of them. Jerry -----Original Message----- From: ercoupe-tech@ e ercoupe-tech@<WBR>y ercou On Behalf Of Bill BIGGS Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 8:06 AM To: ercoupe tech Subject: RE: [ercoupe-tech] $ 52,000 Ercoupe?? 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: ercoupe-tech@ To From: jeichenber...@from: Fro 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: ercoupe-tech@ ercoupe-tech@<WBR>y erc On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 7:09 PM To: ercoupe-tech@ Subject: [ercoupe-tech] $ 52,000 Ercoupe?? _http://cgi.ebay.http://cgi.ebayhttp://cgi.ebhttp://cgi.ehttp://cgi.ebahttp: //cgi.e&pt=Motors_Aircraft&hash=item415034c115_ (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1946-Ercoupe-Light-Sport-/280518508821?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Motors_Aircraft&h ash=item415034c115) A $ 52,000 Ercoupe ???!!! Eliacim ____________________________________ The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. _Get busy._ (http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5)
