Fabric or metal wings?

"Dude" wrote in message ...
What particular models are you considering?

It's kind of ranged around as we learned more and thought more
carefully about what we want to do. But, in addition to the Cherokee
140, I've considered Aeronca Champ, but would prefer a Sedan. I've
thought seriously about a Maule, but can't seem to find one in good
enough shape in our price range. The Stinson 108 models seem pretty
well suited too. I'd think the J3 cub would be too slow for our
intended uses.

I learned in a 172 but would like to buy something else. With all due
respect to many worthy 172s out there, it just seems like a boring
plane. That's my own opinion, YMMV of course.

I like the Diamond Eclipse that I rent sometimes, but it's a little
snug for my 6' 3" height. And, is a little difficult to have much
luggage or dog in too. However, I'm not in much danger of buying one
due to it's price.

We've condsidered a Taylorcraft or Luscombe, but haven't yet had a
chance to see them up close to see if I'd fit and the dog would be
comfortable. Their useful loads seem too low in any case.

There are other possibles too, like a Cessna 170, but I'm looking for
something I could buy resonably soon and not have to wait forever to
find one of the few being sold.

-Malcolm

jsmith wrote in message ...
It really doesn't matter.
Most if not all of the metal aircraft that were built through the 70's
were not zinc chromate, so inter granular and other types of corrosion
are still problems with any aircraft, be it stored in a hangar or at an
outdoor tie down.

Ok, thanks. Useful info!

With fabric, you will want to recover it every 10-20 years just so you
can perform a thorough fuselage, wing and impinge inspection.
Much easier to inspect and repair than on an all metal aircraft.
Many of the older rag and tubes have gotten powder coated or epoxy
painted frames if they have been rebuilt in the last 10-20 years.
It all comes down to personal choice. What do you want to do with the airplane?

We want to be able to fly 2-3 hour legs on weekends to go visiting, to
the beach, or to $100 hamburgers, sometimes have so night flights for
sightseeing or dinner during the week. Occasionally we'd fly longer
routes with fuel stops to FL or NY or TX. Personal fun use with
vacations is the idea. I will do my IFR after a while to increase the
plane's usefulness and utility for us too.

-Malcolm

Malcolm Teas wrote:

I've
thought seriously about a Maule, but can't seem to find one in good
enough shape in our price range.

And what is your price range?

George Patterson
Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if treason
be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.

Malcolm Teas wrote:
: wrote in message news:
: That said, I'd recommend a Cherokee 140. Not sexy, not fast, but with a
: moderate loading like that (2 x 180 + 100), you're still 100 lbs under gross with 5-6
: hours of fuel on board. They're IFR-able too.

: The Cherokee 140 school of thought seems strong! We're looking at a
: couple of them and considering it. Any particular things to watch out
: for on this plane?

: -Malcolm

Our thought on the Cherokee was that by the book, it's just like a 172, but
roughly $10K less. Realistically, they fly a bit different (172 glide well,
Cherokees' chubby wings make the glide like the Warner Bros. anvil), but not enough to
get uptight about.

As far as gotchas with it, the biggest would be whether or not it sat for a
long time. Lycomings in particular tend to rust their camshafts if not flown enough.
Another potentially expensive oops is blown exhaust gaskets on the engine. If not
caught early, the hot gasses can blow out the sealing surface on the cylinders and
require cylinder replacement in addition to gasket replacement.

WRT airframe stuff, check the wings under the flaps by the fuselog for
corrosion. Also, the cabin floors and inside firewall because of notoriously leaky
doors and windshields. Pre-1969 models have a shotgun-blast panel layout (no standard
T-layout) and fuses, rather than breakers. If you're going to do instrument training,
it's nice to have the standard T-layout, but realistically it's what you get used to.
Check the stabilator for slightly lose bearings, and gear struts for leaks.

Basically, much of the general pre-purchase stuff. They're pretty light on
bad AD's and such.

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

You need a two seat American General/ Grumman like the AA1's. It will be
the closest thing in handling to the Eclipse that you are used to, but has
more space inside. Some have had mods added for more speed and I believe
bigger engines have been modded in as well.

The Piper 2 seaters would be my next choice.

You can sometimes find the old Diamond Katana's with the Rotax in the 40k
range, but don't buy one until you can find an AP who already knows how to
fix a Rotax. It will still be tight, if not tighter than the newer ones
though.

Many of the other choices are going to get into nice planes that are really
old. Perhaps not the best first plane ownership experience unless you have
time and money (not large bucks, but often bucks) to spend managing and
maintaining.

All science and engineering aside, I just couldn't leave a a fabric plane
outside. Something just seems wrong about that.


"Malcolm Teas" wrote in message
om...
"Dude" wrote in message
...
What particular models are you considering?

It's kind of ranged around as we learned more and thought more
carefully about what we want to do. But, in addition to the Cherokee
140, I've considered Aeronca Champ, but would prefer a Sedan. I've
thought seriously about a Maule, but can't seem to find one in good
enough shape in our price range. The Stinson 108 models seem pretty
well suited too. I'd think the J3 cub would be too slow for our
intended uses.

I learned in a 172 but would like to buy something else. With all due
respect to many worthy 172s out there, it just seems like a boring
plane. That's my own opinion, YMMV of course.

I like the Diamond Eclipse that I rent sometimes, but it's a little
snug for my 6' 3" height. And, is a little difficult to have much
luggage or dog in too. However, I'm not in much danger of buying one
due to it's price.

We've condsidered a Taylorcraft or Luscombe, but haven't yet had a
chance to see them up close to see if I'd fit and the dog would be
comfortable. Their useful loads seem too low in any case.

There are other possibles too, like a Cessna 170, but I'm looking for
something I could buy resonably soon and not have to wait forever to
find one of the few being sold.

-Malcolm

wrote:

Malcolm Teas wrote:
: wrote in message news:
: That said, I'd recommend a Cherokee 140. Not sexy, not fast, but with a
: moderate loading like that (2 x 180 + 100), you're still 100 lbs under gross with 5-6
: hours of fuel on board. They're IFR-able too.

: The Cherokee 140 school of thought seems strong! We're looking at a
: couple of them and considering it. Any particular things to watch out
: for on this plane?

: -Malcolm

Our thought on the Cherokee was that by the book, it's just like a 172, but
roughly $10K less. Realistically, they fly a bit different (172 glide well,
Cherokees' chubby wings make the glide like the Warner Bros. anvil),

what? you mean that if a Cherokee 140 loses power it hangs in the air
long enough for the occupants to hold up a little sign that says "uh-oh"
and then plunges to the ground? That's not a maneuver I learned

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:
: what? you mean that if a Cherokee 140 loses power it hangs in the air
: long enough for the occupants to hold up a little sign that says "uh-oh"
: and then plunges to the ground? That's not a maneuver I learned


Yeah... you got it... It was a noticable difference switching from a 172
to a PA-28 in that regard. By the book, they both say about a 9:1 glide ratio, but my
personal experience has been different. I put droopy wingtips and VG's on the
Cherokee which help some, though.

-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

Malcom Teas wrote:


It's kind of ranged around as we learned more and thought more
carefully about what we want to do. But, in addition to the Cherokee
140, I've considered Aeronca Champ, but would prefer a Sedan. I've
thought seriously about a Maule, but can't seem to find one in good
enough shape in our price range. The Stinson 108 models seem pretty
well suited too. I'd think the J3 cub would be too slow for our
intended uses.

I learned in a 172 but would like to buy something else. With all due
respect to many worthy 172s out there, it just seems like a boring
plane. That's my own opinion, YMMV of course.


Why not try to find a Cessna 150/150 HP
Taildragger. If you don't want the 150HP
engine, you could get a better prop and live
with an 0200 or 0235 in the 152.
I have owned 3 of them and the 150HP
taildragger was the most fun of any. 1200
ft a minute climb and will fly from 38 to 138
mph. Metal also to keep outside, Parts are plentiful and it is easy to work
on.
Look around and you can find a nice one.
Depends on what you can live with. But
remember, there is not substiture for Horse
power. Good luck.

Bill Oparowski
N10SX
N101SX

I think that the 150hp taildragger is a good option. I was concentrating
more on handling and view, but the taildragger adds excitement by having
high power to weight ratio and conventional gear. Good idea.





"OSKI 3" wrote in message
...
Malcom Teas wrote:


It's kind of ranged around as we learned more and thought more
carefully about what we want to do. But, in addition to the Cherokee
140, I've considered Aeronca Champ, but would prefer a Sedan. I've
thought seriously about a Maule, but can't seem to find one in good
enough shape in our price range. The Stinson 108 models seem pretty
well suited too. I'd think the J3 cub would be too slow for our
intended uses.

I learned in a 172 but would like to buy something else. With all due
respect to many worthy 172s out there, it just seems like a boring
plane. That's my own opinion, YMMV of course.


Why not try to find a Cessna 150/150 HP
Taildragger. If you don't want the 150HP
engine, you could get a better prop and live
with an 0200 or 0235 in the 152.
I have owned 3 of them and the 150HP
taildragger was the most fun of any. 1200
ft a minute climb and will fly from 38 to 138
mph. Metal also to keep outside, Parts are plentiful and it is easy to
work
on.
Look around and you can find a nice one.
Depends on what you can live with. But
remember, there is not substiture for Horse
power. Good luck.

Bill Oparowski
N10SX
N101SX

Do it REALLY right.... make it a 150 Aerobat taildragger.

Dude wrote:
I think that the 150hp taildragger is a good option. I was concentrating
more on handling and view, but the taildragger adds excitement by having
high power to weight ratio and conventional gear. Good idea.