Fabric or metal wings?

(OSKI 3) wrote in message ...
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.

Thanks Bill, not a bad idea. But I'm 6 foot 3 inches tall. I tried
sitting in a 152 one day. Interesting, but not useful. I could fly
it if I had to I think. But my knees were bumping the yoke and I
couldn't get to the rudder pedals without banging my lets on the
panel's bottom. I'm guessing the 150 is about the same size
internally.

-Malcolm Teas

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.
With fabric, you will want to recover it every 10-20 years just so you
can perform a thorough fuselage, wing and empenage 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?

Ok, to summarize:

- Fabric today lasts quite a long time. Keeping it outside is
possible, especially with a cover. Even though this give some of us
the willies to do it.

- Corrosion is a issue with all planes before 1970, and some after.
Fabric or metal wings doesn't make a difference here.

- Repairing minor problems on fabric wings is cheaper that metal.

- Fabric will be a little slower - although in the price range I'm
after it's not a real consideration.

Malcolm Teas

Malcolm Teas wrote:

I'm guessing the 150 is about the same size internally.

Try an older 150 (pre-1970). The design of the seats changed over the years. There
was a tall pilot at Kupper (everyone called him "Lurch") who had a lot of time in
those.

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.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...
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?

I'm looking in the $20,000 - $40,000 range right now. I'm not really
sure if it's possible to buy a plane like I want in reasonable
condition that's IFR certified for that price. To recap, here are my
wishes:

- IFR certified, or at least radios and transponder (we're under the
DC ADIZ)
- carry us two, our 35 lb dog, or an occasional passenger(s). So,
we're talking useful load minus fuel load of around 600-900 lbs.
- ability to make 2-3 hour trips w/o stopping
- can be stored at a tie down as hangar costs are too high.
- speed of at least 90 kts.
- engine in bottom half of TBO time.
- avionics in working usable state

I can paint and reupholster the interior if necessary, but I'm trying
to hold down the first year's maintentance costs at the A&P's shop.

I'm trying to figure out if 1) I'm shooting too high, or 2) my
budget's too low. grin

-Malcolm Teas
JYO, PPL, aspiring plane owner

wrote in message ...
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.

I've been told offline by a pilot experienced in both that the 172s
are somewhat forgiving of heavily loaded planes, but that the 140 is
not. That would fit with the anvil thing.

So, do 140's come with the little "uh-oh" sign or would I have to make
that myself?

-Malcolm Teas
JYO, PPL, aka Wiley Coyote

Malcolm Teas wrote:

I'm looking in the $20,000 - $40,000 range right now.

Keep your eyes out for pre '95 Maules, especially the MX-7-160. Those made in the
mid-90s will set you back somewhere between 45k and 60k, so you want to go earlier.
The 180hp Maules offer the best deal in carrying capacity and economy, but are
desireable for that reason. Also check Maule Flight periodically.

In fact, check this out. http://www.mauleflight.com/Used_Aircraft/?id=36 Just a bit
more than you wanted to spend, but it's sure pretty. Wish they'd let me trade down
for it!

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:
: I've been told offline by a pilot experienced in both that the 172s
: are somewhat forgiving of heavily loaded planes, but that the 140 is
: not. That would fit with the anvil thing.

My experience has been similar. I haven't flown 172s really heavy (just fuel,
instructor, and me for PPL training). The Cherokees seem to load well up until a
certain point... then they get unfriendly. For instance, in my 180 hp, I get 900 fpm
or so solo with 15 gal on board at 2000' DA. With 50 gal and three people, I'd
probably get 500 fpm at the same DA. If I'd put in a fourth, and I'd get 100 fpm.

It's not a big problem. I've got a friend with a PA-28-150 (basically a 140
with baggage compartment). It's got a tired engine, but can still fly three people
without much thought. On a hot day (2100' elevation here, so 4000' DA), three people
and 36 gal can be "interesting" on the 4500' runway, but still get 100-200 fpm.

: So, do 140's come with the little "uh-oh" sign or would I have to make
: that myself?

Mine came pretty minimal, so I had to make it myself. Fuel starvation at
400' on climbout once will persuade you to make that sign.

-Cory

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

Malcolm,
I own a 1968 Citabria 7ECA. I really enjoy it. A citabria might work
for you but you'll probably need one with the adjustable front seat.
Also, although the 7ECA is the slowest, cruise at 105-115mph, it has the
highest useful load. You can get one IFR certified although I don't
think I would bother. I also wouldn't look at fabric as a way to save
money. Recover and paint is around $15k-20k.

Any of the grumman aa5 series of four seaters would suit your needs.
You should be able to find an IFR mid time cheetah or traverler, 150HP,
in your price range. The tiger, aa5b, is 180HP. A good tiger may be
out of your price range. I used to rent a tiger fairly regularly. They
are really sweet machines. Don't let anyone tell you that the handling
is squirrelly or any of that nonsense.

Another under valued plane is a beech musketeer or sundowner. Check out
the "musketeermail" group on yahoo.com. Do your own research and don't
listen old wives tales. A lot of people trash talk airplanes that
they've never even flown. Talk to owners and mechanics experienced
with that specific aircraft. Join owner's groups or mailing lists for
any model your interested in.

Good luck
dave
68 7ECA

Malcolm Teas wrote:
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.
With fabric, you will want to recover it every 10-20 years just so you
can perform a thorough fuselage, wing and empenage 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?


Ok, to summarize:

- Fabric today lasts quite a long time. Keeping it outside is
possible, especially with a cover. Even though this give some of us
the willies to do it.

- Corrosion is a issue with all planes before 1970, and some after.
Fabric or metal wings doesn't make a difference here.

- Repairing minor problems on fabric wings is cheaper that metal.

- Fabric will be a little slower - although in the price range I'm
after it's not a real consideration.

Malcolm Teas