At 06:29 AM 11/11/99 -0500, Glen Ward wrote: >You are right about the safety issue, but I don't believe there is much of a >21st century for these planes, Gene. Prices have been going up in the past >but it may be that people will be facing facts on the older 415's and >Forneys real soon.
I think they already have. Many, many of the 415s out there are like mine... ...the wings have been off, the messy stuff replaced, the whole covered with zinc chromate, and fresh Ceconite over the top of it all. Along the way, the carry-throughs usually got fixed. Similarly, a bunch of the present fleet have been resurrected after long years on the tie downs, idle, and spent a year or three in someone's garage as a project. > Already over half a century, and already it is the kind >of thing that maybe a lot of first time buyers won't even consider - too >old, they get a 150. A dumb move in many cases. It's hard to find a 150 with less than a few thousand hours (other than the few remaining straight-back birds, which are nearly as old as our Ercoupes). Look at 150s and 152s and you will see the result of all those years as trainers, with many bad landings and lots of flexion in flight. Cracks, cracks, and more cracks in the skins. And if you think THEY don't have corrosion happening in their spars, and ribs, think again. > I like mine I just bought but I do not want to be >flying it for more than a few years. Maybe a graceful retirement will be >better than having a bunch of wings fall off then the feds get all excited. Wings fall off because they weren't TAKEN off when they should have been. >This issue is a coming thing, sooner or later folks are going to have to >face it. The Ercoupe could easily be the first to go, maybe the Luscombe, Both have fallen into the hands of doting owners and owners' oranizations who are doing effective jobs at preservation. >they are both pretty neglected compared to the Cubs which have so much >Nostalgia value. Both have problems. So do Cubs. Lower longerons and lift struts. > The coupe is neat but it was having >problems even in the 50's. That was not due to old parts. Maybe they >worked it out with the ADs but the same old failures may crop up if they >keep going and going, weakening from corrosion and fatigue. Some folks love >them so much they won't admit to their defects. Glen Glen, the same can be said of many of the aircraft which where built in the 60's and early 70's, and given how they are looking, and the number of cycles, and the fact that they are boring as dirt so very few people give them any attention, I think it may well happen sooner than it will with the generation of planes built in the 1946-47 boom years. Greg
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
