Fabric or metal wings?

[Malcolm Teas]

Ok, so my wife and I are interesting in buying our first airplane.
Like lots of first-time owners, we're looking for low cost of
ownership. Our basic needs are:

- radios and transponder (we're under the DC ADIZ)
- carry us two, our 35 lb dog, or an occasional passenger.
- ability to make 2-3 hour trips
- can be stored at a tie down as hangar costs are too high.

I want to go for an IFR one day, so an IFR certification is a very
good thing too if possible.

We're debating on fabric covered wings or metal. I've been told that
fabric wings shouldn't be outside. Then I've been told that with the
new synthetic fabrics and paints, that a tie down is perfectly fine.
If a fabic wing would work outside, I'd prefer that as I also
understand that the cost of ownership is lower.

Anyone have knowledge or experience here that would help?

-Malcolm Teas
JYO

[Mike Rapoport]

"Malcolm Teas" > wrote in message
om...
> Ok, so my wife and I are interesting in buying our first airplane.
> Like lots of first-time owners, we're looking for low cost of
> ownership. Our basic needs are:
>
> - radios and transponder (we're under the DC ADIZ)
> - carry us two, our 35 lb dog, or an occasional passenger.
> - ability to make 2-3 hour trips
> - can be stored at a tie down as hangar costs are too high.
>
> I want to go for an IFR one day, so an IFR certification is a very
> good thing too if possible.
>
> We're debating on fabric covered wings or metal. I've been told that
> fabric wings shouldn't be outside. Then I've been told that with the
> new synthetic fabrics and paints, that a tie down is perfectly fine.
> If a fabic wing would work outside, I'd prefer that as I also
> understand that the cost of ownership is lower.
>
> Anyone have knowledge or experience here that would help?
>
> -Malcolm Teas
> JYO

Why would the cost of owning a fabric covered airplane be lower? You have
all the costs of a metal wing aircraft PLUS the cost of maintaining the
fabric.

Mike
MU-2

[G.R. Patterson III]

Malcolm Teas wrote:
>
> We're debating on fabric covered wings or metal. I've been told that
> fabric wings shouldn't be outside. Then I've been told that with the
> new synthetic fabrics and paints, that a tie down is perfectly fine.

New fabrics such as Ceconite last pretty much forever if properly applied and
painted. Tiedown is fine. The old natural fiber fabrics will last as little as
two years if left outside. Polyfiber and Ceconite are two different methods of
covering an aircraft with a synthetic fabric. Either method works well and the
fabric used is the same. Those are the two most common modern covering methods.

> If a fabic wing would work outside, I'd prefer that as I also
> understand that the cost of ownership is lower.

While it might be cheaper to buy a particular fabric aircraft, I doubt that the
maintenance costs of one would be less than that of an identical metal aircraft.
A Cessna 170A will cost you the same as a 170B in care and feeding.

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.

[[email protected]]

Malcolm Teas > wrote:
: Ok, so my wife and I are interesting in buying our first airplane.
: Like lots of first-time owners, we're looking for low cost of
: ownership. Our basic needs are:

: - radios and transponder (we're under the DC ADIZ)
: - carry us two, our 35 lb dog, or an occasional passenger.
: - ability to make 2-3 hour trips
: - can be stored at a tie down as hangar costs are too high.

: I want to go for an IFR one day, so an IFR certification is a very
: good thing too if possible.

: We're debating on fabric covered wings or metal. I've been told that
: fabric wings shouldn't be outside. Then I've been told that with the
: new synthetic fabrics and paints, that a tie down is perfectly fine.
: If a fabic wing would work outside, I'd prefer that as I also
: understand that the cost of ownership is lower.

: Anyone have knowledge or experience here that would help?

: -Malcolm Teas
: JYO

Can't say about the fabric/metal wings except that for the most part, the
fabric planes are older and thus often cheaper to buy initially. If you know how to
repair fabric or have connections with an A&P that does, it might be fairly
inexpensive to maintain. Somethink like a Tri-Pacer would fit that bill.

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.

Just a thought.

-Cory


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

[Jay Masino]

wrote:
> Malcolm Teas > wrote:
> : - radios and transponder (we're under the DC ADIZ)
> : - carry us two, our 35 lb dog, or an occasional passenger.
> : - ability to make 2-3 hour trips
> : - can be stored at a tie down as hangar costs are too high.
> 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.

Exactly. The "me/my wife/our 35 lb dog" is the exact configuration I fly
my 140 with. It's economical and it can be left outside without too many
problems (I recommend a canvas cabin cover). I was under the DC ADIZ, and
all the wonderful free airspace that existed before the DC ADIZ for 15
years, before moving my plane to a hangar in Ocean City 2 years ago.

--- Jay


--

__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Dude]

What particular models are you considering?



"Malcolm Teas" > wrote in message
om...
> Ok, so my wife and I are interesting in buying our first airplane.
> Like lots of first-time owners, we're looking for low cost of
> ownership. Our basic needs are:
>
> - radios and transponder (we're under the DC ADIZ)
> - carry us two, our 35 lb dog, or an occasional passenger.
> - ability to make 2-3 hour trips
> - can be stored at a tie down as hangar costs are too high.
>
> I want to go for an IFR one day, so an IFR certification is a very
> good thing too if possible.
>
> We're debating on fabric covered wings or metal. I've been told that
> fabric wings shouldn't be outside. Then I've been told that with the
> new synthetic fabrics and paints, that a tie down is perfectly fine.
> If a fabic wing would work outside, I'd prefer that as I also
> understand that the cost of ownership is lower.
>
> Anyone have knowledge or experience here that would help?
>
> -Malcolm Teas
> JYO

[jsmith]

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 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?

[jsmith]

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?

[[email protected]]

My first airplane was a Cherokee 140, and I'll agree it would seem to be
just about the ideal airplane to match your needs/wants. Economical to buy
and operate, great flying qualities, an excellent instrument trainer,
bulletproof Lycoming 0-320 engine, and a capable (if not terribly fast)
touring airplane. Ours lived outside in he damp Pacific Northwest for many
years with no corrosion problems. (The original paint did get pretty
scruffy, though.)

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Malcolm Teas]

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

[Malcolm Teas]

"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

[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.

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

[G.R. Patterson III]

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.

[[email protected]]

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$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Dude]

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

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

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 :)

[[email protected]]

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$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[OSKI 3]

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

[Dude]

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

[jsmith]

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.

[Malcolm Teas]

(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

[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

[G.R. Patterson III]

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.

[Malcolm Teas]

"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

[Malcolm Teas]

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

[G.R. Patterson III]

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.

[[email protected]]

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$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[dave]

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