Some Rotting Planes

colojo said:
I found an active wasp nest in my gas barbecue last year (we were away traveling for a while) so I duct taped all the openings shut and lit 'er up! Extremely satisfying.
Click to expand...

Plus, it adds a nice roasted flavor to the next set of burgers. :confused:

Pic below is of Africanized bees, not wasps, but thought it was impressive.
image005.jpg

http://www.oda.state.ok.us/cps-bees.htm
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
But what about the children?

This is what seems to be just beyond comprehension. I can fabricate / modify to my hearts content and pretty much nobody cares - heck, I even put drilling holes in the main wing spar on youtube. But, letting someone work on an effing Cub without paying for proper signatures all along the way - THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!
Click to expand...

its not beyond comprehension. its political and quite simple actually. the solution to what you are observing, remark I've regurgitated on here for years, was the jist of the 'primary non commercial' category, and the FAA drowned it with impunity. the question is, who and what office at the FAA stabbed that provision and under whose marching orders. aircraft manufacturers? cowardly SES career civil servants scared for their pension and job location security? we will certainly never know on the open sources.

we all see what we want to see, and though it's good that there is great enthusiasm on threads on here about basic med and avionics stcs, to me those items are nothing burgers that won't move the needle compared to what primary non commercial would have accomplished. what i also know is that politically, that dream is dead. there is zero political capital to revisit the topic, once the law was passed allowing for it, yet the FAA was allowed to bury that provision without congressional backlash.

at the macro level, it is absolutely hypocritical and disingenuous that old certified spam cans are not allowed to be operated under exab rules whilst homebuilt airplanes are. Alas, i don't have the time to wait for Godot (a fitting segway, as i just went through the loss and burial of my father in law last week), so I gotta fly what i can get my hands on TODAY, and bend the rules as required to stay in the air. exabs dont work for me, basic med or avionics STCs do nothing to keep me in the air when it comes to certified costs in the aggregate.

again, none of this dynamic is beyond comprehension. it's simpleton stonewalling from other petty humans, and the reason we can't have nice things.
 
Zeldman said:
Feet don't fail me now..!!!!
Click to expand...
I was on a barge as it was docked at some port in India. After the tug pinned the barge to the pier rather firmly (sorta like a hard landing but without any struts) bees erupted from some cranny on the barge. I was the closest CO2 emitter so I had to be the culprit at least that's what it appeared the bees thought. Run I did. The bad thing about running on a barge is that you run out of barge fairly quickly.

I was standing on the opposite end of the barge from the hive contemplating diving in to the rather disgusting water when the bees lost interest and decided on a more proximal defense of their queen. The one sting I got still gives me trouble periodically even though members of the medical profession assure me that everything is normal as they lance the boil.
 
Dav8or said:
Not many weep for the cars and trucks that get crushed everyday, that's mostly because they disappear efficiently at the time they exceed their economic usefulness. There is a massive, well developed infrastructure in place to recycle cars and trucks. Now airplanes and boats, that's another story.

The truth everyone here knows is, there are more airplanes in existence than there are pilots willing to pay to fly them. We also know that all of the planes shown in this thread and the thousands like all over the nation left over from the heyday, are done. They are economically not viable in any way. There is just no easy way to scrap them all. Just like the planes themselves, there are more good used parts than there are people willing to buy them. Likely the owners would have to pay to have them removed, so they rather they sit and they can remember the old days.

The only way I can see some of these old ramp queens getting into the sky again is if the FAA would ever allow people to people to change the certification status on them from certified to a new experimental category with all the same privileges as the E/AB folks enjoy now. Then many of these planes would become projects as people could work on them themselves, get cheaper parts for them and well, experiment on them.
Click to expand...

I still don't think that would get many of the old hangar queens back in the air. Look at the airplanes 6PC photographed, and then go look at Barnstormers or Trade a Plane and see what a decent flyable copy of the same airplane goes for. EAB or not EAB, airplanes are not cheap. What does it cost to build a new RV? A lot of these older birds are worth what their engines are worth.
 
AGL said:
Always interesting to see these planes rotting. At least some of them have a happy ending! I can't post links yet, but google 'thisoldcherkee', or add a dot com to the end of that . I'm sure some of you have heard the story before. A guy tracked down the owner of a derelict piper, and the owner sold it for $1k. It's back flying! thisoldcherokee.com
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing, that is a really cool story. And right in my back yard at that.
 
FormerHangie said:
I still don't think that would get many of the old hangar queens back in the air. Look at the airplanes 6PC photographed, and then go look at Barnstormers or Trade a Plane and see what a decent flyable copy of the same airplane goes for. EAB or not EAB, airplanes are not cheap. What does it cost to build a new RV? A lot of these older birds are worth what their engines are worth.
Click to expand...

A bit of off the head calculation for that Belanca I mentioned in an earlier post came out around $50k just to get it flyable again.
 
flyingron said:
Anyhow, this Navion is going to be challenging (but not impossible) to put in the air. First off, you're going to have to go on a rubber hunt. I can almost bet there are 65 year old hoses and seals lurking in that. You'd be insane not to split the wings at this point (easier to move an unflyable plane that way anyhow). Pull the fuel tanks, look for corrosion, put new chafe tape on them, new hoses. Replace the fuel selector, put new gaskets in the gascolator, send the engine and the carb out for an overhaul. Have someone knowledgable check over the gear (but unless abused these are probably OK, but there are a couple of weak/wear spots that are fairly easy to inspect and correct). The rest is pretty much the same as any other aircraft.
Click to expand...

And, to do all of these items could be the bare minimum, if you're lucky... a few years ago a guy here in SE Texas had a hangar queen Navion that he was trying to sell with no takers, so he donated it to our CAF wing to be fixed up as a military L-17 Navion. The initial thinking was do a quick check on the engine and prop, put in a new battery, ferry it home. But, once at the hangar, reality crept in... we had to disassemble it and trailer it home. The beast had mud dauber nests throughout and corrosion everywhere. The wings were corroded so badly that in some areas you could poke a wrench through the skin, while the tail skid had been bashed with a tail strike which damaged the surrounding skin and the last two fuselage frames. The right horizontal stab needed reskinning. The engine, prop, interior, panel, wiring and wings were junk. We found an old Navion project in San Antonio that looked somewhat decent, bought it for $8k to use as a parts donor. We're using the wings, landing gear, aft tail cone and canopy from the donor to complete the original project as a ground up restoration with all new hoses, wiring, hardware, prop, engine, panel and interior. I don't know the financial outlay so far, but probably will be $80k or more to rebuild a ship that could be bought as a flyer for $40-50k all day long.

It's just a shame that so many of these old airplanes are rotting away into scrap metal... ugh.
 
FormerHangie said:
I still don't think that would get many of the old hangar queens back in the air. Look at the airplanes 6PC photographed, and then go look at Barnstormers or Trade a Plane and see what a decent flyable copy of the same airplane goes for. EAB or not EAB, airplanes are not cheap. What does it cost to build a new RV? A lot of these older birds are worth what their engines are worth.
Click to expand...

It's true, it wouldn't save a lot of them, but it would definitely save some. Just on the surface of it- If you wanted to build a custom four seat plane to your specs, which would you rather do, buy a Vans RV-10 kit and start basically half way from scratch, or buy at dirt cheap prices, or even get for free, a certified four seat plane that you can rebuild and make it the way you want it? I suspect that in the end, both projects would take nearly the same amount of time, but the factory built plane would likely be cheaper.

As kit manufacturers know all too well, it's not the reality that sells the project, it's the dream image of the completed project. People take on car restoration projects every year even though, here again, it's way cheaper to just buy somebody else's completed project. Some people just like to work on projects and the government regulations about what you can and can't do turn them off in aviation.
 
jbDC9 said:
And, to do all of these items could be the bare minimum, if you're lucky... a few years ago a guy here in SE Texas had a hangar queen Navion that he was trying to sell with no takers, so he donated it to our CAF wing to be fixed up as a military L-17 Navion. The initial thinking was do a quick check on the engine and prop, put in a new battery, ferry it home. But, once at the hangar, reality crept in... we had to disassemble it and trailer it home. The beast had mud dauber nests throughout and corrosion everywhere. The wings were corroded so badly that in some areas you could poke a wrench through the skin, while the tail skid had been bashed with a tail strike which damaged the surrounding skin and the last two fuselage frames. The right horizontal stab needed reskinning. The engine, prop, interior, panel, wiring and wings were junk. We found an old Navion project in San Antonio that looked somewhat decent, bought it for $8k to use as a parts donor. We're using the wings, landing gear, aft tail cone and canopy from the donor to complete the original project as a ground up restoration with all new hoses, wiring, hardware, prop, engine, panel and interior. I don't know the financial outlay so far, but probably will be $80k or more to rebuild a ship that could be bought as a flyer for $40-50k all day long.

It's just a shame that so many of these old airplanes are rotting away into scrap metal... ugh.
Click to expand...

Your post makes the point of my above post. You got something for nothing, you bought into the finished dream, you found out the reality, but you had so much invested already so far, that you are still working to completion. Your story would be repeated many times over if there was a way for experimental factory built airplanes.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Any day now...
Click to expand...

Yep, just never designated what day.....with the fact that I work overnights and sleep in the afternoons and have to do all the family stuff my wife can't do with her disability and being the backup caregiver for my father, it sometimes takes me a bit of time to get some stuff done. With the oldest boy having his learners permit now, it is starting to free me up a little and allowing my wife to do a little more of the errands. She's way happier with not having to totally depend on me for anything that required driving.

Another thing that helps, is that I've finally found someone that has over the ankle boots that are acceptable for the MSF class that I need for my endorsement. Ever try to find lace up boots in 6E width? Sheesh...Unicorn snot is easier to find o_O
 
imag0378.jpg A very old buck was proud to show me his Seabee; appeared to have been a long time since it has been flown. Can't be too many of these left, only produced 1946-47. Told me he had several offers to buy over the years but refused. Kind of a shame because this one looks like a good candidate for restoration.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I never understand the people who won't fly their plane, but won't sell or do something with it. When I was based at IAD, there was a guy with a 172 there. He claimed he didn't have time to fly his plane, but he'd come out about once a month and run it up in his tiedown spot. I had to politely tell the guy that in addition to being impolite because high RPM runs was blowing the ramp crud all over the planes behind him, that he was doing his plane more harm than good. Why not go up and fly it for 45 minutes, even if you never got out of the pattern? If he needed it to be flown, there were tons of people in the flying club I was leasing to who could be trusted to do so.

There was another Navion at VKX when I was there. It never flew. The local IA refused to sign it off anymore because it needed engine work (and she refused to install an exhaust pipe the owner brought in without any sort of paperwork). It wasn't really in that bad a shape when he stopped flying it. Sure the engine was pretty run out, but otherwise the airframe was not in bad shape (I looked for the usual problem areas). I know he had offers on it. I think finally the airport foreclosed on it for lack of paying the tie-down fees.

As for the Seabee, the engines are either the Franklin or the Lycoming Gophers. Neither is trivial in cost or finding parts to overhaul these days. My Seabee neighbor just blew a jug on his Gopher80 up at Oshkosh
 
Last edited:
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
A Navion is, by definition, a number of hydraulic leaks flying in close formation.
Click to expand...
While it's got a lot of places to leak, it's pretty easy to hunt them down and kill them. Everything's nice and accessible. The killer is the master control valve which has the valves to control raising and lowering the gear and flaps. You want someone who knows what they're doing to look at that if it's got problems. The rest is just hoses and gaskets.
 
flyingron said:
While it's got a lot of places to leak, it's pretty easy to hunt them down and kill them. Everything's nice and accessible. The killer is the master control valve which has the valves to control raising and lowering the gear and flaps. You want someone who knows what they're doing to look at that if it's got problems. The rest is just hoses and gaskets.
Click to expand...

So how about an update on your plane? Last I recall it was still in rebuild after the engine out.
 
pmanton said:
Look at the angle on the Ercoupe engine!! I wonder what gives with that.
Click to expand...
Zeldman said:
I had to go back and look. Yes, that is interesting.
Click to expand...

That's due to the little known STC for the 400hp upgrade. Since Ercoupes have no rudder the engine had to be mounted at that angle to counteract the p-factor.

(hey, someone had to say it)
 
Dav8or said:
It's true, it wouldn't save a lot of them, but it would definitely save some. Just on the surface of it- If you wanted to build a custom four seat plane to your specs, which would you rather do, buy a Vans RV-10 kit and start basically half way from scratch, or buy at dirt cheap prices, or even get for free, a certified four seat plane that you can rebuild and make it the way you want it? I suspect that in the end, both projects would take nearly the same amount of time, but the factory built plane would likely be cheaper.

As kit manufacturers know all too well, it's not the reality that sells the project, it's the dream image of the completed project. People take on car restoration projects every year even though, here again, it's way cheaper to just buy somebody else's completed project. Some people just like to work on projects and the government regulations about what you can and can't do turn them off in aviation.
Click to expand...

Given those two choices, I'd start with the RV10 kit. I've dealt with my share of older transportation equipment and have no desire to resurrect something 40+ years old, especially if it's in poor shape. I'm not qualified to customize anything aerodynamic anyway, the only changes I'd be making would be to the interior and panel, and the RV10 is a much nicer start than would an old Piper or Cessna.

I don't have the space or the time for a homebuilt project anyway, so I'm probably not the best person to comment on this, but I think people like me are much more common than are those who do. If I had the need for a nice four seater, I'd just go buy a nice used SR20.
 
This was an interesting thread that I just read from end-to-end. Relative to the few comments about maintenance, particularly the angst about needing an A&P/IA for relatively simple certificated aircraft, in contrast to homebuilts, experimentals, etc. which may be entirely supported by their owners. You can put me down as one former owner "forced into ownership retirement" who would still be an active flying owner were it not for the required A&P/IA tickets in order to keep my aircraft legal. What irks me the most is that I'm a certificated professional engineer with vast experience maintaining all things mechanical and electrical in my own factory, and I'm 100% certain I have the capability to do all my own maintenance and repair except internal engine work, yet there is no option for me to just take a practical test, or more simply, request that my aircraft be shifted into an owner-maintained status. It seems to me that the maintenance rules have failed to keep pace with the 18-year statute of repose rule implemented by GARA in 1994. Common sense says that once the aircraft exceeds the 18 year limit, and the manufacturer is released from liability, there should also be some rational mechanism to shift the aircraft into an owner-maintained regulatory status -- I'd have no problem with some kind of "practical" test to achieve that qualification. Could it not be treated somewhat like the pilot's license where there's maybe a bi-annual certification, perhaps coupled with some amount of continuing education.
 
Transport Canada (the Canadian equivalent of the FAA for aviation regulation) brought into effect Owner Maintenance regulations in 1996. They issue a special C of A. The catch? Can't go back to standard C of A. Can't fly or sell the plane in the USA.

They have a fairly long list of eligible planes that continues to grow.

Here's a summary blurb:


"The Owner-Maintenance Category was developed to allow certain certified fixed-wing aircraft to be maintained, modified and upgraded under similar regulations as amateur built aircraft. In the mid-1990s, recreational aircraft owners expressed their concern for the spiraling cost and lack of availability of certified parts and expertise for older, unsupported aircraft.
Stinson-108-3-Bob-Poirier-300x225.jpg


This concern was turned into a proposal from several aviation associations, including COPA. It called for a new category for these aircraft that would allow owner-maintenance, part substitution and aircraft modification. An Owner-Maintenance Category became part of Transport Canada’s new Recreational Aviation Policy in June 1996. That policy was accepted by the aviation community and approved by the Minister of Transport.

Under the O-M Category, Aircraft Pilot/Owners are Eligible To:

  • maintain an airplane
  • refurbish all or part of an airplane
  • overhaul all or part of an airplane
  • install certified and uncertified parts
  • install or replace any instruments or avionics
  • modify an airplane
  • rebuild an airplane that is out of service
  • sign the maintenance release
It is important to note, when considering whether to put an aircraft into Owner-Maintenance, that it cannot be operated in the United States nor exported there at any point in the future."
 
What are all the 'end of life' possibilities for airplanes?

-impact ground/water/building/other vehicle bad enough and then go to aluminum recycling or remain unclaimed at crash site/ditch location.

-impact something or 'land wrong' and then go to airplane organ donation yard (AODY) or aluminum recycling (AR).

-die slowly in a tiedown or hangar somewhere until taken apart and sent to AODY/AR

-owner actively & willingly dismantles aircraft for AODY/AR; or as we've seen with some EXP aircraft; to the trash

-aircraft is put on display in museum type situation until flood/fire/windstorm/vandalism/
destroys it or requires transport to AODY/AR

What else?

All of these are ugly ends of life, but truly not unexpected. What airplane is going to last forever?
 
J4000 said:
This was an interesting thread that I just read from end-to-end. Relative to the few comments about maintenance, particularly the angst about needing an A&P/IA for relatively simple certificated aircraft, in contrast to homebuilts, experimentals, etc. which may be entirely supported by their owners. You can put me down as one former owner "forced into ownership retirement" who would still be an active flying owner were it not for the required A&P/IA tickets in order to keep my aircraft legal. What irks me the most is that I'm a certificated professional engineer with vast experience maintaining all things mechanical and electrical in my own factory, and I'm 100% certain I have the capability to do all my own maintenance and repair except internal engine work, yet there is no option for me to just take a practical test, or more simply, request that my aircraft be shifted into an owner-maintained status. It seems to me that the maintenance rules have failed to keep pace with the 18-year statute of repose rule implemented by GARA in 1994. Common sense says that once the aircraft exceeds the 18 year limit, and the manufacturer is released from liability, there should also be some rational mechanism to shift the aircraft into an owner-maintained regulatory status -- I'd have no problem with some kind of "practical" test to achieve that qualification. Could it not be treated somewhat like the pilot's license where there's maybe a bi-annual certification, perhaps coupled with some amount of continuing education.
Click to expand...

If some sort of owner maintained category were to come about, I think this is where most of the activity would occur, in owners maintaining their own airplanes, in some cases using non-aviation sourced parts, and in many cases using non-certificated avionics, rather than being used for the basis for someone's homebuilt project. I would assume that just as Canada has done, it would be a one way trip into that status, and I'd also assume those aircraft would take a hit in resale value. I don't think it would keep many of these derelict aircraft in the air.

Let'sgoflying! said:
What are all the 'end of life' possibilities for airplanes?

-impact ground/water/building/other vehicle bad enough and then go to aluminum recycling or remain unclaimed at crash site/ditch location.

-impact something or 'land wrong' and then go to airplane organ donation yard (AODY) or aluminum recycling (AR).

-die slowly in a tiedown or hangar somewhere until taken apart and sent to AODY/AR

-owner actively & willingly dismantles aircraft for AODY/AR; or as we've seen with some EXP aircraft; to the trash

-aircraft is put on display in museum type situation until flood/fire/windstorm/vandalism/
destroys it or requires transport to AODY/AR

What else?

All of these are ugly ends of life, but truly not unexpected. What airplane is going to last forever?
Click to expand...

There's a point in time where most aircraft get cannibalized for parts and scrapped. Only a few will be kept as antiques. Things wear out, entropy takes hold, that's just the way the universe works.
 
GRG55 said:
Under the O-M Category, Aircraft Pilot/Owners are Eligible To:

  • maintain an airplane
  • refurbish all or part of an airplane
  • overhaul all or part of an airplane
  • install certified and uncertified parts
  • install or replace any instruments or avionics
  • modify an airplane
  • rebuild an airplane that is out of service
  • sign the maintenance release
It is important to note, when considering whether to put an aircraft into Owner-Maintenance, that it cannot be operated in the United States nor exported there at any point in the future."
Click to expand...

Yes, but if the United States were to enact an identical and reciprocal category, that would be a whole different story!! I understand Canadians reluctance to take advantage of this category because many of them like to fly to the US and when it's time to sell, they would like a broader market to sell in. But if the US were to get on board with this category, I imagine loads of Canadians would them participate.
 
FormerHangie said:
If some sort of owner maintained category were to come about, I think this is where most of the activity would occur, in owners maintaining their own airplanes, in some cases using non-aviation sourced parts, and in many cases using non-certificated avionics, rather than being used for the basis for someone's homebuilt project. I would assume that just as Canada has done, it would be a one way trip into that status, and I'd also assume those aircraft would take a hit in resale value. I don't think it would keep many of these derelict aircraft in the air.
Click to expand...

Why not? It's not about resale value. Most people don't take on a kit plane project because they hope to make a profit, in fact they expect to lose money, or at best get absolutely nothing for their 2000 hours of labor. If you get a derelict airplane for $1000, or $500, or free, do you really care that when you're finished with the project you can't get as much as an identical certified plane? Just like planes with damage history, or missing logs, you buy it cheap and you sell it cheap.
 
Dav8or said:
Why not? It's not about resale value. Most people don't take on a kit plane project because they hope to make a profit, in fact they expect to lose money, or at best get absolutely nothing for their 2000 hours of labor. If you get a derelict airplane for $1000, or $500, or free, do you really care that when you're finished with the project you can't get as much as an identical certified plane? Just like planes with damage history, or missing logs, you buy it cheap and you sell it cheap.
Click to expand...

My guess is that those hangar queens got that way was not because the owner isn't allowed to do his own maintenance. More likely either something expensive broke, or the owner had a life event that stopped him from flying. I suspect the people who would benefit from this rule are folks like @J4000 , who got priced out by the maintenance on his airplane, and not guys looking for a fixer upper. Besides, how many guys here have reported trying to buy one of these types of planes, and were told that they weren't for sale?
 
Years ago there was an abandoned looking Aztec sitting at a small airport in Texas.

I inquired about it and found out it belonged to the former sheriff of the county. He had stopped flying it.

To serve his time in jail.....
 
Bryan, is that airport in 'Dry Country'? could make restoration a tad easier. Also if they sell fuel at that field the airport manager should give a hoot about planes that don't fly. Planes that sit don't buy fuel.
 
I just got stung by a wasp while filming something soooper clever by that navion.

**** hurts. Swollen
Serves me right I guess. They were there first.

20170819_163738-816x459.jpg
 
Dav8or said:
Yes, but if the United States were to enact an identical and reciprocal category, that would be a whole different story!! I understand Canadians reluctance to take advantage of this category because many of them like to fly to the US and when it's time to sell, they would like a broader market to sell in. But if the US were to get on board with this category, I imagine loads of Canadians would them participate.
Click to expand...

I agree, it probably would.

But I also think the cost of installing ADS-B out on these older, simpler airplanes is going to shift things towards O-M. Ports of Entry are pretty well all controlled airspace so a non-ADS-B equipped airplane will, for all practical purposes, be unable to ever enter the USA after Jan 1, 2020. For a lot of Canadian airplane owners adding ADS-B out is too costly, and that will remove the main disincentive to O-M.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top