Fabric covered airplane question

[Steve]

Just wondering if anyone know what I could expect to pay to have the wings recovered on a Aeronca Chief 11-AC? Also, would building some time in a Aeronca be any worse then building time in a 150 or 172 for a future 135 cargo job since it does not have a electrical system? Not planning on logging thousands of hours in it, maybe 2-300.

 

[LR25]

Building time in any taildragger will make you a better pilot.

Not only that, thay are alot of fun.

You have a while yet to worry about hualing freight for a 135 place, for now get some different experiences flying different airplanes, a tailgragger is a great place to start.

Have fun.

 

[avbug]

Steve,

The cost will vary with the materials used, who does the work, and what you have done. A typical ceconite or stitts covering will cost in the neighborhood of 2,500 for the airplane. This will vary depending on who is doing the work; it's a good time for you to get some hands-on experience at fabric covering; get involved and you may find that the cost goes down.

Not a lot of mechanics any more have fabric experience. It's a shame. It's a dying art...and it is an art. Make sure that if you have someone cover the wings, or you find someone you can assist in covering the wings, they have experience. Don't let them learn on your airplane. There's little worse than a bad fabric job...and one improperly done can be fatal (ref Steve Whitman).

Adding paint, and the kind of paint, will also make a difference in cost. Painting metal is easy by comparison. The choice of paints and associated materials is very specific to the fabric system used.

You should consider covering the entire airplane if you're going to be doing the wings. If the wings need new fabric, then in all liklihood, the entire airplane needs new fabric.

If you'll be painting new covered wings, the fuselage and tailfeathers will likely look a little odd. If you're getting an airplane with a metal fuselage but fabric wings (eg Cessna 120), this isn't so much an issue. However, with a Chief or Scout, the whole airplane needs a'doin.

I should also add that you can purchase pre-sewn wing sleeves to cover wings, from places like Wag Aero. This simplifies things a bit; the sleeves are basically a presewn fabric cover that goes over the wing in it's complete form. It's then either riveted, superseam'd (glued), or stitched to the ribs, and heat-shrinked (shrunk?). The sleeves are relatively inexpensive, but you still require all the prep, materials, etc...so the cost can be a bit deceptive.

As for gaining experience (time building is a concept that you'd do well to move away from; build experience, not time), an air-knocker is as good as anything. It will teach you things that you can't learn any other way, and those things will come back to help you later in your carrer. Anything you can learn isn't wasted.

There's nothing wrong with flying an airplane with no electrical system. It will teach you to think for yourself, something that is also becomming a dying art in aviation today. Have a ball. You'll be hard pressed not to!

 

[flydog]

Try closer to 10k to recover wings and 18-25k for the entire airplane. Those are the quotes I received for my Champ. The materials alone to recover the airplane are around $3,000. The typical labor on a recover job is 300-500 hrs depending on what they find underneath. I recovered my own airplane and know other people that have and the average labor time was over 400 hrs. It takes me a good part of an hour to stitch around a rib and a Champ has about 40 of them no to mention the rest of the airplane. Most the time in recovering is spent fixing loose nails, corrosion, replacing rotten wood, corroded tubing, etc. A mechanic cant simply strip old fabric and cover over damage. It needs to fixed. Youll be surprised how many small things add up to a lot of time. If the fuselage is in poor shape and seriously corroded it may need to be sandblasted, repaired and powder coated or repainted with epoxy that is compatible with the covering materials. The actual covering is about 25% of the job. Stripping, repairing and prep is 75%. Depending on how nice a finish you want you can spend up to 100 hrs just sanding the 7 coats it typically takes to finish an airplane in dope or Stits.

Also dont forget that to do the job the entire airplane needs to be disassembled. This includes engine, interior, everything. Then it is covered, painted through silver and base color, reassembled, taped off for the markings and stripes and then disassembled again for final painting. Its a huge job. I dont know anyone that can disassemble and reassemble an airplane in under 50 hrs and thats pushing it.

I dont recommend just recovering the wings. There will be no increase in the resale value and any prospective buyers will automatically suspect the fuselage fabric.

I also dont advise anyone buying an airplane that needs new fabric. You can shop airplanes with new fabric and airplanes with 20 yr old fabric and the price difference is less than 5k. The best thing to do when your airplane needs fabric is sell it. Once you spend 20k and 3 months recovering it the increase in resale value is nil. A Chief is worth 20k tops regardless of wether the fabric is new or old. If it needs recovering you can probably still get 12-15k for it. Look around. You can buy a fully restored Champ or Cub for 35k. It will cost you 15k to buy a crappy runout one like the one I had and youll spend 40k making it new again. Not a good investment.

Let the retired EAA guys spend their time and pension money on restoring old airplanes and instead buy them ready to fly. I never met an airplane project that turned a profit.

 

[avbug]

If you know what you're looking for, how to do the work, and understand the market a bit, you can certainly turn a profit. It's done all the time.

Rib stitching is done very rarely any more. Usually only by purists or those who want to do it to have the experience. It's usually one that they don't want to repeat again.

Eighteen grand to recover a champ is a severe gouge. I'd definitely look elsewhere. I can easily do a set of wings for twenty five hundred; all the extra goes up from there.

I wouldn't worry about nailing things back together, or driving loose nails. Nails add only weight and no strength, and are easily replaced with epoxy (the recommended method today).

 

[flydog]

Rib stitching is rarely done? How else do you keep the fabric on the wings? Rib stitching or an alternate method such as screws (on a Champ and probably the Chief) is required by FAA AC 43-13. In any case the fabric work must comply with the original type certificate or an STC and you cant just pick your own method and make modifications.

Stitching keeps the fabric from peeling off the wings in flight as the glue itself isnt strong enough. A wing has several thousand pounds of lift trying to suck the fabric off the wings in flight. On the fuselage and some tail feathers glue is adequate and stitching is not required. All new factory aircraft like the Pitts, Super Cub, Maule, etc use stitching to hold the fabric to the wings. Most certified fabric coatings such as Stitts require rib stitching to comply with the STC. Only one (HIPEC) may be glued directly to the surfaces without stitching but not on aerobatic aircraft or aircraft with high wing loadings.

Also per AC 43-13 epoxy adhesives are not approved by the FAA for use on certified aircraft. In any case you cant glue an aluminum leading edge on a wooden wing because it will not allow for expansion and contraction as nails do. This is why the nails eventully work themselves out after years of flying. If you glue a dissimilar material like wood and metal the joint is likely to crack.

 

[avbug]

AC 43.13 doesn't discourage the use of epoxies. In fact, if you read it, it specifically states the following about epoxy adhesives:

"(6) Epoxy adhesives are a two-part synthetic resin product, and are acceptable providing they meet the requirements of paragraph 1-4a. Many new epoxy resin systems appear to have excellent working properties. They have been found to be much less critical of joint quality and clamping pressure. They penetrate well into wood and plywood. However, joint durability in the presence of elevated temperature or moisture is inadequate in many epoxies. The epoxy adhesives generally consist of a resin and a hardener that are mixed together in the proportions specified by the manufacturer. Depending on the type of epoxy, pot life may vary from a few minutes to an hour. Cure times vary between products. "

I'm not sure where youv'e been for the past 30-40 years in the aircraft maintenance arena, but epoxies have been used to bond materials of most types, in most facets of aviation for some time now. Some aircraft are entirely bonded structures, including some metal structures where epoxy has replaced traditional riveting.

Many systems no longer use rib stitching. Many use rivets, screws, or in some cases, simply adhesive such as Superseam. You may or may not be aware that in many cases, the rib stitching deteriorates or is eaten away by mice within a year or two after covering the structure. Same for rib lacing cord. Some aircraft use strips bonded over the rib above the fabric, which is then covered with pinked strips. In any case, there are many alternatives, and in very few cases is rib stitching used any more.

Several thousand pounds of lift trying to "suck" the fabric off the wing? No, about an ounceor two per square inch. But nice try. Simply because the airplane weighs that amount doesn't mean that there is that much "suction" on the upper surface of the wing; it just ain't so. The airplane is lifted from beneath, not "sucked" from above.

All new aircraft do not use rib stitching, but most use screws, or rivets. Some use stitching but again, it's a dying art, and has been for many years.

Fabric work does not need to comply with the origional type certificate; it may comply with an approved alternate process. In any case, many origional installations weren't rib stitched; many used alternate forms of mechanical fasteners.

You can't just make modifications willy-nilly, but then you need to be a mechanic to be doing this work anyway; or be under the supervision of one. It's easy enough to get a field approval to do just about anything, including put alternate coverings on a structure.

None of the covering systems specifically call out stitching, but instead allow for the use of various alternate fasteners or fastening systems as appropriate. While rib stitching is traditional, it's hardly done any more.

You really need to revisit that eighteen grand for a recover job...you're getting ripped off in a very big way.

 

[flydog]

I guess I should throw my engineering degree in the trash and forget everything I learned in the 2 yrs of college level aerodynamics I took. This is the first time I have heard that airplanes are lifted from below. Lift is created mostly from difference in pressure between the top and bottom of an airfoil due to faster flow over the top surface. This creates negative pressure, vaccum, lift, whatever you want to call it in laymans terms. There is no pushing from below although a small percentage (5%) of lift comes from ram impact of relative wind on the bottom of the wing.

Avbug maybe you need to crack open some basic aerodynamics books and learn about theory of lift.

As far as rib stitching being a lost art I dont know where this thinking is coming from. Stitching is easy but time consuming, there are no screws or staples to work loose or corrode, and it does not penetrate the ribs like screws and staples which also cannot be used on wooden ribs. In any case some time of fastening of the cloth to the ribs is required to keep it from coming off in flight. If it was a lost art it wouldnt be the primary method discussed in AC 43-13.

As far as your reference to epoxies in AC 43-13. This paragraph is correctly quoted. However none of the epoxies currently available meet the conditions required in paragraphs 1-4a as the USFPL has never conducted certification testing. Since wooden aircraft construction is rarely used the FAA and USFPL have no interest in spending money to inspect and certify epoxies for this type of use. Until they do the use of epoxies is relegated to experimental aircraft. This doesnt include of course resins used in composite aircraft construction which meet the requirements of AC 43-13 and are not suitable for use on wooden structures. As a matter of clarification epoxies for wood, metal, and composites are each of a different formulation and cant be interchanged for aicraft structural use. Although there are many epoxies certified for metal and composite use there are none available for use on wood in certified aircraft.

 

[A Squared]

>>>>> All new factory aircraft like the Pitts, Super Cub, Maule, etc use stitching to hold the fabric to the wings.


Hmmm, as far as I know, new Maules have aluminum skinned wings. I'd be willing to bet that they don't rib stitch the aluminum on.

I do know for a fact that my Citabria has the fabric pop rivited onto the ribs (original fabric). I believe that the currently manufactured citabrias are built this way also.


It's a good idea to be a little cautious when making all inclusive generalizations.


regards

 

[Steve]

I have decided not to mess with the old chief, as I prefer to fly more than work on the plane and don't want to give every penny I have to have the $8,000 chief recovered. I will be buying a PA-15 Vagabond instead which was covered 5 years ago and hangered since. The only problem is that it only has pilot side controls. Anyone have an opinion on the Vagabond?

 

[avbug]

Flydog,

I don't know where you got your degree, but perhaps you ought to get your money back. An engineering degree doesn't make you an aircraft mechanic, which is a dedicated study unto itself (mechanics and engineers dont' generally get along, but you already know that).

I'm surprised that they made you take an entire two years of dedicated study on aerodynamics while getting your engineering degree. That must be some degree.

The Forest Products Laboratory doesn't need to approve a glue, nor evaluate a glue, for it to be used on an aircraft structure. That has nothing to do with FAA approval. Being quite the airplane mechanic and wood expert, of course you know that it's up to the mechanic performing the work to certify that the wood is acceptable and meets FAA guidelines, and those of the aircraft manufacturer. You of course also know that woodwork on aircraft is very much an art, and only partially science.

In fact, you'll find that 43.13 in chapter 1 makes the following statement regarding the selection of wood and products to be used with wood: "Quality of Wood. All wood and plywood used in the repair of aircraft structures should be of aircraft quality (reference Army Navy Commerce Department Bulletin ANC-19, Wood Aircraft Inspection and Fabrication). Table 1-1 lists some permissible variations in characteristics and properties of aircraft wood. However, selection and approval of woodstock for aircraft structural use are specialized skills and should be done by personnel who are thoroughly familiar with inspection criteria and methods."

As for the FAA's treatment of adhesives on wood certificated structures, the following (also from AC 43.13 1A-2B) applies:

1-4. ADHESIVES. Because of the critical role played by adhesives in aircraft structure, the mechanic must employ only those types of adhesives that meet all of the performance requirements necessary for use in certificated civil aircraft. Use each product strictly in accordance with the aircraft and adhesive manufacturer’s instructions.

a. Adhesives acceptable to the FAA can be identified in the following ways:

(1) Refer to the aircraft maintenance or repair manual for specific instructions on acceptable adhesive selection for use on that type aircraft.

(2) Adhesives meeting the requirements of a Military Specification (Mil Spec), Aerospace Material Specification (AMS), or Technical Standard Order (TSO) for wooden aircraft structures are satisfactory providing they are found to be compatible with existing structural materials in the aircraft and the fabrication methods to be used in the repair.

This is the first time that you've heard airplanes are lifted from below? Wow. Let me know where you are, and we can get you into a private pilot ground school in the near future, so that you don't get left out. Unbelievable.

As an example, an average light airplane experiences about 2 ounces of lift, or "suck," in your engineering parlance, per square inch to create lift. Lift isn't created by this, however. Lift produced by the wing is proportional to the mass of airflow deflected by the wing, and to the vector imparted to that air.

If suction atop a wing were the cause of lift, we could simply put little "suckers" on top of the wing to create reduced pressure, and off we'd go, sans airspeed. Perhaps little nozzles dispersing lower pressure warm air, or something wonderful. However, it doesn't work like that. Dynamic pressure from beneath the wing, separated by a slightly reduced pressure above the wing, accounts for lift, and is measured by the downwash created, in accordance with Mr. Newton and his third "law."

Lift is largely created by a differential in pressure between the upper and lower surfaces of a wing, to be sure. However, it's not suction that keeps it aloft; that's a ridiculous notion. Nor is a significant amount of "suction" available (even on thick airfoil sections or those with pronounced camber). In fact, no "suction" exists, but only a slight reduction of pressure below ambient. But then as an engineering, mechanic, wood, and maintenance expert, you know this...especially after two years of dedicated college level aerodynamics study, right?

At a given loading and airspeed, an increase in angle of attack will produce a bigger pressure differential between the upper and lower surfaces of an airfoil. However, that doesn't mean that the airplane is being sucked into the air, nor is there a greater tendency to pull the fabric from the wings of an airplane when AoA is increased. During an increase in AoA, the pressure reduction from ambient does change slightly above the wing. However, the dynamic pressure and exposed area of the wing on the underside creates a larger pressure differential, and a greater amount of downwash.

I have no desire to debate aerodynamics here; but rest assured that airplanes aren't sucked into the sky. It just doesn't happen. The closest that this could be said to occur would be helicopters, which don't fly, nor are they sucked, but rather beat the atmosphere into tragic and temporary submission.

I'm in the process of building an airplane right now that doesn't even call for rib stitching (though I'll do it, out of habit and religious conviction). It's glued on...dope or superseam (for the Ceconite sinners out there). That's it. Many aircraft are just so.

I'm guessing your not a mechanic; certainly not an airframe mechanic. I am, as well as an inspector and even a counselor for EAA. I also have limited prior experience as a rodeo clown, can ride a unicycle, and juggle most small objects with aplomb. I suppose throwing out credentials such as an engineering degree changes the facts...but not the fact that an engineering degree doesn't make you an airframe mechanic, nor expert, nor does it provide you the experience to work on airplanes. College just doesn't do that...some things need to be learned the old fashioned way, don't they?

If you're really going to shell out eighteen grand to recover a fabric airplane, I'm going to go out on a limb and submit that the wrong subjects were covered in school; they omitted the really important subjects like common sense, basic economics, and the ability to determine when you're being taken to the cleaners ("Lock, stock, and barrell, 101, I believe). That's purely supposition; my education came in the field and what I know of a classroom only occured when watching television programs; I am an uneducated person.

It's a good thing you're not a mechanic, because with the understanding and dogged advocacy you've pursued on inaccuracies would make your work a hazard. Before you quote 43.13 or any other common-use industry reference, go read it, then put in the effort and long study required to obtain your mechanic certification...then advise others on these subjects.

"If it was a lost art it wouldnt be the primary method discussed in AC 43-13. "

AC 43.13 1B-2A isn't regulatory, and it isn't "the" method to be used. It's common industry practices that are acceptable when no other method is used. The Seine knot, for example, is the knot to be used when rib stitching, if no other knot is given, or the type of knot is unknown (such as when restoring a vintage aircraft). This doesn't mean that rib stitching with the seine knot is the recomended method of attaching fabric; not so at all. Chapter 2, Section 1 also covers the use of screws, rivets, or single-wire metal clips to secure the fabric to the wing.

---Steve, for eight grand, I'll come get the airplane myself. Other than needing a little recover, how's the rest of it?

 

[cougar6903]

Besides the recovering the Chief looks good. The fuselage was recovered 10 years. Its a 1946 model with 1500 TT and 400 smoh on the 65 HP lycoming. Is there any big difference between the 65HP lycoming and continental's that were put in the Piper Vagabonds? Are arts available for both? Does one have a better history record over the other? Any opinions on the Vagabond from Avbug or anyone else? I would love to be able to purchase a Piper J-3 like the one I did my tailwheel training I but they are all out of my price range.

Avbug, your expertise and insight is greatly appreciated.

 

[avbug]

I'm sorry; I don't have much to offer on the vagabond. I know that you can get parts, and a lot of current aftermarket stuff for it. You can get a kit to produce a copy of it, in fact (wag aero's wagabond).

On the A65 vs. the C65 engines, I don't think there's much difference between the two. Neither engine is taxed particularly hard, both are reasonably robust little engines, and the main differences are those of preference rather than reliability or ability.

You can get the continental engine reasonably cheap, and they're still rather plentiful. The older lycomings aren't as much so, and I think you'll find that the cost of parts is probably a bit higher on the average. You likely won't need much in the way of parts, however, and what you do need should be readily available.

If you're looking at an airplane or parts, a quick way to get a rough pulse on the industry at large is to grab a curent copy of Trade A Plane and peruse the classifieds. You'll get a quick feel for engine and parts costs, as well as a rough comparison of airplanes on the open market. You can also make a quick comparison of other Vagabonds for sale.

I'd check into the Short Wing Piper Club (220 Main, Halstead, KS 67056; (316) 835-3650). I don't have the URL off hand, but someone will post it. Contacts through the club may be able to get you in touch with someone who is very familiar with that airplane, who can give you some good specific insights as to what to look for, what to avoid, and all the details that are good to know before you buy. Talk to as many owners as you can, and get all the info you can before you buy. Sorry I couldn't be of more help, but good luck!

 

[SATCFI]

www.shortwing.org

 

[TurboS7]

We did a J-3 cub in my hangar a few years ago. We had four A+P's pitch in and do all the work myself included. We even had our wives at the hangar helping with the stitching, they had a lot of fun. The total cost ran around 2 grand for all the stuff and that was in '87. Great experience.

 

[flydog]

Avbug

You have proven that you are nothing but hot air.

Thus far you have claimed to be

1. A tanker pilot
2. A skydiver
3. An A&P mechanic
4. An expert on jet engines
5. A self proclaimed guru of the FARs
6. A crime lab technician
7. An ag pilot
8. An expert on radial engines
9. An expert on fabric covered aircraft
10. A subject matter expert on aviation law
11. A banner tow pilot
12. A corporate jet pilot
13. You claim you have flown every airplane
14. You claim to have every rating

Next thing you know you’ll be showing us your ALPA card and commenting on the RJ dilemma. Is there anything you haven’t done? How about the SR-71. Every fly that one?

In going through your posts of the last few months I see that currently you are not only engaged in aerial firefighting as a career but you also have time to work as an A&P, rebuild an airplane, go skydiving, and as if that wouldn’t take up enough of a person’s time you still find a way to log on to this message board EVERY DAY and post an average of 4 times EVERY SINGLE DAY. You must have a hard time getting your 10 hrs rest every night.

Not only that but you also seem to spend most of your day researching and regurgitating FARs and obscure references to make yourself seem credible. It doesn’t take a genius to vomit up all the info you post here. Just someone with a lot of time on their hands and a copy of the FARs.

In fact you are probably some 18 yr old punk pilot wannabe working line service down at Signature that sits around surfing Flightinfo.Com and all the neat aviation message boards all day long with your collection of aviation books trying to prove you are the aviator you are not.

Run a search on this guy’s posts. It’s a fairy tale no one has lived out in real life. Avbug is Lindbergh, Chuck Yeager, Jimmy Doolittle, and John Glenn all in one.

As far as I am concerned he is full of B.S.

Write your book Avbug. It will be #1 Fiction on the NY Times bestseller list

 

[avbug]

Here we go again. Can't provide a reasonable reply germain to the topic at hand, we attack avbug. Good substitute for an intelligent conversation, I guess.

Yes, I'm a tanker pilot. The season is over. I got in 40 skydives during the season this year, as the drop zone was 100 yards from the tanker base, and I managed to sneak a few hop & pops during the day, and some freefly during the evening and early morning.

I've always been a mechanic, in conjunction with my flying. That includes prior part time experience, as well as several years of full time experience in a repair station that worked on turbojets, radial piston, turboprops, and flat piston engines, as well as performing all shop and mx functions. Everything. I was also an inspector for that repair station. Currently I do occasional work on light aircraft for fun and currency.

I have a RV-6 under construction (going very slow), and also a Sorrell SNS-2 Guppy, which is also coming along very slowly. I am a technical counselor and flight advisor for EAA.

I never claimed to be an expert on turbojet engines. As a pilot and mechanic, and instructor, it stands to reason that I should have some basic clue as to the maintenance and operation of the equipment I fly, shouldn't I? Sorry to know what the hell I'm talkign about. I'll shoot for more ignorance in the future.

I read the CFR (the FAR's are the Federal Aquisition Regulations, regulated by the General Services Administration) and post it. If you don't like what you read, then complain to the FAA. Nothing but the facts, kiddo. I post legal interpretations and past the regulations...doesn't make me a guru, and I'm sure you have the intelligence to look it up for yourself. I don't see it as a crime to take an interest in my profession. Morevoer, I use web sites such as this to force me to study. You have full freedom to look up the answers yourself and post them...that's what I do. You're most likely capable of doing the same, I'd imagine.

I have no idea where the crime lab tech garbage came from. I never worked in a crime lab.

My first commercial flying job was ag work; I attended a crop dusting school right after I graduated high school, and went to work in an Ag Truck in Kansas. My background is agricultural.

I never proclaimed myself an expert on radial engines. However, I have a reasonable amount of time flying behind them, and a LOT of time working on them. I love radial engines; always have, always will. Then again, I like to get dirty, I like the smell of avgas, and I'm not averse to safety wire cuts and oil.

As for fabric, what can I say? I'm a mechanic, and my background includes a lot of flying in old airplanes.

Aviation law? See the FAR comments. If you dont' understand aviation law, you don't belong in the business...it's your livlihood. Did I ever proclaim myself an expert on anything, let alone aviation law? Nope. You keep throwing these things out, but have nothing accurate or intelligent to say about them. Why is that??

I started and operated a banner business. I did the initial tows for the FAA, arranged the aircraft and equipment, checked out other pilots, sold the banner tows, and flew most of them. I even proposed to a girl at the time with a banner I was towing (she said yes).

Not only did I fly corporate, but was also a director of maintenance for a corporate department. My corporate career was rather short lived, matching the life of the department. Like many corporate departments, it was going great one day, and shut down the next.

I won't claim to have flown everything, but I'm not going to sit down and take up bandwidth (or whatever you call it) with a litany of what I've had the opportunity to tool around in. Nor is it particularly relevant. I'll discuss certain types when the specific need arises or the topic comes up, but hours and types and so on are meaningless. No matter how much experience you have, the only hour that counts is the last one you flew...or if you happen to be reading this in the air, the one you're flying right now.

I average 3-4 hours of sleep, not ten. Does anybody get ten hours of sleep??

You'll note that I haven't made a single comment on the RJ issues, nor do I intend to. Leave me well clear of that.

I touched a SR71 once. Does that count?

Nothing in any post I have ever made is falsified, exaggerated, or embellished. Nor should it be. Nor do I have any need to explain myself to someone who can't maintain an intelligent conversation on the most simple of subjects. If you care to converse on any of these subjects, or if you have any experience that will make that conversation meaningful, I'm all ears.

Aside from the other things mentioned, you forgot to attack my ground fire experience, EMT expeience, air ambulance experience, skydiving accident, pet cat, government work, glider towing, stable-mucking career, charter, grand canyon time, love for raw onions, or my one winter working in a rubber stamp factory. After all, there's so much material for you to work with, seeing as you've given up on the thread subject matter at hand.

Several other posters recently started threads to attack avbug, apparently out of a lack of anyting better to do. Perhaps you'd best start your own and get a lynch mob together; seems to be a good time for it, and the board will be plugged up with 09-11 posts in a day or so here. Get it in while the getting's good. Good enough?

I still submit that if you pay eighteen grand to recover your airplane, you're in need of some serious support. It's your cash, have a ball.

Incidentally, what exactly is your claim to fame? I haven't got one, but I'd love to hear from someone so far from a glass house that he has nothing better to do than throw stones. Tell me about yourself; it's only fair now that you're in the sharing mood. What makes ya shine, mate??

 

[Rvrrat]

I'll shoot for more ignorance in the future.

Is that a new target at the arcade shooting gallery??

I average 3-4 hours of sleep, not ten. Does anybody get ten hours of sleep??

Guilty. I am seriously attempting to recover a number of those naps my mother says I plainly rejected as a youngster.

Several other posters recently started threads to attack avbug, apparently out of a lack of anyting better to do.

Perhaps these folks insist on proving the validity of the old axe "Pride goeth before the fall." or simply do not know how to wear green well. Looking forward to hearing how the RV wrung out.

 

[TurboS7]

This is bs. I believe every word that avbug says. I too am an A+P with an inspection authorization. Flying came naturally to me I had to work hard for my A+P, the maint. part of aviation is a real challange for me. I am not the greatest mechanic but I can hold my own. I have worked on CJ610's taking them all the way down and building them up. I used to own an engine shop the rebuilt IO-520's and 540's and I still have a garage full of tools to prove it. I have flown fish off beaches, landed on little jungle strips and the list goes on and on.............The bottom line is that when you are in aviation, especially general aviation you get a lot of neat experience. Avbug is just a great aviation buff, I respect that. As for all the rules etc. they come right off a CD Rom. Avbug has said that on numerous occasions. My wife is calling be for breakfast but I will defend avbug as he is just one of a breed that I am afraid does not exist in this upcoming generation of pilot's. Of course the kind of guys we are talking about right now would be back in a hangar somewhere tinkering with a radial or fixing the Aeronca that one of the new generation pilot's just ground looped. Touche.