Reviving a hangar queen?

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
240
Depends on your financial status. You still have to get the pilot license, and that costs a bunch already.
I don’t understand at all what’s going on.
I think I ask a specific question and it seems to me that you use it as a platform to discuss a unrelated subject.

How is the cost of learning to fly related to the cost of aircraft maintenance ?
 

Angusnofangus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2015
Messages
412
Location
Victoria, Canada
I think it might be airworthy already. I saw it and took some pictures that are lost in my computer somewhere. The museum lady wouldn't let me sit in it. It had been at least 35 years since I'd sat in mine.
I think that an annual would be all it takes to make it flyable. I am a member of the museum and go often, and I don't think it has been fired up for a couple of years.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
10,830
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
Could you point that part of the constitution out to me ?
You might find this interesting: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1606&context=wmborj

Among the comments there:

“What the Constitution, as a whole, embodies is a well-regulated republican society or government. Its true revolutionary principle is that its structure is based on the con- sent of the people, reserving to government “the right, as well as the necessity of hold- ing every [person] accountable to the community, for such parts of [their] conduct by which the public welfare appears to be injured or dishonored, and for which no legal redress can be obtained.”290 Judge David Campbell articulated the legal principle best before an Ohio grand jury:
Some men may exclaim, they ought not to be restrained from doing what they please in a free government: But, let them know, that, in a well regulated society, every individual is only at liberty to do what is most conformable to his inclination and his interest, provided it be not inconsistent with the properties and liberties of others.”

Earlier HBA discussion on this general topic here Flight Helmets?


BJC
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
5,241
I don’t understand at all what’s going on.
I think I ask a specific question and it seems to me that you use it as a platform to discuss a unrelated subject.

How is the cost of learning to fly related to the cost of aircraft maintenance ?
You're strange. You come to us for advice and then diss everything we tell you. Everything. You're just trolling.

The cost of learning to fly can reduce your finances to the point you can't afford to buy and own an airplane.

The Federal Aviation Regulations are extensive and outline what you can and cannot do. Violate them and find yourself in court. Find your license revoked, as if you never had one, and not eligible for another. Face a big fine or jail time. Kill someone and live with the remorse the rest of your life.

Be teachable or find another pursuit.
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
240
Dan I think you’re a knowledgeable person
But you tend answer my questions By going off topic to tell me what you think I don’t know.
Yes there’s a lot of things I don’t know.
There’s a lot of things I don’t care about
And your comments seem to be kind a little digs.
I ask what kind of a plane has imexpensive maintenance and you answer that I should learn to fly and I probably can’t afford after I do.
It’s not exactly trolling but it’s insulting and disruptive to the continuity Of the answer.
 
Last edited:

Little Scrapper

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,658
Location
Wisconsin
Let’s not let this get off the rails because it’s a neat thread. It would be nice to keep this going.
 

Little Scrapper

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,658
Location
Wisconsin
I’ll give what seems to be a unpopular opinion, not here but in the general population.

Affordability is subjective. If more people spend more time fostering good relationships with the right people they would be amazed at how affordable this can all be. Everything from flight training to building to learning to tools etc. Even material. It also requires you to sacrifice a little. What are you willing to sacrifice for this? Write it down. Do it.

Someone else’s income and financial situation is irrelevant to me. If I see someone who wants something and they are driven and focus on the right things they most certainly get what they want. We all get what we want in life, what we really focus on.

There’s thousands of people willing to help, it’s endless. There’s A&P’s that will help, builders that will help etc.

The biggest problem is most people don’t decide. They wander and pander. If you decide you want to affordably own a Luscombe for example, you most certainly can. There’s a path to this. It starts with making up your mind and chasing down those relationships.

I know, boring answer and not what anyone wants to hear but it’s true. My whole life has been about this and it always works. It’s like a universal law of sorts.

So, to the OP. Decide what you want. Everyone will help you get it.
 
Last edited:

gtae07

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
1,937
Location
Savannah, Georgia
I think there are a couple of issues here that we’re talking past each other about. They’re related issues that I’ve personally noted a while back and which I think are both tied to the FAA’s “all or nothing” stance; the first is the qualifications required to work on aircraft, and the second is the requirements imposed on the aircraft itself.

Outside of the hardcore libertarian/anarcho-capitalist arguments, you won’t find a lot of opposition to the government tightly regulating the certification and maintenance of aircraft being used to carry paying cargo and/or members of the uninformed general public. Rigorous testing of the design is required, and the aircraft must be maintained by people with specific and extensive training. Even those of us in the business who have a few quibbles with the way the FAA does things won’t argue the general principle for these aircraft.

At the other end of this, at least in US jurisdiction, we have homebuilts, where (almost) anything goes, and you are legally free to build your airplane with materials from the dollar store and an engine from LKQ, and have it maintained by your neighbor’s dog and the bum off the streetcorner—the stipulations being, of course, that you have to do some modicum of testing before taking anyone else with you, that those people are at least slightly more informed (see the “passenger warning” placard), and you can’t carry people or stuff for hire. There’s also the unwritten stipulation that you’re free to go kill yourself through poor design, build, and maintenance practice.

The problem we run into (IMO) is the in-between category—certified light aircraft, and the requirements for maintaining them. As these aircraft are certified, they are legally required to be maintained in strict conformance to approved type design by approved, trained individuals. Again, you will find few objections to this when such aircraft are being used for commercial operations and/or carrying members of the general uninformed public. But when you get to such aircraft held in private hands, being flown solely by their owners for personal pleasure and recreation, it starts to get a little murkier. Legally, the aircraft still must be maintained in strict conformance to approved type design, and the maintenance must be performed by designated, trained individuals. But why? Why must all the strictures of a commercial aircraft be imposed on an aircraft used only for the personal pleasure of its owner? And why should working only on one’s own airplane require the same qualifications as someone working on aircraft carrying hundreds of paying passengers?

I think there are two possible answers and I’m not sure which is more likely (we’ll never know; the FAA doesn’t seem to keep good records of why it decided to do things the way it has done them). First, the FAA may have long ago assumed that at some point or another, every aircraft type would probably be used for some kind of commercial service somehow, and thus all of them should be maintained that way, just in case.
The other possibility is that the FAA saw the need to more strictly regulate commercial aircraft, and wrote the regulations for them. Then, someone came along later and said “hey, we should regulate the smaller aircraft too” and in order to save on paperwork and the effort of making another set of rules, the FAA simply said “we already have a standard for aircraft, so let’s just use it for these smaller ones too”.

On the maintenance side, I think the reason there’s still just a one-size-fits-all A&P license is that back when the FAA said “we ought to require training to work on airplanes”, all airplanes were more or less the same. Sure, some were bigger, and a few had fancy radios and maybe some hydraulics, but they were all basically built from wood, steel, aluminum, and/or fabric. They were powered by piston engines ignited by magnetos, almost everything was mechanical or very basic electrical.

Now, of course, the “high end” of civil aircraft are in many ways very advanced and much different from light piston aircraft. The scope of material to be learned and practiced is much greater—and this makes sense, if you’re talking about the qualifications someone should have if they’re going to be qualified to work for pay on any aircraft, including those used for commercial services.

Unfortunately, there’s no relief or middle ground for the individual aircraft owner who wants to maintain their own aircraft and is willing to get appropriate training, but is not interested in maintaining anyone else’s aircraft, much less getting paid to do so. Sure, for flying that airplane, there’s plenty of gradation—that’s why we have Private, Commercial, and ATP licenses. But there’s no such equivalent for maintaining it; if the owner wants to do anything more than the few items laid out in the FARs, then he or she has to go through the entire A&P training on things like rotor blade tracking, thrust reverser operation, air cycle machines, rib stitching, radial engines, etc. and get qualified to work on all aircraft from blimps to helicopters to Cubs to 747s, for pay. Knowledge and training is good... but is it really necessary to learn all those things just to maintain a 50-year-old C150 that will never, ever see any kind of commercial service ever again?


Apparently, some parts of the FAA agree to an extent. If you go back to 2013 and read the Part 23 ARC’s report, you’ll find that the FAA recognizes that the requirements to maintain strict conformance to approved type design are becoming increasingly burdensome on older light aircraft, and may ironically be detrimental to safety in some ways (e.g. making it difficult to install safety-enhancing or otherwise better/more reliable equipment). Remedying some of this was the supposed aim of the Part 23 rewrite, but the effect of that has been (IMO) underwhelming.

But what’s more interesting is that there’s also a proposal in there for an “owner-maintained” category. Essentially it would allow older light aircraft to be converted to a quasi-experimental state where they would be treated mostly like E-AB aircraft, except that owners would be required to take a training class (similar to the current Light Sport Repairman classes) in order to do their own maintenance and modification. A yearly condition inspection by A&P (just like a secondhand homebuilt) would be required. (The FAA seemed inordinately concerned with providing a path to convert back to standard category but I really doubt anyone would do it) They even helpfully provided drafts of the language and changes that would be required to implement it and cited the overall safety record of the Canadian Owner-maintained category.

Predictably, this went nowhere. But talking to some EAA political wing types it looks like this proposal or something like it might finally be getting some traction within the MOSAIC initiative. If that ever comes to fruition, maybe this will be that “in-between middle ground”.




I’ll also note that the “documented experience” path is about the only realistic way for many people to obtain an A&P, especially if they are only seeking it for their own fulflillment and knowledge and/or to work on their own airplanes. I inquired with the local A&P school about their program, and it turns out they only offer classes on a Monday-to-Friday, 9-5, full-time basis (as that’s how the FAA approved their program). Besides how dumb that is for someone who may be trying to go to school while working, why is the FAA regulating and approving when the classes are taken? Does it really matter, or is this just the FAA saying “this is something we could regulate, therefore it’s something we should regulate”?
 

BBerson

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
12,986
Location
Port Townsend WA
Just to add my comment to above. There is no requirement to get any pilot training to restore an airplane.
There is no requirement to be an A&P to restore an airplane.
I got my A&P decades ago. In retrospect now, I see no use for the A&P now as an owner. Actually, I restored my Aeronca Chief without the certificate and at that time I had an IA inspect it afterward.
Even to design an airplane requires no certificates. He mentions that in Neal Willford's excellent design article series in the 2002 EAA Sport Aviation archives.

I would probably get enough flight lessons, say near solo, first. Keep learning and then visit airports and look for a project.
 
Last edited:

Little Scrapper

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,658
Location
Wisconsin
Just to add my comment to above. There is no requirement to get any pilot training to restore an airplane.
There is no requirement to be an A&P to restore an airplane.
I got my A&P decades ago. In retrospect now, I see no use for the A&P now as an owner. Actually, I restored my Aeronca Chief without the certificate and at that time I had an IA inspect it afterward.
Even to design an airplane requires no certificates. He mentions that in Neal Wilford's excellent design article series in the 2001 EAA Sport Aviation archives.

I would probably get enough flight lessons, say near solo, first. Keep learning and then visit airports and look for a project.
Sound advice!
 

Hephaestus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,560
Location
YMM
The rest of the world is waiting on owner maintenance rules to come in :)

The big issue in Canada with owner maintenance is you can't cross to the USA.

Experimental, ultralights, LSA no issue - owner maintenance - no bueno.
 

pwood66889

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
1,575
Location
Sopchoppy, Florida, USA
And I thought my screed was off base...
The US Constitution, and related ideas, should never be "settled." we must move with The Times.
We're doing a gooc job of keeping it civil...
Percy
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
5,241
The rest of the world is waiting on owner maintenance rules to come in :)

The big issue in Canada with owner maintenance is you can't cross to the USA.

Experimental, ultralights, LSA no issue - owner maintenance - no bueno.
American owners need to keep bugging the FAA to get the owner-maintenance thing done, as we have in Canada. Get a petition going or something. Cite the vast numbers of vintage airplanes that are almost impossible to keep legal because parts (with the right part numbers) aren't available anymore, while there are exactly the same parts available elsewhere, with different part numbers on them. A lot of old airplanes were full of industrial switches and fuse holders and automotive generators and alternators and regulators and wheel bearings. A lot of old airplanes were built of well-known 4130 tube and sheet and plate and Sitka Spruce. Many old airplanes had few or no model-specific castings or forgings. One of the most interesting airplanes I worked on was a Maule M4T, and I could have made any airframe part for that thing. Nothing fancy or unidentifiable at all. In fact, some mechanics know Maules as "certified homebuilts." Get into an old 172 and it's a different story. An old Cardinal and you're in real trouble.

The homebuilder builds his airplane and flies it. Who knows it better: a mechanic, or the builder? That's why the governments let the builders maintain them. An old Champ or 150 or whatever, owned by a guy who has money but has never built anything beyond an IKEA bookshelf, should NOT be permitted to do much maintainance on his certified airplane, and most mechanics would agree with that. The potential for lethal mistakes is just too great. Unfortunately, the government can't draw up regulations that differentiate between the guy who has build six boats and restored four cars, and the guy who can barely change a light bulb, so it says that maintenance (beyond the specified elementary tasks) is the responsibility of the aircraft mechanic.

We grumble about the costs and restrictions of flying and maintaining airplanes. And yet, of all the countries in the world, Canada and the US have two things we should appreciate: The opportunity to work hard and make money, and the privilege to fly an airplane. We have more freedom and affordability than any other country I can think of that way. Around 370 million people between us, out of eight billion or so, or less than 5% of the world's population, and we gripe. And some are so dissatisfied that they're quite willing to build and fly illegally. When they do that they bring the feds down on all of us all the harder. They write more rules and wrap us in more chains.

Remember that. For the vast majority of the world's people, flying is a dream that will never come true. Be thankful for what is available to you.
 

BBerson

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
12,986
Location
Port Townsend WA
Anyone can restore a Homebuilt unsupervised. The yearly inspection for flight privileges requires a certificate. (repairman or A&P)
Anyone can restore a Standard Type aircraft if supervised. The annual inspection requires an I.A certificate.
 

Mad MAC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
581
Location
Hamilton New Zealand
There is a description of a pilot observer artillery spotting in an Auster where he fly's down the road below tree high momentarily popping up above tree height to observe the fall with a pair of binoculars.

One issue with old AD's is availability of the required parts, more of an issue with more complex aircraft but don't discount it. The other one is why is it a hanger queen, a great many of the surviving C-47's seem to be slightly odd balls probably because that made they every bodies 2nd choice & kept the hours down.

I worked for an company that brought a cheap 737 for its engines as it had a rouge pressization system, they then found some suckers to take it as a freighter (they brought another 737 to provide engines for it) but the suckers got wise to it once it started conversion and dropped out, when it did get into service it had something like 30 turn backs in 6 months before they finally fixed it.
 
Last edited:

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
240
There seem to be two types of hangor queens.
The type that are in theory currently flying and need a lot of repairs Flight after flight after flight
And of course the type that is the treasured possession of somebody who never actually flies it but leaves it well pampered and heated hanger For 20 years without flying it.
Does anybody have a good alternative terms for the two different types?
 

wsimpso1

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2003
Messages
6,520
Location
Saline Michigan
OK I can build my own complete airplane out of anything I want
Yes, if it flies on an Experimental - Amateur Built certificate.

but I can’t be trusted to fix one part when I’ve already got it example of it?
For any certificated airplane design you may restore/replace if supervised by a licensed mechanic. A higher level of care is required where an airplane may be flown someday for a commercial purpose.

Billski
 
2
Top