New Champ from ACA at OSH?

Post by **joea** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 09:09

Saw something on the fAA email list that the new ACA Champ was at Oshkosh?

Anyone see it? Photos? Impressions?

Post by **bwmatz** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:47

There's an advertisement for it in the latest AOPA Pilot mag...

WWhunter · Post by **WWhunter** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 13:07

I looked at it and sat in it. It looked very nice to me. Things were in better locations to make it more user friendly. Such as the trim was on the side panel instead of over your head. Overall, it looked very nice and if I were in the market for such a plane it would be on the top of the list for choices.
Keith

jc pacquin · Post by **jc pacquin** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 16:04

HowMUCH MONEY and what did it include for that money?

Nathan K. Hammond · Post by **Nathan K. Hammond** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:36

It looked really nice. White with a couple blue stripes and that slick urethane paint. Sorry no pics though. Anybody else notice there are no rear brakes??? Appears they're trying to cut weight where ever they can.

nkh

jerrymjr · Post by **jerrymjr** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 16:21

Rear brakes = option.
And yes...it needs a diet.

The one at the show was $96K as it sat with the 396 in it.

Post by **joea** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 16:29

Jerry,

Someone on the fAA list posted a photo of a two tone Champ that had something like "the new Aeronca Champ" on the side of it. Assume that this was not the ACA plane? Got any photos of the one you guys are producing?

Joe A

Jerry Eichenberger · Post by **Jerry Eichenberger** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 17:19

Frankly, I was disappointed with it. Far too heavy, far too little cabin load with full fuel.

Look at Legend Cub:

1. Heel brakes to save weight - they're selling like hotcakes, so who thinks the Champ needs heavy toe brakes? Especially with them installed in back seat too.

2. Get rid of all of that interior upholstery and fancy seat covers in the Champ. Plain aluminum like an original 7AC would be just fine. People wear headsets now, so you don't need any soundproofing.

3. Isn't glass lighter than headliners and insulation? Go to an L-16 like configuration; lots of glass on top.

It's got to lose at least 40 pounds, maybe more, to be competitive.

Nathan K. Hammond · Post by **Nathan K. Hammond** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 17:25

Joe, No that wasn't it. The 2-tone was a 40's-50's ship that was painted up like a dealers plane from back in the day. I got hook aswell until I walked over and saw it up close. Some how he was able to park it over in the LSA mall.

nkh

jerrymjr · Post by **jerrymjr** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:57

Good thing no one ever flies a Champ over gross.

1) Heel breaks would maybe save a pound at most. Same break cylinder turned sideways with a pedal put on to eliminate the current pedal. Front and Rear Heel breaks would be a wash with front and rear toe.

2) Remember this airplane was done 2 days before the show. No time to redesign the stripped down interior. Yes, the old design would have to be changed. Not to mention we have other ideas to try out. Sheet metal might have been fine back in the 40's. However, the customer today that spends almost 100K on something would usually likes things to be pleasant to the touch. Either way, it was a Decathlon/Citabria interior tossed in for speed of construction and certification.

3) No green house = saves 2-3 pounds over WITH a green house. The brackets, hardware and thinker glass is replaced by a square of headliner material and exterior fabric...no hardware, no brackets.

Here is what it really needs:

1) A light weight APPROVED alternator. B&C has a nice 4 pound 30 Amp alternator for Continentals but its not approved. They have a few 337's but its hardly something we can use. Plane Power said it was looking like Xmas before theirs is done. For now, the Champ has a HUGE 60 amp on it...thats all that is approved.

2) Nice Interior, but stripped down in weight. A plain sheet metal interior wont do. By the time you get done putting fasterners for the sheets and painting it, you will not gain much. It would be nice if, when you rub an elbow on the side wall, that it does not need to be deburred.

3) Expect the fixed front seat to go back in. Hopefully we can change its geometry without crash testing to make it like an adjustable in the full back position.

4) The frame is basically a 7ACA from Bellanca's folly in 1971. This means the landing gear truss is stolen from the other 7's. We lightened up the tubing, but won't have it on the airplane until we get the drop tests done.

I digress, but the more time you spend messing with it, the longer it will be to market. This is not a direct competitor to the Legend Cub; let Top Cub duke it out. This is Type Certified aircraft. It has no competition, and judging my Cessna's contribution, its staying that way. After we are gone, you can still expect support for the 7EC from PMA holders and the like and the successors to the TC. Will that be so for the rest?

Jerry Eichenberger · Post by **Jerry Eichenberger** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:15

For what it's worth, in my opinion, nobody really cares if it's a type certified airplane, or "certified" under the LSA consensus standards route.

I agree that continuing manufacturer support IS a big consideration - that's why I haven't bought a European airplane yet - who knows when the shakeout will come, and which of them will survive.

If Cessna produces their LSA, it will take many of the European airplanes to lunch for that very reason - Cessna will be there down the road.

David Johnson · Post by **David Johnson** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:18

Jerry, Don't say "after we are gone". We hope to have you around for a long time......David Johnson

jerrymjr · Post by **jerrymjr** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:35

Jerry Eichenberger wrote:For what it's worth, in my opinion, nobody really cares if it's a type certified airplane, or "certified" under the LSA consensus standards route.

I am afraid you are wrong, but then its your opinion.
We are not here to steal the entire market; we are not Microsoft. That certification means a lot to a lot of people. How do I know? 7 days of yapping about it at Oshkosh. Some agree with you, but many do not. Therefore you cannot use the term 'nobody' maybe 'some people' would be better? If we only sell a dozen, then yeah...I can eat crow and blame the Oshkosh heat.

BTW, get a few insurance quotes once....

MikeB · Post by **MikeB** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 13:09

I don't know .........I certainly wish American Champion success (good Wisconsin company and probably Packer fans) but $90-95,000 is out of the price range of most folks I know, including me. On the other hand, there are those who pay big bucks for cars, motor homes and pickups and they depreciate rather quickly. Guess I was just raised in another era where you didn't spend money unless you could justify paying for it (like a house). Speaking different era: I built my house (only one I've ever owned) for slightly over $20,000 in 1969 and wondered how I would ever pay for it on a new teachers salary. I always thought cars were the worst investment (?) a person could make. Aircraft usually appreciate anyway.

Let's see.......new Champs in 1946 sold for around $1295.......hmm

.

Mike

Post by **joea** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 13:12

People are buying the new Cub and its more expensive than the ACA Champ, so the money is out there. How much is a good question but feel that there is a market for the plane.

National Aeronca Association Bulletin Board

New Champ from ACA at OSH?

New Champ from ACA at OSH?

ok......so....