Request Comments on Prospective CCM Purchase

[gusc]

I went to inspect the CCM on Monday. It is a good looking airplane with
only a couple of small cracked and peeling places on the vertical fin. I
didn't fly it because I wanted to devote the time I had to looking it over and going through the records.

There are no records prior to '81 when it was converted to a CCM w/C-90F, wing tanks (23 gal total) and new Stitts cover. Total aircraft time unknown.

The Prop is a Sensenich 76AK-2-42. think the -2 means it was shortened 2" and -42 the new pitch, not sure about that though. That would make it a climb prop which makes no sense with 100 HP.

The newly Majored O-200A (Buzz Wagner STC) was installed in '90 at
engine TT2360. In '92 a starter and generator were installed. All cylinders
have had Exh valve guide cleaning or reaming since MOH, all at different
times.

An Auto Fuel STC was installed in '96.

In '01 24 under wing spar inspection covers were installed IAW AD 00-25-02 and the inspection appears to have been thorough. However, the subsequent inspections don't read to me as though much was done, just my gut feeling after reading the logs.

I like having the mixture control and pull starter. I like the efficient metal
prop although I love wood props. However, the price paid is reduced
payload. Of course the fuel tanks don'talways need to be filled and so far I have no plans for any lengthy XCs.

It had new main gear tires mounted in '04.

In '05 it got new spark plugs (UREM40E) and a new left magneto p/n4301.

It has a solid tire Scott tail wheel. I am not a fan of solid rubber tail wheels but this tail is so light it may be ok.

Last but not least is the horrible trim. It is all white except these weird red
and blue decreasing size (Front to back) rectangles and two wide,
upsweeping red stripes on the side of the fuselage. Thankfully none of that was done to the wing. The rectangles look as if they were lifted directly from a Cessna dealers sign, really awful and the red stripes look like Piper. I should have made a photo. I've never seen trim like this.

My only real concerns are the age of the cover and the wing spar.
Otherwise I would have bought it yesterday.

Please comment on each and every item as desired. I would prefer
comments from those with actual experience in these areas if possible.

Thanks,

Gus Causbie

[k. mielke]

it sounds like a very nice plane {minus paint} i have a 7 ccm and it was recovered in 85 but painted with imron, hard and brittle but protects the fabric very well, i have no worries about the fabric, I am spinning the same prop and would not chane it although i am in alaska and most of my flying is bush type 600 to 800 ft strips I still cruze at 95 with the 8.50x6 wheels i would definitly change to a 3200 tail wheel it will help with control on rough strips[and ease the stress on frame] theres my 2 cents
if you are worried about the fabric you could do a punch test

[Paul Agaliotis]

Gus,
I have to agree with the first post. From what you discribe it doesn,t sound too bad. I would suggest having the AI you choose to look at it. Each inspector has his own"comfort" level. Make sure he understands tube and fabic aircraft. If the airplane has been hangared, the covering should pass. Do a punch test to be sure.
I had a customer sell his 7EC a year ago, it similar condition for 18,500, which I thought was fair.
This is a good model. It will carry a good payload and has good range.
We should have somebody on the list that is close to you to help out.
Paul

[joea]

it sounds like a very nice plane {minus paint} i have a 7 ccm and it was recovered in 85 but painted with imron, hard and brittle but protects the fabric very well, i have no worries about the fabric, I am spinning the same prop and would not chane it although i am in alaska and most of my flying is bush type 600 to 800 ft strips I still cruze at 95 with the 8.50x6 wheels i would definitly change to a 3200 tail wheel it will help with control on rough strips[and ease the stress on frame] theres my 2 cents
if you are worried about the fabric you could do a punch test

Gus,

Do a punch test on any fabric airplane you are looking at, but as well you need someone who really knows tube and fabric airplanes to inspect the known rust areas on Champs. The tail cone area and rudder post are well known trouble areas on any Aeronca, so please inspect this area very well.

Will post more later,

Joe A

[Dennis]

Gus, after you get your Champ, drop down to Mtn. View and look at the Champ I am building. The fuselage minus cowling is finished, the boot cowling is ready for top coat today. One wing is on the rebuild table (where it has been for 6 months).

Dennis

[Jon B.]

Is that prop legal on an O-200? That's a standard C-90 length and pitch. I have that one (in 44 pitch) on my C-90-12.

Jon

[Jay]

gusc,

You indicated that the engine was majored at TT 2360 (if I am understanding your post) in 1990. You do not indicate what the TT of the engine is now - how many hours since major? Having to have all 4 of the exhaust guides cleaned or reamed since the major was completed is of some concern. That's a partial top overhaul on all cylinders in how many hours of operation? Just as a point of comparison, I ran the maintenance department of a very large flying club that was operating 16 Cessna 150's or 152's with the O-200 engine. We generally got between 3400 and 3600 hours on an engine between overhauls and NEVER had to top a cylinder. I would be concerned and spend a bit more time looking into that.

I would also be concerned about the loss of the log books. I know it happens and lots of people buy airplanes that have missing logs but for me it is a red flag. There are 1 or 2 owners in the world that would prefer to have "missing logs" than to show a prospective owner the accident or maintenance history of the airplane. First place to go is the FAA aircraft records section in Okalahoma City. You can buy (about $10.00) a copy of the history of the airplane that they have on record. All 337's that have been filed for major repairs or alterations as well as a history of ownership will be included. This is actually something basic that you should do before buying any airplane.

As a suggestion - I would find the IA that you want to work with and that will be taking care of the maintenance on the airplane should you buy it. As has been suggested, make sure he is conversant with tube and fabric airplanes and preferably with experience on Champs. Pay him to do a full annual inspection on the airplane - take everything apart and look at everything. Go into all the airplane records and make sure of the conformaty and have him do his own complete AD search and inspection for actual compliance. I can't tell you how many times I have worked on an airplane that showed compliance with a one-time AD and found that someone had changed the part with one where the AD had not been complied with. As has also been suggested, have the IA do fabric punch tests (in several areas) and do the spar inspection.

Make a deal with the seller that if the airplane passes the annual you will buy the airplane for the agreed price less the cost of the inspection. If the airplane fails, you pay for the inspection but he doesn't get it signed off in his logs. You wind up with an airplane with a brand new annual inspection and one that you are sure of instead of "pretty sure of".

Don't waste your money on a "pre-purchase" inspection. It doesn't go into the logs, it isn't worth anything and if the IA finds something major 2 months down the road when it needs an annual it's your problem, not his.

[Dennis]

Gus, I have Buzz's STC for the 0-200. It specs the McCauley 6948 but I can't remember if it specs other props. If it is an issue for you, I will check the STC.

Dennis

[Dennis]

Gus, I checked the 0-200 STC. Buzz calls out four props, three McCauley and one Sensenich. The STC reads as follows:

"Sensenich M69CK-0 (Try 69" x 50 pitch for clim and 69" x 52 pitch for Cruise). Due to variations of engine condition and power and different aircraft installations it may be necesary to repitch the propellor to gain the correct static RPM. Maximum of 2750 RPM RED LINE must be checked on take off and in the air."

Dennis

[Jay]

Gus,

Based on the information that Dennis just provided, the prop is not approved on the airplane per the STC. If your IA is any good, (s)he is going to spot that and won't sign off an annual. In point of fact, even if there is a current annual in the log book, the aircraft is unairworthy since it is not in conformity.

It is possible that the prop is listed on the Type Certificate for the O-200. If so, you may be able to get someone in your FSDO to sign off on a 337 allowing that engine/prop combination on your airframe. That is generally an uphill battle but hey, miracles do happen.

It is also possible that somewhere in the airplane paperwork, a 337 has already been approved for that prop - in which case this particular nightmare is over.

Hopefully, this is giving you the idea that my earlier suggestion of a qualified IA doing a thourough annual inspection would be a pretty good idea. This is the kind of stuff that can cost you a whole bunch of money you never expected to spend.

[jim pacquin]

it sounds like you don't like the color. That would do it for me, especially if its really weird and it sounds like that. Its a big investment for the time your going to fly it so why fly something you seem to consider ugly? As for the horse power...an 85 champ, STRIPPED is a fairly good performer. With a battery, starter, spin on, radios, etc. it gets to be not so good a performer, especially with two people in it. If its also got wing tanks, then its not a good performer at all. The logs sound scary too! Mine, an 85 hp with new miliniums and an excellent 72-44 mcauley prop is boring on take off compared to the average cub, or especially the 150 hp citabria I flew 2 summers ago. Good Champs are around, if you really look hard for a while. I have all logs since 1945, all 337's, rebuild info etc. and the seller was a retired TWA captain who could not have been more helpful and considerate. Finding a GOOD tube and fabric man today is like finding an honest politician or lobbyist so I'd try to find a good solid Aeronca with good papers starting out. Its pay me now...or pay me lots later. good luck (member not a guest)

[jim pacquin]

IMRON on fabric is always a not to be done item. Its usually a disaster, with paint checking, peeling etc, soon after application. A pal had his stearman imroned in the 80's and it looked good for three months, finally he had to do it over completely! Its a bad idea!

[Captgrumps]

Ceconite and butyrate dope is the way to go on fabric. If Stits is not finished right you will eventually see hand prints and off color spots. We had to redo a Cub with Stits on it. Never would use the stuff my self. And stay away from the Blue River. No run--

[MikeB]

I fully agree with Jim on the Imron. It's great on the tubing and steel parts, but is a disaster on fabric. Imron is harder than woodpecker lips (thus it cracks) and I don't think you can put enough flex agent in it to make it a good fabric coating, unless you don't care about ringworm and cracks. Often when someone wants to get a aircraft to look good for resale, they'll shoot a coat of enamel on it; but in a few months.......... .

[Paul Agaliotis]

I topcoated my 7AC with enamel about a year ago. I used Val-Spar urethane enamel, and the finish is holding up very well. The dope was getting pretty doggy looking and the cover has been on 20 years or so. I didnt have much to lose. I was satisfied with the job and the plane looks great.
I agree with the Imron posts. It is not good for fabric airplanes. The film thickness of Imron is over twice the thickness of modern urethanes. I think the new products work well with the dacron process we use.
Paul