I’ve sold lots of project aeroplanes to lots of people, and I’m beginning to see why. There’s a satisfaction in it, greater than you’d expect. You’d think having wings, vertical, rudder, horizontal, elevators, NLG, MLG, wing tanks, interior, mags, governor and prop all off the airplane and in various places undergoing various maintenance would be hugely stressful. Even jobs that you’d think are pretty serious look alot smaller in a couple of hours with the right people. I’ve got two licensed engineers working on it with me in two locations. I’m ordering parts, cleaning parts, getting tools lined up and we’re making great headway into it.
I just ordered all new hardware for wing bolts, lift struts, vertical, horizontal, rudder and elevator tonight from Sandleving and it’s under 260 euro. Everything is getting crack tested, alodined, primed, two pack paint whatever it needs. New hardware going back in with grease 33 or duralac, everything finished with LPS 3 inside. Sure it’s costing money but at the end you’ll have a aeroplane where you’ve looked at absolutely everything including the sid’s. When it’s all ready to assemble I’ll have top mechanic who specialises in Cessna’s when he’s not with the red bull air races come and rig it up. Lots of people say, but what are you putting in the panel? I’m way more concerned about what’s under the cowling. What bite will the new prop have at redline. How will it hang on the prop with the VG’s on a minimum speed approach.
A new model from Cessna has much less useful load and burns more gas. It would also cost more than my house. To anyone who has the resources, time and interest I’d recommend giving some airplane that blows your skirt up a new lease of life.
So what’s the plane you’re reviving from the deathbed? If you could do that with a clean 182 or 210 (could have nothing avionics), I might be interested.
Ha ha @whiskeypapa
Money won’t buy this. It’s a U206F and we’re doing it for keeps.
A 206 would work too… 
I have yet to find any satisfaction in all my projects… 
@AdamFrish I’ve a Luscombe here and no love for it. Still have to hang the wings on it. A battery for a cheap airplane is the same price as one for a 206, same goes for rivets/metal/shop labour. You might aswell fix up a more capable higher value one. I’m not sure I’d take on a twin. There’s a mighty sad E90 I used to help with, and I think that’s too big for an individual to take on. I think the happy balance is a rare late model low time single.
The guy that’s with me on the tools rebuilt a C208 that went through a hedge. He repaired the horizontal stab in a week working solid. That was a 70k part from Cessna. Good help makes the difference….
WilliamF wrote:
I’ve a Luscombe here and no love for it. Still have to hang the wings on it. A battery for a cheap airplane is the same price as one for a 206, same goes for rivets/metal/shop labour. You might aswell fix up a more capable higher value one.
The battery for many Luscombes is free, weights nothing, never discharges and lasts forever That’s an example of why rebuilding a simple plane can also make sense… especially if your labor and the necessary A&P sign offs are free or almost free too. Inspection and sign off costs are more often limited on a simpler plane, in what seems to be a form of “social justice”… developed and applied in no nonsense, independent A&P style.
Otherwise, I agree that fiddling with or rebuilding planes is lots of challenging fun… at least for some. My retirement won’t involve doing nothing, it’ll instead be spent solving the problems I want, not doing what other people direct, then using and taking pride in my low cost results.
@Silvaire I agree if you were doing all the work yourself then you could work on low value simple aircraft. However if you are paying for labour you can quickly end up in a corner spending close to or more than the aeroplane is worth. I did a Taylorcraft and it ended up like that. This Luscombe pretty much the same. I end up feeling like I didn’t create much value.
It’s nice at the end of it, if it’s standing you less than the replacement cost of a similar aircraft. That’s a target I set.
The good thing about rebuilding a plane (any plane) is that you start off with a known quantity – particularly if you also get the engine/prop overhauled at the beginning.
Too often people sell a plane for the same reasons they sell a car (it is filling up with worms ) and this way you can get something which is definitely in a good condition.
However – depending on the condition – you also need a suitable regulatory regime to make it worth doing. If you start off with an airframe which e.g. has the control linkages caked with rust or with push-fit bushings worn out, then you could be looking at 10k (on a plane worth maybe 20-30k) to replace these, whereas if you can recondition or remanufacture them you save lots of money.
Take a seemingly big and difficult job on a plane. Say changing the bearings, hence removing on the stabilator of a T-Tail Arrow. You’d think this is going to be a nightmare. Well with two guys working, by the time you get to eat a sandwich at one o clock, the tail will be off everything cleaned and old bearings out. By five o clock the the aeroplane is all back together. A day makes a big dent into most jobs. I could have picked a dozen other examples – changing a fuel cell/removing landing gear/leading edge repair/changing cylinders etc etc. Point remains same. One full day does alot of work. Try ten full days (10X8hrsX€40ph) and a whole aeroplane can look much much better.
