1948 -- Fabric or Aluminum wings?

U2Hoog · Post by **U2Hoog** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 3:00 am

Hi,

I am approaching that point where I'll need to reskin my wings on my 1948 C-170. I have had one or two suggestions from folks about putting an aluminum skin on vs replacing the fabric. Any inputs from the field or thoughts on this?

Thanks!
"Hoog"

doug8082a · Post by **doug8082a** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 3:26 am

I like the looks of a ragwing. Somehow, metal skins on a wing with round wingtips just doesn't look right to me. Don't forget that going the metal route adds weight. Don't know how much, but I doubt it's insignificant.

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 6:03 am

Hoog,if it were me,I'd definitely recover with fabric! Besides looking better, fabric will be lighter,as well as less expensive than skinning with metal. A good recover job with modern Stits or Ceconite should last almost forever as long as a good coat of silver is applied to protect against UV,especially if the airplane is hangared.

Eric

N1478D · Post by **N1478D** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 12:15 pm

Ditto on all of the above! And, resale value would not be as good. Most savy buyers stay away from a fabric plane that has been metaled with. A future AD might be very hard to comply with if other than fabric. IMHO!

David Laseter · Post by **David Laseter** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 7:23 pm

I was really curious about how much lighter the fabric wings were?
"Beginning very late in 1948 with SN18730, Cessna began producing the all-metal 170 - single strut and with a dorsal fin identical to the one used on the C195. The plane had an all-metal wing (actually saving 10 lbs of weight over the "ragwing" by doing away with internal bracing no longer needed with all metal construction-gh)".
About round wing tips? Fiberglass Droop Tips look far better and protect your wings as well.
I don't like the little dimples (sleet looking damage) that metal can get, but I don't like a ragged cloth either.
Which last longer? How much cheeper?
Curious question: What was it that made Cessna change to metal wings? Must've been a good reason,

N2540V · Post by **N2540V** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:21 pm

When I was looking for an airplane, it was for either metal wings or cloth.
When I found wings that were designed for cloth had metal instead, I simply dropped that plane and moved on.

From one buyers persepctive
Jim

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 2:20 pm

I've talked to several other "ragwing" owners who regretted that their 1948 model's wings had been skinned in metal by some previous owner. Never talked to one who regretted that they'd been recovered in fabric instead of being metalized.
I'm not too sure if a wing would be airworthy for fabric after having been metal skinned,due to all the (unused) rivet holes in the ribs. Any IA comments on this issue ?

Eric

Tom Downey · Post by **Tom Downey** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 4:43 pm

"" I've talked to several other "ragwing" owners who regretted that their 1948 model's wings had been skinned in metal by some previous owner. Never talked to one who regretted that they'd been recovered in fabric instead of being metalized.
I'm not too sure if a wing would be airworthy for fabric after having been metal skinned,due to all the (unused) rivet holes in the ribs. Any IA comments on this issue ? ""

Eric

Replacing the Fabric with aluminum skins ruins a 48 IMHO.
It will slow the aircraft speed by as much as 15 miles per hour.
The wing will stall differently, and it is heavier.

The newest and best covering system today is NOT STITZ.

The only paint system designed as a fabric paint from the first to last coat is "Air-Tech".

Stitz/Poly Fiber. is a paint that the plastizers are added after formulation. it requires a silver UV shield under the top coat.

The first coat must be brushed in in order to adhear to Ceconite, nothing sticks to dacron(ceconite) all paint systems that are used on this fabric must be forced thru and allowed to skin over on the back side in order to stay attached.
Its good for about 25 years.

Air-Tech is a paint system developed as a poly paint system for all coats. It does not require a silver shield to be placed under it, it uses the same shield as sun screen. This is in the primer coats which can be sprayed because this primer will saturate the ceconite on contact, preventing a bad brush coat which will shorten covering life.

Air-Tech is .02 oz lighter per yard than stitz, it's easier to use, all pinked edge tapes disappear, giving you that high gloss plastic look.

Air-Tech is a 50 year fabric covering system. because it forms a single layer of plastic with the UV shield built in.

Your (170 association owners) cost for recover for a set of 170 rag wings by me, $5k ready to install. Corecting discrepancies on structure is extra.

If you want to see a demo come on over, I'm doing my Fairchild now.

ohanley · Post by **ohanley** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:31 am

Some things are sacrelegious.

Would you advocate repainting the Mona Lisa or any other master?

Some things are never done; regardless of legal, moral, or ethical acceptance.

Add covering a fabric aircraft in metal to that list; regardless of what the factor did later.

Remember that the factory did it for economical reasons; not because it improved the product.

Stay true to the original product: you will never regret it!

Post by **GAHorn** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 3:54 pm

Actually, the Mona Lisa and many other Masters have already been repainted to correct aging and discoloration flaws.

The Ceconite/Dacron type fabrics will outlive the owners if cared for properly, and is damage resistant/easily repairable when hangar rash occurs. The wing interior is more completely inspected during fabric restoration, and any damage is more easily repaired to a fabric wing. I voted to keep it fabric for these reasons, plus the fact that a metallized fabric wing loses it's resale value and aesthetics, plus it gains most of the weight of a metal wing with few of the advantages.
Corvettes were fiberglass, but how would you feel about an early Thunderbird restored in fiberglass? Or how about an early '50s Chris Craft or Garfield rebuilt in aluminum or fiberglass? Or a Purdy shotgun with a plastic stock? Yechh!

PS- And, Oh Yeah,.... Cessna went to all metal wings because the were lighter than fabric wings (and all metal construction allowed for a more sophisticated wing planform/shape/airfoil with twist, etc..) The all metal wing did not require heavy internal bracing, and did not require double wing struts. But converting a fabric wing to a metal wing will still keep all the weight and complexity of a fabric wing....it will gain weight!

n3833v · Post by **n3833v** » Fri Sep 26, 2003 11:30 am

I had mine recovered this year[Jan - June] with air tech and they explained the process of spraying and how much lighter it is. Since I have it back, many that have recovered planes locally commented on how this is such a good job and it has a very fine finished look with the paint or color that was used. It seem to even fly faster and I had to learn to slow differently on landing. LOOK OUT George!

The International Cessna 170 Association