I’ve been thinking about this for a while and I can’t come up with a good reason. Why would someone what to metalize a fabric airplane? Maybe in the past when fabrics weren’t as long-lasting as they are now it would make since, but it seems like today it would just be adding weight. The only advantage I can see is if you wanted to tie it down outside. Once a plane is metalized can it be converted back to fabric?

Thanks for the schooling.

I'm with you--I can't see any really good reason to do so, with modern fabrics. For one thing, these planes all have steel tubing fuselages, and its not a bad idea to inspect those for corrosion every once in a while. While you're getting new fabric is a great opportunity to do that.

MTV

I've seen some airplanes that had metal wings but fabric ailerons have the ailerons metalized, that seemed to make sense.
The very few metalized airplanes I've seeen weren't worth the labor in going back to fabric. You should be able to remove the metal, but it may be to expensive to make sense.
I tell people that the bad thing about fabric airplanes is that they have to be recovered every 20 years or so and the good thing about fabric airplanes is that they have to be recovered every 20 years or so. For the reasons MTV brought up.

Yep, all of the above... back when it was "dope and cotton", it made sense to plaster metal on an airplane. Now, the fabric lasts alot longer, and protects so much better, that it's the best way to go. If you think a metal airplane is better to have tied outside...just look at two sitting side by side, one with metal and one with good fabric, after some hail... I'll take the fabric..... (yes, after SOME hail, it's not going to matter much..but up to a certain size hail, the fabric will give and come back, where the metal wont) I converted a friend's Stinson back to fabric years ago, and it wasn't all that bad to do. All the formers and stringers were there. He said the performance jump was unbelievable! He'd been flying this plane for a couple years, and was happy with it before, but after the metal was pulled and it was recovered, it was a much nicer plane that performed better, according to him. The weight wasn't as much as I thought it would be (something like 30# heavier with metal if I remember right?..it's been alot of fabric and years since I did that one) but he swears it's quieter and flies better!
JH

I won't pretend to know anything about metal vs. fabric...but this looks pretty nice

http://www.vintageaircraft.org/featured ... %20Cub.pdf

I know JT and this is a fine airplane. He lives at Pine Mt. Lake, CA

Boy, you got that right...sweet looking bird for sure! Those articles always get me...talking about almost everything except the airplane... the stories of his flying and stuff are fine, but I'd rather hear the "nitty gritty" about the plane..what it's like to fly..compared to a non-metalized one, or something like that???? Ohwell, until I write one, guess I probably shouldn't criticize.
JH

Thanks for the replys. You guys basically echo what I thought. The reason why I ask is that I have been looking for a cheap old Stinson that hasn't been flying for a few years to restore. Preferably one that's not in too many boxes and ideally one that a little old lady has been storing in a barn out back and just wants to it get off her hands ! It seems like metalizing them was popular at one time.

I love reading PIREPS on old airplanes. I guess it's nice to know how the new Cessna Mustang flys, but how about the quirks of a Fairchild 24 with the Ranger up front? Those are the ones I really like. Budd Davisson has over 100 of his old ones on http://www.airbum.com/