On some of the other threads, and one recently, the New Aircraft/Old aircraft debate has raised its head. MTV made some very good points....

And, I would point out that the Taylorcraft/Champ/Cub have all been FLIGHT TESTED and certified to standard criteria, unlike any kit airplane in the EXP category. The experimental category is just that: The design may or may not meet "normal" category design standards, and the builder may or may not have built it to the standards the designer laid out.

I'm not suggesting that experimental aircraft are a bad idea, mind you. But to suggest that a 60 year old airplane might be suspect, compared to something that I may have built.....now THAT would be a stretch .

Years ago, a good friend was chief of flight test for the manufacturer of aerobatic aircraft. There are a number of homebuilt versions similar to this airplane, and this test pilot told me when I exhibited interest in one of these that I should give him a call if I found one, and he'd come take a close look at the airframe. Seems that the quality of welding on some of the homebuilt versions wasn't quite up to "factory" standards, and they'd seen some failures as a result.

I'd fly a homebuilt most days, AFTER a careful inspection. I'd also fly a 60 year old airplane any day. Oh, actually, I do.....

MTV

An then S-12Flyer countered with some opposing  very valid points to consider....

Well not to start an argument but I spent quite a few years as an applications engineer and I do know a thing or two about stress risers, metal fatigue, internal corrosion and a host of other aliments that can affect a seemingly sound airframe. When was the last time you had your airframe x-rayed? Even a frame up restoration can miss potentially fatal flaws. To say that just because an aircraft has flown safely for the last 60 years it is inherently safer than a modern kit-built is the real stretch. All it proves is that the design and construction methods were sound. Age in and unto itself is not a guarantee of continued structural integrity. In fact quite the contrary. It is indeed the number of cycles that an airframe (or any mechanical device)is subjected to that will cause it's failure. Add to that decades of uncertain care or abuse and you can see my trepidation.
The requirements for certification 60 years ago are far different than today. I dare say that many of todays "experimentals" would have had no problem getting certification 50 or 60 years ago.
I don't mean to impune classic aircraft. I would own one in a heartbeat. But for my mission (and skills) a newer kitbuilt may be a better choice. At least if I bend it I can repair it easier and cheaper.
But I am more than willing to look at all my options.

Let me tell a little story that happened to my wife and I:

We were vacationing our first time in Hawaii on Oahu at Waikiki in the mid '80s and wanted to see more of the islands. At that time there were 2 companies that provided all day air tours by aircraft to most of the islands with short stops including activities at Maui, Kauai, and the 'Big Island'. The air tours started very early in the morning and lasted until dusk.
One outfit had a fleet of '40s vintage Beach 18s that had been converted to 'nose draggers' to accommodate both the modern pilot and the insurance companies, and the aircraft were each painted a different 'jellybean' color so the tourists would know which one was theirs.
The other competing company had a fleet of large modern Piper twins that were all white and sleek and very modern looking-especially by comparison.
I was buying the tickets for the tour and chose the Beach 18s because I figured they were a little slower for sightseeing with the fat wing and I love the music of the round engines. The fact that it was a few bucks cheaper had nothing to do with it!
When my wife and I were going to our aircraft, and the competing company was loading passenger right next door, I took crap from my wife for not going with the safer, newer, upscale adjacent airplanes. I told her the 18s had been test flown for decades, and were tried and true, and I, as a pilot, had more confidence in the older planes I had chosen. She wasn't convinced, and she figured I had 'gone on the cheap' and had just done it to save money. Each stop, when we re-loaded, and walked past those sleek Pipers doing the same tours, I got a dirty look from my wife.
It was a good tour and the pilot pointed out a lot of interesting and/or historical places on the flight, and we flew most of the coast line of most of the islands.
The next day we spent at the beach snorkeling and relaxing at Hanauma bay, and then late afternoon we were taking The Bus back to our hotel at Waikiki. Sitting across from us was a man reading that days newspaper with with a big bold headline stating 'Commuter Plane Down' on inter island flight. I bought a paper when I got off the bus, and we watched the evening TV news. 
Turns out that those same sleek large Pipers did inter island commuter flights in the evenings after doing their air tours in the day time. One had gone down abruptly from cruise altitude the evening before. All they found was a slight oil slick in the morning they thought might be from the airplane. The speculation was that the combination door/stairs had popped open into the slipstream and had taken off the horizontal stabilizer when it tore off. There was no wreckage to examine, and since there were no Kennedys aboard, the government didn't spend a fortune to recover the wreckage to determine the exact cause.

I know this is 'an example of one' and not a statistical analysis, but if maintained properly and IF everything is properly inspected (Chalk's comes to mind-among others) I think the tried and true are likely safer-by maybe a very slim margin.

An opinion of one
lc

And, I should point out that my comments were INTENDED to be taken under the assumption that whichever airplane you are looking at is in AIRWORTHY condition. I recognize that corrosion can be a significant issue in older aircraft. I also am fully aware that CAR 3 certification standards were somewhat less rigorous than FAR 23 standards.

My point was simply that even those old CAR 3 airplanes can be inspected, and not all of them are impossible to inspect for corrosion, for example....or fatigue. Unfortunately, some have failed, but we've learned from those failures, hopefully. These airplanes have a history, and we can use that history to help us avoid problems, for the most part. Consider the wing strut attach issue recently with the Taylorcraft. If you've seen pictures of the failure point on the accident aircraft in which two folks died, it should have been OBVIOUS that the airplane was simply not airworthy, certified or experimental.

So, my point wasn't to pick on experimental aircraft....there are some fantastic homebuilts out there, and some workmanship by builders that far exceeds ANY production aircraft company's standards. But, they are experimental, meaning they MAY not meet ANY certification standards. And, it isn't that easy for a DAR to verify absolutely that an aircraft structure was properly welded, for example.

Look at LSA aircraft....many of which have tubular spars. How are you going to monitor the inside of those spars for corrosion? That may or may not be a problem, just an example of non certified construction techniques.

So, the old airplanes have a history, and as a result we know what to look for and at during inspections. That doesn't guarantee something won't escape our inspector's eye. The same applies, however, to experimental aircraft.

Several years ago, I was in FL at Sun N Fun, and wound up taking an Engineering Flight Test Pilot for a flight in a seaplane, at the request of a dealer. We stopped at Brown's seaplane base, and were looking at airplanes there, one of which was a fairly large homebuilt turbine powered airpalne, on floats. The test pilot was carefully going over this thing, studying it thoroughly. I wandered over and asked him what he thought of this homebuilt design. His response: "How can I say this? If this airplane were in flight, I would not stand under it!". He then pointed out, for example, that this particular design (with a composite fuselage and this one had no interior covering) has NO rear spar carrythrough structure.....so the rear spars (with huge Fowler style flaps attached) are just through bolted into the skin of the fuselage.....

Again, there are MANY really good homebuilt designs out there. But, consider the accident statistics with reference to homebuilts.....not pretty compared to all those 60 year old dinosaurs that are corroding away.

Most certified airplanes (even CAR 3) were massively over built. Many homebuilts and kit airplanes are as well. Some of those aren't, however.

As I said before, I'd jump in a homebuilt any day, and have. There are some fantastic airplanes out there. And, there are some great production airplanes out there as well.

Frankly, pilots fail FAR more often than airplanes do, however.....

MTV

^^^^Agree MTV, on all points. Well maintained and thoroughly inspected 60 yr old aircraft are safe to fly. Period.
Inadequate inspections that don't uncover metal fatigue cracks and/or corrosion have taken their toll on the reputation of older aircraft with headline pronouncements of their failures, and almost always it should have been found on previous inspections. Mechanics make errors/mistakes just like pilots do-only probably not near as often!

I'm 63 and fly a Cub 3 yrs older than I am...
lc

Don't know about your Navajo but if the front baggage door comes open and does not come off it acts like a big canard with a huge nose down moment. There is no recovery.

I understand the fatigue and stress issues with metal a bit more than I would like to be required to actually.

I like to approach risk assessment more rationally, though. I look at risk as being roughly comprised of two very important elements: (Severity) x (Frequency or likelihood).

Yes, there is no S-N curve for aluminum for infinite life. Yes, the more we fly planes, the more we cycle the important bits. Yes, older planes are closer to a fatigue failure than newer ones in general. Yes, the severity of a failure is enormous.

We have piles of data in plain sight showing us that mechanical failure is WAY down on the list of things I am worried about as an airplane driver.

Something like 17% of accidents are caused by mechanical issues (http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/10nall.pdf).
Most of the rest are caused by pilotage (fuel (10%!!!!!), weather, approaches, maneuvering, controlled flight into terrain).

Of the 17% that are mechanical issues, about half were power plant failures. About half of the remaining were amateur built mech failures. About half of whats left involved brakes or tires. About half of what is left after all that related to electrical issues. So we are left with around 1% or so of all certificated airplane accidents actually being attributed to things like control failures or other items that could be related to fatigue issues.

The standards placed on certification are often only loosely anchored to real physics or material science, and are usually conservative. On the other hand, fatigue does happen, and occasionally progresses without detection to failure. People notice these shortcomings as the progress or cause a relatively rare accident, and the AD system exists in part to distribute this knowledge.

Fatigue in older airplanes is only a portion of the 1% whittled down above. Vigilance & inspection appear to be accomplishing what data-free theorizing can only guess at. I'm a big fan of engineering with models where appropriate (which means when there is no real data available to cut to the chase), but we have data.

And I think the data says (much to my surprise, frankly) metal fatigue is far less of a concern aviation safety compared to gray matter fatigue.

Fatigue : Severity=high; Frequency=Very Low; Overall risk...way less than poor judgment or rusty skills.

Well, after all this time, I find out the truth with a search of the FAA accident database. This capability to access the database did not exist back in the late 80s early 90s, and I had never revisited the occurrence in the database since then, since it was long ago, but here it is:
Accident occurred 12/23/87 and the probable cause is pilot error.
It was a dark night and the 3 dimensional radar reconstruction appears to indicate a left engine out with the pilot not responding adequately. The pilot was 27 years old with it being the 13th hour of duty that day. You can look it up if you want more details:http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/fc05j2iwpwxg4zrqx1wxwkih1/K09192012120000.pdf
It doesn't fit well into the old vs new discussion-but the truth is that a VERY high percentage of accidents are pilot error.
So make sure your pilot (you?) is VERY sharp at ALL aspects of flight-and don't push the weather envelope and it will greatly increase your odds at arriving safely. Oh. Yes, DO keep your aircraft well maintained also.

lc

BTW-I am still interested in the Old vs New thread if anyone cares to keep it going......

Lets not get carried away here with accident analysis.

Fatigue in certified aircraft is not uncommon.

I can think of more instances than I care to remember (aircraft which I've been in). All spam cans actually. Fortunately all found BEFORE anyone was hurt. Either by good luck or good management.
Examples: a whole fleet of commuter aircraft found with cracked vert stabilisers (Beech 1900D), 17 of 18 planes cracked with high cycle fatigue... A popular 172 trainer which flipped over parked in high winds wind, found with fatigue cracks all down the empanage after the fact. A 180 opened up to address corrosion in a wing, found with stress corrosion cracking in the wing.

My point is, its the certified inspection regime which is important, as much as / more than the certification process at the manufacturing phase.

Battson wrote:Fatigue in certified aircraft is not uncommon.

Correct.

However, fatigue that results in accidents is not particularly common. Fatigue is something that often exhibits visual cues. These cues are often identified with a routine but adequate maintenance program or in the aftermath of a (rare) forensic investigation. Inspection procedures are improved after these sorts of events.

Older airplanes in general can exhibit more fatigue. But the actual measurable difference in the real safety outcomes with more cases of fatigue is almost zero...because the fatigue itself is identifiable as it progresses, and because this fact is apparently (and somewhat surprisingly) adequate to keep us relatively safe from mechanical failures compared to the other hazards we face as airplane drivers.

If the issue is safety, fatigue is barely a blip.

If the issue is cost of ownership, well- that's an entirely different ball of wax.

lesuther wrote:

Battson wrote:Fatigue in certified aircraft is not uncommon.

Correct.

However, fatigue that results in accidents is not particularly common. Fatigue is something that often exhibits visual cues. These cues are often identified with a routine but adequate maintenance program or in the aftermath of a (rare) forensic investigation. Inspection procedures are improved after these sorts of events.

Older airplanes in general can exhibit more fatigue. But the actual measurable difference in the real safety outcomes with more cases of fatigue is almost zero...because the fatigue itself is identifiable as it progresses, and because this fact is apparently (and somewhat surprisingly) adequate to keep us relatively safe from mechanical failures compared to the other hazards we face as airplane drivers.

If the issue is safety, fatigue is barely a blip.

If the issue is cost of ownership, well- that's an entirely different ball of wax.

Accidents as a result of airframe fatigue may be uncommon but major airframe repairs due to fatigue are very common. Indeed, there are many AD's related to hours flown. Ad's for spar replacement, strut replacement, even wing replacement. All common and very expensive. Add to that mandatory engine and prop overhauls as well as complete recovering to replace 60 year old wood and the costs can easily equal out. Again I will say that a 60 year old plane with one or two previous owners and good logs is a worthwhile bet. The same plane with a bunch of owners and questionable or missing logs is a crap shoot.
Human error accounts for the overwhelming percentage of accidents. A/P's are human too. They can and do make mistakes.
Funny how many pilots who think nothing of flying a 60 year old plane who would not put the same faith in a car or motorcycle of the same vintage.

You find me a good 60 year old car or motorcycle, and I'll be on it like ugly on an ape....

MTV

porterjet wrote:Don't know about your Navajo but if the front baggage door comes open and does not come off it acts like a big canard with a huge nose down moment. There is no recovery.

The Navajo I flew for years flew fine.
I always made sure the doors were closed before flight.

S-12Flyer wrote:Indeed, there are many AD's related to hours flown. Ad's for spar replacement, strut replacement, even wing replacement.

That's one thing that rarely enters into the certified vs experimental conversation; The Service Bulletin and Airworthiness Directive. As far as I know, there really isn't a structure in place to address design flaws for a particular kit that come to light down the road. The builder is the manufacturer and thus the buck stops with him/her. That's a double edged sword, as it's sort of an upside to Experimental, not getting caught in a net of mandatory service. The only thing I can recall that has come close was the Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin for Zenith CH-601's that came at the behest of Zenith, after a grounding of the design was considered by NTSB and FAA. The downside is that unsafe designs can continue to operate and be sold to new owners.

I can't speak for all companies but Rans has had several Bulletins and Advisories over the past 10 years. Clearly listed on their site. Mostly on small items but any one of them could prove costly if they let go in flight. My Rotax has had a few as well the most costly being the 5 year rubber replacement. I suppose being an experimental I could choose to ignore them. Before I bought mine I made sure all directive had been completed and logged. Fortunately the few that affected mine were easy to visually confirm. Bottom line is, certified or experimental, it is easy to fudge logs or skimp on required/suggested repairs. On older airplanes it is imperative to get a pre-buy by an A/P that you can trust. Not a bad idea on newer ones as well.
Trust..but verify.

S-12Flyer wrote:Accidents as a result of airframe fatigue may be uncommon but major airframe repairs due to fatigue are very common.

Exactly.

So the real choice for a certificated buyer is the hassle of buying a $45k, 50-year old plane, and managing progressive corrosion and fatigue, or buying a $450k new machine and....well, the choice is open.

As for driving old cars: most of mine over the years have been >20 years old at the time of purchase. It's what I prefer...low total cost of ownership: low taxes, low capital, and comfortable. The cars that I have >20 yrs old now have similar maintenance requirements to modern cars. The cars I have that are older need a lot more wrench time.

I like newer cars for one reason only: Newer cars have design details that make them inherently safer in a collision. As for planes, mine is essentially the same unit as a newer plane in a collision, right down to the rivet patterns, unless you happen to have the new airbags.

lesuther wrote:

S-12Flyer wrote:Accidents as a result of airframe fatigue may be uncommon but major airframe repairs due to fatigue are very common.

Exactly.

So the real choice for a certificated buyer is the hassle of buying a $45k, 50-year old plane, and managing progressive corrosion and fatigue, or buying a $450k new machine and....well, the choice is open.

I completely agree.
However, I believe the original discussion was comparing $20K to $50K "old" planes to $50K to $100K new experimentals.
Not $450K new iron.
Randy, a good friend of mine. Is an A/P and owns a beautiful 7AC Champ. It has been in his family from the day it rolled off the line. It is without a doubt better than new and far from a hanger queen. But both he and his father (also an A/P) have meticuosly maintained it all it's life. If it ever comes up for sale, I will buy it without hesitation and fly it without hesitation.
Conversly, the other Champ here at Mack was purchased out east and flown here without incident. It spent the first several months here getting an unplanned restoration at a cost that doubled the inital investment.
Randy's passion is old planes and he loves working on them. It is a labor of love that pays off for him. I, on the other hand, don't currently have the time to tinker that much. My 5 year old dealer built ELSA experimental has needed 2 oil/filter changes, a set of plugs, and new ELT batteries in the past 10 months/135 hours. It burns around 3 1/2 GPH and uses no oil between changes. I have the option of doing my annual condition inspections and can do all my own repairs when needed. For me the choice to buy new was the right choice. If Randy's Champ ever hits the market, I will have to change my tune.
If I had an extra 450K, I would buy a new Carbon Cub and a Condo in the Keys.
Livin the dream.