No, not THAT fear. Reading some other aircraft/-plane topics made me wonder about something. We all know how common among owners of collectable & exotic cars, including Ferraris, it is not to drive theirs because of fear accumulating (too many ?) miles/kms due to perception of it diminishing value and therefor rendering poor car(s) into "Garage Queen(s)". Are there a lot of people owning (collecting ?) "recreational" aircrafts/-planes with same type of mental dysfunction, i.e. not flying theirs due to fear of accumulating (too many ?) "hours", rendering them "Hangar Queens" ? Just curious.
Having owned a 1946 Ercoupe and flew it on average 100 hours a year and knowing many people with all types of planes, the only limiting factor in most peoples flying is cost of fuel and time.
Usually the more you fly an aircraft, the better she runs. Does not seem to make much difference what type of aircraft, they do not like sitting around gathering dust while the seals dry out.
In the vein of rebuilding or restoring aircraft and flying the rewards of your labor, I have to comment. I have worked on too many airplanes to list, either to rebuild after accidents or to restore from old age. The rag and tube with sometimes their wood are the easiest as long as you have a certified welder to repair the tubing. All wood like a Pietenpol or Fly Baby are duck soup. All metal requires some knowledge and different skills. Not to pump up anything, I have worked on all of those over the years and the most satisfying was putting the tail section of a Cessna 140 onto the nose section of a 140 . Each was victim of hurricane damage, the nose of one destroyed and the tail of one destroyed. Piano wire for alignment and the matched holes in the sheet metal made the match successful and the airplane was signed off by the FAA. Two of my older kids, a partner, and I rebuilt a basket case Aeronca L-3 to award winning condition in the 60's . So, if the bones are good and the new owners are skilled and dedicated , you can, indeed, resurrect a damaged and sometimes a crashed airplane. Image Unavailable, Please Login Twenty five K for a T-Craft? When this airplane met its demise it was valued at $3500
Perhaps I meant to post this on rebuilding crashed airplanes. It iwan't crashed but it was scattered all over the over-grown lot of a guy in the sticks. It won three trophies in different shows.
I’d say exactly same about cars, modern or vintage, but my question was more about whether the “Hangar Queen” is as common phenomenon in aircraft circles as “Garage/Trailer Queens” are in collectible/exotic/hobby car world ? I can kind of understand if one has a vintage bomber or fighter plane, etc that their use could be very limited, especially when considering direct cost of each in air hour, but do a lot of people buy/own perfectly good and operational aircrafts just to look at or show them in their hangars ? Just curious.
There are plenty of hangar queens for sure, but usually not because the owners are afraid of putting hours on them or just want to show them off in their hangars. More often, it's because the owner runs out of money, or can't find parts, or is afraid of something expensive breaking, that sort of thing. There really is no particular fetish for super low time aircraft, in the way there is for cars. Part of that is that the fixed costs of owning an aircraft are so high, just in terms of calendar maintenance items, insurance, hangar, etc. that it really doesn't make sense to let them sit around... and once you do, the costs to get them going again really start to add up. That said, low time does tend to bring a premium, as long as it has been maintained as well.
To me, the most common thing that leaves aircraft owners on the ground is a lost medical. Many who do just won't give in to the fact that they'll never legally pilot an aircraft again. The spouse is the one who finally sells it post demise.
