Rebuilding 1938 BC-65

[HPsauce]

Re: Rebuilding 1938 BC-65

Here are some pictures for you fellas. What do you think?

[HPsauce]

Re: Rebuilding 1938 BC-65

Here's some more. I have even more if anyone is interested.

[Guest]

Re: Rebuilding 1938 BC-65

Seems to have a Lycoming engine mount on a BC65 how did that come about?

Dave

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Rebuilding 1938 BC-65

That's because it is a 40 BL-50.

Looks like she has the wrong control wheels, wrong windshield, misplaced venturi, RIGHT Tach (protect it, they are HARD TO FIND!), wrong panel, right wings, right doors, right....well, LOTS of things!

The stuff that appears obvious is pretty easy to take care of. The BC and BL planes are identical aft of the firewall. The Lycoming engines are kind of hard to get (running) and support. Most planes have been changed to Continentals, but the identification of the plane STAYS BL with the new engine! I recently found out from old factory paperwork that my plane started out as a BF (Franklin) and had the engine changed to a Lyc before it rolled out the gate. The Government "appropriated" her early in 42 and put a Cont on the front. Took me YEARS to get the FAA to understand she was NOT a BC! Now I don't know WHAT she was when registered!

On yours, I have the patterns for the original windshield, a damaged wheel that can be used to make new ones from, can show you where the venturi was supposed to be so it doesn't hit the door, and patterns for the correct instrument panel. You got a GOOD one! The pre war planes were best (ducking for cover). Post more photos and we will enlarge them and look for problem areas.

Hank

[HPsauce]

Re: Rebuilding 1938 BC-65

So I guess the owner before did some modifications of their own eh. It's great to hear that the bodies aft of the firewall were made much the same; why mess with something that has proved itself. With the Lycombing engine mount, any ideas on a higher horsepower engine that will still fit the mount? Or will a continental engine mount fit on her? It's a long ways away but I'm thinking anywhere from 85hp to 100hp. I flew a J3 on floats back from the Yukon this summer for a fellow who didn't have enough float time and boy oh boy! first time alone in a little 2 seater fabric airplane and I was amazed at the performance! Most the terrain I was landing in was around 2500'ASL and it still had plenty of 'git-up-and-GO'! So the 85hp seems like a viable option.

Does this forum have a buy/sell area? Just curious. Figure if I need parts that this might be a good place to look. I've checked out wag aero as well they seem to be pretty good. Any conflicting opinions?

I'll put more pictures up. And if I could change this threads name to 1940 BL50 I would, sorry Dave! I was surprised myself to find the data plate.

Cheers

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Rebuilding 1938 BC-65

The Lyc mount only fits the Lyc engine, but a Continental mount fits the firewall and there are MANY guys who have gone to larger engines. The guys who are really in to originality will want the Lycoming mount, so don't trash it (or ANYTHING you take off! No matter how bad it is, someone else will have one that is worse and will want yours, if just for a patern). I like the 65 HP engine and think it works fine for most operations. I DON'T fly with floats, skis or do any "bush" type flying. With the LOOOONG runways around the Mid Atlantic, I just don't need more.

The "modifications" previous owners did can be a problem. Go through the FAA CD and your papers with a fine tooth comb. What is documented is what you want your configuration to be. Get the STC for auto fuel now. Make sure ALL of the mandatory changes are either shown as done, or put them on your restoration list to be incorporated. Some of them, like the placard for removal of the RH control wheel and the fuel shut off clip are sneaky. Watch for things like non-standard fuel shut off valves on the bottom of the tank or the wing tank (if you have a wing tank....if you don't, consider making the log entry and adding one to the RH wing). Make sure the wing tank valve is in the right place, or make an entry showing that it was moved to the wing. Before the war the valve was under the panel and could tear your knee up. Most were moved to the post war position in the wing root. Be sure to DOCUMENT moving it if you do.

As for a buy sell section, there is one, but you will find people swapping and trading all over. The guys here are pretty honest. I have never been really burned here. It might happen, but people who will take advantage of you won't last long here.

I really like WAG, but also order from Aircraft Spruce, Wicks, Sporty's, Chief and any others you know of you should list here. Everyone is always interested in good and bad experiences with suppliers. We have all had occasional problems with different suppliers. It happens. I will say that WAG has always been great when there was a problem for me and they are my first "go to" supplier.

Hank

[3Dreaming]

Re: Rebuilding 1938 BC-65

Hank, he is in Canada, he will have different rules to play by.

[N96337]

Re: Rebuilding 1938 BC-65

Hank (or any that know...Dave?),
Not to pull this "off course", but when did they go from the square tubing to round tubing to the cast magnesium aileron hangers? I know this has been answered a few times before, but I couldn't find it this morning.
John

[3Dreaming]

Re: Rebuilding 1938 BC-65

Hank (or any that know...Dave?),
Not to pull this "off course", but when did they go from the square tubing to round tubing to the cast magnesium aileron hangers? I know this has been answered a few times before, but I couldn't find it this morning.
John

The change to cast was post war. All the pre war that I remember seeing had the channel inboard and outboard brackets like in his picture and tube for the center with the bellcrank.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Rebuilding 1938 BC-65

That is what I have seen too, except I have seen several planes with post war parts on pre war planes and pre war parts on post war planes. My 45 was an EARLY post war plane and had the cast fittings. I don't like them. They crack WAY too easy and corrode like mad.
Hank

[N96337]

Re: Rebuilding 1938 BC-65

Yah, that's what I think too Hank. Mine were all corroded where the false spar attaches...some genius used stainless screws.

[Guest]

Re: Rebuilding 1938 BC-65

John,

What did the stainless screws do?

Were they used to attach to the spar or to the aluminum piece that forms the aileron bay?

Dave

[N96337]

Re: Rebuilding 1938 BC-65

Dave, they were from the false spar to the aileron hinge brackets, as well as through the hinge to the angles that attached to the false spar... made a really nice "battery" that corroded a bunch! Had they used just a plain steel screw, or even better yet, a solid rivet, I wouldn't have the corrosion I do. The good news was that the stainless screw itself wasn't corroded (go figure). I'm going to need all new aileron hinges. That's why I was thinking about the tube style brackets.... less problems.

[Robert Lees]

Re: Rebuilding 1938 BC-65

I suspect the brackets are the ones behind the screws in the photo below? Steel angles, to my recollection.



In my rebuild, I epoxy-primed all parts and then used barium-chromate paste (pic below) between all metal-metal (and wood-metal) surfaces to minimise dissimilar metal corrosion (and acid attack in the case of wood).



There is actually a better product available (one that doesn't harden over the years) but I did not know about it at the time, and I can't recall its name right now.

[N96337]

Re: Rebuilding 1938 BC-65

Yep, that's the place Robert. Where the angle brackets join to the aileron hinge. I don't know how many Tcrafts I've seen that had bad corrosion there.