Bus Conversions dot Com Bulletin Board
September 01, 2014, 04:51:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you had an E-Mag Subscription: You can zoom in to make the text larger and easier to read.
   Home   Help Forum Rules Search Calendar Login Register BCM Home Page Contact BCM  
Pages: [1] 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Rear window  (Read 3977 times)
Airbag
Guest

« on: March 27, 2009, 11:13:34 PM »

When I bought this bus I noticed the rear window was just free swinging with no latches to hold it shut. The PO just said that it doesn't open while driving. I told him I have a five year old boy that I will find dead on the freeway if we don't get it secured so we put a bracket with a screw to hold it shut. The manual says it is a breakout sash but I want to get the correct latches reinstalled. I suspect I will have to fabricate them. The PO told me I could buy any part for this bus from MCI. He could not have been any further from the truth. You can buy just about any part for my 1960 Sunbeam Alpine but an MC5A is another story.

I cannot believe how much corrosion is on the back shelf where the latches go. I will have to replace those sections of aluminum. I can see where these things grow into monsters. In the aircraft world we have what is called annual inspections and they are mandatory. corrosion of this magnitude would never be allowed to form. For starters the window seals that let the water do it's dirty work would have been replaced twenty years ago. The seals in the sash are so bad you can move the glass up and down and from side to side. I am hoping the local auto glass shop will have a seal that will do the trick. Is it Mohawk that sells rubber seals of different cross sections for buses? 
Logged
Airbag
Guest

« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2009, 08:59:46 PM »

Thanks John for the phone call and suggestions. I will call them Monday. I have been to all the bus part sites I can think of and entered the needed part numbers and as expected no soap. This bus is about as obsolete as the Cutty Sark. I guess that's the price we pay when we buy a bus we can afford. I think a bus you can actually order every part for will cost half a million or more. I have had absolutely zero success finding parts any where other than a salvage yard.

I wonder if MCI would part with the production drawings for parts since they have written their own product off and no longer wish to support it and like the Brits will pretend they never built it. I should have bought an old Mercedes bus I bet they still support their products, They claim to support every car they ever built and will build any part needed at a price. We could learn something from a business philosophy such as that. I was involved in a restoration of a Gustav ME 109 with a Daimler inverted V-12 603. And guess what they did not even hesitate and said sure we will overhaul it. So off it went to Germany and they built new every thing for it. And now it motors through the sky.

I have removed the corroded sill and will have a new one built tomorrow. The latches will be fabricated and the seals will be procured from a rubber extruder. The chance of me getting the squish pressure correct is slim but I have no choice.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2009, 09:13:05 PM by Airbag » Logged
gus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3507





Ignore
« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2009, 10:18:55 PM »

Rick,

This is called old bus owner buyer's remorse. It happens to all of us when things go to hell or appear that way.

I think you have an MC5 which was built in large numbers so there are lots of used parts out there, the job is finding them. This takes a bit of research, ebay Motors is a good start and there are lots of MCI nuts on this board. I'm sure you will soon get lots of responses.

The problem with MCI new parts is that they are about as costly as Beechcraft parts, I know you understand that!!

I also bet that Me 109 engine overhaul by Daimler cost as much as a new top line Mercedes, probably more. My guess is that you didn't pay that bill either.

My bus is probably older than yours and I have had a lot of frustrating experiences but when everything is in place and humming down the highways and byways life is wonderful, there is no other experience like it - including airplanes and I am a true airplane nut.
Logged

PD4107-152
PD4104-1274
Ash Flat, AR
Hobe
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2009, 06:23:00 AM »

I have a rear window, That is in good shape. Also the two curved glass next to it Free if you can come get them. Our have some one bring them to you. Fred North Florida Bus Conversion
Logged
Airbag
Guest

« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2009, 09:21:40 AM »

Gus you are right I did not pay the bill for that overhaul and I don't even know what the cost was. It was paid by a Billionair.

I truly don't have buyers remorse only a wonder for a company that will put hundreds if not thousands of 40 passenger buses on the road and then cut off the supply of parts. This is not consistant with

                                         "The Mark of Responsibility"

I have owned a Beechcraft and I know what the parts costs and when I needed one I ponied up. If you notice my web site I have been involved with Starships another story of cutting off the supply of parts.
 

                                              The Mark of Irresponsibility

Congress has passed a eighteen year liability limit for aircraft manufactures meaning they are off the hook after eighteen years. I wonder if such a limit exists for buses? I can hear the poor bus mechanic on the stand saying I tried to buy new king pins but they weren't available. MCI knows there are at least hundreds of these buses in service around the globe some still hauling passengers and they choose to ignore it. 

I am just venting and apologize for the negative air of this post but I know I am not alone.

MCI and Beechcraft if you are reading this. Sometimes doing the right thing is not always profitable but pays big dividends in the long run. 
Logged
buswarrior
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3571


'75 MC8 8V71 HT740




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2009, 04:11:00 PM »

There is no demand for the parts you seek.

Your MC5 is a long way DEAD to the commercial market to which it was designed, built, sold, maintained and supported, until there were none left to support in a viable way.

Who is going to take up valuable warehouse space with parts that have not been ordered by anyone in years?

And the MC5 was produced in small numbers once the 40 footers arrived, doubling your trouble.

Some analysts already criticize MCI's current length of support, which is pretty solid back 30 model years, as being less than profitable.

Get a parts bus, same as many of us, plug in with Fred Hobe and other converters to alert you as to the take-outs they have available as they modify other buses.  Adapt, modify, re-engineer.

It isn't MCI's fault your bus is old.

happy coaching!
buswarrior



Logged

Frozen North, Greater Toronto Area
Airbag
Guest

« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2009, 05:52:08 PM »

There is no demand for the parts you seek.

Your MC5 is a long way DEAD to the commercial market to which it was designed, built, sold, maintained and supported, until there were none left to support in a viable way.

Who is going to take up valuable warehouse space with parts that have not been ordered by anyone in years?

And the MC5 was produced in small numbers once the 40 footers arrived, doubling your trouble.

Some analysts already criticize MCI's current length of support, which is pretty solid back 30 model years, as being less than profitable.

Get a parts bus, same as many of us, plug in with Fred Hobe and other converters to alert you as to the take-outs they have available as they modify other buses.  Adapt, modify, re-engineer.

It isn't MCI's fault your bus is old.

happy coaching!
buswarrior





I guess I am just spoiled. You can call Cessna and order landing gear attach bulkheads or just about any piece for a 1947 C-120 and they will send them because guess what ? They did not destroy the tooling and they are more than happy to make you one and it is profitable to do so. They produced many many different aircraft over the years that contain thousands of parts and support every one of them as it should be. There are no more parts in a bus than an aircraft. So that argument does not fly. MCI has obviously destroyed the tooling in a bad management decision somewhere down the road and cannot support their product even if they wanted to.

This the production count for the MC5 series. No small number:

Production history
Year Model Quantity
1963-1964 MC-5/MCC-5 300
1964-1970 MC-5/MCC-5A 1,605
1971-1977 MC-5B 350
 Total: 2,255
« Last Edit: March 29, 2009, 05:59:12 PM by Airbag » Logged
buswarrior
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3571


'75 MC8 8V71 HT740




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2009, 06:08:30 PM »

MCI is an assembler. They buy parts and pieces from others and put them together. The jigs to assemble it are theirs, and pretty much the rest comes from elsewhere, that stuff abandoned by the small manufacturer involved right after MCI's order was completed.

As you noted, there is no requirement to replace parts on a bus like on an airplane. If there was, we would enjoy a better supply, as road vehicles suffer a greater deterioration than aircraft with the exposure to salt, mud, etc.

I'll say it again: there is NO DEMAND for the parts you seek. Our buses, in the minds of the market forces, should be in the scrap yard.

See my new thread on DD3 brakes..even Bendix is caving in to these supply/demand/financing/accounting pressures.

happy coaching!
buswarrior
Logged

Frozen North, Greater Toronto Area
Airbag
Guest

« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2009, 06:11:29 PM »

I forgot to add aircraft manufacturers are required to hold a PMA (parts manufacture authorization for every part they produce unlike MCI that can just make the part and send it. A PMA requires FAA inspection and conformity requirements that are very strict and require material dimension and QA certification to held on file indefinitely.
Logged
Airbag
Guest

« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2009, 06:20:11 PM »

MCI is an assembler. They buy parts and pieces from others and put them together. The jigs to assemble it are theirs, and pretty much the rest comes from elsewhere, that stuff abandoned by the small manufacturer involved right after MCI's order was completed.

As you noted, there is no requirement to replace parts on a bus like on an airplane. If there was, we would enjoy a better supply, as road vehicles suffer a greater deterioration than aircraft with the exposure to salt, mud, etc.

I'll say it again: there is NO DEMAND for the parts you seek. Our buses, in the minds of the market forces, should be in the scrap yard.

See my new thread on DD3 brakes..even Bendix is caving in to these supply/demand/financing/accounting pressures.

happy coaching!
buswarrior

Again your argument does not wash for Cessna does not produce every part in house, for example the stringers in the wings are produced by Kentucky Roll Form Corp. Guess what they still have all the rollers and will run a batch for Cessna upon request. The C-120 I mentioned is not used in any real commercial use it just a light plane used for pleasure but because the DOT requires them to support it engineering wise they choose to support completely, after all it is in their best interest because they produced it and if it crashes into peoples housing that looks really really bad for them regardless of any liability limits. You can't tell me MCI does not have the same image to uphold.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2009, 06:21:53 PM by Airbag » Logged
belfert
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5426




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: March 29, 2009, 06:32:37 PM »

How many MCI buses have crashed because someone couldn't replace an obsolete part?  Certainly MCI buses have crashed due to bad parts, but the issue is almost always lack of maintenance, not that someone could not find a replacement.

Car companies generally don't produce new parts for 40 year old cars with the exception of crate motors for muscle cars.  Why should we expect bus companies to be any different?
Logged

Brian Elfert - 1995 Dina Viaggio 1000 Series 60/B500 - 75% done but usable - Minneapolis, MN
Airbag
Guest

« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2009, 06:59:30 PM »

How many MCI buses have crashed because someone couldn't replace an obsolete part?  Certainly MCI buses have crashed due to bad parts, but the issue is almost always lack of maintenance, not that someone could not find a replacement.

Car companies generally don't produce new parts for 40 year old cars with the exception of crate motors for muscle cars.  Why should we expect bus companies to be any different?

Well maybe because it weighs about 23,000 lbs and will travel at 80 mph with 40 plus people aboard. We are lucky the DOT does not require more from us maintenance wise.

It's not just parts but engineering, when was the last time you received a safety/ service bulletin from them?

Hey it is what it is and I will deal with it but that does not make it right.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2009, 07:05:07 PM by Airbag » Logged
Jeremy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1872


1987 Bedford Plaxton


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #12 on: March 30, 2009, 06:59:48 AM »

From a passenger safety perspective I suspect logic dictates that obsolete buses should be forced off the road, not supported forever to keep them going in place of fundamentally better new designs. Isn't that exactly what happens with school buses in the US?

Coming from an aviation background obviously gives a different take on such things, but even there I'm not really sure why it should be seen as 'irresponsible' for manufacturers not to support products made decades earlier. As long as they obey the law in everything they do it is unreasonable to expect manfacturers to do anything that isn't profitable for them.

I'm not sure how road-worthiness on vehicles is measured / checked in the States, but it is certainly very strict here, and unsecured windows / structural corrosion would certainly be caught by the annual UK tests for private vehicles, never mind the much stricter tests for PSVs.

Jeremy
Logged

A shameless plug for my business - visit www.magazineexchange.co.uk for back issue magazines - thousands of titles covering cars, motorbikes, aircraft, railways, boats, modelling etc. You'll find lots of interest, although not much covering American buses sadly.
Airbag
Guest

« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2009, 05:42:19 PM »

From a passenger safety perspective I suspect logic dictates that obsolete buses should be forced off the road, not supported forever to keep them going in place of fundamentally better new designs. Isn't that exactly what happens with school buses in the US?

Coming from an aviation background obviously gives a different take on such things, but even there I'm not really sure why it should be seen as 'irresponsible' for manufacturers not to support products made decades earlier. As long as they obey the law in everything they do it is unreasonable to expect manfacturers to do anything that isn't profitable for them.

I'm not sure how road-worthiness on vehicles is measured / checked in the States, but it is certainly very strict here, and unsecured windows / structural corrosion would certainly be caught by the annual UK tests for private vehicles, never mind the much stricter tests for PSVs.

Jeremy


Hey Jeremy nice web site. What kind of bus is that? Do you have pics posted here? On the subject of obsolete vehicles I was the proud owner of a Hunting Percival Pembroke at one time. It was powered by two 550hp Alvis Leonides nine cylinder radial engines. I will try to keep this short, Hunting Percival was bought up by BAC who also owned the Jetstream aircraft line that they hoped would replace the Pembroke's military roles as a VIP transport, air ambulance, an cartography ship. The Pembroke is a wonderful aircraft 14 seats, stand up cabin, with a crapper in the rear (with door) and 150mph cruise on 50gph burn. My aircraft was an ex Belgium Pem and BAC in their move to ground all Pems did a fictitious fatigue study that gave it a 2400 hour service limit on the wing spar. This is akin to GM telling you the wheels will fall off after 1000 miles. My Pem operated many years running non stop between Bogota and Miami full of wacky tobbacky and happy dust. Then it spent 3000 hours flying the Pacific coast for the University of Ca doing marine mammal, sea bird rookery counts as well as in fared ocean surface temp readings. It had over 6000 hours on it when I obtained her. It even had a plug for an iron lung as well as a large camera bay with doors and oblique camera mounts on the sides. The RAF wanted nothing to do with the cramped small Jetstreams and made BAC respar their aircraft. This decision backfired on BAC. Studies were made by many people that confirmed no Pem was ever slated for destructive testing meaning the fatigue study was a fraud. Moral of the story is companies don't always do the right thing and sometimes even steal from the tax payers as BAC did with The PEM. There has never been a wing failure of a Pembroke. BAC could not even tell me where the problem area of the wing is and almost pretended the Pem did not exist

I am the fat and ugly one.
We bitch about air leaks in our buses, try one of these babies, landing gear retract, brakes, flaps, and engine shut down fuel cutoffs are all air. Powered by two tiny compressors that put out mouse farts.



« Last Edit: March 30, 2009, 05:59:25 PM by Airbag » Logged
Charles in SC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: March 30, 2009, 06:47:18 PM »

I have an "Experimental" sign in the right front window of my bus, er motor home. I sure am glad I do not have to do an airplane type annual on it. I could not afford it.
Logged

S8M 5303 built in 1969, converted in 2000
Pages: [1] 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!