Frames- Which brands have weak frames?

A lot of the older canned hams had weaker frames. I've seen some that supported the trailer OK, and some that were like bending lead... As the trailers evolved, the frames became beefier and lasted longer. Some of the issues with frames are rolled steel runners (engineers may have thought there was enough strength even tho the metal was thin?), lack of cross supports and missing outriggers. Also, many hams lacked any support at the back-some as much as 3 feet.

Some trailers have completely rotted and rusted out frames. I'm thinking lighter gauge metal would be worse, but environmental factors play a roll, too. I mean, buried in the dirt for years doesn't bode well for steel. Also, some Airstreams have been know to have VERY rusty frames due to the enclosed bellies. (damp = decay and rust)

Late 50s Cardinals are known for weak and broken frames, especially at the tongue. Makes for a dangerous first trip getting it home... However, by 1964, the frames were much better. The runners were C channel at least 1/4" thick and the outriggers angle iron, about 3/16. I will say that a couple of added outriggers by the wheel wells would have been nice, but overall, by 1964, Cardinals had a sturdy frame.

My 56 Aljo had a lighter weight frame but was not tweaked and the tongue level. We added an angle support from doorway to kitchen side just for extra support at the entryway. If I remember correctly, the gap was 4 feet before the addition.

Westerners don't have much of a frame. We have at least one thread showing frame issues and repairs. When you see the frame "bare" there's not a lot there...Makes a person wonder how they held up all that time.

NOTE: A welder friend told me that the floor and framing provided structural integrity. He did some repairs on the 52 Hanson and made sure I was going to bolt the joists and floor to provide support. It is like a rock now.

Here's a kicker: our 54 Bellwood has an awesome frame. Sturdy, strong, just a monster. The trailer is 14'8" total. LOL. Not a dimple anywhere. The 57 Shasta twins (Butch and Sundance) had decent frames except at the rear. There is no support for the back skin if/when the trailer might drag and not much chance of adding framing. The Bellwood has a 2 by back there.

Altho the Aristocrats I've worked on have been "newer" (65-69), they all had very good frames.Land Commanders and Loliners both were more than adequate.

I'm guessing the little guys (Lil Loafer, some Compacts and smaller Loliners) may have had lighter frames to keep the weight down. We know that Carvelloafer rebuilt his frame, hopefully more will chime in here.

My tongue bent because the frame has a bend right at the front of the body and the cross member there broke, allowing the frame to twist, lifting the tongue. I think my model of field and stream was a special experiment in lightweight, cheap construction because it didn't have any frame at the rear or any outriggers at all!

danrhodes,
The crossmember broke because of rust or was it just too thin and gravity with potholes were too much for it?

vikx,
I really like the outside of Airstreams but not really the inside. If I ever were to buy a new camper it would be a Bambi. They have everything and they're not huge.

vikx,
I really like the outside of Airstreams but not really the inside. If I ever were to buy a new camper it would be a Bambi. They have everything and they're not huge.[/quote]

Beware Airstreams, even Bambis. They are a NIGHTMARE to repair... Getting to the belly plumbing involves cutting a large hole, doing repairs, then riveting a patch in place. That's from the factory. Rear bath work can involve removing rivets and rear skin. So not fun. The floor is plywood and an integral factor in body strength. If it's rotted, not much holding the body onto the frame.

Airstreams I've worked on were much worse than expected.

Rod's Westerner is a CA trailer too. Make sure to note the frame straightening method that John Palmer showed him if you have any tongue lift.