And the Taylorcraft...
- Thread starter arcticace
- Start date
Wayne Mackey
Registered User
Miles City Montana 406 232 1370
T Craft
Hi Pa 20,
Have freinds in ak. that have done some things with the T craft. They took the old
model 12 and put in 0 290-2, !35 hp and it worked well. Did same with flaps and it
was a real performer. We had a T craft airfoil on a cub prodject and put a leading
edge cuff on it and that helped a lot on low end speed and stibility. Just some old
memory's thought you mite be interested in. Wayne
PS. we also had slats on the cub with the tailorcraft airfoil but the owner was
new to slow flight and not comfortible, took them off and put on my own plane.
Hi Pa 20,
Have freinds in ak. that have done some things with the T craft. They took the old
model 12 and put in 0 290-2, !35 hp and it worked well. Did same with flaps and it
was a real performer. We had a T craft airfoil on a cub prodject and put a leading
edge cuff on it and that helped a lot on low end speed and stibility. Just some old
memory's thought you mite be interested in. Wayne
PS. we also had slats on the cub with the tailorcraft airfoil but the owner was
new to slow flight and not comfortible, took them off and put on my own plane.
G
Guest
If I remember correctly, the English Auster is a T-craft with a large engine (Gypsy Minor?). Their performance is really good.
JimC
JimC
arcticace
Registered User
Fort Simpson, NT Canada
Thanks for the replies.
I had a 65hp BC-12D a few years back. Even with that little engine it would break ground in 600 feet with both seats full. I have often wondered if extra weight would ruin the nice handling and gentle stall. I have heard that T-Crafts cruise pretty good--up to 130 mph--with more power. This is important to me because an average leg in this area is 150 miles.
Any more input would be appreciated.
Glen S
I had a 65hp BC-12D a few years back. Even with that little engine it would break ground in 600 feet with both seats full. I have often wondered if extra weight would ruin the nice handling and gentle stall. I have heard that T-Crafts cruise pretty good--up to 130 mph--with more power. This is important to me because an average leg in this area is 150 miles.
Any more input would be appreciated.
Glen S
Wayne Mackey
Registered User
Miles City Montana 406 232 1370
T.C.
Glen,
There is a fellow in Columbus MT. who biulds cubs with T craft wings on them.
They have a large flap. I saw one at a local fly in and it performed quite well.
The man was a super craftsman and the plane looked good. Wayne
Glen,
There is a fellow in Columbus MT. who biulds cubs with T craft wings on them.
They have a large flap. I saw one at a local fly in and it performed quite well.
The man was a super craftsman and the plane looked good. Wayne
Psychonaut
Registered User
Duesseldorf, Germany
Hi all,
i just found out that the taylorcraft F22 is still, or newly, manufactured (www.taylorcraft.com). I fell in love with SC's but unfortunatly found out that these birds are hard to find and quite expensive here in germany. With the current euro/US $ exchange rate a new F22 will be way cheaper than a +30 years old Cub. OK, it is not a Cub, but it is a new classic tailwheel, without the unknowns a newbie faces when investing in a 30 year old aircraft in regards of maintainence and restoration costs. And it has the same heritage....;-) And i guess something like that would be perfect for the first self owned plane to get some experience and hours....
As i have only flown a L-18C, how would you compare a taylorcraft F22 in regards of flying characteristics? Hardcore STOL stuff is not that important for me as in germany off-airport operations are not allowed anyways.....:-(
Besides that, is it possible to fly a F22 without doors?
cu
Mirko "PSychonaut"
i just found out that the taylorcraft F22 is still, or newly, manufactured (www.taylorcraft.com). I fell in love with SC's but unfortunatly found out that these birds are hard to find and quite expensive here in germany. With the current euro/US $ exchange rate a new F22 will be way cheaper than a +30 years old Cub. OK, it is not a Cub, but it is a new classic tailwheel, without the unknowns a newbie faces when investing in a 30 year old aircraft in regards of maintainence and restoration costs. And it has the same heritage....;-) And i guess something like that would be perfect for the first self owned plane to get some experience and hours....
As i have only flown a L-18C, how would you compare a taylorcraft F22 in regards of flying characteristics? Hardcore STOL stuff is not that important for me as in germany off-airport operations are not allowed anyways.....:-(
Besides that, is it possible to fly a F22 without doors?
cu
Mirko "PSychonaut"
cubpilot2
SPONSOR
Anchorage Alaska
I have a friend who converted a BC-12D with an 0-290 in the early 90s and couldn't get a field approval on it; even though many had been converted by Allsworth who went up to 150 hp. (I think).
The problem was that they (the FAA) discovered that in using the original nose mounted main fuel tank that the engine was prone to fuel starvation at high angles of attack. The outlet of the nose tank was too low to provide enough gravity feed pressure to meet the engine design requirements.
He had to go through engineering and convert his auxiliary wing tanks into "main" tanks, by completely reworking the fuel system. He also had to prove "head pressure" of the fuel after the changes and was able to get it approved as a one time STC.
The Feds said that even though there were other "approved" aircraft flying, they were not obligated to repeat prior mistakes.
The airplane is an excellent performer. (no electrical installed)
If anyone is operating a modified BC-12D you may want to consider this potential problem and assume that it could show up in a full power, steep climb. I don't think any of the prior "field approved" units were ever "recalled" or grounded by the FAA. I think the issue was simply ignored.
The problem was that they (the FAA) discovered that in using the original nose mounted main fuel tank that the engine was prone to fuel starvation at high angles of attack. The outlet of the nose tank was too low to provide enough gravity feed pressure to meet the engine design requirements.
He had to go through engineering and convert his auxiliary wing tanks into "main" tanks, by completely reworking the fuel system. He also had to prove "head pressure" of the fuel after the changes and was able to get it approved as a one time STC.
The Feds said that even though there were other "approved" aircraft flying, they were not obligated to repeat prior mistakes.
The airplane is an excellent performer. (no electrical installed)
If anyone is operating a modified BC-12D you may want to consider this potential problem and assume that it could show up in a full power, steep climb. I don't think any of the prior "field approved" units were ever "recalled" or grounded by the FAA. I think the issue was simply ignored.
a t-crate with a 320 would be wonderful. its wing is built for more speed than a cub but still performs fine except for very short stuff. add flaps and you got something. there is an old stc to put sticks in them. dont know if it is still active, but that would be nice. it would make it like a 14.
Steve Pierce
BENEFACTOR
Graham, TX
Beware of the new Taylorcraft. They are not in production as of yet and I am willing to bet they won't ever get a production certificate. I have had personal dealings with the owner and he is full of unfulfillable promises. I would not give him any money until I had personal possesion. Also beware of the 21 gallon wing tanks in the newer models. It has the most piss poor design I have ever seen. I don't usually come on so strong but I have had a very bad experience with the fuel tanks and the owner of Taylorcraft.
Psychonaut
Registered User
Duesseldorf, Germany
rehi,
thx for all the replies. And quite interesting to hear that about the new taylorcraft. I think the website has not very detailed information and almost no pictures, etc. And it says:" new 2004 models", so i thought they are already producing.......good to know thats not the case.....
Actually i am just beginning to play with the idea of owning a plane and i am extremly conservative in regards of spending money and so i will be checking everything more than twice....
But the idea of getting a new plane for the price of a 30+ year old one sounds quite good to me....Well i am just in the information gatehering procedure and i am in no hurry.....
But if i think about buying an old plane and being surprised afterwards with expensive rustproblems or fabric jobs i can't sleep anymore And the opportunity of the euro/US $ exchange rate is very interesting for us europeans right now.....US plane prices dropped 30% in 12 months !
Mirko
thx for all the replies. And quite interesting to hear that about the new taylorcraft. I think the website has not very detailed information and almost no pictures, etc. And it says:" new 2004 models", so i thought they are already producing.......good to know thats not the case.....
Actually i am just beginning to play with the idea of owning a plane and i am extremly conservative in regards of spending money and so i will be checking everything more than twice....
But the idea of getting a new plane for the price of a 30+ year old one sounds quite good to me....Well i am just in the information gatehering procedure and i am in no hurry.....
But if i think about buying an old plane and being surprised afterwards with expensive rustproblems or fabric jobs i can't sleep anymore
And the opportunity of the euro/US $ exchange rate is very interesting for us europeans right now.....US plane prices dropped 30% in 12 months ! Mirko
Steve Pierce
BENEFACTOR
Graham, TX
Might have to move this to Rant and Rave. 
CraigH
Registered User
Graham, TX
Before spending any money with the New Taylorcraft Aviation I'd recommend reading this thread from the Taylorcraft site: http://vb.taylorcraft.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=477
That being said, I just got my F21B up and flying last week. Only have about 3 hours on it, but from what I've seen so far I'd put it up against a 90hp PA18 any day. Climbs like a scalded ape when lightly loaded, has a 690 lb useful load, cruises at 95kts and has over a 6 hour range with full fuel. Very short take off run, but it's going to take awhile to get the hang of landing it short. Those long wings love to float.
That being said, I just got my F21B up and flying last week. Only have about 3 hours on it, but from what I've seen so far I'd put it up against a 90hp PA18 any day. Climbs like a scalded ape when lightly loaded, has a 690 lb useful load, cruises at 95kts and has over a 6 hour range with full fuel. Very short take off run, but it's going to take awhile to get the hang of landing it short. Those long wings love to float.
bob turner
Registered User
Why not try a Citabria or Decathlon instead of a Taylorcraft? Faster, already approved for big engines, more roomy, can fix them up IFR, inexpensive (compared to Super Cub). Or a kit! That Smith thing sounds awful good!
Taylorcraft BC-12D
I have a good friend who built a Taylorcraft Sweck (spell?) conversion. He used a io320 160 HP engine. With the clipped wings the thing really performs. As you might expect, it also has a substantial sink rate when he chops the power. The plane is licensed as experimental. If you want performance numbers, PM me. I'll see what I can do.
I have a good friend who built a Taylorcraft Sweck (spell?) conversion. He used a io320 160 HP engine. With the clipped wings the thing really performs. As you might expect, it also has a substantial sink rate when he chops the power. The plane is licensed as experimental. If you want performance numbers, PM me. I'll see what I can do.
Bill Ingerson
Registered User
Snohomish Washington
T - CRAFT FORSALE ON E-BAY
This looks to be a very nice plane for the money, Its forsale on E-Bay a Red Taylor Craft. If I was not so determined to buy a SuperCub 18 I would probably buy this Taylor craft.
This looks to be a very nice plane for the money, Its forsale on E-Bay a Red Taylor Craft. If I was not so determined to buy a SuperCub 18 I would probably buy this Taylor craft.
S2D
MEMBER
Montana
I fully agree with Steve on the Wing tanks. They are pure Junk. After tearing the wing open and repairing one here a couple times, we finally sent them to Clerence and had him make new ones we could mount similar to a Super Cub. A 160 HP TC is a great Performer, but doubt you could get one approved nowadays.
Steve Pierce
BENEFACTOR
Graham, TX
Yes they have wood spars. They beefed up the fuselage.
Steve Pierce
BENEFACTOR
Graham, TX
Why? Wood is great spar material, strong and light. Most of the problems with wood spars have been from people ground looping them, hitting the wing tip and not making sure the spar wasn't cracked.
behindpropellers
Registered User
NE Ohio
Steve...etc-
Do you know of anybody painting the spars white after spar varnish? Im thinking about painting them white on the J-5 after varnish for easy inspection. Any thoughts?
Tim
Do you know of anybody painting the spars white after spar varnish? Im thinking about painting them white on the J-5 after varnish for easy inspection. Any thoughts?
Tim
I have thoughts. Fewer and farther between the last few years, but... OH!
Painting your fuselage tubing or engine mount (or race car frame) is an EXCELLANT idea, because steel, when cracked, exudes "smoke" when the crack "moves around". White paint makes it a snap to see that action, and you have to prevent rusting somehow anyway, so why NOT white?.
But wood spars are a different matter. They are left in CLEAR varnish so that you may visually spot "blackening" that indicates rotting and because varnish is the best sealant. Also wood doesn't produce the "smoke" at the crack location either, so there is no reason to think it would "aid in inspection". I know if I looked in a wing on an airplane I was thiinking about buying and saw anything but clear varnish (poly spar varnish is ok), I'd be putting my flashlight away and walking away from it.
Painting your fuselage tubing or engine mount (or race car frame) is an EXCELLANT idea, because steel, when cracked, exudes "smoke" when the crack "moves around". White paint makes it a snap to see that action, and you have to prevent rusting somehow anyway, so why NOT white?.
But wood spars are a different matter. They are left in CLEAR varnish so that you may visually spot "blackening" that indicates rotting and because varnish is the best sealant. Also wood doesn't produce the "smoke" at the crack location either, so there is no reason to think it would "aid in inspection". I know if I looked in a wing on an airplane I was thiinking about buying and saw anything but clear varnish (poly spar varnish is ok), I'd be putting my flashlight away and walking away from it.
Steve Pierce
BENEFACTOR
Graham, TX
I too would be leary of painted spars. Is there wood filler covering things up, etc. Clear epoxy varnish is my choice. Easy to inspect and protects the wood. Another thing is it would be hard to slide the ribs on over the varnish and paint. The wood spar wings I have rebuilt were hard enough to slide ribs over without the extra layer of paint.
R. JOHNSON
Registered User
DODGEVILLE WI
My dad was having an annual done on a 46' metal spar J-3 and the IA told him he should have varnished the spars instead of priming them. When dad told him they were metal he said he just thought all old airplanes had wood spars.
Steve Pierce
BENEFACTOR
Graham, TX
There is a J-3 on my home airport with one metal spar wing and one wood spar wing. Legal I guess.
Similar threads
