• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Anybody have a Tcraft within driving distance of SW Montana?

G

Geewhiz

Registered User
Hi, I'm new here, and I'm ashamed to say that I don't own a supercub.


Although I would love nothing more than to own a cub, my funds arent going to let me at this point. I'm leaning towards a taylorcraft but before I get too crazy I would like to sit in one and see if it will work for my frame. I'm 6'3ish 200lbs.

I am humbly wondering if there is anybody within a reasonable driving distance of 59725 with a taylorcraft that would be willing to let me climb in and get a size wise impression before I make the leap or decide not to.

I have an F-19 in mind, and I'm not exactly sure how that compares cockpit wise to the bc-12 series.
 
Geewhiz said:
Hi, I'm new here, and I'm ashamed to say that I don't own a supercub.


Although I would love nothing more than to own a cub, my funds arent going to let me at this point. I'm leaning towards a taylorcraft but before I get too crazy I would like to sit in one and see if it will work for my frame. I'm 6'3ish 200lbs.

I am humbly wondering if there is anybody within a reasonable driving distance of 59725 with a taylorcraft that would be willing to let me climb in and get a size wise impression before I make the leap or decide not to.

I have an F-19 in mind, and I'm not exactly sure how that compares cockpit wise to the bc-12 series.
Click to expand...

Jim Baker should wake up from his nap soon and tell you about his

Glenn
 
I am now awake. All Tcraft are the same inside from the seat forward. There is a guy in central MT with a 150 BC12 but I don’t remember his name. He is a rancher in Hanson if I have the town name right. F19s and F21s will out perform a 150hp SC with the accept ion of short take off and landing. Comes real close. I am 6’ and 200# and fit just fine. Taller might be a problem. Try before you buy. There is a nice F19 for sale out that way.

Jim
 
That town is Hysham. That is the closest town to his ranch. Just go to the faa web site and search Taylorcrafts and you will find his name. Good luck

Jim
 
My BC-12D ended up in Bozeman, I ferried it up there about 13 years ago. Hickory brown and Daytona white, a fine example of the line.
 
With top hinged "seaplane doors" access is much easier. From the front of gear place foot on brake inside tire, swing butt into plane with head ducked, pull in legs. The typical seat is a canvas sling that can be adjusted for desired head clearance. Other designs have been developed. Oh, and a skylight adds head clearance. An easy 10 mph over most fabric planes with the same engine and prop. But...not supported as well as others for parts.

Gary
 
I know of one that's flying in Great Falls, if that helps, and there's 3 of them here in the valley. I'm sure if I knock the cobwebs loose, I can come up with something else. Mine's all apart and hanging on the wall up here. I do know that the guy I got it from weighed 325# and he and his son would both squeeze in and go!! With both of them in, it was at 160% of it's useful load, then they'd throw 24 gallons of fuel in and sleeping bags and that ol' 85 would get them off the ground. Heck of an airplane!!!!
John
 
Years ago I flew formation with a standard T-Craft. My plane is an EAB 150hp SC. Same cruise speed. I was impressed with how efficiently it flew with considerably less horsepower.
 
Hardtailjohn said:
I know of one that's flying in Great Falls, if that helps, and there's 3 of them here in the valley. I'm sure if I knock the cobwebs loose, I can come up with something else. Mine's all apart and hanging on the wall up here. I do know that the guy I got it from weighed 325# and he and his son would both squeeze in and go!! With both of them in, it was at 160% of it's useful load, then they'd throw 24 gallons of fuel in and sleeping bags and that ol' 85 would get them off the ground. Heck of an airplane!!!!
John
Click to expand...

Might by up in the flathead in the next few weeks. Brothers wife is having a baby soon in that neck of the woods. Maybe I should try to sneek in a rendezvous with somebody while im up there.
 
If you’re in the Flathead find Bob Colby, Poorman Aviation at the Ferndale Airport 53U.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
If you do come up, holler and I'll get you with one of the Colby's or one of the others around here.
John
 
As much as I like a TaylorCraft, and they are a wonderful little airplane with great performance. Because of your physical demension's, after you "try getting in a T Craft" be sure and try a Champ .......... Or a Cruiser.
And don't forget if you ever wreck it getting out may become next to impossible ? IMHO if you were 5'7/150lb
your looking at the right plane. But your NOT. In the North the same guy that could 'squeeze in with jeans & sneakers'
During the summer months. Will find getting in during winter months quite a different experience. And since your in MT and skis may be in your future? Your going to find wintertime flying will find it very different, with a big Parker, heavy clothes, bunny boots???? ( Possible? Maybe?? Practical not really) Getting in and out is quite different as a ski plane, off snow vs Tarmack ???? Just few things to consider beside what you " like looks of"
Good Luck.
E
 
Last edited:
My first airplane when I was 19 was a T-craft BC-12D. I was a tall 6'1" 135 pound skinny drink of water and was able to get in and out easily without using the built in step. It was a tight fit but functional. I used the copilot rudder pedals except for take off and landings since my legs fit that distance better. The visibility to the side was poor as my eyes were above the door windows looking at the wing roots. Under normal looking around turning to look out the side, I had to duck down to see under the wing. The visibility to the side was so poor, I was nearly run down by a P3 when it approached from my 3 0'clock at just above my line of vision. The first clue I had was when it went by my windshield. It was so close I could hear the engines and smell the exhaust. There was no indication he even saw me.

A few years later a friend had one which he took on a trip out west. Somewhere, as I recall it was in Montana, he had a high elevation issue and left it wrapped around a tree in the woods.

That being said, I liked the plane. It was economical (I only made $25 a week when I had it), a good flyer and I learned a lot with it.
 
I’m only 5’10 220 lbs but I like my Taylorcraft a lot…I can get in and out even a bit easier than my Cub. I love the thing on floats. It performs beautifully and is a pure joy to fly. I have no trouble hopping out to dock it and I hand prop it and jump in without difficulty as well. I have a C90 in mine which makes it a Spritely performer. Skywagon is right about side visibility, but I’ve taken the front of the seat sling off and unwrapped two wraps from it giving it some slack and at least 2” of additional headroom. I flew one that had really nicely reupholstered seats but the guy made it super thick and that one had me scrunched up to the headliner. Easy fix, new seat cushion and rip out headliner.
 
TurboBeaver said:
As much as I like a TaylorCraft, and they are a wonderful little airplane with great performance. Because of your physical demension's, after you "try getting in a T Craft" be sure and try a Champ .......... Or a Cruiser.
And don't forget if you ever wreck it getting out may become next to impossible ? IMHO if you were 5'7/150lb
your looking at the right plane. But your NOT. In the North the same guy that could 'squeeze in with jeans & sneakers'
During the summer months. Will find getting in during winter months quite a different experience. And since your in MT and skis may be in your future? Your going to find wintertime flying will find it very different, with a big Parker, heavy clothes, bunny boots???? ( Possible? Maybe?? Practical not really) Getting in and out is quite different as a ski plane, off snow vs Tarmack ???? Just few things to consider beside what you " like looks of"
Good Luck.
E
Click to expand...

I genuinely appreciate the feedback. I have heard many reports from both sides regarding this which is why I’d like to sit in one before I make a call. I landed on an f19 for a handful of reasons(which may all go out the window if I don’t comfortably fit).

What would you recommend for a budget of $40k not a dime more, low and slow type flying with intentions of off airport training and as good of performance as I could expect. Density altitudes of 8-9k+ which more or less rules out 65&85s as far as I can tell, and enough useful load to haul around my 200lb self and an instructor with A few hrs of fuel?

Seams like a 7ac with a c90 or O-200 would check those boxes aside from useful load limitations. Not sure what other options I have within my budget restrictions.
 
This, is a tall order.
Geewhiz said:
...What would you recommend for a budget of $40k not a dime more, low and slow type flying with intentions of off airport training and as good of performance as I could expect. Density altitudes of 8-9k+ which more or less rules out 65&85s as far as I can tell, and enough useful load to haul around my 200lb self and an instructor with A few hrs of fuel?
Click to expand...
A 200lb self and a minimum 150 lb instructor, with a few hours of (6 gal/hr if your lucky) 108lbs (3 hours) = 458 lbs useful load. Now figure the performance with density altitudes of 8-9k+. If this were a sea level order it would be a tall one, when you add in density altitude..... well.

I wish you all the success in your search, this will not be easy.
 
skywagon8a said:
This, is a tall order.
A 200lb self and a minimum 150 lb instructor, with a few hours of (6 gal/hr if your lucky) 108lbs (3 hours) = 458 lbs useful load. Now figure the performance with density altitudes of 8-9k+. If this were a sea level order it would be a tall one, when you add in density altitude..... well.

I wish you all the success in your search, this will not be easy.
Click to expand...

That is what i’m discovering. Trying to find the best option to check as many boxes as I can. Performance at high density altitude is a relative term, “satisfactory performance for a new pilot” is what I should have said. I don’t need or expect to have 200 ft takeoff roll at 9k at gross. Just trying to get as far as I can in the direction I want to go with my current budget and looking for the best option. I was suggested by a member here to reconsider short wing pipers. Not a bad idea.
 
skywagon8a said:
This, is a tall order.
A 200lb self and a minimum 150 lb instructor, with a few hours of (6 gal/hr if your lucky) 108lbs (3 hours) = 458 lbs useful load. Now figure the performance with density altitudes of 8-9k+. If this were a sea level order it would be a tall one, when you add in density altitude..... well.

I wish you all the success in your search, this will not be easy.
Click to expand...

That is what i’m discovering. Trying to find the best option to check as many boxes as I can. Performance at high density altitude is a relative term, “satisfactory performance for a new pilot” is what I should have said. I don’t need or expect to have 200 ft takeoff roll at 9k at gross. Just trying to get as far as I can in the direction I want to go with my current budget and looking for the best option. I was suggested by a member here to reconsider short wing pipers. Not a bad idea.
 
Research wing loading (pounds of weight/wing surface area), aspect ratio (wing chord vs long wing span), pounds of aircraft weight per effective but diminished horsepower at density altitude, propeller efficiency at rpm available at full power, and coefficient of lift per the wing's airfoil at angle of attack. One aspect of the factors can supplement another with limits and compromises.

But light wing loading, long wings relative to chord, pounds per available horsepower, propeller design, and a high lift plus efficient airfoil can be the best compromise. Look at gliders and ask why they can fly with a minimum rate of descent. They are not short wing pipers.

Gary
 
When I was in high school and college an F-19 was THE plane I wanted. Good legal useful load, nice size baggage, electrical system, and 30 years newer than my first BC12D. With a 1500lbs gw it shouldn’t be hard to configure an F-19 with a 550lb or better useful load while sipping on 4.5-6gph. The O-200 really benefited from the 74” prop I think. They are great planes, and 10 or so years ago it was much easier to find one (or a similarly modified B model). Now I hardly see them for sale. My old 65hp BC12D worked surprisingly well too, I even managed to squeeze a couple 6’+ passengers in over the years, but it was definitely uncomfortable. Eventually we had a couple kids and needed more seats, so now I currently have a Piper of the short wing variety as the family minivan with wings and bushwheels;). While I haven’t done much at high altitudes I believe Pacers and Taylorcrafts are 6 to one, half dozen the other. Depending on the individual mods of course. When heavy the Pacers just don’t have the wing area to generate as much lift, but the ability to run a 150/160hp with a Borer prop is huge. They will both be touching down at similar speeds (roughly 50-55mph). I would give a small edge to the Pacer, but again my flying is all in AK near sea level and my Pacer has some AK mods (wings extensions, borer, bushwheels, vgs). I think it would be hard for you to go wrong with a nice version of either one. The only real knocks I have on the Taylorcraft is the stock brakes suck, and the parts availability will never be as good as a Piper product. Which is really too bad because they are such wonderful flying airplanes.
 
I would be looking for a good Champ. 7GC has a fair useful load, and cockpits are roomy. Prices are fair. Definitely would want one with a C-90 or O-200, or maybe an 85 stroker.

As far as seeing if you fit, I know some guys in Bozeman who have a nice Champ, who'd probably let you climb around it and sit in it and make flying noises.

MTV
 
A stock 7GC has an O-290, 135hp. I put a 160 hp in mine and it was powerful. 7GCA stock 150hp, 7GCB same plus flaps. My 7GC was 485lbs useful with 29 Bushwheels and Baby Bushwheel, so you can get a little over 500 useful with smaller tires. I have a half share in an 85hp TCraft now and the Champ is better all around for being roomy.
 
AK81 said:
A stock 7GC has an O-290, 135hp. I put a 160 hp in mine and it was powerful. 7GCA stock 150hp, 7GCB same plus flaps. My 7GC was 485lbs useful with 29 Bushwheels and Baby Bushwheel, so you can get a little over 500 useful with smaller tires. I have a half share in an 85hp TCraft now and the Champ is better all around for being roomy.
Click to expand...

Maybe I was thinking 7EC……All this 7XX designations make my head spin. They’re all great little airplanes in any case.

MTV

Just looked at TC, 7EC or FC both had C-90s.
 
Last edited:
The best thing I can can say about the RANS S-7's I've flown for the last 20+ years: they fly a lot like my old T-Craft, high praise indeed. All my 118 hrs was 4500' ASL based, but the one time I had it as sea level, I was amazed at the performance (me at 155 pounds, full fuel, and camping gear), and a good tight A-65. I always think on how it really would perform with a hot rodded Rotax and a 78" prop like I now have, conversly, I have to wonder how the RANS would do with the much bigger T-Craft wing. The brakes did suck though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AlaskaAV
Interesting situations while driving long haul big rigs.
Replies
4
Views
11K
AlaskaAV
AlaskaAV
Q
Fuselage alignment- how critical???
Replies
18
Views
5K
qsmx440
Q
Iflylower
Wow, a letter from the LEE BOTTOM folks about the EAA and Oshkosh.....
Replies
20
Views
6K
stearmann4
stearmann4
S
Barnstorm 2021: A Supercub Flying Adventure Across America
Replies
1
Views
1K
mam90
M
Steve's Aircraft (Brian)
SR-71 Blackbird, Brian Shul's memoir
Replies
27
Views
44K
mvivion
mvivion
Back
Top