Trying out a T-crate.
- Thread starter Superbill
- Start date
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
Do you have long legs? The leg room is tight and tall people have to scrunch down to look out the side windows. Nice plane though.
BC12D-4-85
SPONSOR
Fairbanks, AK.
Room in them can be improved. A skylight helps vertically, same for seat configuration. I like top opening seaplane doors that allow for front of the tire access/egress, and better side visibility. If they don't fit try a Cessna C-120/140.
Gary
Gary
Superbill
MEMBER
Lostine Oregon
I'm about 6' 180lbs. Normal legs. The 701 is a little tight, but not bad except for the center stick, so if it's similar or a little better I'd be happy. I guess you can unroll the seat sling for headroom, but that won't help the legs much. Definitely would like to climb in one to find out!
Superbill
MEMBER
Lostine Oregon
That all sounds good. I'm leaning toward an f19 with skylight and seaplane observer doors if I can find one. They sound like a great plane for my intended use, and they look great. Just want to make sure about the fit. Not sure a c120 would get into the places I like to go.
BC12D-4-85
SPONSOR
Fairbanks, AK.
Yes the Taylorcraft will outperform the "C's" if getting into is important. Long 74" prop helps, same for light electrical components. Simple panel. I have FA for seaplane doors (N36007 see FAA records for Approval) that are clear over a thin frame. VG's are best for their wing. I have a different seat than sling, but leaving off the normal full pad and just sitting on a small one with no backrest can add legroom.
Gary
Gary
BC12D-4-85
SPONSOR
Fairbanks, AK.
Taylorcraft is old and relatively unsupported. Any parts still available are either quite expensive, or require owner supervision to manufacture or source from well used. If you plan on hard use prepare your wallet.
Mine is 83 years young with 33 owners over the history. It's treated with respect due it's age.
Gary
Mine is 83 years young with 33 owners over the history. It's treated with respect due it's age.
Gary
aktango58
FRIEND
18AA
Yup, agree on prop clearance. However, with a bit of thought one can extend the nose a bit, and shorten the main gear down to get a bit more clearance. Also, keep the weight back and only put the nose down once stopped. (I am flying an 80 hp one, so dealing with the same issues)
BC12D-4-85
SPONSOR
Fairbanks, AK.
Superbill
MEMBER
Lostine Oregon
That's exactly what I have in mind. Supposedly zenith is coming out with a factory supported option for this, but taking their time.
Superbill
MEMBER
Lostine Oregon
I do try, but with a passenger, landing well seems to be really hard. Literally.
BC12D-4-85
SPONSOR
Fairbanks, AK.
Maybe Zenith had to survey the added loads to the tail? That article also mentions this:
"As for the gear and shocks? Tony of Shock Monster created those. Ivan modified everything for the airframe to fit the gear and tailwheel, which took a lot of trial and error. His tool, die and machinist background proved valuable as he worked to get it structurally sound. He’s still working with the gear to get it more aligned by changing angles, camber, tire pressure and pressure for the shocks."
If you like landing where you want it might take some time to get a Taylorcraft established on approach and then not float in ground effect. They are slick with low drag. But, they make a great floatplane for their power.
Gary
"As for the gear and shocks? Tony of Shock Monster created those. Ivan modified everything for the airframe to fit the gear and tailwheel, which took a lot of trial and error. His tool, die and machinist background proved valuable as he worked to get it structurally sound. He’s still working with the gear to get it more aligned by changing angles, camber, tire pressure and pressure for the shocks."
If you like landing where you want it might take some time to get a Taylorcraft established on approach and then not float in ground effect. They are slick with low drag. But, they make a great floatplane for their power.
Gary
TurboBeaver
Registered User
Northern Maine
Back in the 1970's we used to trap Beaver with skiplanes in the winter. I had a 90hp Champ that was an excellent performer on 2000 skis with my 175lbs. A fellow that had a 65hp Taylorcraft, that was likely around 150lbs; trapped with me. He had a seaplane prop on the Tcraft. He could consistently fly out of most any little dead water we trapped with the little 65 Tcraft; on 1500 skis. Flew right beside me in the air. Amazing little planes for certain
E
E
Superbill
MEMBER
Lostine Oregon
I hear you on the float tendencies. I guess you can't have everything. Frankly I wish the 701 had a little more float. I've also wondered about the tail loads. Last time I bugged zenith, they said they had finished the airframe work and were working on the gear. I presume in conference with Tony at tk1.
Anyway, I'm willing to put in the time to get proficient on approach speeds etc., the shortest, most technical strip that I frequent will permit a go-round, and I like to throttle way back and putt around looking down so the clean airframe might be fun. On the other hand I put 3.5 hours yesterday on the zenith using around 8 gallons in rough air, which it handles pretty well. It's all a trade off I guess.
BC12D-4-85
SPONSOR
Fairbanks, AK.
Zenith Aircraft's website Q&A notes some of their design goals. Simplicity is one. That link discusses the + and - of adding retractable slats. It might be interesting to see if that option would be worth the effort. The reward should be lower drag and increased cruise. They mention an AOA that minimizes drag but note it's a narrow window. Is that the case? If so an AOA indicator on the panel (there's several available for Experimental) might help find and maintain that in flight?
Gary
Gary
Superbill
MEMBER
Lostine Oregon
I have experimented with removing the slats, and adding vg's. It didn't seem to make much difference in cruise, but lengthened the takeoff roll. I think it climbed a little better, which tells me it did reduce drag somewhat, and of course it was lighter, but it's still a fat wing and has a million draggy details that would show up parasitically. I have considered making the flaperons go reflex, but it might nor be worth the trouble. I'm afraid it is what it is with regard to speed. As far as the aoa goes, they are right. It'll keep up with our supercub solo, but with 2 up it slows down considerably. Too much wing loading on the short wings.
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
Lengthen the wings. Higher aspect ratio improves take off and climb performance and depending on the type of plane, sometimes increases cruise speed.
Superbill
MEMBER
Lostine Oregon
For sure. In this case I guess that it wouldn't improve the cruise except maybe when heavy, but if I was building one it'd be pretty different. In fact it would probably be a Rans s7!
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
You're experimental...look at the wing structure on this airplane and plan on extending these wing tips a foot or two. I've done it on several different types of planes, all with positive results.
courierguy
MEMBER
Inkom, Idaho
Mine only had 2700 hrs TT, and I found it significant , for some reason, when my RANS S-7S passed that amount of hours some years ago. Maybe the 7 will be around 70 some years later..... The best flying advice I got when transitioning to my BC12-D was "it's just a big ultralight, give it time to stop flying before trying to land."
Superbill
MEMBER
Lostine Oregon
Superbill
MEMBER
Lostine Oregon
Makes sense. I'm sure it would take some time to adjust after the high drag planes that I'm used to. For what it's worth I'm pretty comfortable with the forward slip, but I guess that says something about my ability to keep on a proper glide slope. I have a tendency to come in high in case of engine trouble.
bob turner
Registered User
The L2 Taylorcraft is an honorary J-3. The book says no spoilers below 500’, but if you want a J-3 landing you simply flare and pull the spoilers out. Lots of room inside, a stick, tandem seating, and way better looking. Opinion on that last.
