How is the leg room in a Taylorcraft, are they any less than a Super Cub?

That gallery is impressive. Looks like he spent a lot of money and time getting that bird into shape. I'm having a great time perusing all the posts on here and I'm gonna try and get down to the May Day fly-in here in Alaska for the bush competition.

I use Super Cub performance as the bench mark for a good bush plane. I know it has it's disadvantages, but if you're talking purely STOL capability that's a good way to measure other aircraft. Now, start talking about a 170B with a good engine and some STOL mods, and that's an apple to the cubs orange I think. A cub just can't haul in the stuff a good Cessna can. It should be noted that cost is a HUGE factor in all this.

I'd be interested to know what real cost of ownership guys have had between insurance, payments, repairs, ADs, etc. Plane and Pilot had some really good articles on cost of ownership for less than $500 and less than $1000 per month. Have there ever been any good threads on cost of ownership here?

These are the specs for T-Bird II as claimed by Indy Aircraft:

http://www.indyaircraftltd.com/productDetail.php?pid=17&cid=27&area=specs

The raw data is pretty impressive. My big concern right now is it's useful load might exceed it's cubic inches of space available for that load. I'm told there is a manufacturer that makes wing pods for homebuilts that would make the difference. Anyone know of the company? There is a guy in town who flies one and I need to go out and see if I can buy him some gas and a hamburger

Hi Dave:

I looked up the NTSB reports on accidents with TBirds and they all seemed to do with pilot error, not airframe failure. I couldn't find any accidents caused by structural failures, anyway. Maybe someone else can find them.

Many of the accidents ended up with minor injuries, if that means anything.

What specifically about the airframe looks flimsy to you, and why?

In what way is the TBird "dated"? People on this list are still flying Cubs and Luscombes - are they "dated"?.

Bruce

RangeFlyer wrote: ... The T-Bird is a dated design, flimsy...
Dave R...

Look at the later Kitfox models too. The Model V and up have a nice sized baggage area and are comfortable for two people. There are several nice ones on Barnstormers right now.

www.skystar.com

I did a bit of research on this myself, a little airplane on a budget, with decent STOL, rough field capabilities. I did a lot of number crunching, and originally settles on a Zenith 701. I quickly realized that I hate working with sheet metal, and came acrossed (sts) the Rocky Mountain Wings Ridge Runner Model 3. 2 place tandem with good numbers on paper. Their website is a bit dated, but call them anytime and Stace Shrader answers the phone. My final number crunch with a low time used rotax 503 put me at about 18k to get in the air with basic instruments and a handheld GPS and radio. Customer service is top notch, which is what so far had impressed me the most about the company. Empty it is a bit on the light side, but has a useful load about that of the 701. Can't wait until I get home from this deployment so I can actually start building the thing! It does put me at one extreme to the other, C-17 driver by day, 50hp Light Sport in the off-time. Something tells me negative crossover would be a problem in this situation...

There is a 7CCM with an O-235 for sale in Wisconsin if anyone is interested.

Excellent plane, very strong, durable. Lift off at 50 MPH, approach for landing at full speed, plane has LOTS of drag, flare, cut throttle and it settles quickly. It is a Rudder plane, in that you have to constantly work the rudder when flying. The plane is happy flying forward with the nose pointed either left or right, therefore the constant rudder input. The Rotax 582 is an excellent engine the performance increase in the 912 does NOT merit/offset the cost. You will quickly outgrow this plane if you plan trips of any length as it is quite slow. All that exposed tubing makes it so. This is more of an around the patch plane. If your use is in your general area then it is a good purchase. I suggest a light, smaller, Cub clone as they tend to have higher cruise speeds with same or better stall speeds and tend to sit higher. If landing in rough country, the clearance is not much to the bottom of fuselage.

Happy flying,
Los