I finally have most of the squawks ironed out of my 182. I haven't gotten tired of throwing money away on flying, but I do want something smaller, vfr only for local gravel bar flying that doesn't burn 8-14 gallons an hour in the process. A buddy is selling a 85hp tcrate, I looked at it, and its in good shape but has no electrics. If I mostly flew by myself I wouldn't mind that, but taking one of the kids with me now and then I'd rather have a push button starter.

How much $$ to add that in? I haven't flown a taylorcraft before, but have spent time in cubs and citrabrias, from what I've read they are ok flying machines.

Check out safestart starter systems. My mechanic builds them and a friend has one on his champ. Pretty nice setup

gassman wrote:Check out safestart starter systems. My mechanic builds them and a friend has one on his champ. Pretty nice setup

Is that the one that uses a charged battery with no alternator or generator to recharge in flight? A local guy has something like that on his Champ.

Safestart systems: https://www.facebook.com/SafestartStarterSystems/

Call Fred Distad at Arctic Aviation in Fairbanks (http://www.arcticaviationak.com/home) he maintains a T-Craft that had one for a while. Might be available (?).

Another one for sale: http://alaskaslist.com/1/posts/10_Trans ... ystem.html

Continental C-85's came with no starter/generator (-8's) and with them (-12's). Their accessory case is set up differently. Ask Fred.

I have a 1941 Taylorcraft at the north end of the FAI float pond with a starter and alternator. They are good planes if upgraded with gross weight changes and enough power. Parts are not as available as for Pipers.

Gary

PA1195 wrote: Safestart systems: https://www.facebook.com/SafestartStarterSystems/

This appears to be the kit that uses a Dewalt cordless drill to turn the prop via a Lycoming-style starter ring.
No offense to anyone's friend, but while it is a piece of innovative thinking,
I know a guy who put one on his Luscombe and it was kind of a POS.
A Continental 4-banger in good tune is generally a pussycat to prop anyway,
and if it isn't I'm not sure if this lash-up would work very well.

There is a good article by Robert Kachergius called "Stromberg Numbers Game." He explains how they work and problems with unapproved needles. [email protected]. He also explains that the mixture doesn't work until
five or six thousand feet.
I have propped most small airplanes using small Continental engines. I found all started well when the throttle (butterfly) was cracked right. The advantage of propping was that one could see if fuel was dripping and hear the correct slurping sound. No slurp, close the throttle a bit more. Too much slurp and too much drip, open the throttle a bit.

Robert says the dripping was a bad needle or bad fuel. Probably guilty on both counts. I used local gas station gas even when most had some alcohol.

Having a starter in warm climates vs colder to cold makes a difference even with a pre-heated engine. It's especially a challenge in side by side aircraft without seaplane swing-up doors, and when on floats or standing in deep snow when on skis. The prop can be swung up from the left side but then the pilot needs to get in safely, sometimes around a left door unexpectedly blown closed. Dual impulse magnetos help with starting. Priming several cylinders next to the intake valve versus a single point at the induction spider is good.

I think the only starter that will fit a Taylorcraft with the standard engine mount is the B&C unit.The Skytec I was told is longer. Either work with the longer +4" mount used when an enlarged baggage is desired with STC SA1-210.

A simple battery will work and can be recharged via small solar panel or external sources. Alternators are nice but if electrical load is kept low can be eliminated. I have a light 13A B&C unit on my C-85 but it's a C-85-12F that has an accessory case for a starter and charging source...as noted -8 engines don't offer starters and alternators.

Gary

Can’t say much in reference to the starter but I will say that Taylorcraft is probably one of the finer flying machines in comparison to power they just truly love to fly owned in F 19 and currently own an F 22 Fly as close to a super cub with not nearly the cost.

They do ok but take some AOA adjustment to get lift like a Cub...like but not the same. Just my experience in both.

Wonder what happened to the thread starter?

Gary

PA1195 wrote:They do ok but take some AOA adjustment to get lift like a Cub...like but not the same. Just my experience in both.

Wonder what happened to the thread starter?

Gary

Still lurking, the plane I was considering is sitting behind a snowed in 206..no preheater so will wait until spring. Been too busy out flying and sledding and finally enjoying sunny skies in Kotz.

My recommendation would be 100% no-electric. I've flown a few hundred hours split between both electric and no-electric Tcarts. At most, throw a mini B&C alternator in with a little motorcycle battery to drive a radio/intercom. Weight is everything in these planes and a full electric system is 50+ lbs not to mention a bit of HP lost driving the alternator. Hand propping is a piece of cake and forms a better relationship between the plane and pilot.

An approximate electrical system based upon B&C info:

B&C starter ~10.3#
B&C 8A alternator ~3.4#
Battery max ~14.6# with lighter non-approved versions available and a maybe a better choice
Cables and solenoids ~5# varies depending on cable run and battery mount
About 33# max

Now most would never fly at a gross weight of 1280# for a C-85 Taylorcraft on conventional gear, or would they? Or ever over that? So please tell me what difference does 33# make in the performance if flown at legal GW? If it's that critical to be light (pounds per horsepower and wing loading) then you and I in the wrong airplane for the mission. I agree Cubs do better at the same weight despite what Taylorcrafter's claim.

My fat C-85 Stroker at LSA 1280# GW with full electric is 834# on 26" Airstreaks (394 useful), 822# on Aero 2000 skis (406 useful), and at 1351# GW on EDO 1320's weighs 904# (447 useful). Yes it's been currently weighed. A GW of 1500# is an alternative builder choice option for my plane but of course performance will suffer.

If someone wants to hand prop in cold weather or on floats to increase useful load then by all means do so. I respect the choice.

Edit: These Taylorcrafts typically came from the factory at a universal weight of about 750# stripped. No electrics, radios, wood prop, tiny tires and tailwheel, 12 to 18 gallons of fuel capacity depending on model. Continental, Franklin, or Lycoming's around 65 hp...on paper. Mine was that then within a couple of years went to 760 to 775 depending on gear. Most weights initially and later were computed via pencil and paper.

Pre-WWII most were 1200 gross. Post WWII they upped the power to 85-180 and gross weight initially to 1280>1500>1750>? Some airframe and wing changes (steel type and various reinforcements) took the same frame and wing platform to 1750 and beyond. Stall speed and takeoff/landing increased. Stall behavior get worse as wing loading was increased, so VG's help tame that quite a bit.

Gary

alaskan9974 wrote:

PA1195 wrote:They do ok but take some AOA adjustment to get lift like a Cub...like but not the same. Just my experience in both.

Wonder what happened to the thread starter?

Gary

Still lurking, the plane I was considering is sitting behind a snowed in 206..no preheater so will wait until spring. Been too busy out flying and sledding and finally enjoying sunny skies in Kotz.

Hey go hook some Sheefish in Hotham or Selawick for me? Enjoy the Spring sun.

Gary

Gary,

That’s a light T-Craft you’ve got going. Not all are that light, I’m guessing.

My point was that 33 pounds is five and a half gallons of gas....an hours flight. Not inconsequential at all.

And, in my experience, those numbers quoted by manufacturers can be optimistic, at best.

I don’t mind swinging a prop, and if your primer is set up right, priming in winter (with pre heat) is no big deal. Does kinda frost yer face while climbing aboard, though.

MTV

Hi Mike...

Pre-war Taylorcrafts are lighter and mine is still heavy for that vintage. With the STC SA1-210 mod if 1500 gross is chosen useful on wheels is 650# plus. But as I mentioned if flown at gross what it weighs when empty only affects useful load and not performance at that weight. The secret is light electrics and especially the battery. It's a matter of choice and climate.

On wheels at 1228 I can take full 24 gallons fuel, me, and the dog. On skis 12# more. On floats at 1351 me, dog, full fuel, and 53 baggage. It stays within CG in all configurations. But as mentioned the plane is built via STC to 1500 GW standards and is only lower by optional choice of the former builder to satisfy Light Sport limits. Practical limits are 1467 on floats due to the 1320's. Larger floats would allow 1500.

After 27 years of starter equipped aircraft I swung that C-90-8F in the PA-11 for 14 years year round in most reasonable weather. Heat was required above freezing even with an overhauled Marvel carb. From 2003 to 2015 it had a new overhaul and new dual impulse mags. The last year I owned it I had two of the cylinders primed instead of the induction spider. Even then, if it didn't catch it was an iffy starter. Not my choice of flying fun as I recall.

Gary

Gary,

You need to get out there to West Twin Lake and spear a pike or five.



MTV

Yup Mike. Will need wheel skis soon.

Here's a great thread on Taylorcrafts from folks that know way more than I ever will about the plane:

https://backcountrypilot.org/forum/tayl ... orum-19159

Gary