OK, I'll definitely look into the Champ. Just looking at photos, it looks roomier. It does look like prices tend to run just shy of about $30k.

One thing I have going for me is that, although I'm tall, I'm quite thin (and light). Makes a side-by-side a bit more feasible?

ajfriz wrote:If you're ever in Logan you can swing by and sit in my BC-65 to see if it's too small.

Anybody have any idea how this compares to a BC-12D? ajfriz: next time I'm down that way I'll definitely give you a heads up and see if we can arrange something.

S-12Flyer wrote:The J-3, T-craft or Champ are all good aircraft. The problem with all of them is that you will need more HP than the stock 65 horse engines. Eastern ID is fairly high elevation to start. At best they will be a solo aircraft in the summer. And not as backcountry friendly as the new light-weight, high-lift kits. The modified higher hp ones are bit out of your cash price range.

Yes, I'm seeing that.

mckim wrote:OK, I'll definitely look into the Champ. Just looking at photos, it looks roomier. It does look like prices tend to run just shy of about $30k.

One thing I have going for me is that, although I'm tall, I'm quite thin (and light). Makes a side-by-side a bit more feasible?

ajfriz wrote:If you're ever in Logan you can swing by and sit in my BC-65 to see if it's too small.

Anybody have any idea how this compares to a BC-12D? ajfriz: next time I'm down that way I'll definitely give you a heads up and see if we can arrange something.

S-12Flyer wrote:The J-3, T-craft or Champ are all good aircraft. The problem with all of them is that you will need more HP than the stock 65 horse engines. Eastern ID is fairly high elevation to start. At best they will be a solo aircraft in the summer. And not as backcountry friendly as the new light-weight, high-lift kits. The modified higher hp ones are bit out of your cash price range.

Yes, I'm seeing that.

The BC-65 is pre-war and has a slightly different tail. The main difference is that the BC-65's gw is 1150 instead of 1200 and the wing has built up ribs instead of stamped ribs. They are basically the same airframe.

ajfriz wrote:You don't have to convert the Tcraft to an F19 to up the HP. Mine was born a 40 BC-65 with a gw of 1150 pounds. Now it has a C-85 with mini alternator and starter and a gw of 1285 pounds. You don't have to up the gross at all if you don't want to.

I converted a 1940 BC-65 to 85HP and kept it in LSA. No problem, it's "option 1" on the STC instead of "option 2" (the big baggage compartment, long engine mount, 1500 gross weight). Contact Terry Bowden [email protected] who now owns and manages the old Gilberti / Harer STC. GREAT guy!

If you are 6 foot 3 you will have an uncomfortable ride in a Taylorcraft. Period. Putting in the skylight instead of the headliner will indeed give you a couple of very needed inches in headroom, but you will still be tight. The T-craft seat is adjustable (rolling up or unrolling the seat sling on the wooden bar), but this is definitely not the same as a seat track.

I agree with one of the previous posters that the CH-750 Zenair airplane, although absolutely ugly compared to many other airplanes, is a good choice. I have sat in one with another big guy, there's an enormous amount of room. And PLENTY of room for a bike in back!

The CH-750, although it is indeed every bit as pretty as Rosie O'Donnell, has some great advantages. You can build one on the cheap, because they sell plans that allow you to scratch-build. Not many others do that. There's about 400 pounds of aluminum sheet in the 750. If you negotiate and find the right supplier, you can probably get it for $4 per pound. Now double that to account for rivets, hardware, used wheels and brakes, plastic, steel for the welded assemblies, landing gear, etc. Also, unlike the CH-701, the 750 can use a cheap, reliable, plentiful, trusty, old-school O-200 engine. So you can buy a wore out Cessna 150 engine, field overhaul it cheaply, and have an engine that is reliable at a very low cost. If you are smart enough to use olde-tyme round instruments and a cheap hand held GPS, you can save many thousands of dollars and have the same navigational capability as a 747.

So $20,000 may indeed be do-able on a 750, if you are frugal, build the parts yourself, don't spend money on paint and a whorehouse interior, and make safe but inexpensive choices in engine and instruments.

I'm 6'8 or so (but shorter legs).

The Champ fits fine. Not comfy, but ok. I had a stock Champ up to over 16k' in the summer a couple of times. The comments about the lack of power are a bit true. But try one out to see for yourself.

I can't even come close to getting a T-craft strapped on- the dash is too low.

Cubs are fine too, but tight across the shoulders.

The Zenair seems like an interesting choice as well- I sat in one and was really impressed with the space.

I just had this conversation with a FAA inspector friend
this week end about LSA gross wieght and my T-craft.
It is a 46 bc12 that I did the 1500 lbs stc and o200.
He said I could fly it as a LSA if it is placarded by
an IA at 1320 lbs. My T-craft wieghs 940 lbs with electric,
radio and 850 tires. This would give me a 380 lbs usefull
load. A friend that flew with me is 6'3".
It was tight but he never complained.
46tcrft

46TCRFT wrote:I just had this conversation with a FAA inspector friend
this week end about LSA gross wieght and my T-craft.
It is a 46 bc12 that I did the 1500 lbs stc and o200.
He said I could fly it as a LSA if it is placarded by
an IA at 1320 lbs. ......

If this is the case, more power to you. But I have read that the FAA's position is that if the airplane has EVER had a gross weight of over 1320,origiannly or via STC, it is no longer LSA compliant.
Someone had the bright idea early on to make all those C140's out there sport pilot legal.... just placard them "gross weight 1320" and go flying-- no medical required. FAA said no way.

hotrod150 wrote:

46TCRFT wrote:I just had this conversation with a FAA inspector friend
this week end about LSA gross wieght and my T-craft.
It is a 46 bc12 that I did the 1500 lbs stc and o200.
He said I could fly it as a LSA if it is placarded by
an IA at 1320 lbs. ......

If this is the case, more power to you. But I have read that the FAA's position is that if the airplane has EVER had a gross weight of over 1320,origiannly or via STC, it is no longer LSA compliant.
Someone had the bright idea early on to make all those C140's out there sport pilot legal.... just placard them "gross weight 1320" and go flying-- no medical required. FAA said no way.

The position is clearly spelled out on EAA's website. One might argue the case but one will not win. The rule is clear, and it is as Hotrod says. One might also argue, as I have in a couple of rants that the rule is misguided and does not promote aviation nor ensure safety of aviation. Both of these are part of the FAA's charter. I think for instance that a two seat Cherokee 140 would make a splendid light sport aircraft. How much easier does it get? FAA does not agree.

Cubcrafters has gone after the rule aggressively with the carbon cub. I want one.

Perhaps because the t-craft was certified 1320
it makes this possible. I will follow up with the
G-man, and if wrong I will retract my comment.
46tcrft

Emory Bored wrote:

hotrod150 wrote:

46TCRFT wrote:I just had this conversation with a FAA inspector friend
this week end about LSA gross wieght and my T-craft.
It is a 46 bc12 that I did the 1500 lbs stc and o200.
He said I could fly it as a LSA if it is placarded by
an IA at 1320 lbs. ......

If this is the case, more power to you. But I have read that the FAA's position is that if the airplane has EVER had a gross weight of over 1320,origiannly or via STC, it is no longer LSA compliant.
Someone had the bright idea early on to make all those C140's out there sport pilot legal.... just placard them "gross weight 1320" and go flying-- no medical required. FAA said no way.

The position is clearly spelled out on EAA's website. One might argue the case but one will not win. The rule is clear, and it is as Hotrod says. One might also argue, as I have in a couple of rants that the rule is misguided and does not promote aviation nor ensure safety of aviation. Both of these are part of the FAA's charter. I think for instance that a two seat Cherokee 140 would make a splendid light sport aircraft. How much easier does it get? FAA does not agree.

Cubcrafters has gone after the rule aggressively with the carbon cub. I want one.

Not true. It has been done. The EAA guys wont hear of the argument and say it can't be done. It is simply not true, it can be and has been done!

It really is no different that the CC with the placards for maximum HP for cruise etc.. Name me ONE pliot who pays the first bit of attention to that placard, yet they got it pushed through and ok'd by the FAA.

As for max gross versus max take off weight, there are many planes that cant take off at max gross, but get refueled in the air to bring it to max gross.
Granted, that does not really apply to us in our lplanes, but it is not unheard of.

Well, I hope you are right. I'm not sure how they would ramp check for max TO weight anyway. "Mam, would you step on the scales here please?" "Hold still while I check your junk."

Just because one FAA inspector made an error does not make it right. Even if several have made the same mistake, it is still not legal based on multiple rulings by the FAA.
There are hundreds of aircraft out there that could be made into great LSA planes but there "gross weight" is too high. Even models of some that are legal in different configurations. Ercoupes, Champs, T-crafts, Chiefs, Cubs. The list goes on and on. Bottom line is that if it EVER was non-compliant, it is permanently non-compliant.
This exact situation was discussed and ruled on from day one when the Sport pilot rule was being formulated.
The fact that a few have slipped through the cracks is just a function of the ineptitude of the inspectors.
I would not want to risk a ramp check at a fly-in or airshow based on an error by my local friendly inspector.
For a light sport aircraft, MTOW is equal to Gross weight. Seriouly, how much fuel do you need to taxi?
Refueling in flight. Did I miss something? We are talking about light sport aircraft aren't we?
The ONLY legal way to have gross significantly over MTOW is if you are the builder and setting the limitations prior to certification.
Any other method is a card trick and will not stand up to scrutiny by a knowledgable inspector. (OK that might be a bit of an oxymoron)
There are PLENY of great legal LSA's out there. Until the rule is changed, why risk it?

Well Hotrod150 and Emory bored, G-man says you are correct.
I guess information from the horse canbe be in error, he appologized.
If the gross wieght has been increased it cannot go back.
So what does this mean? Has it been done or not?
I will retract my earlier comment.
46tcrft

Mckim if you can make it over here to Nampa I could take you up in my Highlander. They are going to be a bit pricier than some because they are so much newer, but from your discription I think it would be perfect for you.

Wild West Aircraft
Steve Henry 208-880-7887

At 6'4 and 260 a 90 Champ with no electrics would be my first choice for lightsport and comfort as i have owned 2 Champs, J3, PA11, PA12 and 7 Super Cubs. WW Hunters 115hp is a nice plane and would work well for you, I still have a lightweight 115hp no electric Super Cub with flaps and it is a joy to fly but not as roomy as a Champ. For comfort i fly my Cessnas!

EZFlap wrote:......So $20,000 may indeed be do-able on a 750, if you are frugal, build the parts yourself, don't spend money on paint and a whorehouse interior, and make safe but inexpensive choices in engine and instruments.

An engine conversion or similar project is easy to get bogged down in, to say nothing of building a whole airplane. While we all like to think that we have the skills required, the truth is that some of don't-- also that some of us don't have the time or inclination or stick-to-it-ness required for such an endeavor. So IMHO suggesting to someone who's looking for an LSA that he should build one is kinda veering off topic. Most people looking for an airplane are looking for one to fly NOW-- not a year or 2 years or ten years from now.

hotrod150 wrote:

EZFlap wrote:......So $20,000 may indeed be do-able on a 750, if you are frugal, build the parts yourself, don't spend money on paint and a whorehouse interior, and make safe but inexpensive choices in engine and instruments.

An engine conversion or similar project is easy to get bogged down in, to say nothing of building a whole airplane. While we all like to think that we have the skills required, the truth is that some of don't-- also that some of us don't have the time or inclination or stick-to-it-ness required for such an endeavor. So IMHO suggesting to someone who's looking for an LSA that he should build one is kinda veering off topic. Most people looking for an airplane are looking for one to fly NOW-- not a year or 2 years or ten years from now.

Not to mention that the OP already said he won't have the room or time to build. BUT, I don't think that's Bill's point. I think he just wanted to point out that the CH 701/750 is the UGLIEST airplane to ever sit behind a propeller. This of course should have elicited some sort of response from the Zenair folks on the board, but they are too busy devising snappy paint schemes and other ways to avoid notice.

Still, there is an apparently desperate CH 701 kit owner offering his complete kit for $6K in central California. I've seen the 80 horse Rotax being offered by folks wanting the 912ULS for under $8K recently. Twice. Zenair stuff goes together pretty quick I'm told. I'm tempted myself, but I can't figure out how to fly one with my eyes closed.

Emory Bored wrote:.... Zenair stuff goes together pretty quick I'm told. I'm tempted myself, but I can't figure out how to fly one with my eyes closed.

I think flying an ugly airplane is like having an ugly face.... you don't notice it from the inside looking out. ( I speak from experience)

Emory Bored wrote:Not to mention that the OP already said he won't have the room or time to build.

Exactly. Trust me, I'd love to build as I'm a very hands-on person who learns quickly and gets a lot of satisfaction doing so. But I'd like to be flying my own plane next year, not a minimum of seven years from now. Maybe down the road, but not in the immediate future.

It's still going to be next year before I'm financially comfortable enough to purchase an airplane, but I started this thread so I'd have my field narrowed down before then. Getting around to sit in possible airplanes takes a while.

The euphemism for 'ugly' is 'character'......
The 701/750/801 models sport a LOT of character.
In truth, beauty/ugly/attractiveness/repulsiveness is ENTIRELY in the mind of the beholder.
(The ugliest baby can be beautiful to its mother........)

you don't notice it from the inside looking out.

Good thought, Hotrod.

My thought would be "Some things are functionally beautiful".
I can easily accept that, there are MANY examples that we all appreciate......
But I would expect a whole lot better slow end performance for that BIG a bow to function!.....

lc

hotrod150 wrote: I think flying an ugly airplane is like having an ugly face.... you don't notice it from the inside looking out. ( I speak from experience)

Well, you still got to find it in the tiedown area with closed eyes. But, I suppose a pair of nose glasses and a Santa Claus beard may put folks off your trail.

Come to think of it, maybe I'll just embrace this thing and get an old Citroen, wear lederhosen and tell the girls I'm much closer to 40 y/o than I am to 30. Or maybe just bring along Maurice (the Doberman) and don't worry about it.