OK, So it looks as if this time my S-12 is really sold. Sad, I'm really going to miss her but I can't fit 2 AC in my hanger. The up side is that I am in market for a new (to me) plane. Would like to stay light sport at this time.
My short list is Rans S-6 or S-7, Zenith 701, Kitfox V, Ridge Runner, or a Ridge Raider. All have good points and all will fit my mission. Backcountry STOL flying, tight turning radius and brisk climb rates for canyon flying, cruise 80+++ (who can't use a little more speed?), 4-stroke motor, useful load >500lbs, fuel (and comfort)for 3 to 4 hours. Like to stay under 45k so no Highlanders or Carbon cubs for me. Hard to find a long body S-7 at that price too.
Anything else I should be looking at? Oh, and I am flying at altitude (5K to 11K) and over the desert so 65hp Champs and Cubs are not really a STOL option.
I know this topic has been discussed before but, what the heck, this is a forum. Let's hash it out again.
Thanks.

A Piper PA11 sounds like it may be a good fit, too. If you fly solo, you can really pack that back seat.

S-12Flyer wrote:.
My mission:

-Backcountry STOL flying,
-tight turning radius
-brisk climb rates for canyon flying
-cruise 80+++ (who can't use a little more speed?)
-4-stroke motor
-useful load >500lbs
-fuel (and comfort)for 3 to 4 hours.
-Like to stay under 45k
-Oh, and I am flying at altitude (5K to 11K) and over the desert
-I know this topic has been discussed before but,

Many times before indeed... but the answer I suggested all those times is made even more valid by your mission list.

The Taylorcraft, converted to 85HP and a climb prop, and kept under the LSA limit, is your ideal plane because it meets or exceeds ALL of the requirements you listed.. the only problem will be deciding what you want to do with that extra twenty thousand dollars you will have in your pocket.

Rans S6. But then, I'm biased.

EZFlap wrote:

S-12Flyer wrote:.
My mission:

-Backcountry STOL flying,
-tight turning radius
-brisk climb rates for canyon flying
-cruise 80+++ (who can't use a little more speed?)
-4-stroke motor
-useful load >500lbs
-fuel (and comfort)for 3 to 4 hours.
-Like to stay under 45k
-Oh, and I am flying at altitude (5K to 11K) and over the desert
-I know this topic has been discussed before but,

Many times before indeed... but the answer I suggested all those times is made even more valid by your mission list.

The Taylorcraft, converted to 85HP and a climb prop, and kept under the LSA limit, is your ideal plane because it meets or exceeds ALL of the requirements you listed.. the only problem will be deciding what you want to do with that extra twenty thousand dollars you will have in your pocket.

I've given the T-craft some thought before but I just have a hard time getting past the the whole 60 year old aircraft as a frequent flyer into the backcountry. Also I am more of a stick and rudder kind of guy. Nice aircraft and if I could have a quiver, I would own one. Same as a Champ or a Cub. I put several hundred hours a year flying in and out off mostly old strips and back roads. I'm worried that I would bounce a T-craft one time too many. And does the 85HP conversion really put the T-craft into the STOL list at altitude? In the summer, at gross? It does peg the cool meter and would draw a crowd at fly-ins. And who doesn't like a classic taildragger?

A good condition T-craft is certainly built stronger & tougher than the other planes in your list!
An 85hp T that's kept light will get you off the ground & climb pretty much equal the host of 100hp Rotaxs in your list & it'll likely cruise somewhat faster. As for reliability, what could possibly beat a bare bones aircraft, with a 4cyl Continental!
All IMHO of course

at altitude? In the summer, at gross?

All planes suffer in those conditions.

There is a decent looking Rans S-7 on Barnstormers in your price range. I think it is a '97 model and mid 40's price. I just picked one up very similar for a LOT less but it had been sitting unflown for 11+ years. Only issue I have is the learning curve of the Rotax. It was hard to get used to that little high reving buzz saw up front! I was constantly scanning the engine instruments the first few hours just waiting for something to fly apart from the revs. Awesome performer! I recently installed VG's and some 26" AkBushwheel Airstreaks so it definitely has the looks of a little bush capable plane. I would post a picture but I am not that computer savy.

I have the same reservations as you about these older clasics. I also have a highly modified Champ and though I dearly love the plane, I always have the thoughts of "what is going to break in this old plane". It was totally rebuilt in the mid 90's but that doesn't mean there isn't metal fatigue or other age related propblems that will come up at the most inconvienent time.
WW

senior wrote:A good condition T-craft is certainly built stronger & tougher than the other planes in your list!
An 85hp T that's kept light will get you off the ground & climb pretty much equal the host of 100hp Rotaxs in your list & it'll likely cruise somewhat faster. As for reliability, what could possibly beat a bare bones aircraft, with a 4cyl Continental!
All IMHO of course

at altitude? In the summer, at gross?

All planes suffer in those conditions.

I take exception with the first line above! I've worked on a T-Craft airframe, and it has nothing over the Rans S-7 in tubing size or design. Plus, and I may be wrong here, where as the S-7 uses modern 4130, the T-Craft MAY have used and older type of chrome moly that's not as strong? I've heard that on old cubs anyway. No matter they are both plenty tough for the job. Both similar empty and gross weights BTW. The biggest difference between the two of course is one is certified with all that implies and one is experimental. One you can see out of, one you are pretty blind. An 85 hp T-Craft will not stay up with a 100 Rotax S-7S, won't climb with it or get off as good, but would cruise with it using the same or little more gas, not less though. But, getting back to the bang for the buck thing, the T-Craft wins hands down, and taking one into "the backcountry", way way down on the list of my concerns would be it's 60+ year airframe. On the contrary I always felt super safe in mine, figuring what are the odds of this thing folding up today, when it's been cruising around the skies for longer then I've been alive?! A travesty to some, and a legal nightmare, but a T-Craft with a 914 Rotax (turboed/115 HP) would be a real screamer! Forget about the price though..... If I wrecked my S-7S tomorrow and could not afford another, I could easily settle for a T-Craft, though it would be my second choice but at least I'd be back in the air.

Can a T-craft be "kept light" and still have the 85hp,electrics and a starter? What about useful load? Cabin size? Visibility? There is a T-craft near hear so I guess I should fly over and take a look at it.
I know a bare bones one can be light but I have to admit I light the modern convieniences of the newer aircraft. But they come at a higher price. Gotta pay to play.

How much pain does one need to endure to convert a BC12D to a BC12D-85? Is there an STC, or is this a field approval? The factory built the airplane with both engines; would a log book entry referencing the TC suffice? Oh, and in my case, I don't need no stinking starter, but a radio or two sounds nice. Wind driven alternator.

Also, if the light sport rule does change, does anyone, Bill, have an idea of how long this may take to reach a decision? I am re-assesing my needs as a result of the proposal by AOPA/EAA in this regard.

Oh, and I called a guy with a 65hp BC12D located close by. He said that it "only" weighed 823# empty! Holy mackerel, how do these airplanes get so FAT? I think I'd get a new w/b calc done as a pre purchase inspection.

Emory Bored wrote:Oh, and I called a guy with a 65hp BC12D located close by. He said that it "only" weighed 823# empty! Holy mackerel,

A T-craft can be kept light enough, but attention must be paid to the details large and small, and choices must be made. The newer smaller lightweight starters from B&C should fit on the short engine mount. But you don't really need it on a properly setup C-85. Stewart Systems covering saves 15 pounds of weight according to them and I believe it. The small handheld radios and GPS units weigh less than built-in stuff, and you save ten pounds of built-in battery. A padded interior with fancy tuck and roll whorehouse amenities does not belong in a T-craft. An (illegal) fiberglass tailwheel spring will save almost five pounds! The right side control yoke saves a few pounds whenever you don't use it. Those awful, pain in the ass, never fit right anyway, metal wing root "fairings" weigh five pounds and fabric glued on looks better, seals better, and weighs five ounces. How much have we saved so far?

Yes there is a small amount of pain and suffering to convert the airplane from 65 to 85. Can't lie about it, been there, done that on my 1940 BC-65. It is an FAA approved STC, available from Terry Bowden.

The only large problem is that this "conversion" was never designed to be a DIY field conversion, it was simply an approval to rebuild the BC-12D as if the factory were building a new BC-12D-85. Jack Gilberti was the engineer at Taylorcraft who "designed" the "85" back in 1948. To the best of my knowledge, after a LOT of head scratching and detective work, I suspect Jack took the factory production BC-12D-85 upgrade drawings and got the CAA to approve it as an STC. So when you have a flying, intact BC-12D and want to do the (Gilberti/Harer/Bowden) conversion, you have to take apart more of the airplane than you would have if they had designed a real "field upgrade" conversion.

If you are restoring a Taylorcraft and have it all apart, or buy a basket case and take it apart, the conversion adds less than a day to the whole process.

I have no idea if the FAA/EAA/AOPA negotiations on weight increase would ever be successful or not. I hope they do of course. But another key point is that doing the 1500 pound/full electric "F-19" conversion on the T-craft makes the airplane fly less like a sportscar and more like a tractor.

If you want to come up with the "best of the best" for a back country T-craft, start with a pre-war airplane, and do the STC conversion for 85HP, find a C-85-8 or C-90-8, and choose "option 1" of the STC... this leaves the original engine mount, and yields a 1250 or 1280 pound gross weight, on an airplane whose empty weight can be kept to 750 pounds. Mine was 776 pounds, but with a metal prop, -12 rear case, an Airtex interior, and the steel tailspring.

Thanks Bill. I started googleing the issue and looking at the Tcart forum information while waiting for your reply. I found the STC. I need to get with my local I/A slash Eaa tech advsr. and see if he's done one. I'll call Terry and see if the 1280 increase can be separated from the engine change. I think it can; the way he's got it priced. Eventually I'd like to get the fuel out of the fuselage too but that can wait.

I got a nice reply from Pappy out in the desert about his 65 horse powered glider. May have to drive out and buy him some gas.

Why pre-war? BC-65 BL-65 <edit>

Emory Bored wrote:
Thanks Bill.

and see if the 1280 increase can be separated from the engine change. I think it can; the way he's got it priced. Eventually I'd like to get the fuel out of the fuselage too but that can wait.

Why pre-war? BC-65 BL-65

Glad to help... I'm always out trolling to steal souls for the Taylorcraft community

The 1280 gross is the new gross weight when you put a non-electric C-85 on the short mount with no enlarged baggage. You get two 85HP options when you buy the STC... (1) short mount/no electric/stock baggage sling/1280 gross... and (2) long mount/full electric/large baggage/1500 gross. Interestingly, BOTH options use the same structural beef up (wing bushings, strut fittings). So if you are stuck at 1280 you are stuck because of CG, NOT because of structural weakness. That is a nice thing to know when you have to medevac two injured hikers out of the back country at what would otherwise have been an illegal gross weight over 1280, due to life or death emergency.

The large baggage compartment is a nice thing to have in the "-12D-85 / Model 19" (option 2) of course. But the short engine mount cannot safely compensate in CG range/balance (for the huge walk-in closet of the -19), and so thou shalt not put a lot of weight rearward on a short mount T-craft (BC-12-85). That's serious, don't ever put the big walled closet in a short mount airplane, you can and will hurt someone.

However, there is a curious thing that happens over time with the T-craft baggage sling. Many replacement "stock" slings have stretched a bit (by natural forces such as global warming and plate tectonics) and have sagged downward and rearward a little bit. Some replacement stock baggage slings have been so well used that they have developed some small rips and tears on the forward side, sort of up against the rear of the seat. People have used these convenient pockets... excuse me, ripped and damaged areas... to store charts, flashlights, quarts of oil, fuel testers, pistols, etc. Wouldn't you know it, this keeps the small stuff within your inflight reach and yet adds a lot of room for sleeping bags and tents and camping gear and picnic coolers and single malt and blow-up dolls and ... well, a lot of stuff. SO LONG AS these worn out baggage slings do not put weight significantly further rearward than the stock slings, there have been very few handling or flight safety issues reported in the Taylorcraft community.

The pre-war airframes (BC-65, BL-65, originally 1150 pounds gross) are a little lighter and a little less luxurious, so they allow more weight savings overall. However, some of the pre-war airplanes did not have the little aluminum "wider door post " installed which the post-war planes do. The tube frame is the same, but on the post-war planes you have a bit more elbow room.

S-12Flyer wrote:
I've given the T-craft some thought before but I just have a hard time getting past the the whole 60 year old aircraft as a frequent flyer into the backcountry.

Sorry guys... I sincerely just can't help myself .....

Some people might have a hard time trusting any airplane that does NOT have a 60 year proven history of safe and reliable flight getting its pilot into and back out of the back country

EZFlap wrote:

S-12Flyer wrote:
I've given the T-craft some thought before but I just have a hard time getting past the the whole 60 year old aircraft as a frequent flyer into the backcountry.

Sorry guys... I sincerely just can't help myself .....

Some people might have a hard time trusting any airplane that does NOT have a 60 year proven history of safe and reliable flight getting its pilot into and back out of the back country

And, I would point out that the Taylorcraft/Champ/Cub have all been FLIGHT TESTED and certified to standard criteria, unlike any kit airplane in the EXP category. The experimental category is just that: The design may or may not meet "normal" category design standards, and the builder may or may not have built it to the standards the designer laid out.

I'm not suggesting that experimental aircraft are a bad idea, mind you. But to suggest that a 60 year old airplane might be suspect, compared to something that I may have built.....now THAT would be a stretch .

Years ago, a good friend was chief of flight test for the manufacturer of aerobatic aircraft. There are a number of homebuilt versions similar to this airplane, and this test pilot told me when I exhibited interest in one of these that I should give him a call if I found one, and he'd come take a close look at the airframe. Seems that the quality of welding on some of the homebuilt versions wasn't quite up to "factory" standards, and they'd seen some failures as a result.

I'd fly a homebuilt most days, AFTER a careful inspection. I'd also fly a 60 year old airplane any day. Oh, actually, I do.....

MTV

Well not to start an argument but I spent quite a few years as an applications engineer and I do know a thing or two about stress risers, metal fatigue, internal corrosion and a host of other aliments that can affect a seemingly sound airframe. When was the last time you had your airframe x-rayed? Even a frame up restoration can miss potentially fatal flaws. To say that just because an aircraft has flown safely for the last 60 years it is inherently safer than a modern kit-built is the real stretch. All it proves is that the design and construction methods were sound. Age in and unto itself is not a guarantee of continued structural integrity. In fact quite the contrary. It is indeed the number of cycles that an airframe (or any mechanical device)is subjected to that will cause it's failure. Add to that decades of uncertain care or abuse and you can see my trepidation.
The requirements for certification 60 years ago are far different than today. I dare say that many of todays "experimentals" would have had no problem getting certification 50 or 60 years ago.
I don't mean to impune classic aircraft. I would own one in a heartbeat. But for my mission (and skills) a newer kitbuilt may be a better choice. At least if I bend it I can repair it easier and cheaper.
But I am more than willing to look at all my options.

By the way, the S-7 as of 2001 (S-7c) was actually certified in primary category, but never produced. Of course now there is the S-7S and LS which are even mire refined than that version.

S12 flyer, I wouldn't discount a late model short tail with a 912S. They are light and scream.

Thanks. I'm a low time taildragger pilot and was a bit concerned about ground handling of the short tail. I see that Peter Cowan has a nice one for sale in my price range. Wish it wasn't in Ontario.

S-12Flyer wrote:Well not to start an argument but I spent quite a few years as an applications engineer and I do know a thing or two about stress risers, metal fatigue, internal corrosion and a host of other aliments that can affect a seemingly sound airframe. When was the last time you had your airframe x-rayed? Even a frame up restoration can miss potentially fatal flaws. To say that just because an aircraft has flown safely for the last 60 years it is inherently safer than a modern kit-built is the real stretch. All it proves is that the design and construction methods were sound. Age in and unto itself is not a guarantee of continued structural integrity. In fact quite the contrary. It is indeed the number of cycles that an airframe (or any mechanical device)is subjected to that will cause it's failure. Add to that decades of uncertain care or abuse and you can see my trepidation.
The requirements for certification 60 years ago are far different than today. I dare say that many of todays "experimentals" would have had no problem getting certification 50 or 60 years ago.
I don't mean to impune classic aircraft. I would own one in a heartbeat. But for my mission (and skills) a newer kitbuilt may be a better choice. At least if I bend it I can repair it easier and cheaper.
But I am more than willing to look at all my options.

Sounds like I was taking my life in my hands last time I got into a "thousands" of hrs 1950s Beaver to go on a fishing trip!
My T-crate with 1200hrs TTSN weighed 685lb empty, add intercom & handheld radio, No starter!
We just put a new Highlander into the shop for finish paint, & it scares me the way the wings are bolted to fus. Granted rest of airframe looks strong...no comment of factory MIG welds!

I see that Peter Cowan has a nice one for sale in my price range. Wish it wasn't in Ontario.

Call Peter up, I don't think crossing the border to purchase is a big thing, I know he has done it the other way.

S-12flyer,
Personally I think the stigma that people give the short tailed version of the S-7 is just that....stigma. I don't have a lot of tailwheel time (more float time than TW time) and all my TW time is in a Champ. Before I bought the S-7 I had a guy, that flies a TW aircraft almost exclusively, tell me that he thought the S-7 was 'sporty' in refernce to the rudder control. I got in the plane and flew it easily. I really didn't think it was an issue. Granted it is a little more touchy as far as keeping the ball centered but the plane is an absolute blast to fly. What I am trying to say is that everyone has their own subjective feelings on how a certain aircraft handles due to the experiences they have had in the airplanes they fly. The ground handling is great, very responsive. Granted I haven't been out flying it in 20kt crosswinds though.

Peter seems to be a 'straight shooter' and is quite knowledgable on the S-7. If you want to look at his plane you can always stop at my place on the way since MN borders Ontario.

If someone wants to post my pictures I send a me a PM with your email and I'll email them.