The pull starter and 25 amp generator mounted on the back case that was added. -8 engines just have a flat plate that gets removed. The longer mount moves the engine forward to make room for the back case.

Airplanes are tight little puppies that get complicated and fussy when messed with. Yours is the cleanest modification I have seen. I worry a bit about the cowl difference because air flow is fussy. The original has a big venturi all the way across the bottom of the cowl. I have flown a few beat up airplanes that ran hot. Yours certainly is not beat up but your venturi is smaller.

CamTom12 wrote:

contactflying wrote:I thought starter and generator (-12) was considered electric.

I thought -12 was an engine difference, like the E2D you see at the end of Lycomings, I didn't realize it was the installation of a starter and generator on an 85. Learned something new today!

Plus any conversion from -8 to -12 involves different gears in the accessory case, some machining depending upon accessory, and magneto changes I believe (not an A&P). A new longer motor mount and cowl can be part of the conversion. These are significant changes that get expensive.

Taylorcraft evolved over time through different models and equipment installed. It would pay to have an experienced mechanic survey any potential purchase for modifications and documentation. The STC SA1-210 holder is a consultant DER and can probably offer insight into what's required to meet the current specs.

I have one that was mostly done prior to purchase to the BC12D-4-85 specs (1280# wheels/1351# floats) yet has the 1500# kit and long mount with light weight electrical and 24 gal fuel. It weighs on 26" wheels 834/394 useful; skis 822/406; and floats 904/447. They get heavy with age and mods.

That STC plus several unobtanium Field Approvals and a stroker C-85 (C-90 equivalent) with 74" prop are installed. Flys all configurations in the 90's under 6 GPH. To dupe the plane today would exceed market easily by 150%.

My point is if the OP wants an LSA then pounds/horsepower, fuel-useful load-airspeed driven radius of operation, and overall condition become important considerations. There tends to be tradeoffs if any plane is to be flown legally.

Gary

Gary and others have mentioned a lot of things to think about and double check before buying one of these improved upon T-carts. There are several out there that have been modified and these mods were never legally done, ie, no paperwork to make the mods legal. I found this out a few years ago while trying to help another guy find an LSA T-cart. There were two very nice example I can remember that while priced very fair, were not legal planes. The 85+ HP T-carts are somewhat sought after, especially in the areas where guys want to go on skis or floats. Accordingly, thing bring much higher process than their 65 HP brethren Be careful and keep your eyes open in your search.

Gravity, also mentioned another good choice, one of the RANS products. While it is extremely unlikely you would find an S7 in your budget I think you could find an S6. The ES models, while not as fancy, can be found for good prices.

Good point about the legality of any aircraft. I researched mine prior to purchase, it was my 2nd Taylorcraft, and made sure the changes and paperwork was complete as possible. Weight & balance, equipment list, required documentation for the work available, and all on file with the FAA's records. I'm the 33rd owner of the Taylorcraft since 1941 so there's lots of time and history to go over.

Even after purchase with an annual by the previous A&P owner there were a few items to clean up paper wise. Nothing major just made sure all was in order. The plane's not airworthy until all that's done.

Now to reality. Unless new or low owner/low time history it's likely any aircraft with age needs a going over and work/paper cleanup. I can't offer a % but it's quite possible to have something that makes the plane unairworthy in some form or another. Find someone who has experience in the particular model or contact STC holders to make sure it's in compliance with changes.

And be careful of some mechanic/owners as in my experience they tend to overlook or accept things that may need attention by others. Not all, just some.

Gary

cliff wrote:There is an electric starter that looks like it uses a cordless electric drill to start the 65hp and 85hp Continentals. It requires a large gear that mounts behind the prop on the prop flange. It looks like crap but seems to start those old engines very well. I don't know if there is an stc for a Taylorcraft. I have only seen them on Champs.

I know a guy who put one of these on his Luscombe.
I believe Rube Goldberg designed the mod & holds the STC.
That should give you a pretty good idea of my opinion of it.
IMHO it's a waste of a good Dewalt cordless.
BTW the guy I know let his get slightly out of adjustment & the ring gear got all chewed up.
So besides being ugly, it's not very dependable IMHO.

hotrod180 wrote:

cliff wrote:There is an electric starter that looks like it uses a cordless electric drill to start the 65hp and 85hp Continentals. It requires a large gear that mounts behind the prop on the prop flange. It looks like crap but seems to start those old engines very well. I don't know if there is an stc for a Taylorcraft. I have only seen them on Champs.

I know a guy who put one of these on his Luscombe.
I believe Rube Goldberg designed the mod & holds the STC.
That should give you a pretty good idea of my opinion of it.
IMHO it's a waste of a good Dewalt cordless.
BTW the guy I know let his get slightly out of adjustment & the ring gear got all chewed up.
So besides being ugly, it's not very dependable IMHO.

I researched the "safe start" and it looks kinda sketchy in my book

Gary mentioned it on the previous page but I'll say it again. Buy a plane that's already been converted.
The mods for a 85 upgrade are fairly minor at rebuild, but pretty major on a flying aircraft. You can -12 and maintain the no electric status just by using a stand alone battery just for starting.