Guys/Gals,

I'm considering rebuilding a either one of the types for a light utility/bush plane. I know to get anything out off either of them the key is to keep em' light which I plan to do. Can anyone who's actually used them off airport comment or compare on their respective performance with 2 adults and 50lbs of gear? I'd have them both on straight floats, skis, and probably at least 29" ABWs in the summer.

I'm not talking about loading either of them up with a moose, just big enough to carry adequate survival/camping gear.

Both would have VGs, the SC has a C-90, and the F-19 has an O-200. I do like the flying qualities of a light 95', but don't know too much about the Taylorcraft F-19 except that it has a great baggage compartment.

Mike-

Mike-

Mike, Obviously the big difference between the two is tandem versus side by side seating, sounds like you can live with either. The F-19 will out cruise and generally outfly the 18. The Cub would have better viz to the side, expecially if you're tall, the T-Craft will give you a good view of the wing root, but that's not a deal breaker either, nothing a little ducking down doesn't fix. The Cub may have, probably does, a stronger following and more resale value, FWTW. A VG equipped (Micro?) T-Craft would be an awesome low speed performer, like ultralight landing speeds! My 65 BC=12D was like that, and the rep amongst some that T-Crafts are hard to land and/ floaters is simply due to the uninformed trying to land them when they're still flying! The Cub gear, with the cabane, may be a little tougher then the T-Craft seat truss design, just a guess there.

I've said it before, (many times now) but I'd like to put a Rotax in a T-Craft, (and cub style cabaned gear while I'm at it)that would be an abomination to the purists but damn it would be an economical performer. Tough decision, the only wrong one would be to buy neither! Keep us posted.

Both great airplanes. Different stall characteristics....not ugly, just different with the different airfoil.

How flexible are you physically? I can get in and out of Cubs pretty well, but I don't bend as well as I used to, and getting in and out of a T-Craft is tough for me.

Does your proposed passenger/s like being in the back or along side? That is a HUGE factor if they are the LEAST bit inclined to get airsick. Trust me. My wife LOVES sitting up front, but hates being in the back of a Cub. Me, I love Cubs, but.....those back seats can be an evil place. I've spent close to a thousand hours in the back seat, giving instruction, and I don't even like it back there, not because I get airsick, but just because I can't see ahead....

They're both great airplanes. The differences between a C-90 and an O-200 are negligible. You could put an O-200 in a Cub as well.

MTV

The F series Taylorcrafts are not quite as light/nimble/sportscar as the B series Taylorcrafts. This is because the engine is 4 inches more forward, and the baggage compartment is certified to hold a lot of weight. So the mass extends further each way from the balance point.

The T-craft will go about 20% further on the same amount of gas due to lower drag and higher cruise speed. Although very minor, it is generally agreed by the high-timers that the Cub will take off and land a little shorter. There are very few places you can go in a Cub and not in an equal HP T-craft.

Side by side seating can be a major advantage to some, and less desirable to others. That should be a fairly important consideration, based on YOUR preference or mission, or passenger comfort.

I've owned a J-3 and a few T-crafts, and they are both inconvenient to get in and out of. The back seat of the J-3 was not as much of a problem, but in a PA-18 I believe you're going to be getting into the front. Getting in and out of the front of a J-3 or PA-18 was much more annoying for me personally than the T-craft, but I'm sure others might feel the opposite way. The point is that you should definitely try both of them prior to your purchase.

As Courierguy said, do not be afraid of landing the T-craft. They do float more, but this is easily managed by slipping. But the one significant disadvantage of the T-craft is that it is too clean, and your only glidepath control is forward slip maneuvering, and this is often not precise enough for spot landings in GUSTY conditions. Throwing the T-craft in and out of a slip takes a couple of seconds, and in rapid-fire gusts, thermals, eddies, low-level micro shears, etc. you can easily get "behind" it. In these rarities, the Cub's excessive drag, and/or flaps if you have them, are a major advantage.

I can honestly tell you The F 19 will outperform a 90 hp cub And yes the 72 pound baggage behind the seat is very nice
It doesn't have the visibility as much as a cub but I think you would be much happier with the Taylorcraft overall performance wise
As far as flying they're going to handle pretty much identical a f19 with VGs is pretty hard to beat in 100 hp class loved mine

Also like stated above the F 19 does fly cleaner but I noticed with more of a climb prop it was easier to slow down and you can put it anywhere you want with a little practice you just can't be sloppy on your speed

PA-18 is a little better to handprop on floats.

A Cub would be easier to prop on floats, but the F-19 has a starter. I'm flying my 100HP J-3 and Stearman now and do a lot of instructing so not seeing the back of someone's head might throw me off bit:o) I think I may have mastered the slip as a sole method of airspeed and altitude control since nothing I fly has flaps...

I don't want to try to make a PA-18 95 something it's not buy adding a bunch of equipment which I hear destroys it's sweet flying qualities. The wife and boys may like finally sitting next to me:o) Thanks for the inputs.

Mike-

I'm curious...everyone talks like a slip is the only way to do a steeper descent. Granted, my C150TD has the big barndoor flaps, but even so occasionally I find myself waaay too high on an approach. I find that pulling up the nose to get really slow gets a big descent rate going on in a big hurry. I've heard some people (incorrectly) refer to this as "stalling it down", or as a falling leaf descent. There's been times I didn't think I'd even be able to make the runway but after the nose-high maneuver not only made the runway but turned off at midfield to boot. You just have to remember to push the nose down to regain some airspeed (or add some power) if you want to arrest the descent when you flare to land.

Pretty sure that would depend on the airplane. Some airplanes don't make a lot of drag until you get way too nose high, and then you are operating with a lot less safety margin for very little gain.

Some airplanes, if you have the nose 5 degrees higher than optimum, the drag probably goes up horrendously (any F-104 or B-58 pilots can feel free to chime in here to verify).

It seems that this "behind the drag curve" maneuver would work a lot better on some airplanes than others. I can only vouch that the Taylorcraft would not "like" this as much as it likes the big wild looking slip.