I have had an F 19 for several years followed by currently having F-22 both amazing airplanes and probably the closest you can come to a super cab there is and definitely the cheapest way to get super club like performance.
Like others have stated you have to nail your airspeed if you don't you will miss the runway every time. I can easily take off and land in 500 feet but it does take practice I have 1500 hrs. all in the Taylorcraft

mtv wrote:

cstolaircraft wrote:Off hand I don't know of anyone that has a lot of tcraft time. What are you calling a really good check out? So far every plane that I have flown I have felt pretty comfortable with in the first half hour. I flew a friends champ and in 15 minutes was doing very respectable landings (I think) considering the time I had in the plane and that I hadn't flown a tailwheel for 2.5 years. Is there something about a tcraft that makes it longer to feel comfortable it?

No, the Taylorcraft airplanes are very reliable straightforward flyers. My point was in reference to ANY airplane that you approach that you've never flown. So, with 15 minutes and a few landings, you're good to go in a Champ? What about a 15 knot crosswind? Or a quartering tailwind on short final? How about a solid and repeatable minimum radius turn (canyon turn)? Do you know the airplane's systems inside and out?

That's what I'm talking about when I say you need to get a good checkout in a particular airplane type. Especially one you haven't flown before. And, even Chuck Yeager admitted that it took him a little while to get proficient in a new to him airplane.....

Your avatar suggests that you're a Mission Pilot in training. I would hope that all the mission pilot training outfits REQUIRE substantial training in a particular airplane type before they turn you loose in one of theirs.

While the Taylorcraft isn't a particularly demanding airplane, it handles a little different than most of its contemporary designs. And, while its systems are simple, you still need to know how they function.....that can save your butt in an emergency. In fact, that knowledge may turn a potential emergency into a "no big deal" event.

As to whether there are folks around who know Taylorcrafts, they're out there, just do a little looking.

And, finally, if you intend to insure this airplane after you acquire it, your insurance company is most likely going to require a checkout in the aircraft type.

MTV

Mike point well taken. I was using my flight experience with the champ to illustrate that I tend to check on to things pretty quick. With my hour flight experience I agree a stiff x wind or tail wind would be pushing it. But at the same time I felt comfortable enough in the plane to say that I could be consistent on a day with light variable winds. Did I feel that I knew the plane like I did the 170 I learned to fly in. Never. I went from 0-50 hours in a 170 and at the end I felt very comfortable flying in very stiff winds. I would like to think my experience in the 170 would be similar in a t craft once I got comfortable with the way the plane flew. Is this realistic?

The Tcraft is an excellent plane. Like has been said...best bang for the buck. If you get a short mount, 85 hp Tcraft, you've got an awesome plane that will do all that you ask and way more! Go on the Tcraft site vb.taylorcraft.org and/or the Taylorcraft page on facebook and get with the people that own and maintain them every day....great group on both and you'll have a blast!
I know of one for sale right now, 500 hr 85, bushwheels, etc.....awesome plane!! It's on both of the above sites I mentioned.
Glad to hear you're considering the Tcraft!
John

Also not sure if anybody has mentioned there are only 2 ads the struts and one for engine bolts that is really a nonissue so maintenance is very minimal

tcraft wrote:Also not sure if anybody has mentioned there are only 2 ads the struts and one for engine bolts that is really a nonissue so maintenance is very minimal

And one for the strut attach points
And the fuel shutoff
I think there are 5 or 7 total

Was unaware of the fuel shut off issue but then again I'm only referencing a 19 or 22

Myself and a couple of other owners got together and had an AMOC approved for the struts, using a certified mobile X-Ray inspection service instead of the BS ultrasound that the AD mentioned. Thsi was for the older classic Model B series, not the F series.

It is my understanding that there has never been a T-craft wing strut failure, and there has been only one strut attach (longeron cluster) failure on a very very badly neglected salt water seaplane (Wiley crash, northwest US). I have seen the photos of the lower strut attach cluster on this aircraft. I would have killed whoever kept signing that airplane off every year.

The mobile X-Ray works really well, because a qualified operator can take a picture of the longeron cluster, the strut fitting and the lower strut all at once. Anything in that critical area can be easily seen, assessed, recorded, preserved, and presented to your IA, the FAA, and anyone else.

The fuel valve is an easily replaced item, and 70 year old fuel valves that were built with antique leather packing should have been replaced anyway. Change this valve to a teflon sealed ball valve and be done with it. Qualifies as a minor alteration by any IA who has earned a couple of gray hairs.

EZFlap wrote:.It is my understanding that there has never been a T-craft wing strut failure, and there has been only one strut attach (longeron cluster) failure on a very very badly neglected salt water seaplane (Wiley crash, northwest US). I have seen the photos of the lower strut attach cluster on this aircraft. I would have killed whoever kept signing that airplane off every year..

The seaplane that brought about that strut attach AD was NOT a salt water airplane.....it had spent a lot of time splashing around in the Pacific NW though.

And that mechanic you would have killed died in the accident....he was the mechanic, the owner and the flight instructor. RIP.

MTV

Where can I get a copy of that AMOC?

I was in the same boat as you several months ago, also looking for a Tcraft. I ended up looking at 4 different ones. They either didn't meet my expectations or were more than I wanted to pay. I ended up with a 140 with a 140hp engine instead. But I was very impressed with the performance of the Taylocrafts I looked at and flew. After spending months looking, I can say that if I was in the market right now, I'd probably buy this one:
http://vb.taylorcraft.org/showthread.ph ... 0-bl-bc-85

Best bang for your buck, without a doubt. And it is very light (especially for having the C-85).

The airplane in that ad looks pretty darn good, especially if he did all those mods and electrical system while keeping the original short engine mount. That makes the airplane fly better; the 4" longer mount (that was previously necessary for the electrical system upgrade) changes the flight handling of the airplane, it's not as sporty and balanced as it is with the original mount.

Cstol, you'd have a pretty difficult time duplicating that airplane for anywhere near that amount of money.

If you are interested in that airplane I'd also ask him whether he converted it to the 1941 and later style typical modern trim tab, as opposed to the pre-war "popsicle stick" external trim it was built with. If it has the original popsicle stick you will be running out of nose-down trim force at about 93 mph in cruise. The pre-war airplanes didn't go that fast with the open Cub style cowling, but when they went to the enclosed cowl it becomes a 100-110 mph airplane depending on engine and prop. At that point the original trim tab is no longer powerful enough to keep the nose down at high cruise.

This can definitely be fixed by carefully enlarging the size of the (original, external) trim tab, but that modification is pushing kinda hard on the limit of what an IA would sign off as a minor alteration. But enlarging it does work well.

SamIntel wrote:I was in the same boat as you several months ago, also looking for a Tcraft. I ended up looking at 4 different ones. They either didn't meet my expectations or where more than I wanted to pay. I ended up with a 140 with a 140hp engine instead. But I was very impressed with the performance of the Taylocrafts I looked at and flew. After spending months looking, I can say that if I was in the market right now, I'd probably buy this one:
http://vb.taylorcraft.org/showthread.ph ... 0-bl-bc-85

Best bang for your buck, without a doubt. And it is very light (especially for having the C-85).

Hell yeah! I can only imagine a T-Craft with VG's.......! Like I said, no way can you get a good (GOOD) exp. for that price, somebody jump on this. The whole classic aircraft thing is a bonus, just from a performance standpoint relative to HP it's still a great deal.

FWIW I have about 45K in my Rans S-7S, call it 50 with the wheel skis. I had 8K plus in my T-Craft (after building new wings), and sold it for around 13K.

Agree! That looks like a good price on that T-cart. As long as EVERYTHING is in order (paperwork) it would be a serious contender if I were looking. As mentioned, no way you would ever upgrade a different T-cart for that plane for that kind of money.
I am not far behind courierguy in what I have invested in my S7. But then 29" tires, new wheels/brakes, STOL prop, and the Zipper kit are pushing $10K alone. Just an example of how fast the price can climb upwards.

Saw this on Barnstromer , never flow one but have wanted to for years


CHRISTAVIA MK1 • $18,000 • AVAILABLE FOR SALE OR TRADE • 2000 Christavia MK1 EXP. 28.3 TTAF. O200A 100hp 331 SMOH, Sterba prop 5.2 SN, Basic VFR, 18 gal, Fabric, Tandem, Brakes, Elect Start, Well Built. During build photo gallery. Western PA, No Delivery TTAF 28.3 Last Conditional Inspection 8/15/2015 Load Limits +4.5, -2.5 Always under roof. 18 gal 100LL TCM O200A SN 3948-3-A, 331hrs. SOH Inspected for Flight 8/15/2015 Compression Test 6/29/2015 #1-79, #2-79, #3-79, #4-79 Strong Runner Ed Sterba wood 72/44 5.2 SN Basic VFR No Transponder Nice "Champ" like Homebuilt Will consider trade for low time C-172 • Contact Michael Dubiel, Owner - located Mercer, PA USA • Telephone: 7249928123 . • Posted January 24, 2016 • Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser • Recommend This Ad to a Friend • Email Advertiser • Save to Watchlist • Report This Ad • View Larger Pictures


Specifications


•Number of Seats: 2 (MK-1 Tandem) OR (MK-2 Side by Side)
•Building Materials: N/A
•Building Time: ~2000 Hours
•Standard Engine: Continental A65
•Horsepower: 65-100
•Wing Span: 32.6'
•Wing Area: 146.25 sq ft
•Empty Weight: 750 lbs
•Gross Weight: 1500 lbs
•Takeoff Distance: 300'
•Landing Distance: 550'
•Cruise Speed: 105 mph
•Top Speed: 135 mph
•Fuel Capacity: 16 Gallons
•Range: 300 miles
"Aircraft Spruce & Specialty Co. has acquired the design rights to the popular Christavia MK1, Christavia MK2, and Christavia MK4 homebuilt aircraft from the designer, Ron Mason of Elmwood Aviation in Canada.
Designed in 1982 as a mission field workhorse. The design requirements were short take-off and landing, small engine (low fuel consumption), low stall speed, good cruise speed and rate of climb, large cabin area, low maintenance and high safety factor.

[quote="SamIntel"I can say that if I was in the market right now, I'd probably buy this one:
http://vb.taylorcraft.org/showthread.ph ... 0-bl-bc-85

Best bang for your buck, without a doubt. And it is very light (especially for having the C-85).[/quote]

That's the one I was talking about. It's Chuck Avon's aircraft. All paperwork and stuff is up to snuff as far as I know. I guarantee you, it'd be impossible to replicate that one for that money!! I wish I had the money.....I'd have another one in the barn! haha
John

Man, that is a great looking airplane! Lots of airplane for the money.

MTV

I wish I had the money now cause that's looks like a sweet plane. Maybe everyone will be crazy and it will be around by August....

Keep looking.

As everyone is saying the Tcrafts are good airplanes and a light BC with C-85 can do a lot of things and go a long ways with fuel tanks. I have time in both L2 and Rans S-7S. They are both fun planes. What I tell most people is that I would be missing out on a whole lot of fun in the Rans if I didn't have time learning to fly the L2. The skills you learn getting better in the Taylorcraft, crosswinds and short strips will follow you with other aircraft and for me make the Rans more fun.

I have trained spray pilots in L2s and DCO-65s as well as many other 65 hp airplanes. The training advantage is that the student can't cheat with excess engine thrust for climb. Ground effect, thermal lift, and orographic lift have to be part of the game. Like any airplane, you need to slow down to land. Going over the desired spot with excess gravity thrust and in ground effect just doesn't get it.

No special advice for you, Cstol, Just that this thread has brought back a lot of fond memories of my '41 65Hp BC-12D. Bought it with zero hours in my logbook, soloed in it, round-tripped it from Alaska to New Hampshire when I had 100 total hours. Made my first landings at most of my local strips in it. I wouldn't change a second of it if I could.
-DP