Has anyone in the group seen or have intimate knowledge of operating a Taylorcraft off the beaten path

Look up PA 11-95 on this site. He knows more about Taylorcrafts than most.

Oh, yeah.....you’re asking about Taylorcraft airplanes and you title your question “Re: T-cup”? Never heard anyone insult a Taylorcraft by calling it a “T-cup”......try the actual name and you might get an actual response.
MTV

Ah ok; no insult intended, apologies to all I may have offended I’ll change the title

As a kid growing up around aviation it was all T-cups (Taylorcraft) and Milk Stools (Tri-pacers) around the area.

mtv wrote:Look up PA 11-95 on this site. He knows more about Taylorcrafts than most.

Oh, yeah.....you’re asking about Taylorcraft airplanes and you title your question “Re: T-cup”? Never heard anyone insult a Taylorcraft by calling it a “T-cup”......try the actual name and you might get an actual response.
MTV

So is that snarky response real, or are you waiting for the actual name?

Good question Maplefit but not an expert here to answer all aspects of the plane. I've had a couple since 1974 and currently own one that's 78 years old. Has me by five years so I say Sir or Madam when addressing. I've had nine planes and the Taylorcraft is neither the best or worst.

They can be operated off the beaten path on wheels, skis, or floats. There are a variety of models, and while they are similar in many aspects, like most of us they grew and got fatter as they aged. If interested get this definitive book which explains all:

https://amzn.to/2Ou0z42

Being old means being fragile with wear and tear as many were trainers and had several owners. I'm #33 for mine. Parts are not as available as Cubs and Champs, and while the various TCDS that apply are held, there is no factory support. Most mechanics haven't dealt with them but there are some parts plus owners and service manuals and an interactive parts catalog available from UNIVAIR:

https://www.univair.com/categories/taylorcraft.html
https://www.univair.com/resources/

They are faster in cruise than most small aircraft at a given horsepower, and the almost symmetric 23012 airfoil wing stalls a little faster than those with a flatter bottom. VG's help with that some. Visibility is somewhat limiting. Here's some PIREPS:

http://www.airbum.com/pireps/ClassiccompTCraft.html
http://www.airplanesandrockets.com/airp ... odeler.htm

There's two online info sources and public forums:

https://vb.taylorcraft.org
https://www.facebook.com/groups/571231992887131/

And a couple compendia of info and mod data:

https://www.taylorcraft.org/resources.html
https://www.taylorcraft.org/Taylorcraft ... tions.htm#

If there's more you'd like to talk about repost and we can go from there.

Gary

I had 8.50s and a Scott tailwheel on mine and 65 hp under the cowl. Regularly flew it into rough remote gravel strips and the occasional hay meadow. Best things about it as far as off the beaten path was that at 3.5 gallons per hour you don’t have to pack a lot of gas to extend your range, it’s dirt simple to the point that your tool kit would almost consist of a rock and some safety wire, and if you happen to wad it up it’s a bad day but not a ruinous day. Anymore, assuming no electrical system on most of them, off the beaten path is probably their preferred habitat. i.e. no transponder, lighting, ADSB, etc.

Hammer wrote:

mtv wrote:Look up PA 11-95 on this site. He knows more about Taylorcrafts than most.

Oh, yeah.....you’re asking about Taylorcraft airplanes and you title your question “Re: T-cup”? Never heard anyone insult a Taylorcraft by calling it a “T-cup”......try the actual name and you might get an actual response.
MTV

So is that snarky response real, or are you waiting for the actual name?

I figured if he’d use an actual name he’d get a response. Seems to have worked.

MTV

I guess Maplefit I should ask what part of "off the beaten path" would you plan on using with a Taylorcraft? Maybe better yet in comparison to what airplanes you've flown and are familiar with or have available?

Will they land and takeoff - sure. Will they operate on wheels-skis-floats of course. Are there better aircraft for each application - yes. Are they fun to fly and own - for me sorta', but I've been spoiled by others more suited to each application.

Are they cheap to fly - sure - until you break something. They're old, the engines are old, and the landing gear is especially susceptible to corrosion and breakage unless maintained. There's only bungees and a rubber baby bumper for shock absorption on wheels and especially skis.

Of the three gear modes they comparatively excel on floats. Being fast they offer the opportunity for the pilot to reach camp first, start a fire, and wait for the others of similar configuration to catch up.

That may sound ambiguous or uncertain but it's not meant to be. There's lots of Taylorcrafts that have gone where few have gone before. Some returned and others not. Flown sloppily they will stall and spin plus eat up runway on takeoff and landing. As I mentioned before VG's help for a special reason - it's airfoil specific.

Give us an idea what you're considering and how you might use the airplane.

Gary

mtv wrote:

Hammer wrote:

mtv wrote:Look up PA 11-95 on this site. He knows more about Taylorcrafts than most.

Oh, yeah.....you’re asking about Taylorcraft airplanes and you title your question “Re: T-cup”? Never heard anyone insult a Taylorcraft by calling it a “T-cup”......try the actual name and you might get an actual response.
MTV

So is that snarky response real, or are you waiting for the actual name?

I figured if he’d use an actual name he’d get a response. Seems to have worked.

MTV

Yes, there's no doubt that you saved the thread. It's just a pity you couldn't do so without belittling the OP because you were unfamiliar with his local aeronautical nick names. At least the good name of Taylorcraft was defended against a grievous insult.

So just to be clear the original colloquialisms I employed where terms of endearment, if anyone was taken back I extend an olive branch. MTV thanks for the point out, as you have said the change of title seems to have work well.

Gary thanks for the intel this is the kind of information that proves the value of this site. The Taylorcraft has long caught my eye as just a fun, inexpensive date for a sunny afternoon of noodling about on wheels, skid or floats.

Kinds regards to all T-cup and Milk Stool owners and caretakers, cheers

here it was t-cart, I also think they are great little planes.

T-cart here. My mechanic has one and its a lovely airplane. He takes it lots of places.
Auster in the UK with a different motor I think.

I'm considering T-cup, T-crate, T-cart partnership to help a local chum get into the flying game and for some inexpensive sunny afternoon noodling about, grass strips and the odd farm field to visit with friends. I wasn't so much planning full on backcountry ops, maybe some oversized wheels but not much more than that. They seem to be a "cost effective" option over some of the other more prevalent makes and models of tube and fabric airframes but its still early days so more "exploring" at this point in time, thanks to all for the insight offered.

My longer, heavier trips are covered with my 170B, cottage, fishing trips etc.

Cheer,

I used to fly an L-2M (DCO-65). Wonderful airplane for the mission, just don't expect to take along a largish friend in summer and replace the old terne plate fuel tanks.

Hammer wrote: Yes, there's no doubt that you saved the thread. It's just a pity you couldn't do so without belittling the OP because you were unfamiliar with his local aeronautical nick names. At least the good name of Taylorcraft was defended against a grievous insult.

Ok now we got the intended for fun use. That's a good one and the Taylorcraft and early Champ or Piper will fulfill that well.

The caution is to not get heavily invested especially one as old as these. The cheapest part of ownership is the initial purchase. From then on it's the banking sound Kaa-Ching more than not. Repairs, parts, maintenance, upgrades, and on. Recovering the cost of new fabric or engine majors is impossible. They only have so much market value regardless of their condition. But some folks don't mind being underwater with these toys.

If I had a nice plane already I'd spend the same money on fuel and support for it rather than adopt a second. That is of course only if the second aircraft were really cheap and it didn't look to become another hole in the air to push money into. Sometimes it's a good idea to form a club or group of friends to share the ownership of an antique.

Gary

Wise words Gary, I don't really need another way to spend money on an airplane but just trying to help a friend get into the game.

Thanks again, cheers

Helping a friend...unless there was a nice cheap recently restored Taylorcraft nearby I'd opt for another make. Parts and experience are more available for Champs, Cubs, and Cessnas. If floats are expected and installed then the Taylorcraft has similar value for the price. My opinion and others may disagree. I respect that.

Gary

Spotted last year at the Carey Id. spring fly-in breakfast. A heavily modified T-Cart, in the exp category I believe (must be??) 0-320 powered, totally bad ass! It's owner said it's performance was great, but he was getting tired of 8-10 GPH fuel burns, especially when i told him mine were typically 3-4. All depends on your mission of course.

Nice plane but I hope the owner's ass is as tough as his wallet was. Sitting on 35" tires with no apparent support added to the diagonal gear leg. They like to fold up under heavy compression side loads. Hope it never happens to him or her but it's a common mod for Pacers and Taylorcrafts in a known weak spot. Maybe the tires will flex before the gear strut.

That strut is open at the top and bottom (actually all three legs are) to moisture and there's a Service Bulletin for confirming a lower drain and FAA Airworthiness Concern relating to testing for potential internal corrosion at the base of the strut. A local had one fold last winter at my camp while on skis and got home with rope and a winch to tie things together. Univair will sell you a gear leg for $2000 if you're polite. There 's black market replacements available up here as well as extended gear.

The wing was developed in the 1930's from a symmetric 012 airfoil with a slightly drooped leading edge added. It showed promise for transport aircraft as being efficient and fast with minimal change in center of pressure (reduced need for trim). Flaps, slats, and slots were tested to tame the brisk stall and increase lift at the low angles of attack during takeoff and landing for loaded aircraft.

There's a flow discontinuity that develops just behind the LE above 10-12* AOA that later merges with one formed at the trailing edge which causes the sudden loss of lift as documented in NACA wind tunnels. VG's placed forward of the upset area tend to smoothen the stall. The 23012 airfoil is used on several aircraft (Beech, Cessna 208, helicopters, Arctic Tern, Helio Courier) and commercial wind generators.

The airframe is strong with the Pre-WWII being lighter. Later GW increases used the same basic frame with all 4130 steel. The wings have wood spars and aileron spars but unlike some have no AD's. D&E aircraft supplies some wing parts.

Gary