EZFlap wrote:The Taylorcraft forum and owner's group does not have anywhere near the amount of "Deliverance" hillbilly closed-mindedness and bullying that is found in some parts of the Super Cub community. Much better environment.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. They mean well though.......

Mister701 wrote:They mean well though.......

Well... Uhhh... actually... they... never mind.

Regards Trimtab's post, yes I do remember the J-3 is technically rear seat solo. The reason I made a somewhat vague reference is that when you upgrade some of the J airplanes to the PA configuration, I seem to remember that it also changes it to a front seat solo? And since there seems to be a gray area regarding what actually happens when you put an 85 or 90 on a J Cub, I'm guessing that some of the bush modified J cubs are flown from the rear and some from the front?

So if C/STOL was going to use it for off-road flying and and training/practice for missionary work, I assumed he would do some or all of the bush Cub mods, some of which might have moved the PIC seat up to the front.

My J-3-75 was rear seat solo... My fat ass would never have been able to fit the front seat.

All that said, now having heard his physical dimensions divulged, I can say with great authority that C/STOL is a perfect candidate for the Taylorcraft. An 85 HP upgrade with his light weight in it would be a rocket ride on a skateboard budget.

Start practicing your forward slips

So EZ,
At 6 feet and just under 250lbs would it be worth it to even think about a BC12 at all?

ExperimentalAviator wrote:So EZ,
At 6 feet and just under 250lbs would it be worth it to even think about a BC12 at all?

Think... yes. But absolutely try one on first, because it will be tight, and the test result may come back as a "no".

Like I said Forrest Barber is fairly big, and he's flown these airplanes for 50 years. To be brutally honest I haven't missed many meals in my life (although I'm only 5' 8" or so), and I've owned four of the Taylorcrafts without any significant problems. But I flew them solo 90% of the time.

There is an existing STC to add a skylight, I think it's called the "Clayton" STC from somewhere near Anchorage. This STC is best done during a fabric recover, since it involved welding new tabs all around the top of the fuselage. This essentially creates the equivalent of the later factory F-21 series skylight.

Because I had a T-craft with really good fabric, I developed a DER/DAR approved Field Approval for a no-weld STC, using the existing wood upper side fairings, a new wooden fairing at the rear spar, and a new wood support with Adel clamp attachments at the front. This does not require full re-covering or welding. But to be honest it takes more time to install than it would to weld in the tabs with the Clayton STC. I did it this way only because I'm not a welder.

Regardless of which skylight you use, the skylight gives you another 2 or 3 inches of headroom versus a stock headliner, and also delivers a tremendous improvement in visibility.

The Taylorcraft seat can be adjusted, you remove the five or six small bolts holding the seat sling to the front seat frame cross tube, then you "un-roll" the seat sling wrapped around the wood anchor strip, and re-attach it. This lowers the seat a couple of inches.

There is another STC to move the rear seatback cross-bar rearward a few inches,a nd another option for making the bar temporarily removable for loading baggage.. This is a weld job that also needs to be done during a rebuild.

If you're 6 feet tall then some or all of these modifications will make the T-craft fit you better. But if you are really tall the B model Taylorcraft is probably not for you, and you need to look at the F-22 which has seat rails.

Thanks, I'll keep all that in mind.

Ya, 6-2/230lbs I take the rear seat cushion out and can stand about an hour before I need to unfold[emoji854]. Fun to fly the BC12D-65 tho.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Historically (I was there ), Mr. Taylor designed both basic airplanes. He worked for Pug Piper and then went out on his own. Got sued successfully by Mr. Piper because his first Taylorcraft was too much like the Cub. Lowered the wing and went side by side on the next. All made for military, to mil specs, were tandem and basically the same, regardless of who made them.

I don't know what Google says.

contactflying wrote:Mr. Taylor designed both basic airplanes.

True.

contactflying wrote:He worked for Pug Piper and then went out on his own.

False. Taylor designed the "Chummy", then he designed what would become the Taylor E-2 Cub, then he took on an oil man named William T. Piper as an investor during tough depression times, then they butted heads on just about everything, then Taylor got gravely ill, during which time Piper bought him out either forcibly or under pressure. During the time Taylor was sick, Piper told one of the company engineers named Walter Jameneau to change some of the visual and cosmetic details of the plane so it would be "cuter" and easier to sell. The E-2 was renamed the J-2 (for Jameneau). "Pug" Piper was William T. Piper's son who ran the company later.

contactflying wrote:Got sued successfully by Mr. Piper because his first Taylorcraft was too much like the Cub.
.

I never heard that one, but there are Cub / Taylorcraft historians who know more than I do.

Is there a reason why I do not more recognition for the T-craft F-19 & F-21?
My assumption is that most of the above praise is for the BC-12D series.
Can't remember if the Aeronca Chief had less shoulder room or not.
Guess the recognition could be for some of the tandem T-carts.
Do have some hours in an abused rental L-2 with a near symmetrical airfoil.

Used to fly a couple of F-19 and F-21s all over Calif. including some high alt. spots.
Truckee - Tahoe - Alpine Co. - Quincy/Gansner - the old Paradise strip - etc.
Was interested enough to take a long lunch while in Austin Tx for AMAT work and drive to the "last" T-craft factory. Actually sat in the 180hp T-122 etc. Ugly adaptation to get the engine in but mostly put off by the head and 6 inch Cockroaches all over the separate hangar and inside the plane. They did make some mods to make it easier to get in and out, Think it was the only one ever made. Had hoped to get an F-21 built. Then looked for a butyrate painted PA-12 and ended up with a 180hp Bush converted C-170B.

Just curious.
Chris C

wannabe wrote:Is there a reason why I do not more recognition for the T-craft F-19 & F-21?
My assumption is that most of the above praise is for the BC-12D series.
Can't remember if the Aeronca Chief had less shoulder room or not.
Guess the recognition could be for some of the tandem T-carts.
Do have some hours in an abused rental L-2 with a near symmetrical airfoil.

Used to fly a couple of F-19 and F-21s all over Calif. including some high alt. spots.
Truckee - Tahoe - Alpine Co. - Quincy/Gansner - the old Paradise strip - etc.
Was interested enough to take a long lunch while in Austin Tx for AMAT work and drive to the "last" T-craft factory. Actually sat in the 180hp T-122 etc. Ugly adaptation to get the engine in but mostly put off by the head and 6 inch Cockroaches all over the separate hangar and inside the plane. They did make some mods to make it easier to get in and out, Think it was the only one ever made. Had hoped to get an F-21 built. Then looked for a butyrate painted PA-12 and ended up with a 180hp Bush converted C-120B.

Just curious.
Chris C

The post war BC, F19 & F21 are essentially all the same airframe. The later two models are just higher HP and a 4 inch longer engine mount to compensate for a larger baggage area (CG.) The F22 saw flaps, a crappy wing tank design and a up-gross to 1750, which was accomplished by x bracing the baggage floor plus some mods that you spoke of. I've heard some grumbling from the purists that a long mount don't fly as nice as a short mount, what ever that means. One reason you might not hear a lot of love for the later models is the simple fact that there wasn't as many built and not many people actually have much experience with them.

Here's a rare (and badly neglected) one that you would have a hard time building today without going experimental. All you need is a huge pile of cash.

http://fairbanks.craigslist.org/for/5607215146.html

A lot of people don't know it, but Taylorcraft produced at least one four-place model. The Continental 470-powered Model 20 "Ranch Wagon" was introduced in the mid-1950's but they only made a handful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylorcraft_Ranch_Wagon

I've seen two of them, both stored in a hangar at the Apple Valley airstrip NW of Hillsboro OR, owned by "Ramblin' Rod" Anders of Portland television fame.

nefj40 wrote:
I've heard some grumbling from the purists that a long mount don't fly as nice as a short mount, what ever that means.

I'm definitely not a purist, but I do know that moving the engine forward (and putting a battery way in the back to balance it) makes the airplane handle differently. If you put 20 pound weights out at the wingtips of a Pitts biplane it would roll differently, rest assured.

Blame Isaac Newton

Now whether anyone bitches about the different handling or not, the higher power airplanes with the larger baggage compartment will haul more of a load into just about the same length strip. So IMHO the F series make better bush planes, but the B series make better sport planes. I have never owned an F series airplane, but I was treated to a couple of flights around Anchorage in an F-19 and F-21... so my experience in the F series is limited.

My previous comment about an 85 or 90 HP Taylorcraft with the short engine mount being "the best of all worlds" is meant to address using the airplane as a sport back country airplane, not a working bush plane.

EZ and Others: I guess Others deserves a Capital "O"

I have flown with bruised shoulders in a BC-12D, Done the same in an old Aeronca Chief, and a piper J-4, plus a FUNK. Someone was talking about funky airplanes the other day. Now maybe some were speaking or thinking/remembering the older Tandems.

I will always stand with the F-19 or F-21. Now admittedly most of that was SOLO high altitude learning back in the days when there was no "Mountain Flying" being taught. The flight schools would call the process Mountain Flying but all it amounted to was taking a 182 up to 12K to land at South Tahoe, have lunch, and then expose the student, sometimes two students to the effects of density alt.

Will admit the F series could be a hand full on high wind - GUSTY day,

Now the Luscombe 8E was nice - also shoulder tight but the stick was a natural.

Chris C

hotrod180 wrote:A lot of people don't know it, but Taylorcraft produced at least one four-place model. The Continental 470-powered Model 20 "Ranch Wagon" was introduced in the mid-1950's but they only made a handful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylorcraft_Ranch_Wagon

I've seen two of them, both stored in a hangar at the Apple Valley airstrip NW of Hillsboro OR, owned by "Ramblin' Rod" Anders of Portland television fame.

They also made a 15, which is 4 place and powered by an O-300. Great airplanes, and there's a few of them floating around as well. They look a bit similar to a Sedan.

The short mount/long mount discussion is sort of a Ford/Chevy thing. They both still handle very nice, but have a little different role. Like Bill said, the long mount is a little better at hauling a load in the baggage. I think the amount of recognition for the B series versus the F series is mostly the sheer number of them produced. I have a short mount, 85hp BC12-D, and love it. I've got friends with both long and short mount as well as bigger engined Tcrafts and they're all great. They're just like any other plane....keep it light and it's gonna fly a bit better than one that has every electric gadget and heavy thing hanging on it. JMHO.
John
John

Hardtail & others

Link actually has the F-19 I flew the most. Sad.
Look below the cluster of photos at a couple other googled recoveries for the same
F-19 N2002A - BUT - someone claims copyright.

Google my old 170 N4650C for photos.
Same guy claims copyright to photos of MY plane taken without me ever knowing.
Anyone understand that copyright position.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... a%20photos

If the link fails just type in: airplane taylorcraft n2002a photos

Curious
Chris C

I'm 6' 3" 220 lbs and I love my Tcart. I do have seaplane doors, which helps. Also unrolled the canvas, which keeps my head out of the skylight.

kona4breakfast wrote:I'm 6' 3" 220 lbs and I love my Tcart. I do have seaplane doors, which helps. Also unrolled the canvas, which keeps my head out of the skylight.

She is pretty fantastic...

Love those doors and windows!

EZFlap wrote:Love those doors and windows!

Coupled with a skylight, its actually "feels" roomy inside. Unlike most seaplane doors, you sit AT the door, not in front of it. It's really not bad. I fly it with the @kona4breakfast, we're both wide at the shoulders and it's cozy, but not uncomfortable.

As previously mentioned, if you take 1 roll out of the seat sling, it provides for plenty of head and legroom. In fact, at 5' 11" I have to reach for full rudder deflection. We just completed 100% rebuild of the wings, added two additional 6 gallon wing tanks for a total of 36 gallons usable. It weighed in at 874 lbs, a generous 626 lbs useful load! It's absolutely the most fun I've had flying and when properly setup, the performance is great.

TradeCraft please say hi to the Lake Hood T-craft guys Jim Brewer and Steve Long for me, they actually let a Californian through the fence, and gave me some truly spectacular flights !

Please, humor me, just once every ten years, get all the local T-craft guys together and have a mobile X-ray technician come out and take a picture of the lower strut attach clusters. If he does it right, you can get the cluster, the fitting, and the lower 6 inches of the strut in the same picture. Trust me, it's worth the $200 for peace of mind, considering how hard your airplanes live and work up there. I managed to get this approved as an alternate method of compliance to the strut and cluster AD's down here in CA, and the local FAA should not give you any problems up there.