Aeronca 7C or Taylorcraft BC-12D?

Shepherd

Shepherd

Final Approach
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
5,423
Location
Hopewell Jct, NY
Display Name
Display name:
Shepherd
I'm looking at buying one or the other of these types for knocking about in.
I've flown both, but not since 1965 and they were both on floats. No taildragger time in either.
If you have time in either or both, let me know your opinions.

Thank you for your time.

PS. I prefer a starter. One of the guys who will be flying it lost the lower half of one arm and can't (safely) prop a plane.
 
My preference would be Champ, due to the tandem seating providing more pilot and passenger comfort. I think the t-craft is a bit faster though, if that is a factor.
 
I've flown both but it has been a while. I remember the T-craft had lighter controls. I thought both were very nice flying aircraft. Can't really go wrong with a good example of either one. Like mondster, I enjoyed the tandem cabin of the Champ for comfort and visibility; I owned a Citabria and a Scout for many years. Remember to look very carefully for corrosion, lower fuselage tubes.
 
My personal preference would be the BC-12D, but it would depend on the mission. I like the Taylorcraft for speed/economy, and for perhaps being a tiny bit more docile on the ground and more longitudinally stable. It's definitely a more efficient airplane and more like a glider in it's wing loading. OTOH, the visibility is definitely worse and the payload may be worse depending on how heavy it is in it's latest restoration. The Aeronca has better visibility, may be a tiny bit better handling in a gusty crosswind and is probably a bit better trainer.
 
I'd vote for the Champ. (It's the only one with which I am familiar.) Sweet flying airplane. @VanDy could give you the pros and cons of the Taylorcraft, perhaps both. Any from that era with Continental A65 or A75 engines will not have a starter. You'll need one with a C85 if you want a starter. Champs will generally have a higher asking price. Champs have better visibility and a rugged landing gear. They are slower than the T-Craft, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Standard Champs have a 13-gallon header tank, which limits endurance.
 
I'd rather fly the Champ when solo.
I'd rather fly the T-Craft when with passenger.........at least some/most pax.
 
Both great planes, but that 7AC is really a great example, lots comes down to the pilot, but I felt like I could land that thing with surgical precision after very little time in it, I'd go champ.
 
It's true, neither has a starter. I've owned two taylorcrafts, both award winners. Great little airplanes and fun to fly. Nearly a glider. I learned in an 85 champ and later owned an 85 with a starter , transponder transceiver. Great little airplane. The 65 champ is pretty boring, underpowered, I can't imagine it on floats. I flew a t craft on floats. It took forever to get airborne with two onboard.I'd look for an 85 champ in very nice shape. ( but I'd really want a gcbc citabria.
 
Not that I'm biased in any way (ahem!), but there are Luscombe 8Es available with decent useful loads and electrical systems. The gear won't tolerate side loads like a Champ, but they are not as bad as legend would have it. In the air, they are very efficient and fun planes to fly. The E-series has metal wings and wing tanks, typically about 20+ gallons, so endurance is much better. My A65 version cruises just under 100 mph IAS on 4 gph, but I'm limited to 14 gallons of fuel.
 
Shepherd said:
PS. I prefer a starter. One of the guys who will be flying it lost the lower half of one arm and can't (safely) prop a plane.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that having to hand-prop the plane is a non-starter? :D

Sorry about your friend who lost part of his arm. Even with the ignition keys out and visible on the glare shield, and knowing the P-leads are intact, I still get the creeps a little whenever I move the big fan.
 
I would personally take the T-craft just because they are such sweet flying machines, not traveling, not fir, not good at much other than the best part of life and that is low and slow poking holes in the sky.
The champ is a great machine but not on par with a tcraft for simple fun.
 
I've never flown an Aeronca but I owned a T-Craft and loved it. The T-Craft is more efficient and faster, the downside is a very cozy cockpit, restricted visibility (your head is up in the wing root) and a tendency to float way down the runway unless you really get a handle on speed control on final. T-Craft is side by side with wheels, Aeronca is tandem with sticks. C.G Taylor designed the Piper Cub (originally the Taylor Cub); when Bill Piper forced him out of the company Taylor designed the Taylorcraft as a "Cub beater". Unfortunately while C.G. was a great airplane designer he wasn't a very good businessman.

C.G., when I met him at a T-Craft fly-in, told me that one of the reasons he chose side by side seating is because it's "much more pleasant when flying with a pretty girl."

Look at Budd Davisson's pireps page; he does a "classics comparison" where he compares the T-Craft, Aeronca, Cub, and others of that era.
 
Last edited:
Dana said:
I've never flown an Aeronca but I owned a T-Craft and loved it. The T-Craft is more efficient and faster, the downside is a very cozy cockpit, restricted visibility (your head is up in the wing root) and a tendency to float way down the runway unless you really get a handle on speed control on final. T-Craft is side by side with wheels, Aeronca is tandem with sticks. C.G Taylor designed the Piper Cub (originally the Taylor Cub); when Bill Piper forced him out of the company Taylor designed the Taylorcraft as a "Cub beater. Unfortunately while C.G. was a great airplane designer he wasn't a very good businessman.

C.G., when I met him at a T-Craft fly-in, told me that one of the reasons he chose side by side seating is because it's "much more pleasant when flying with a pretty girl."

Look at Budd Davisson's pireps page; he does a "classics comparison" where he compares the T-Craft, Aeronca, Cub, and others of that era.
Click to expand...

This is great info. Thanks.
 
Don't overlook the j5 cub if you can find one. Roomier than the champ or j3 can carry 3 (kind of) more useful load and HP.
 
Both great airplanes, parts are easier to find for Champs.
Dave
 
N659HB said:
Not that I'm biased in any way (ahem!), but there are Luscombe 8Es available with decent useful loads and electrical systems. The gear won't tolerate side loads like a Champ, but they are not as bad as legend would have it. In the air, they are very efficient and fun planes to fly. The E-series has metal wings and wing tanks, typically about 20+ gallons, so endurance is much better. My A65 version cruises just under 100 mph IAS on 4 gph, but I'm limited to 14 gallons of fuel.
Click to expand...

I need to find an 8E to sit in to see if I actually fit in it. Actually I need to see if I fit in any of them. I'm 3 inches taller and 75 lbs heavier than I was in 1965. :oops:
I've been flying a J-3, but my feet are too big, even with "skinny" shoes. I just can't get comfortable in the plane.
 
I've never had the pleasure of riding in a Taylorcraft so I can't comment on that one, but both the BC-12 and 7 series Champs are great examples of fun little planes.
I would research both planes on the web to find their club sites and ask the guys things like what to look out for with AD's and maintenance issues.
The Aeronca site has lots of info and photos but it's become a ghost town since everyone moved to the National Aeronca Assoc. FB page.
http://www.aeroncapilots.com/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/105851332789460/

There are only a few minor AD's on the Champ, and all of those should have been addressed years ago. The one big one is the wood spar AD, which came out a few years ago. On planes 90 hp and under it's a 1 time inspection, unless there is some kind of wing damage from a ground loop or hitting an obstacle. Over 90 hp is an annual inspection, and the additional inspection after any wing damage like the previous comments.
Other than that, almost all the small light planes have some kind of corrosion issues to inspect for, like lower longerons and such. Most of the planes have been restored and are not stored outside any more so those kinds of problems aren't as prevalent.

Both are fun planes to fly and I would guess that the Taylorcraft would be quite a bit faster than a Champ.
One big issue could be the seating, beyond just a personal preference of sitting side by side or tandem, is your size. Are you a big guy, do you expect to fly with other big guys too, then it could be cramped. These planes were made when people were shorter and a lot skinnier. If planning to fly with your wife, she may want to fly next to you rather than looking at the back of your head. That could be a deciding factor, I would find someone with both planes and at least get a chance to sit in each plane to see what it feels like.

Since you need a starter you'll need to look at something with at least a C-85 engine. I believe that would be something like a 7BCM, 7EC or 7ECA.
Pretty much all of those would have at least the 13 gallon nose tank and at least 1 or 2 wing tanks of at least 5-6 gallons. It may have no nose tank and just the 2 wing tanks of 13 gallons each.
The 7EC has 90 hp and of course a higher gross than the 7AC like my plane, sorry I don't know what that is. The 7ECA has a 100 hp O-235 and the early ones have the oleo gear, square tail and are more Citabria than Aeronca.
As for all of these kinds of planes is the weight issue, which always effects performance. Sometimes people add all kinds of extras like unnecessary instruments, padded side walls and carpet. All of that adds up and sometimes create a real dog of a plane.
My advice, look for one that's simple and light and well taken care of.
Good luck
 
I've got time in both and rebuilt and owned a Champ in the 70's. The Champ has more room, and others have addressed the other differences. Both have excellent Type Clubs for moral, and practical, support.

That said, back when I had my 65hp Champ, every time I went to fly it, I be-moaned the lack of starter. Then I would get in and taxi around cussing the cable-actuated brakes (I think many T-Carts have these also). Whenever I actually tried to go somewhere in it I would grumble about the 13 gallons of gas on board.

Fast forward to now... Our 7ECA has a starter on a reliable 0-235, hydraulically-operated brakes (either heel or toe depending on the year), and 36 gallons of gas. It's legal for country boy/girl aerobatics (both the the Champ and early T-Cart had no specific maneuvers approved, only a red-line limitation). The factory is still making both Champs and Citabrias up in Wisconsin every day, and they're great to work with on parts.

I could wonder if a top-of-the-line Champ with a starter wouldn't take you into 7ECA price territory. I pass it along FWIW.

...and now, useless trivia. Raise your hand if ya' knew that the first lowly 7AC Champ up thru the current Super Decathalon share the same type certificate?

Jim

Edit- Oh yeah...How could I forget the electrical system.? Radios and lights are a plus :)
 
Last edited:
First taildrager I flew was a BC12 T-craft. It was fun is all I recall as it was long ago.
 
Haven't flown either in a long time, but for pure knocking around fun, I'd vote for the Champ. T'craft is faster, but less comfortable.
 
If you don't find what you want in a Champ or a TCraft, I bet you can find a nice Pacer , or converted Tri-Pacer for similar money.
 
Champ - tandem seats, stick, stunning visibility and can land practically anywhere. This is what you get an airplane like this for, not "efficiency" or speed.
 
FormerHangie said:
If you don't find what you want in a Champ or a TCraft, I bet you can find a nice Pacer , or converted Tri-Pacer for similar money.
Click to expand...

I have all the access I need to planes like that. I'm looking for something that goes low and slow, and loves grass. Something that is more about the flying than where I'm going.
Maybe it's just a nostalgia thing. Champs, "T"-carts, Luscombes, and J-3s are what I started out flying back in 1964.
 
I would take the Champ over the Tcraft for sure. If I am going to be up farting around just for fun, I would want to be comfortable doing it and be able to see all around me. For the price of a nice champ though you can about get an 0-235 Citabria as someone else said and have a much better airplane. If fuel burn is a concern just pull the power back.
 
Taylorcraft also made a Model 19. It had 85 hp and was a nice-flying machine. I have a few hours in one, a 1951 model. Faster than an 85-hp Champ. But they're not for tall guys; the headroom is limited and the side window top is low enough you might have to duck a bit to look out the side.

They were built again in the 1970s as the F-19, with an O-200.
 
I know someone who has a 1946 Aeronca Champ 7AC airplane. Major overhaul to engine in 7/2014. 7 hours on new engine. 75HP. Total airframe time - 1,545 hours. 3/2012 - Recovered with new fabric. Asking $23,000. Plane is located at the Platteville Wisconsin Airport.

IM me for telephone number if interest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top