Taylorcraft thoughts

D

docmirror

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
12,008
Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
I drooled over a T-craft this Sun. It had a few little issues but the basics were all good and it flew pretty nice. Hard to go 85MPH when you've been going 160+ before. Built in 46, fully restored in 2000. It would be great for bumming around the area but no way should be used for actually going somewhere.

My mission is DFW area to CO Springs, and PHX. I think at 90MPH solo that is a lot of windscreen time. Think I'll save up and shop for a Sonex and go about 35MPH faster on less gas. Still like the old iron though.
 
Doc... You still interested in Luscombes? Phil Bergman was in my office recently and he is interested in selling both the one that is assembled, and the two that are projects.

I'll try to find the details he left with me at my office.
 
I've been putting around in a 90 hp Champ for the past three years and I've found that even at 85 mph, if you keep it pointed in the same direction for any length of time you can actually get places and if you keep it below 2000 feet it doesn't look any different than going 160 mph at 5000 feet. You'll burn about the same amount of gas point to point but you'll have to eat more meals on the way so it actually costs a tad more to fly slow :D

Here's a trip I made to Utah last summer:

CA to UT in a Champ
 
Last edited:
I flew my '41 Taylorcraft all over New Mexico after I brought it out from the SF Bay area. It isn't fast as you noted but for fun its hard to beat. Nice flying plane with no nasty habits. Cheap to run and maintain and a good one for landing off airport whenever you can. I did a lot of hayfield landings and visited a lot of farm friends when the fields were done. I kept the plane in Moriarty for some time and field elevation there is 6001asl. The plane did quite well there even in the summer. It taught me to thermal too for those times I wanted to go through the pass to Albuquerque. I think you'll find that any of the old taildraggers would be great for fun flying and probably not much good for traveling long distance. Luscombe, T-cart, Champ, Chief......


Frank
 
We took off from 4500' at 90F with two guys about 185Lbs each and it got off just fine. We were only doing about 200FPM. He had a 40" climb prop on it so we were getting 2400RPM. I'm guessing that with a 45" prop things would go a bit faster but getting off at higher elevation might be a problem.

Had to remember what the pedals were for.

I'll talk to Phil if he answers the phone. So far, no luck. There's a barn find Luscombe in NM that I was thinking about but it's gonna need the full Monty to fly again. Looking at ~$20k in parts and materials to get it back in full flight mode. Be nice when done, but prolly a 2 year commitment with no flying until it's done.

I'd rather have the Luscombe, but nothing wrong with this clean T-craft. Man, it was tasty looking.
 
Number for provided for Phil last time was his business (Collision repair shop) and of course employees are instructed to deflect non business calls. This time I got his mobile#.

Also, send me your email addr and I can give coordinates to the hangar in Roanoke.
 
Yeah, they are slow, but if you have time, their fuel economy is as good as most cars. My BC12 would cruise at 95 though. Sounds like that one wasn't rigged quite right.

Ryan
 
Well, it was a warm day, and we were fully loaded with a climb prop. I'm guessing I could get 95 solo with the right prop. She flew like a dream, so pretty sure it was rigged well, just didn't want to cruise at redline 2300.
 
Glad to see the Tcraft getting some much deserved love! Hard airplane to beat for just cruising the local flyins and what not.


-VanDy
 
docmirror said:
Well, it was a warm day, and we were fully loaded with a climb prop. I'm guessing I could get 95 solo with the right prop. She flew like a dream, so pretty sure it was rigged well, just didn't want to cruise at redline 2300.
Click to expand...
I always cruised at 2150 for that speed.

Ryan
 
The book says 2150 will produce a 95 cruise. Prolly accurate for this plane as it was bone stock.
 
docmirror said:
Well, it was a warm day, and we were fully loaded with a climb prop. I'm guessing I could get 95 solo with the right prop. She flew like a dream, so pretty sure it was rigged well, just didn't want to cruise at redline 2300.
Click to expand...

Also where were the ailerons compared to the trailing edge? Flush while its sitting on the ground will give you a couple more knots.


-VanDy
 
Ailerons should probably be rigged drooping approx. 1/4" when on the ground, and in trail (even with the trailing edge) while flying. As far as I know there was no POH for the B models. Certain controls and instruments were required to have specific markings or labels. Like Vne on the airspeed, and ON/OFF on the wing tank fuel valve etc. h

oh. on that Museum of Flight blurb on C.G.Taylor. He designed the first Cub too...
 
Last edited:
Airspeed indications can be way off, especially depending on where the static pressure is taken. Lots of those old airplanes had the static ports open to the cabin, and leakage or an open vent or window can affect the airspeed readings quite a bit.

Slow is OK. Getting there is half the fun. And when the economy gets rough, the little-old-airplane owner is one of the last guys to have to sell his airplane.

Dan
 
Howard Wilson said:
Ailerons should probably be rigged drooping approx. 1/4" when on the ground, and in trail (even with the trailing edge) while flying. As far as I know there was no POH for the B models. Certain controls and instruments were required to have specific markings or labels. Like Vne on the airspeed, and ON/OFF on the wing tank fuel valve etc. h

oh. on that Museum of Flight blurb on C.G.Taylor. He designed the first Cub too...
Click to expand...


Thats exactly my understanding as well, if you want a little better short field performance, you can droop them a bit more, but you'll lose some speed in cruise
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top