Runway Incursion N95598

[barnstmr]

Well as embarrassing as it is to report this, it could have been worse. It happened about a month ago. I had just landed at our home airport at Tick Hill Airfield with my daughter in the right seat. While taxiing in to the tie down area, I had a memory lapse. As I had done numerous times in the past, I turned right off the runway just after passing the windsock. Well... something new was lurking in my blindspot off my right nose. Then, I was abruptly reminded about a new goat fence we recently installed.

Time for those new struts now.

[barnstmr]

Re: Runway Incursion N95598

It took me about a week to come to terms with this... but I decided I needed to look at the spars really good to make sure there wasn't any hidden damage. One of the first things I noticed turned out to be nothing to do with the taxi incident. Take a look at this photo... I really never noticed this before, but something was certainly awry with my RH fuel tank. There was an obvious bump under the fabric. The filler neck seemed a bit crooked. I thought oh... could that fence post bump on the strut somehow affect the fuel tank? Further investigation is in order here.

[barnstmr]

Re: Runway Incursion N95598

OK... so today started out with a borrowed borescope and a plan to inspect to see what's going on with the tank. By far not enough access... so I bit the bullet and took a pocket knife after the fabric. I am glad I did.... here's what I found.

[barnstmr]

Re: Runway Incursion N95598

THE GOOD NEWS.... Spars look great. I am actually looking forward to getting back into doing some fabric work. The plan is to re-assemble without the wing tank. Determined the cause of the issue was a plugged vent in the cap. Not sure how long this has been this way... apparently a long time based on some chafe marks. I'm glad I made the decision to dive in and tear this down. I happened to find a badly corroded rear spar wing attach fitting. It appears that the 1 inch felt pad behind the fuel tank likes to retain moisture.

Jury struts, jury strut adjusters, and the wing attach fitting are bought. have the money now for RH lift struts and plan to order these on Monday. Now starting back together with it all... Goal is to make it to the Central Texas Taylorcraft Fly-in on March 30/31.

[M Towsley]

Re: Runway Incursion N95598

Terry,

Sorry to see this. What was the cap vent plugged with? Good luck with the rebuild.

[Larry Lyons]

Re: Runway Incursion N95598

WOW a bit more presure you could remounted it on the belly as a drop tank! L

[dejh22]

Re: Runway Incursion N95598

THE GOOD NEWS.... Spars look great. I am actually looking forward to getting back into doing some fabric work. The plan is to re-assemble without the wing tank. Determined the cause of the issue was a plugged vent in the cap. Not sure how long this has been this way... apparently a long time based on some chafe marks. I'm glad I made the decision to dive in and tear this down. I happened to find a badly corroded rear spar wing attach fitting. It appears that the 1 inch felt pad behind the fuel tank likes to retain moisture.

Jury struts, jury strut adjusters, and the wing attach fitting are bought. have the money now for RH lift struts and plan to order these on Monday. Now starting back together with it all... Goal is to make it to the Central Texas Taylorcraft Fly-in on March 30/31.

Is there any paper work that needs to be done if you don't install the wing tank? When I start the restoration on mine I would like to eliminate my wing tanks. I was told a BC12 D has to have a right side wing tank.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Runway Incursion N95598

You probably shouldn't remove the wing tanks. I just got all new plumbing on mine so I CAN use them if I ever want to, but probably won't ever use them. If you leave them out an anal FAA guy could say you were not in configuration according to the TC (and he would be right). No sense asking for trouble! The empty tanks don't weigh that much and removing them will also reduce the value of the plane.
Hank

[crispy critter]

Re: Runway Incursion N95598

correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the wing tanks optional on all BC12D's with 65hp? I know most came from the factory with at least one tank in the right wing and some with a tank in each wing but I don't think they were required equipment.

[Marv]

Re: Runway Incursion N95598

I owned a BC12D-1 with 65 hp and it had no wing tanks and most i have seen did not come from the factory with any. Would that not mean a BC12D would not be required to have wing tamnks to be legal? Marv

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Runway Incursion N95598

I thought you were supposed to match the factory configuration at delivery unless you had paper authorizing a modification. What do they use as a basis in a conformity inspection? ANY configuration under the TC or the way the individual plane was delivered?
Hank

From a SAFETY point of view, it doesn't matter, but an FAA Ramp Inspection can mess your day up, especially if the Fed THINKS he knows a lot more than he really does! I had one tell me I couldn't fly with a "home made" exhaust on my 41. He had only seen a Taylorcraft with a Cub exhaust and (lucky for me) I had a catalog with a picture of a REAL "T" exhaust to prove mine was right. When I was at AirVenture years ago we had an FAA guy tag a plane with a swept tip prop as having a prop strike and he couldn't leave since he was effectively GROUNDED! Even when the factory rep for the prop manufacturer brought the senior FAA guy there to prove it was a good prop, no one would override the guy who screwed up! AND HE HAD ALREADY LEFT! I never did hear how it was resolved, but when I left the senior FAA guy said he BETTER NOT try to fly the plane.

[freightpilot27]

Re: Runway Incursion N95598

When I was at AirVenture years ago we had an FAA guy tag a plane with a swept tip prop as having a prop strike and he couldn't leave since he was effectively GROUNDED! Even when the factory rep for the prop manufacturer brought the senior FAA guy there to prove it was a good prop, no one would override the guy who screwed up! AND HE HAD ALREADY LEFT! I never did hear how it was resolved, but when I left the senior FAA guy said he BETTER NOT try to fly the plane.

WOW. that must have been years ago... I know a few FAA inspectors who have told me they, for the most part, leave airplanes alone at Oshkosh. If they started ramp checking during the flyin they know they could very well be mauled, mutilated, and buried wherever Jimmy Hauffa is!
Some of them are smarter than they look.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Runway Incursion N95598

Most of the FAA guys I have worked with have been great (I actually took two of them out to look at the 41 once from the airport grill, my instructor thought I was CRAZY).
The problem is if there are 500 GREAT ones, ONE idiot will give them all a bad reputation. We need to work with the 500. Most of them know very little about "Tube and Rag" planes and are eager to look at them and learn, they just don't want to be a pain and KNOW they may not know what they are looking at. I look at it from the perspective of, "if there is something wrong with my plane, I WANT to know about it!" As soon as they see something, I no longer have an "intent to fly", so unless they were real jerks, I shouldn't get written up.
Hank

[M Towsley]

Re: Runway Incursion N95598

As a retired police officer, boy, can I relate to how the 'one' can ruin it for all.

Unfortunately, I have met the 'one' at our airport. That person scares me, as the word 'discretion' is not in their vocabulary.

[senior]

Re: Runway Incursion N95598

I thought you were supposed to match the factory configuration at delivery unless you had paper authorizing a modification. What do they use as a basis in a conformity inspection? ANY configuration under the TC or the way the individual plane was delivered?
Hank

I'm curious Hank how you know, how it was equiped when it left the factory?
I have logs from day 1 on mine but no mention anywhere of equipment in the plane.
Short of having the original bill of sale listing the options paid for ???