New Taylorcraft BO-200 :)

[EricAos]

First off, let me say this is not a restoration. I have no intentions of making the same mistakes the factory did 75 years ago. ( Seriously I do appreciate restorations, but this is going to be for flying, and I don't have the patience, or the time to do that much work )

This will be an Experimental. I don't do well with BS, so Certified with STC's, 337's, and all the other paperwork, just to do something that is better, safer, and more modern, doesn't strike me as something I want to deal with. I can have my O-200, 1320 lb gross, disk brakes, and whatever else I want with minimal harassment from the FAA.

I do love the T-Craft for what it is. This will not be some Cub wannabe, or a 200 MPH cross country machine. I want it light, with an adaquate power reserve. The ability to fly to semi-remote locations, with a passanger, and fishing gear. I don't need to go upside down, but I do like some of the 'Swick' type mods, like the control stick. I am not tied to the bungee gear. The Pitts guys have gone from bungee's to spring gear, to RV style gear. As long as it doesn't kill the looks, and is better, I would consider that too.

I am starting with a 1938 Fuselage that has been on its back sometime probably before I was born. Then was stuffed in the rafters at the local airport, and forgotten about. I don't really plan on putting it back in the air, but rather using it to build a duplicate out of 4130, with any mods that need done incorporated. I made a set of jigs from a post war tail, and am looking for a set of pre war's to possibly blend with them. Big post war V.S., big pre war Rudder ??? best of both worlds, or worst of both?

Any suggestions from the peanut gallery?

Oh yea, and Pics. Everyone loves pictures.

[Edwin Otha]

Re: New Taylorcraft BO-200

Check with the FSDO before you dump a bunch of money into it. Just because you fancy yourself as a rebel you might be in a pickle. If you put a N or X on the plane you still need to work with the Feds.
EO

[EricAos]

Re: New Taylorcraft BO-200

Already working that direction. I'm not quit as rebelious as I sound. Just seems that Experimental is a much easier road to take, to get where I want to go. Not really any different than building an RV, or Experimental Super Cub.

Any recomendations on early or late tail?

[ajfriz]

Re: New Taylorcraft BO-200

You're wrong if you think it will be easier to put this in the experimental category than getting these mods approved.

[d.grimm]

Re: New Taylorcraft BO-200

I like your idea's, I 'll let you worry about legalities.
Two sticks, I know you don't need them, but I like flaps,
Lots of windows, extended gear for higher angle of incidence
for take-off, C-85/90/0-200 with a ground adjustable prop.
26 in Bushwheels with some Grove double puck brakes.
Now that I've spent all your money, Have Fun!
Dave

[Larry Lyons]

Re: New Taylorcraft BO-200

If you are building a complete fuselage, that will be yours and yours alone even if you mod it after the T-Craft. I don't see you having a prob with the feds. Do the same with the wings, new home made spars and ribs, etc and you should be good to go. Check with your FSDO people to make sure you don't go over their 51% rule with factory hinges, motor mounts, etc and I think you will be just fine. However I don't see this being any less work then a restoration as far as actual amount of work done. But it does sound like a nice aircraft when you get done.

L

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: New Taylorcraft BO-200

Agree, some of you may have missed it that he is NOT using the old fuselage for the new plane, he is using it to make fixtures to weld up a completely new fuselage. Several advantages there,
1. 4130 instead of 1010 steel
2. Trim TAB instead of flipper
3. Time to talk to Chuck about changing the door for ease of entry
4. Same thing on the mods to widen the fuselage and change the seat
5. Skylight and patrol doors are a non event as an experimental
6. Strut design mod to eliminate the problems that make ours suspect
7. Spoilers!!! (OK, some don't agree, but they are REALLY nice and Forrest has a set you might be able to use as a proven design concept)
8. Raise the bottom instrument panel cross tube an inch or so for knee clearance
9. Since it is a NEW fuselage, look at eliminating the bungees
10. All of the lessons learned from 75 years of Taylorcrafts can be put together in a new design that will still be essentially a prototype new Taylorcraft that is legally just another home built to the FAA.

There have been a few threads here on what the "perfect" Taylorcraft would have if we started production. Time to have people chime in.
I also have a post war fuselage uncovered and all open to help with the copy process as well as some of the fuselage drawings. Several people want to do the same thing you are thinking about. Time for you guys to all get together! Three or four "prototypes" will make the building a lot easier.

Hank

[jim cooper]

Re: New Taylorcraft BO-200

I flew a mooney a lot, 201 and super 21 models. Liked em! In the 80's there was a big flap about spoilers for the mooney. There was a kit available. I never understood this. Both models were docile, stable and easy to land.....if....you slowed them down. 70 downwind, flaps, base 70, final 70-65. A lot like a BC12D! If faster you had problems floating merrily down the runway still flying. If intent on this project and if you like to suffer thru this type rebuild, go forth! If you want a plane that will outperform what you intend, 100 HP, bulletproof engine, great visibility etc. etc. buy a rans courier kit from randy and you can hang in with the super cub crowd. Maybe spend less money and fly much sooner. I should add, spoilers on a glider, yes I understand. Best of luck in any event. JC

[cvavon]

Re: New Taylorcraft BO-200

Well here are me thoughts on a Xplane Supper T i will start at the front minimum 150 HP swing away engine mount make the cabin 4 in wider raise the bottom of the panel as for the landing gear do a gear like the supper cub only do dye springs not bungees this gets the bungees out of the cabin separate the strut and gear attach fittings make it easy to change to floats now back inside get the bar out of the door and out of the seat back add adjustable seats sticks or yokes 2 22 gl wing tanks add large baggage area now to the wings FLAPS? spoilers? VG'S!! gurney flaps now to the tail add area to both rudder and horizontal do this by doing counter balance type surfaces beef up tail spring mount sky lights patrol doors boot cowl windows large D windows well this is my want list for a new tcraft

[EricAos]

Re: New Taylorcraft BO-200

Thanks for the words of wisdom.

If any of this were about being practical I would just sit in my chair at home, and save my money. I like going out to the shop after work, and beating on metal, and cutting stuff with fire... does something good for the soul. I have some undescribable love for T-Crafts. Something to do with flying with a friend years ago, floating down the runway not being able to get the old thing to quit flying. It just has that sort of... something about it that makes me want one even though I don't NEED one. And if I am going to spend the time building one, it might as well be the best I can build.

Don't get me wrong, I love the totally correct restorations. I love the way they fly. I love the way they look. And the time they represent.

I want one I can fly. That means more than the 50 hp that mine came with. I am not the 125lb average 1930's guy. I want one that can haul my lard butt, and someone elses around with 50lb of camping gear.

I don't want to stop any of the rest of you from having, and flying original Taylorcrafts. I love them too. I just want MY plane, and it's not an RV. It's really close to a Taylorcraft. That's why I am here.

[Ragwing nut]

Re: New Taylorcraft BO-200

for struts I would strongly consider looking at the aluminum extrusion used on the Rans S7. I talked with Terry about this years ago and determined it could be done via STC/PMA, but the cost was not worth it in the end.

throw away the bungees and use hydrosorb from tripacer

piper cub trim system

no need for flaps or spoilers, just use a shorter wing (less weight and complication)

I have a stick idea but not giving that one up yet

[cvavon]

Re: New Taylorcraft BO-200

I for got what i would do for trim as the new plane will be electric use a servo and run it by electric there are some newer suspension systems that the cub guys are using that are light and work well as for the reason for cub style gear it will move all the gear attach points to the front so we can mount a cargo pod witch can also be aux fuel tank for longer range and REMEMBER BEFORE YOU START YELLING ABOUT IT BEING TO MUCH LIKE A CUB WHO DESIGNED A CUB AND WEREN"T HIS IDEAS GOOD

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: New Taylorcraft BO-200

By the way, there is some serious talk about a fuselage fixture to repair and build new fuselages. That old 39 fuselage, DON'T CUT ON IT! It isn't much good for what you are building except as a pattern, but it has a lot of value to someone restoring a pre-war plane! It is also a gold mine of information for making the fuselage tool.
Hank

The idea of a simple electric tab is great. I like the Cub trim, but it is a lot of design change and weight in the tail, plus we have been talking about closing up the fuselage to stab gap some. A stab trim system will have problems with that.

[cvavon]

Re: New Taylorcraft BO-200

I like the aluminum struts with open ends no more stupid AD. the bearhawk LSA has a metal wing with a single strut worth a look. also what about a stab with a small air foil will that help or be bad? and extended landing gear at least 3 inches. And threw all of this keep as much of the original looks of the taylorcraft

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: New Taylorcraft BO-200

Single strut isn't a great idea. To eliminate the aft strut you need to increase the torsional rigidity of the wing panels and that adds weight and requires a whole new wing design.
Steel or aluminum struts are both good IF you design them so there isn't a possibility of hidden corrosion. The inspection of our struts was bogus, but the potential problem was real (the POTENTIAL problem). Might as well design it out with a dimensionally identical strut and maybe get it certified later as a replacement for all the other struts out there.
Once the research is done the landing gear length will probably be a little longer (front and rear). The aft gear attach and strut attach also need to be separate. Makes changing to floats easier and will make the belly pod design easier as well as making door access easier. Doesn't need to be much, just enough to use two fasteners instead of one.
The airfoil stab might be more efficient, again needs research, but there needs to be a trade study to find out if the added weight and complexity makes it worth while. With the exception of single strut, none of these things would change the aesthetics of the classic Taylorcraft, which I think are perfect. By enlarging the cabin (a LITTLE) you could also preserve the shorter looking nose while it is actually long enough for a bigger engine with a starter.
A big thing is to also get the fuel OUT of the fuselage and into the wings. More room for instruments, leg room, safety, less CG shift with fuel burn.....just a whole list of reasons.
Hank