Looking for a project plane...

[mikerice]

Last I saw this aircraft was derelict in Mexia TX in a hail shed ( saw it about 2014). It had flat tires and needed recover, but could possibly be flown out. I was looking at it for a project, but I have a flying Tcraft and too many other projects. It would be worth a trip to see if it is still there. Not far from Dallas. Never contacted the owner, but the plane looked abandoned.

---

FAA REGISTRY N-Number Inquiry Results

---

N82023 has Assigned/Multiple Records

Data Updated each Federal Working Day at Midnight

Aircraft Description

Serial Number	2216	Status	Valid
Manufacturer Name	TAYLORCRAFT	Certificate Issue Date	07/21/1998
Model	F22A	Expiration Date	11/30/2020
Type Aircraft	Fixed Wing Single-Engine	Type Engine	Reciprocating
Pending Number Change	None	Dealer	No
Date Change Authorized	None	Mode S Code (base 8 / oct)	52631625
MFR Year	1992	Mode S Code (base 16 / hex)	AB3395
Type Registration	Individual	Fractional Owner	NO

Registered Owner

Name	RODRIGUEZ RICHARD V
Street	1912 AVENUE H APT 4C
City	BROOKLYN	State	NEW YORK
County	KINGS	Zip Code	11230-7404
Country	UNITED STATES

Airworthiness

Engine Manufacturer	LYCOMING	Classification	Standard
Engine Model	0-235 SERIES	Category	Normal
			Utility
A/W Date	09/18/1992	Exception Code	No

[M Towsley]

Funny, you are right on that. Though I turn 58 in a couple of weeks, and thankfully still pretty lithe, I had a recent, slightly older, passenger who had a heck of a time getting his feet turned and through the front of the seat and door jamb area. It is a bit tight.

[RyanShort1]

Maybe I misread this or some students are slow to learn a simple technique?

This. I was often working with older students trying to get their light sport, and also found that a number of my tailwheel endorsement guys were older folks who now had money to buy a vintage taildragger and when you've got students booked back to back on 2 hour blocks, getting a guy in his 60s who's mobility is already a bit impaired can be fun... and take up more time than you realize!

[M Towsley]

I didn't mean to take up your time, Ryan, but when I read this: "but that doesn't always help when you're on a schedule especially with first time students", I thought I would provide the info on the video. I didn't know one could be on such a time schedule that prevented showing how to get into a T-Craft. Maybe I misread this or some students are slow to learn a simple technique?

[RyanShort1]

Ryan,

I've owned two BC-12D's and an L-2B. For instruction the side-by-side would probably be best. The L-2 is not that easy to get into, either, just takes different contortions to get in, (especially the back seat). Plus, you have possible weight and balance issues to contend with regarding the L-2 as opposed to the BC-12D based upon your passenger's weight. As you may, or may not, have seen I did a short video on how to easily get into a BC-12D. I have had no issues getting into mine and once I instruct a passenger how to do so there are no further issues. Just search 'How to get into a 1946 BC-12D' on Youtube for the video if you have not seen it.

I've flown and instructed in both. Thanks.

[M Towsley]

Ryan,

I've owned two BC-12D's and an L-2B. For instruction the side-by-side would probably be best. The L-2 is not that easy to get into, either, just takes different contortions to get in, (especially the back seat). Plus, you have possible weight and balance issues to contend with regarding the L-2 as opposed to the BC-12D based upon your passenger's weight. As you may, or may not, have seen I did a short video on how to easily get into a BC-12D. I have had no issues getting into mine and once I instruct a passenger how to do so there are no further issues. Just search 'How to get into a 1946 BC-12D' on Youtube for the video if you have not seen it.

[RyanShort1]

Hi Ryan,

I can't believe you sold your last BC-12. WTF!!

BTW... You're one of the reasons I have a BC-12 now. I was looking for something to build up tailwheel time in and happened to see your posts about it on the Purple Board. Now if I can actually get some hours built up with it!!

I know, right?

[Anymouse]

Hi Ryan,

I can't believe you sold your last BC-12. WTF!!

BTW... You're one of the reasons I have a BC-12 now. I was looking for something to build up tailwheel time in and happened to see your posts about it on the Purple Board. Now if I can actually get some hours built up with it!!

[Ragwing nut]

I'd prefer a BC so I can have one of the kids sit next to me, but the right L-2 would be a trip. I've flown both and no one wants a BC at an airshow it seems, but I could sneak in with an L-2 eventually.

We have one of the 4 YO-57's for sale. Preceder to all L-2's. I would say its 95% all there less engine and prop. I could supply a 65 cont with it if wanted as well

[PA1195]

Good luck.

Gary

[RyanShort1]

Thanks Ryan for the comparison. I've heard the ingress issues are different. I just enter my Taylorcraft from the front over the tire butt first but I have fold up seaplane doors to make it easier and they offer better side visibility when seated. I have lots of time on spring gear and it takes some practice. Some locally have the gear set to the rear of the tires with spacers. The 120-140 Cessna's tend to grow big engines for some reason then become nose heavy. Also I've yet to see one on floats which is needed in Alaska to get around. The wings are similar in design so can I assume the Cessna will land as slow as a Taylorcraft?

Parts and maintenance for older planes are a concern if they are truly flown much and especially off airport on wheels, skis, and floats. Dual brakes would be nice for both in a training situation.

Thanks again for the report and best wishes for the New Year!

Gary

I've flown Taylorcrafts plenty and know how to get in and out of them, but that doesn't always help when you're on a schedule especially with first time students. I made it work, but it was definitely easier with the 120. I liked the stock engine on the 120, and my BC-12s both had the 65, so I didn't really feel the weight and CG issues. The T-cart lands a bit slower in my recollection and if proficient I think could land in a shorter space, but if mismanaged it floats a lot farther down the runway than a 120. Trust me, students can and will mismanage things and you can't micromanage everything and let them learn.

[PA1195]

Thanks Ryan for the comparison. I've heard the ingress issues are different. I just enter my Taylorcraft from the front over the tire butt first but I have fold up seaplane doors to make it easier and they offer better side visibility when seated. I have lots of time on spring gear and it takes some practice. Some locally have the gear set to the rear of the tires with spacers. The 120-140 Cessna's tend to grow big engines for some reason then become nose heavy. Also I've yet to see one on floats which is needed in Alaska to get around. The wings are similar in design so can I assume the Cessna will land as slow as a Taylorcraft?

Parts and maintenance for older planes are a concern if they are truly flown much and especially off airport on wheels, skis, and floats. Dual brakes would be nice for both in a training situation.

Thanks again for the report and best wishes for the New Year!

Gary

[RyanShort1]

Ryan would you mind comparing the Taylorcraft to the C-120 in your tailwheel link? I've ridden in a C-140A but not the other models. Why a choice of one over the other for example.

There's several Cessnas here in various states of disrepair but few Taylorcrafts for some reason.

Gary

I would consider restoring a C-120/140, too. I love both airplanes. Have previously owned 2 BC-12s and one C-120. I think that the Cessna 120 is probably a bit sturdier, more ready to fly into airspace if you want to add electronics and other gadgetry, and certainly the view from the cockpit is better. It's a bit roomier and feels like a Cessna, which is good for students who have already flown other Cessna types.

The BC-12 is a very efficient, good airplane but I think better for personal use having trained in both. It's just a bit on the hard side to fit some people in the door even if they fit fine once they're in, but the view with your head at the wing root bothers some students in my experience. Also, it seems to be easier to find Cessnas with brakes on the CFI side than Taylorcrafts and that is a huge deal in my book since the taxi accident a student of mine and I had which would 100% not have happened if I had gotten some brakes installed (I was trying to get that done). The two planes both land like tailwheel airplanes do, but the spring steel vs bungee feels different for sure. I'm not really sure that I have a preference, but from the flight school point of view, I'd suspect that the Cessna landing gear would cost me less on maintenance in the long run.

What other specifics do you want to know?

[RyanShort1]

Price range? BC12 or L2?

I'd prefer a BC so I can have one of the kids sit next to me, but the right L-2 would be a trip. I've flown both and no one wants a BC at an airshow it seems, but I could sneak in with an L-2 eventually.

[PA1195]

Ryan would you mind comparing the Taylorcraft to the C-120 in your tailwheel link? I've ridden in a C-140A but not the other models. Why a choice of one over the other for example.

There's several Cessnas here in various states of disrepair but few Taylorcrafts for some reason.

Gary