1941 TC for sale

[Tom T]

It's for sale, 5800tt, has some damage history but all repaired properly, wings redone in polyfiber in 03, fuse ceconite 80s, 1300 + SMOH, all cyls 75+, skylite, 760 panel mtd flightline com, battery in back, new bungees, wheel bearing, mixture control, parking brake, mags rebuilt, carb RR, Luscombe Exhaust, new elt battery, Handheld com antenna externally mounted, Pilot side window opens, NO corrosion, Wing tanks but left tank disconnected, True 75 hp, not a conversion, metal prop, Scott tailwheel, good glass, Airtex interior. Later style panel and rams horn yokes. All logs from Birth, all 337s and Stc's properly filed. Fresh annual at sale. Scott tail wheel, pilot shoulder harness
$13,500. OBO
Hangered @ KSFF
509 995 5523

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

Nothing sells like pictures Tom. The 41 was one of the very best years for Taylorcraft. How about some pictures?
Hank

[Tom T]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

I hope they are up now,

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

Nice Skylight and non standard exhaust (ANY exhaust is better than stock!). What kind is it?
Hank

See if you can catch Bill B. Maybe he is ripe to rejoin the Tribe. ;-)

[Tom T]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

Luscombe

[barnstmr]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

Tom,
Hello. Looks like you have a reasonable price on this nice looking bird. I think if you check, you'll find that exhaust is not Luscombe. It looks like Aeronca to me. How recent is the fabric job and what type of fabric finishing system was used? [oops!!!!] Nevermind.... polyfiber '03. It pays to actually read!

[3Dreaming]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

I found it interesting that in the annual sign off they complied with the AD for the Lycoming 540 engine. The old AD was superceded, and the new one does not apply to all the engines that were once covered.

[Tom T]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

I found it interesting that in the annual sign off they complied with the AD for the Lycoming 540 engine. The old AD was superceded, and the new one does not apply to all the engines that were once covered.

http://vb.taylorcraft.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=72031

Is that good or bad??

[3Dreaming]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

http://vb.taylorcraft.org/newreply.p...wreply&p=72031
Is that good or bad??

I just find it interesting when a mechanic signs off on an AD that they didn't read. If he had read it he would have known that it didn't apply. AD 2005-12-06 applies to Bendix mags installed on Lycoming 540 engines. In this case AD 2005-12-06 superseded 96-12-07 which did apply to Bendix mags for your engine, so I can kind of see how it came about. There is nothing wrong with doing the inspection on the impulse coupling, in fact it is a good thing, it just didn't need to be signed off in reference to AD 2005-12-06.

[Tom T]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

I just find it interesting when a mechanic signs off on an AD that they didn't read. If he had read it he would have known that it didn't apply. AD 2005-12-06 applies to Bendix mags installed on Lycoming 540 engines. In this case AD 2005-12-06 superseded 96-12-07 which did apply to Bendix mags for your engine, so I can kind of see how it came about. There is nothing wrong with doing the inspection on the impulse coupling, in fact it is a good thing, it just didn't need to be signed off in reference to AD 2005-12-06.

This guy is very astute to any kind of problems, and I appreciate his detail. He has been my mechanic for 8 years now and the detail is obvious. I am kinda prone to like redundancy as well.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

Seems like it protects you that your mechanic checked for ADs that might not even apply. If a later guy read it wrong and claimed it applied to you, it would be nice to have it recorded that you looked at it to be sure.
Hank

[3Dreaming]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

This guy is very astute to any kind of problems, and I appreciate his detail. He has been my mechanic for 8 years now and the detail is obvious. I am kinda prone to like redundancy as well.

He may be a great mechanic, but to me seeing that in a sign off throws up a big red flag. I've seen many times where some one signs off on a AD inspection every annual for years when the modification to eliminate the inspection had been done 35 years ago. How can you tell if they are not looking at the part to see if it has been modified, or if they are just blindly signing off the AD without reading it.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

His sign off should SAY he looked and the modification or modified part is still there. It is very easy for an owner to buy a part on eBay and put it on without the mechanics knowledge. This could effectively remove compliance with the AD (not legally, but it sure does happen). I think the mechanic is probably being thorough, but he needs to change the way he records his check.
Imagine if a sealed strut was damaged and an owner replaced it with an old one without benefit of an A&P. Yea, I know, illegal as all get out, but it is pretty easy to switch out struts and verify rigging. Next annual it would be pretty hard to see it had been done.
Got to be honest with your mechanic! He is keeping you alive.
Hank

[3Dreaming]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

Hank, here is what the AD covers that he signed off for on the T-Craft.
From AD 2005-12-06
[Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) (formerly Bendix) magnetos that
have a magneto part number (P/N) listed in Table 1 of TCM Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No.
MSB645, dated April 4, 1994, installed on Lycoming AEIO-540, HIO-540, IO-540, 0-540, and TIO-
540 series engines. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, airplanes manufactured by the
Cessna Aircraft Company, Maule Aerospace Technology Corporation, Mooney Aircraft Corporation,
The New Piper Aircraft Inc., and Raytheon Aircraft Company (Formerly Beech Aircraft Company).]

The mag serial number for the mags on the T-Craft may be listed in MSB645, but I don't think it has one of these engines installed. How can you comply with the AD that doesn't apply?

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

Yea, that IS a little different. If I had a mag that had an AD, but only of it was on a different engine, I would want to look very carefully to find out why it didn't apply to the engine on my plane.
1) Is the same problem there on MY engine, but the FAA messed up and forgot mine? (Of course the FAA would NEVER make a mistake).
2) Is the Mag not even supposed to BE on my engine? (yea, I have seen that a lot of times)
3) Is the problem to do with the mating of the Mag on those SPECIFIC engines, and it really does NOT apply to my legal instillation?

I guess for the first example I would inspect it, and if it looked like the same problem was there on my application I would bite the bullet and tell the FAA they missed an application (then everyone would hate me, but at least they would be around to give me a problem about it)

For the second example, I would inspect the installation and end up taking the Mag off to sell on eBay while I looked for a legal Mag.

For the third example, I would inspect it, and confirm it did not apply to my plane and fly away happy, not worrying about examples 1 & 2.

In each case I would probably record that I did the inspection and what I found. Even if it isn't "complying" with the AD it would help the guy downstream who knew about the AD and saw the Mag on my plane. My entry would probably keep him from having to look as deep if he was worried. (My IA worries a lot, and I like it).
I have rarely seen log entries that didn't provide some kind of intel. In just a few cases, that intel was just to inform me that the guy who wrote it wasn't the brightest bulb in the box. I would much rather have a fairly useless entry than have a needed one missing. I have a LOT of those for my plane. Getting the plane to match the records has been a real experience. I have BOXES of junk I took out of my plane that was never recorded as being added to the plane.
Hank