Design structural limits for the b series taylorcraft

[jstall]

Would anyone have or have info concerning what the Taylorcraft airplanes
were structurally designed to, such as G-numbers on the structure?

Most aircraft today or the more modern aircraft have these numbers published.

I'm just wondering? I know I have never seen figures for this on the Champ, Cub, Ercoupe or others of the era

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Design structural limits for the b series taylorcraft

There are some old design books with "guidelines" but if anyone has actual numbers for the Taylorcraft I would REALLY be interested. It would make engineering any modifications MUCH easier!

Hank

[M Towsley]

Re: Design structural limits for the b series taylorcraft

Hank,

I know I have seen them somewhere, I am almost positive. Did Chet's book list them by chance? Maybe I am thinking of a different plane. Forrest, where are you??? I am sure this would be an easy one for you.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Design structural limits for the b series taylorcraft

What is really needed is the structural analysis of the primary components. I'm sure it was done (not on the originals, they were laid out on a lofting floor with chalk by the TLAR method). By the time the F-19 was out there should have been an analysis. It isn't the analysis that is a problems so much as the LOADS analysis. The Loads Group was always playing with black magic.

Hank

Most common heard statement from structural analysis group to the loads group, "WHERE THE H**L did you get THAT number!"

[jstall]

Re: Design structural limits for the b series taylorcraft

what is really needed is the structural analysis of the primary components. I'm sure it was done (not on the originals, they were laid out on a lofting floor with chalk by the tlar method). By the time the f-19 was out there should have been an analysis. It isn't the analysis that is a problems so much as the loads analysis. The loads group was always playing with black magic.

Hank

most common heard statement from structural analysis group to the loads group, "where the h**l did you get that number!"

amen to that!
Js

[jstall]

Re: Design structural limits for the b series taylorcraft

I had always heard that many of the older a/c of the 30's were sometimes overbuilt, as the engineering and the aeronautical engineering of the time was no way where it is today or even in the mid to late 40's

If it looked strong enough but maybe would be well???????? ok double or tripple it and that should be good. Example is the wing
structure of the Fairchild 24, wow, anyway, strong but sometimes very heavy for the power plant to be installed in it

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Design structural limits for the b series taylorcraft

That's true. The other thing they did was real world test of components to destruction instead of by analysis. We built our analysis techniques by developing formulas to reproduce the results of those tests. There was method to the analysis process. The problem was the Loads guys would tell us what to apply to the part so we could design to that and we would often not be able to understand where they got the number. Bigger problem was, they often couldn't tell us either.

It is still true a lot of the time now!

Hank

There is a reason there is a cauldron and funky cloths in the Loads section. Those guys are STRANGE, and that isn't soup for lunch!

[Garry Crookham]

Re: Design structural limits for the b series taylorcraft

The certification basis for the Taylorcraft is CAR04. It's been quite a while since I looked at the data but if I remember correctly the load limits are not presented as absolute G force limits but have to be calculated for the weight of each airplane. Civil Aviation Regulations are here: http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/sc...&site=dot_cars

[Bird]

Re: Design structural limits for the b series taylorcraft

Seem to remember +6 -2 although not sure on the -2 could have been -3

[Randy]

Re: Design structural limits for the b series taylorcraft

Seem to remember +6 -2 although not sure on the -2 could have been -3

Wow, great, that means I can take my 1940 BL-65 and start doing loops, spins and everything else

[Bird]

Re: Design structural limits for the b series taylorcraft

Believe it or not, that is my information, there is a taylorcraft owner close to me that was told by another owner of a taylorcraft that he took his plane up and did 26 loops with his finance and she keep saying do it again. I do not know how much time he used to set this or each loop up but have heard it is possible and that the taylorcraft can and is acrobatic to the limits of the engine.
It is possible that people have lied to me but I really do believe I have seen the numbers of +6 and -2 to the best of my knowledge but can not place were I saw them

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Design structural limits for the b series taylorcraft

My 41 was certified under "Standard Normal" which in 1941 allowed loops, rolls and many other maneuvers. I like steep turns (old sailplane flyer) but somehow I don't really want to loop a 1941 Taylorcraft. Kind of like taking my grandmother out on a race track. I treat my baby with respect, and someday if I really NEED those G's, I hope she will still be able to give them to me.

Hank

Besides, I really DON'T LIKE negative G!

[Bigdog]

Re: Design structural limits for the b series taylorcraft

My 41 was certified under "Standard Normal" which in 1941 allowed loops, rolls and many other maneuvers. I like steep turns (old sailplane flyer) but somehow I don't really want to loop a 1941 Taylorcraft. Kind of like taking my grandmother out on a race track. I treat my baby with respect, and someday if I really NEED those G's, I hope she will still be able to give them to me.

Hank

Besides, I really DON'T LIKE negative G!

The 46 BC-12D I owned in the 70's was also Standard. I flew acro in it - loops, rolls and spins. I even flew it in an IAC Sportsman contest in 1976. I did not do the snap roll that was in the program. I rented a Decathalon to do serious acro but I found myself enjoying inverted gliding in the Tcraft too much and decided that pushing the limits of a 33 year old (at that time) airplane wasn't really smart and stopped cold. I haven't done acro in a non-Acro rated plane since.

I'm leaving the inverted systems out of the RV I'm building because my days of hanging from the belts is long gone.

[otrcman]

Re: Design structural limits for the b series taylorcraft

There are some old design books with "guidelines" but if anyone has actual numbers for the Taylorcraft I would REALLY be interested. It would make engineering any modifications MUCH easier!

Hank

I don't have data for the B, but do have some of the original stress analysis work for the L-2. There doesn't seem to be anything that comes right out and says, "This many G's". But I did back out some load numbers from their calculations and was very surprised at the results.

Contrary to urban legend, it appears that the L-2 design limit was only around 4.1 positive. I didn't work on any negative stuff because it's pretty labor intensive to do this kind of work. But 4.1 ? That's not even Utility category by today's standards.

Y'all be careful out there.

Dick

[flyguy]

Re: Design structural limits for the b series taylorcraft

Just curious. Anyone have a accurate airspeed number that they got coming out the bottom of a loop properly performed? (in a 12D say).
DC