If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
My brother and I are in Anchorage and looking to get a t-craft. I know there are several of you on here that live up here as well. How do you like your t-crafts? How are they on skis?
Jon I flew on skes yesterday. I think that a t-craft is a wonderful ske plane. They perform real well in the cold weather. You can land and take off almost anywhere. If you do get stuck there light on person can handle it. I have nothing to say but good things about the t-craft on skes. I fly a 90hp bc12d no elect she has plenty of power. I was landing in fairly fresh snow that was about 4 ft deep would do a touch and go then come around and land in the same track had no problems at all. The ony negative thing i can think of is some t-crafts dont have a good heater so you haft to dress in layers. I have the cessna 150 mufflers and duel heat boxes so im toasty warm. Where in alaska do you live anch.
yeah currently living and instructing in Anchorage, like to leave the city, but it'd be tough. we're looking at a nice 65hp one, how do you think it'd do with the lower hp?
It just depends on what kind of flying you plan to do with it. It would make a fine trainer. Mine had a 75hp in it for years. It flew good on skes and airport to airport. On off airport surfaces it lacked the power to get off as short as i needed to get into all the good shorter areas that i wanted to go. When i had the 90 hp motor put in the diff, was way more than i expected now i can do all the short gravel bars. Tundra, real short lakes on skes and it made a ex, float plane out of it. If i had to do it all over again i personaly wouldnt settle for anything less than a 85hp. Theres a lot of people here from alaska mabe they can jump in here with there opp, Jim, Dick, Dan, what do you think.
I agree with Lance. The A65 engine is great for training, airport airport, airport to local beaches, gravel strips and grass strips if you can find one.
I want a c-85 with the 0200 conversion. BECAUSE I NEED A FLOAT PLANE!!!!!! (And I cannot afford a cub)
But, last summer, a 100 hour pilot beat the following in a short field Takeoff/landing extravaganza here at PAWD with the tcraft A65.
197? C150 converted to taildragger. 500 hr pilot
1946 Champ, with a C90 100 hr pilot.
PA 22-20- with the 0320 1000 hr pilot
1946? PA -12, with flaps, and the 0200..(But a big ol' pilot) 5000 hr pilot.
ALL the other pilots had lots to say about the A65 before, but bought all the drinks and dinner I could handle for a week after the crying was over...
I have yet to fly with a tcraft with a C85 and, using the scientific method, quantify how much better the bigger engine is. Either way I, most likely, will still use my neighbors C-206 on floats to go Moose Hunting, and the A65 tcraft for the local flights until I get to floats. And I am still "training" in the A65 with every flight.
Although I do not have a whole lot hours nor experience, in my novice opinion, my little BC-65 is sure a lot of fun to fly. So far its done everything I have expected it to do with no problems; with minimal weight it can get off the ground in a hurry. I don't currently have it on skiis (anyone know of a set for sale?) but I haven't had any difficulties with it on wheels, though this is more due to the fact that there is not much snow and what snow there is is wind blown and hard as a rock. Went out last weekend with my instructor and did touch and goes off lakes for the better part of the afternoon. I agree with Lance, because I often have been told, that a bigger engine can significantly improve performance and weight capacity, but if the price is right for the 65 h.p. you should give it some serious consideration, I sure enjoy mine.
Like most of the others I here, I too feel that the T-craft is one of the best values that's out there. It's faster than virtually all of the other low powered post-WW 2 planes, it gets in and out of short places, and is a great airplane for learning or teaching someone how to fly. There are some negatives as well, and probably the bigges one as I see it is that the Tcraft is pretty crampedif you're much bigger than 6 feet tall. Also, your head sits up between the wing, reducing the visibilty quite a bit as compared to a cub or other planes that have your head below the wings rather than between the wings. You'll find some people who complain about T-Crafts being floaters. Well, it does have a big and effective wing but floating only occurs if it's flown too fast. If you approach to land at the correct speed it will stop flying as soon as you raise the nose and chop the power. It just takes more precise airspeed control to accomplish accurate spot landing in a T-Craft than it might in another plane that doesn't want to fly as much as the T-Craft does. Another significant plus that comes to mind, at least here in Alaksa, is the large number of T-Crafts that are around, so there's usually no problem in finding parts or someone who is knowledgable in repairing or maintaining your bird.
Lance,
I work at take flight, never flown at skis but would like to do it. it'd probably be better to do the bfr outside of take flight.
the director of maintence here at take flight is a huge luscombe fan and is trying to talk us into gettting one, now I know I probably won't get the best responses out of this, but what do you guys think of luscombes? It has some percs like free Mx if we let him fly it every once and a while, as well as him showin us everything about them from Mx to flying them.
Jon, I believe Lance has pretty well nailed it with the comments he makes re: the use of Taylorcrafts up here. I used mine for a couple of years with a 65 hp engine and had a lot of fun with it, but sticking an 85 hp in it made a lot of difference, without a lot more fuel consumption. When you have to haul fuel to range out where you want to go, you need the extra power. More weight, shorter, rougher operating conditions, windier locations...I like the extra "Suds"...! If you can keep the plane's basic weight as low as possible...that's a real plus. Get where you can feel really comfortable with a 65 hp and then hang the extra 20 nags on there and you will notice the difference...it's not a Supercub and never will be...don't let anyone kid you about that, but it's capable of performing much better than many people realize. I'm certainly not ashamed of mine!
As far as the Luscombe you mention as a possibility...depends on what you want to do with it...If I was going off airport and faced the possibility of bending it...I would rather be faced with a straight rag and tube problem in trying to fly it home, as opposed to the aluminum fuselage. But that's just my personal opinion. Dick
Originally posted by matsuthunder200
It just depends on what kind of flying you plan to do with it. It would make a fine trainer. Mine had a 75hp in it for years. It flew good on skes and airport to airport. On off airport surfaces it lacked the power to get off as short as i needed to get into all the good shorter areas that i wanted to go. When i had the 90 hp motor put in the diff, was way more than i expected now i can do all the short gravel bars. Tundra, real short lakes on skes and it made a ex, float plane out of it. If i had to do it all over again i personaly wouldnt settle for anything less than a 85hp. Theres a lot of people here from alaska mabe they can jump in here with there opp, Jim, Dick, Dan, what do you think.
jon.Mabe you could give me your number and we will set something up. Was 28 below in willow this morning. Mabe the next warm spell. Looks like i wont be able to fly for about a week i threw a rod in my truck. Haft to put in a new motor...
Comment