Announcement

**jgerard** · 02-09-2005, 23:04

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

Buy it Dave before someone else does. I have lots of time in cubs and MY T-cart. The cub does have lighter ailerons, but the rest is about the same. X-winds is all up to your skills. I landed in 40 knot gusts while flying my plane home to Seattle from NY. (had to call the cops out to hold here down before I could get out of the plane and push her back to the parking area). There isn't much out there that can give you the short field + speed on a A-65 like the good old taylorcraft! Best bang for the buck. There is an STC to fly with the door off if you want to be like a cub pilot. And don't believe all the hype about t-carts being floaters. They will if you let them, A few hours with the right instructor and you can land just about anywhere a j-3 can. The only downfall compared to the j-3 is most taylorcrafts do not have dual brakes. Ask the seller to take you for a ride before you fly it. Who knows, someone on the list here might live in you area and could look-it over with you? Never herts to ask....

Jason
N43643

**Forrest Barber** · 02-10-2005, 08:42

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

Buy the Taylorcraft if it has no airworthiness issues. Have the IA that works for you do the pre-buy. I am avaialble any time to answer questions. I fly both of course and the Cub is neat but wears off rather quickly, remember C.G. Taylor designed both & the Taylorcraft as the improvement. That is Taylorcraft or Tcraft certainly NOT Tcart. ( still love you Jason)

My father was test pilot for C.G. & I was test pilot for Mrs. Feris on the F-19, 21 & 22... bye

**crispy critter** · 02-10-2005, 08:53

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

Dave,
Where are you located?If you are east of the Missisippi I could help ya look it over and maybe help you or your son get comfortable in it after you buy it.The ailerons are a bit heavier in the t-craft but only at criuse.They are about the same in slow flight.The reason being that the Cub criuses about 75-85 and the t-craft about 95-110 depending on the prop,paint finish,and rigging.

**jdeadly** · 02-10-2005, 09:28

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

Hi, I currently fly a clipped-wing Cub and am restoring my BC-12D that I have owned since 1983.
The Cub is fun to fly, esp with the clipped wings (faster roll rate, mostly) and is roomier than the T-craft. The Cub also has more "brand recognition" among the great unwashed. However, wherever I flew the T someone would invariably walk over and say something like "I learned how to fly in one of those years ago". The Cub has so much drag that it's just a "fly around the airport" airplane. The T will take you somewhere and is just about the most efficient certified aircrat behind an A-65. I fly formation with a BC-12D a buddy owns and he has to throttle back to 1800 rpm so that I can keep up. He's got an A-65 and I have an A-75.
The BC-12D also handles better on the ground. Wheel land it in a X-wind and fly it to the chocks. Stock brakes work better in the T than the stockers in the Cub. Tires and tubes are a LOT cheaper for the T also.
Many more advantages, but fly one and you'll be hooked.
Regards,
John Edley

**tocprez** · 02-10-2005, 14:28

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

Hi Dave,
I'll just throw my two cents in. Everything said is very true about the Taylorcraft being a great airplane ,it is also a very limited commodity as
only about three out of every ten built are still around in any form, most
as restoration projects. As Taylorcraft owners we kind of have an obligation
to do our best to keep these serial- numbered pieces of aviation history flying
or being brought back to flight status. In other words, what there is is all there is. Take your time getting comfortable with the airplane avoid the cross-winds till you master that light wing loading and make sure someone
competent is in the cockpit holding the brakes on when she's being hand started.
Your's truly,
Bruce Bixler
Taylorcraft Owners Club Prez

**Karl Rigdon** · 02-10-2005, 19:08

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

Dave,
I am located about 90 miles SW of Madison. See the Chicago sectional for my location in the very Sw cornor of Wisc. WI181. I have owned my Taylorcraft since 1969 and as others have said "go for it". I have been been operating from my 1000ft runway at home since the fall of 1970. See the Wi. airport registry for my address and phone number or contact me @[email protected]. My son is a CFI and soloed my Tcraft at 16 years. He passes thru Madison on the way to work at MIL. He is a captian on 32 chair regional jet for Skyway. He may be intrested in giving checkout if you cannot find local talent.
As others have said get a good prebuy. Some of the IAs in this area do not seem to be intrested in doing anuals on fabric airplanes. These days I have go 90 miles for a anual.

**DaveVL** · 02-10-2005, 21:20

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

Thanks to everyone for their generous advice, and offers for help. We are certainly much more comfortable moving ahead with a pre-buy after the feefback you gave us. My son found out that one of his A&P instructors, who is an IA himself, has his own shop, and he said that although he is not as knowledgeable on tube and fabric planes, he has an employee who is an expert, and that they should be able to do a pre-buy as long as we schedule well enough in advance. We'll need to wait a while anyway because the owner keeps the plane hangered at his farm, and his runway has some hefty snowdrifts on it. In addition, we will need to arrange to ferry the plane because it is out of annual as of November. We are going out there this weekend to take an initial look at it for ourselves, and then we'll proceed from there.
Although my son is nearing completion of his CFI, he does not have a tailwheel endorsement yet. So we may take one of you up on your offer to check us out / familiarize us with the aircraft. Since I need to re-activate my private license first, the help would probably go to my son initially.
We'll keep you posted, and will post any additional questions we might have. Thanks again for the great help and encouragement!

Dave & Luke Van Lanen

**crispy critter** · 02-11-2005, 06:08

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

Dave,
I can ferry it for you if you buy it and probably check one of you out in it.I do a lot of ferry flying and most of my 3000+ flight time is in taildraggers with lots of t-craft time too.

**supercub185** · 02-12-2005, 09:26

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

T crafts are a bargain,i have owned 2 in the past.They will go any where a cub will.I beleive you need to know how to fly one better though.I didnt like mine the first few hours ,but after about ten i fell in love with it.I would try to get at least an 85 hp if you are going to put ther on floats though.Good luck and have fun.

**DaveVL** · 02-14-2005, 21:39

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

An update. We went and looked at the plane on Sunday - a 1946 BC-12D. It shows some signs of wear, but overall looked pretty good visually. A couple of cracks in the finish, a short stop-drilled crack in the upper right corner of the windshield at the wing root, and a crack in the right rear D window, and skylights have some crazing, otherwise glass looks good. Headliner looks pretty good. Instrument panel had a little separation in the laminate that was applied at some time in the past. About a 6" separation of one of the taped seams above the cabin (back left corner - lateral seam), which the owner will be repairing. Tires like new. No visible oil leaks. Fuselage was redone in Ceconite in 1977 and wings in 1992, and it has been hangered pretty much continuously, according to the owner. It has under 1450 total time, and the engine (A-65) has about 630 SMOH and about 130 STOH, with all cylinders at 75 or better at the last annual. I didn't take the time to get the empty weight, so had my son ask today, and owner said he will check when back home, but he thinks it is in the 800 lb. range. That one concerns me. With my son and I, and a full 9 gallon nose tank, we would be at or over gross weight already. It has two 6 gal. wing tanks, but we couldn't even use those unless flying alone. We want to be able to do some x-countries, so this would be a problem for us. I figured it was gonna be heavy because it has wind generator, older Ganave nav-com, battery, landing, navigation and strobe lights. We'll see what the number comes in at before deciding on proceeding to a pre-buy inspection.

**jgerard** · 02-14-2005, 22:09

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

They will fly heavy, but I didn't say that

Jason
N43643

**robbie** · 02-15-2005, 06:56

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

the nose tank is 12 gal. on the bc12's
All bc12 models are going to come in around 775 pounds or so, plus the extra.
I tried to keep my as lite as I could but its still gaining weight.
Last weight in it was 768. I fly it with 18 gal of fuel and a 200 lbs buddy and get off a 1200 foot strip. No problems,
I would be about 50 lbs over gross.

**Forrest Barber** · 02-15-2005, 09:45

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

My BC12D is 815 , YES I am over gross quite a bit. The old girl seems not to notice. Try it you will like it! If you print this out please burn within 15 sec or the approach of any Government Official.

**DaveVL** · 02-15-2005, 21:10

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

Robbie,

Are you sure that all BC-12s have a 12 gallon nose tank? According to the owner, this one has a 9 gal. nose tank and two 6 gal. wing tanks.

Dave

Announcement

Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment