Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

[Len Petterson]

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

Get rid of the radio, hand helds will do very well. but with Anl circut for ignition noise is a must.
Vor, how needs it when we have hand held GPS what can do more!
It save pounds and panel space. I do miss a Artifical horizon, DG and Vsi, but it will com.
I use a 10 lbs ( there are smaller once) motorcyle battery for fligths over 1 Hr or sunday cruises. 3 cigarett ligther typeoutlet monted on the portable acid proff battery "box", all individualy fused with 2 amp fuses. Powers the intercom, radio and Gps.
The Taylorcraft is a "sweet" aircraft but the first few Hr was hard, now I know my limits as well as the T-crafts, and it is low in operating cost!
Len.

[Robert Lees]

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

My flying buddy (240lb) and I (180 lb) and full 18 gal + full baggage seem to operate just fine on 65hp. We always end up "just under" gross weight

[robbie]

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

My is 12 gal on the nose and 6 gal in the rwing tank for a total of 18 gal.
Two wing tanks gives 24 gals. of fuel.
Can any buddy else out there can jump in and verify the 12 gals nose tanks.

[jgerard]

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

they all have 12 gallon nose tanks unless there is a big dent in them!

the f-19 series are placarded 9 gal useable due to the higher deck angle on climb out.

the f21/22 series have wing tanks only

Jason
N43643

[Karl Rigdon]

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

Dave,
Send me your phone number and best time to call at my email [email protected].
I am close to you and I may be able to answer some questions or help in some way. As some unknown individual has said they fly heavy. I have been flying out of 1000ft at gross??? for over 30 yeaars.

[DaveVL]

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

I don't know much about the "newer" Taylorcrafts, but I was reading the posted article about the F19's built in the 60's and 70's, and I was wondering - how do the prices of these used aircraft compare to the older BC-12D that we are looking at? And are there many that come up for sale? I'm just wondering if they would be a better bargain.

Thanks,
Dave Van Lanen

[jgerard]

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

-19 cost is twice the average bc12

Jason
N43643

[DaveVL]

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

I think I figured out why the owner is saying the nose tank only holds 9 gals. - he must be referring to the useable fuel. I didn't realize the unuseable was 3 gals until I read in this list. That is 25% unuseable - seems high to me.

[Robert Lees]

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

Might be a weight & balance issue at low fuel state...probably a certification issue.
I am certainly very careful at the aft cg state, even though I'm a lowly BC12D. As with a lot of aircraft with nose tanks, the worst cg state is landing with "zero" fuel, this could often lead to not passing the elevator effectiveness airworthiness tests; the risk is running out of forward stick in the flare (i.e. with power off) to prevent inadvertent stall.
The answer is of course to land with a trickle of power to provide some node-down elevator effectiveness, but this might not have been the F(C)AA requirement of the day.

[taylorcraftbc65]

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

Dave
I bought my BC 65 in Jan of 2004, and I fell in love with her.
I learned to fly in a 7 AC Champ in 1964, have flown J-3s and high end ultralights, as well as a Cassutt III, a KR, and a PA 28-140.
They were all nice, but I will NEVER part with my T-Craft, I LOVE the way she flies. She had more adverse yaw than other planes that I have flown, but once I got used to her, there was no problem. The ONLY thing that flies slower is my ultralight, and not by much. Take your time getting used to her, and you will be operating out of fields that no one but ultralights or Helio-couriers can get in and out of safely.

[DaveVL]

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

In case anyone is interested, we decided not to purchase this plane. The empty weight was over 830 lbs, which meant that with my son and I in the plane, we would be near gross with no fuel on board. They added to many do-dads to this plane and made it into a single-place aircraft.
We're going to keep looking.
Regard,
Dave & Luke

[VictorBravo]

Re: Taylorcraft Performance Comparison

All FOUR Taylorcrafts that I have owned were more than happy to get off the ground with whatever we could stuff into the cockpit. My first flight in one was being checked out by the seller. He weighed about 275 and I weighed over 200 and it had the 12 gallon main tank full and the pre-war "rear seat tank" full and a radio and a couple of quarts of oil and some granola pars and a flashlight and drinking water and... well we might have been a few ounces over the factory approved gross weight. The basic Taylorcraft airplane design can handle 1500 pounds gross weight with structural upgrades (the Gilberti / Harer STC). You can NOT legally fly the airplane at that weight without these changes. But the point is that the large wing area of the Taylorcraft and its lower drag will forgive plump pilots like me far more than other types of airplanes. In the very rare cases where I have flown a Taylorcraft without doing a weight and balance calculation before flight, I simply lowered the weather, turbulence, and G-loading limits for that flight by 1/3 to compensate for the weight. For example, I would NEVER go rocketing off into any real turbulence at higher weights in the T-craft. Not only is it no fun whatsoever, but harsh G loadings multiply the effect of the weight and stress out the airframe. I also do not do aerobatics in the stock T-craft. Short answer... don't overload the airplane and then fly in really choppy air. There are pilots in this forum who have flown them through a lot worse than I ever will, but they will also admit that it is very uncomfortable and they won't do it again.