Another part finished !

[taylorukuk]

I have just taken a magnet to our door frame and it is non - magnetic - hence not steel.

I am not saying it is aluminium as it looks to be an alloy of sorts.

[Jim Herpst]

Mine is 8637 and if I remember correctly, my wings are signed on June 12 or 14, 1946. Door and jam are aluminum as is the triangle. No wooden frame.
John

Is the frame of the triangle aluminum? My old plane 94984 was . Your plane was definitely built after the transition to include trunk latch cowl.

[Jim Herpst]

Interesting comments. In going about disassembly and reasembly I am amazed by the amount of human labor involved when our birds were built no matter the changes along the way. To think they were built by the hundreds upon hundreds on top of that ..no small wonder that the did what they had to...

[taylorukuk]

Hi Jim - Yes it is aluminium

[Woody]

I have a 46 made in August and it has the aluminum frames. The fuselage I made into Clip Wing was serial # 10,3?? and has steel door frames.
Tom

[Ragwing nut]

I have never seen an aluminum door frame on a Taylorcraft. They are either wooden or steel to the best of my knowledge.

later post war door frames are bolt on aluminum sometime mid '46.

[Ragwing nut]

Well a call to Ryan verified that yes his is fabric covered. Given our were probably on the field at the same time and with how very close our numbers are fabric was indeed highly likely the deal . Thanks again.

Your missing a center support that keeps the triangle from collapsing.

[Jim Herpst]

Your missing a center support that keeps the triangle from collapsing.

If referring to a before picture yes that was put into the after.(and is shown) If you are referring to any other piece missing I have to respectively disagree. I have been over it with a close eye. Nothing is missing. Also given it is covered with aluminum I do not have an issue with fabric tending to distort it. Could well be an earlier one did. Not this one.

[Jim Herpst]

I have a 46 made in August and it has the aluminum frames. The fuselage I made into Clip Wing was serial # 10,3?? and has steel door frames.
Tom

So here we have it in a nutshell. Wood, Aluminum, Steel. No absolutes with Taylorcraft except inevitably bankruptcy along the way as a constant. Why we have what is all we have as Bruce Bixler used to quote. I know I for one have forgotten a bunch just to relearn it in this restoration. Keeping an open mind while getting input here helps along the way. I highly doubt the judging team at Oshkosh or most anywhere could possibly make an accurate judgment on any one of our fleet as "original " with out a broader thought process in place. Fact.

[3Dreaming]

I highly doubt the judging team at Oshkosh or most anywhere could possibly make an accurate judgment on any one of our fleet as "original " with out a broader thought process in place. Fact.

Having been in that situation before, if they question something you have to be able to prove that your airplane is correct. When I won grand champion with my BL in 94 I remember the judges bouncing back and forth between my airplane and a Stearman. They came up and asked about the N numbers on the rudder. I pulled out the Taylorcraft Story, and showed them pictures of airplanes with N numbers that were close to mine, and off they bounced to the Stearman. This happened about several details.

[taylorukuk]

One thing I have realised recently is that this forum is very very useful!
I have got tonnes of info from it that I would have struggled to find anywhere else even with a bent Taylorcraft and a rebuild project to refer to!

[Jim Herpst]

One thing I have realised recently is that this forum is very very useful!
I have got tonnes of info from it that I would have struggled to find anywhere else even with a bent Taylorcraft and a rebuild project to refer to!

Agreed!

Now back up to Mr Bakers comment re EAA judging:

Tom having also been there with 94984 I am really leery about wading back in those waters with EAA judges.. Don't know if it was you or which one in the Baker clan I was discussing with in 1999 at Sun N Fun as you guys pointed out that wing to fuslage fairing needing to be two pieces to fit right which I suppose would not be original. That one sure did not fit right on that plane! Altogether it was nice enough that the EAA featured it on the cover as well as a center article in Vintage Aircraft. No cigar with the judges however and frankly deservedly so.

My intent with this plane at the outset of this ground up restoration was perfect original (what ever that is as we discover along the way) Now with the wife insisting on at least a starter and me wanting the extra giddy up with the plane which will now be operated in SC summers here comes an 0200. Yet some venturi instruments added in 1952 removed, new Wenglarz instrument panel, new interior door panel fabbed (could have both covered with upholstery as many do..however how non original) Luscombe exhaust, New boot cowl , new cowl , ...yet may use camlock fasteners . Will not add a hat rack cover, No carpet. So on one side more original( but really along those lines built as light as possible) all be it with an 0200 . With many STCs as issued by Terry Bowden in hand to include the short engine mount 1320 Gross weight he now offers, I hope it will be a good example of a clean present day usefull Taylorcraft. Not sure what category it will get judged in if it ever is. I know a gent down in Georgia (Harry Balance with his perfect Stinson) that the Judges at Oshkosh said had fiberglass wheel pants and it NO way did and gave that Grand Champion award to an obvious lesser example ya I am leery

[Woody]

Build it to fly and forget the judges.

[Scott]

The truth is everyone is a judge, including the eventual buyer, or inheritors of your aircraft. The nice thing about VAA judging is that the criteria are published, so you have lots of help in understanding how to present your restoration.

First time I flew CF-CLR to OSH, I had no restoration book. Irrispective of how good the aircraft is, there's 5 points up for grabs for the "book." With judging results (ie who wins and who doesn't) often dictated by a single point, this is a big deal.

The restoration book is where you provide information pursuent to authenticity. This can range from photos of the wheel pant restoration (for example, to show they are original aluminium), to historical documentation, ad copy, drawings, log book entries, paint schemes etc. etc..

Authenticity is not favoured over safety enhansements, and engine improvements are nott nessesarily negative, ie the judging criteria state "Later or increased HP models of the original engines should receive little or no penalty." Can you make a case for the O200 being an increased HP model of the A65?

There are also categories for modified aircraft. So even a "custom" version of a BC12D can still win.

The bottom line is, if your work is good, and it's supported by a comprehensive record of the restorarion, before during and after, you'll be considered along with all the other restorers/restorations.

That's actually the difficult part, because the standards are usually very high! My trips to OSH prior to 2019, looking at vintage restorations and talking to the owners, caused me to "raise my game" considerably, even circling back to redo some if my eariler work on CF-CLR!

It's just time.... the 99% rule. "Good" takes 1% of the potential restoration time, but better-than-good takes 99%!

[Jim Herpst]

Good insight on the process. Documentation is key as you point out. The problem can be in something left out of documentation and the judges going after a part " without further proof must not be right " and then flipping to a lesser plane with that causes integrity questions.

Still great insight on presentation importance Scott !