Is a "Pre-war BC-12" an oxymoron?

[mhorowit]

If you look at the specification (A-696) , if it's a BC-12, then it's a BC-12D, right? - MIke

[Robert Lees]

Re: Is a "Pre-war BC-12" an oxymoron?

No.

[mhorowit]

Re: Is a "Pre-war BC-12" an oxymoron?

No.

OK, I'll go back and look again - Mike

[flyguy]

Re: Is a "Pre-war BC-12" an oxymoron?

Mike,
My Aircraft of the World (printed in Great Britian, 1965) book states: "...1941 production (model B)...known as B-12s, most aircraft having the Continental engine and thus becoming BC-12s, production being suspended in August 1941 and resumed at the end of 1945. The post-war version ...was designated BC12D Twosome." (for Deluxe I suspect)
My first Taylorcraft was tagged as built in December 1945. N95907.
Darryl

[Robert Lees]

Re: Is a "Pre-war BC-12" an oxymoron?

..and my BC12 was also built in 1941...fuselage was completed, then the Japanese halted Taylorcraft civil production.

My wings were built in 1945, and it "became" a BC12D...but only because it had 15 ribs per wing (still the truss-type).

But the fuselage is a 1941 BC-12. The paperwork refutes it, but the structure says it is!

[and these British books are not always correct]

[flyguy]

Re: Is a "Pre-war BC-12" an oxymoron?

Rob,
What was the N number of your 1941/45? Yes, I am always careful about quoting British books.
Darryl

[Robert Lees]

Re: Is a "Pre-war BC-12" an oxymoron?

N39208 (hey: that's not bad from memory, is it? Last time it was used was in nineteen-sixty something
(The N number, that is...not my memory)

[flyguy]

Re: Is a "Pre-war BC-12" an oxymoron?

OOPS,
N39932 was my first one, 95907 was number two.
Darryl

[lktiller]

Re: Is a "Pre-war BC-12" an oxymoron?

Check the heading of TC A-696. Lists the various models. BC12-D is only one.
My '41 model is a BC12-65 N33943.

Larry Tillery

[mhorowit]

Re: Is a "Pre-war BC-12" an oxymoron?

If you look at the specification (A-696) , if it's a BC-12, then it's a BC-12D, right? - MIke

I need to be more careful - I see BC12-65 as well as BC12-D.
Which model has the 'flippers' instead of trim tab on the control surface? - Mike

[Jim Herpst]

Re: Is a "Pre-war BC-12" an oxymoron?

A BC-65, a BL-65 or a BF-65 all have the "flippers" trim you refer to Mike. The BC-12 s do not. The 1940 39 and 38 are also the lightest.

[mhorowit]

Re: Is a "Pre-war BC-12" an oxymoron?

A BC-65, a BL-65 or a BF-65 all have the "flippers" trim you refer to Mike. The BC-12 s do not. The 1940 39 and 38 are also the lightest.

Thanks Jim - Mike

[VictorBravo]

Re: Is a "Pre-war BC-12" an oxymoron?

My plane is a 1940 BL-65, has the flipper trim tabs, and was converted to a 1940 BC-65. I am aware that there were B-12-65's, and I have heard of something called a BD-12D but have never figured out if that was a valid designation.

Check through the Chet Peek Taylorcraft book, and you may have the answer.

There are people who probably know the answer to this off the top of their head, but they probably won't discuss it with you because of liability concerns. You could get whiplash just from hearing the truth.....

[Jim Baker]

Re: Is a "Pre-war BC-12" an oxymoron?

Pre war B models were BC, BF or BL models depending on the engine used (Continental, Franklin or Lycoming). Therefore you had the BC-12, BF-12 or BL-12. The 12 stood for a gross weight of 1200 lbs. Post war models became the BC12D. It had the same designation for the B model, Continental engine and 1200 pound gross weight. But, the D comes from the fact that the tail feathers were from Taylorcraft's D model which was manufactured just before the onset and during WWII as the L-2. The D’s rudder has two hinges compared to the prewar B model’s three hinge (among other things).

The post war B model also had other improvements some of which were the number of wing ribs as well as stamped ribs instead of built up ribs.

[Jim Herpst]

Re: Is a "Pre-war BC-12" an oxymoron?

Jim Baker Please read my post earlier. You are correct regarding the BC-12 and BL-12 and the BF-12 being the (in order) Continental, Lycoming and Franklin configurations respectively and that the 12 stands for 1200 pounds and that the later BC-12 D with the D standing for the different (higher "less fat" vert stab and rudder.) However the reader of your post may be not remembering that the BC-65 BL-65 and BF-65 are also most honerable mentions . They are rated for "only" 1150 pounds and are the ones with the 13 rib set up. Also I take exception to the stamped rib you mention as being "an improvement" (to the factory they were because they cost less)in the later models. The earlier built up ribs are lighter and in my book lighter is better when it comes to the Taylorcraft. The 1940 1939,1938 models (in Continental configuration) are indeed lighter overall and when kept bare bones will out perform any of the later Continental 65 models. I will gladly throw down a glove to anyone who wishes to race! Now the very early Taylorcrafts do have a few drawbacks ?? and I do question these as drawbacks except for the SLIGHTLY narrower cabin area. The funny flipper trim set up is weird to some. Then again I guess if I ever lost a elevator I would sure come to appreciate a seperate system !!!!!! I will also argue that more detail went into the pre war models with CG Taylor still in charge. For one I can tell you that the (1940 models at least) recieved hot linseed oil treatment. I can tell you for a fact the tubing looks like new inside the tubes of my fuselage(s) as we were into em recently. The cowlings were latched with the more costly fittings (the later BC12Ds used trunk latches for cripes sake ) All said though I will take any Taylorcraft over "Brand X" of the time !!