FS: Tcraft in AZ

[mhorowit]

This just in from TAP:
1946 TAYLORCRAFT BC-12D, 1310 TTA&E, 97 SMOH, metal prop, recovered 1988, new spars in '88, annualed 07/05, $16,500 OBO. Bill, Casagrande, AZ. (520) 705-1999.

[crispy critter]

Re: FS: Tcraft in AZ

Ya want me to go get it for ya Mike....I need a break outside the shop.

[ROllerton]

Re: FS: Tcraft in AZ

yikes. my folks live there, will be driving within 2 miles of the airport on Saturday am...

Got a freind thats an AI over at Chandler (about 25+/- miles away) if someone wants some help looking at it.

[mhorowit]

Re: FS: Tcraft in AZ

Ya want me to go get it for ya Mike....I need a break outside the shop.

You're grinning as you type, right?????
I'll call the guy in McKenzie and see if his is sold and let you know what's up.
Then I'll wait.

I've really had to arm wrassle with myself over the project/n0-project decision and the idea that unless the buyer has the skill of an A&P or too much money that a lot of the fleet is headed for the scrapyard.
I've finally settled (and keep chainging my mind) that if it needs major work, then I'm not getting involved. Then I start dreaming about .....
No. even when there is nothing major wrong, there is enough stuff to do to keep me busy.

Don't you hate it when the previous owner did NOTHING to maintain the aircraft? What did they think they were doing???? And they have the nerve to think they still have the aircraft they bought in 1980.

MIke (fuming in DC)

[crispy critter]

Re: FS: Tcraft in AZ

Mike,
Sad but true,fewer and fewer people are wanting to take the time to do the work themselves, the ones that want to do most of it themselves can't get an A&P or IA to take resposibility and look over the work they have done, and the rest of the people just want to be able to go jump in there airplane and go fly and spend as little money as possible to keep it going. When they get to a point where the little airplane needs a lot of TLC they decide to sell rather then fool with it. Another thing is most of the A&P/IA's today know very little about tube and fabric airplanes and some of the repaires the do can be more damaging then helpful.
IMHO if the owners are not willing to put forth the effort to do what need to be done or pay someone who knows how to do it right then they need to go buy a composit or metal covered airplane and leave the classic to someone who will save them.

[Len Petterson]

Re: FS: Tcraft in AZ

Only in Canada Ahh!
New category: Owner Maintinence.
Requierment; Type to have been out of manefacturing for 6 years or more.
No retractable gear, no constant speed propeller and no more when 200 hp.
No commersial operation.
Owner has to have a valid pilotlicense.
The aircraft has to have a valid CoA at the time of transfer to the Category.
If multiable owners all owners has to sign of any work dune.
Any work dune has to follow any direction given in the aircraft's manuals or follow "approved and acceptable methods". All aplicable AD has have been dune at the time of transfer. New AD's has to be dune by the owner.
The aircraft logs has to signed out/into the category by the owner and DoT inspector.
An X has to stamped onto the name plate of Airframe and Engine.
A inspection by a DoT inspector has take place.
A foto or facimile of the X'ed name plates are to go to DoT.
A placard saying: 'This aircraft is operating without a valid CoA' etc (same a
experimental) has to be added to the panel or doors. ( don't look nice at all on a antique)
Now you can do your own annuals, repairs etc. When it is the cost of reredgestration into the category $360.00
+15 for the papers.
You keep the same redgestration (N number in USA)on the aircraft.

As FAA does NOT recognise this category, no fligth into USA is allowed.
Ok Fellows hurry up and get in in effect in USA too, so I can visit Allinace, Oshkosh and Alaska!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
as mine is entering this category now so I can fix what is needed with out having every body looking over my shoulder as my A and P is not at the field there my plane is. even what he is behind me all the way but I am looking into rebuilding the engine my self.
In essence, I make homebuilt/experimental of a factory built without a complet tear down.
A drop in price seams to happen here but I can live with what, I got her at a low price as it is. As some pepole are looking for an aircraft with low operating cost anyway, Owner maintinence may just as good.
But the drawback is "the person what don't know basic mechanical principals." and is not a suitable person to handle the workn and can give aviation a bad name.

Fellows see if EAA can do something for you.
Len Petterson

[Jim Herpst]

Re: FS: Tcraft in AZ

Len, I agree this is still somewhat of a mystery to me. The FAA is really trying to offload liability like crazy (ala the sport pilot license its nothing more than that period) anyway it would seem this is a no brainer for the EAA to pursue... I suspect that they are not only because the Sport Pilot item took a lot of time recently (OK so I can make SOME excuses for the EAA). The liability issue would be upon the owners and the FAA could finally get rid of the old Airworthness Certificates THEY ISSUED . I would think their lawyers would swallow this whole like rats eating rotten cheese.

Of course then again any thing done to advance aviation comes from the private sector here in the US. Of Course our government likes keeping lawyers busy at the expense of the welfare of its citizens as long as possible. Its one of the few thing the founders seemed to miss.........

[mhorowit]

Re: FS: Tcraft in AZ

How does the Canadian example differ from redesignating a aircraft into the experimental class in the US? - Mike

[mulwyk]

Re: FS: Tcraft in AZ

My EAA buddies tell me I should "put" my BC12-D into experimental, and Mike says to "redesign" into experimental class.

Just what IS involved in getting a vintage aircraft classed experimental?

Bob Gustafson

[Jim Herpst]

Re: FS: Tcraft in AZ

What...put your BC12D into the experimental catagory????? EAA guys are telling you this???? They must not know much about the Catagory or how a plane qualifies for it. There is a rule called51% meaning you must have built 51% of it(there is a checklist out there that shows this) If you were to do something like modify it as a SWICK CLIPWING or COLE CLIPWING or otherwise convince them that you have done some variation like this THEN you could be Experimental .ANOTHER option is Experimental Exhibition catagory(this is where some Certified planes end up when someone tries to do somthing not approved with a 337 or STC (and may never be approved)...trust me you do not want this (you have to register each year with the FAA where you will be taking the plane for the upcoming year are limited to other operations(daily flights) from your home base airport.

No guys we just do not have the same deal the Canada has YET.

[VictorBravo]

Re: FS: Tcraft in AZ

Sorry for the lengthy rant, but I have to humbly disagree with the Canadian owner maintenance gategory. Assuming the description posted here is accurate, They are placing WAY too much faith on the ability of the owner with NO requirement that he/she knows what they're doing! The FIRST airplane that falls out of the sky because some idiot duct-taped something they shouldn't will cause the whole thing to unravel.

The USA has a better way, IMHO. You can get a "light sport aircraft repairman certificate", which allows you to do most of the work. BUT, I understand that you have to show some mechanical aptitude, or take a test, or have a "practical" exam.

We also have an "owner produced parts" section of the rules right now that allows owners to make parts or have them made to repair an obsolete aircraft.

Here in the Taylorcraft Forum we have people who have lots of experience and knowledge, or in my case a minimum acceptable amount, to work on their own airplane. However we also probably have people who don't know much about them at all, or people whose mechanic-ing judgement is not good enough yet.

Could you imagine if the FAA gave carte blanche to owners who THINK they have got the skill, to do their own modifications, their own inspections on 60 year old spars, their own authority to put an engine together... without some minimum amount of education? Believe me, the FAA would have a huge INCREASE in liability rather than a decrease. I can hear the lawyer's closing argument in my head already...

I am 100% for owner maintenance and repair, but I can at least say I completed the classes at A&P school and have X years of apprenticeship with licensed mechanics looking over my shoulder. And I'm far less educated then some of the folks here.

What WOULD be an interesting possibility is to have (interested) owners of obsolete or "light sport" aircraft go to a weekend or week long seminar put on by the type club, that qualifies them to perform light repair/maintenance, and more importantly teaches them where their abilities end and they have to bring in an expert. This could bring some income to the type clubs and help them become more powerful entities, create more educated and safe owners, and relieve some of the FAA's burden on older airplanes. If THAT system could be made workable (legally and insurance-wise) then you would have something that could do some good.

Cessna, Beech and Piper clubs already have something that is halfway towards what I am talking about. I attended Clyde Smith's "The Cub Doctor" seminar in 1995 and it was worth every penny of $300. Stits fabric (OK Poly-Fiber) has it already for their system. ALL the major homebuilt kit manufacturers (RV, Zenair, Lancair, Glasair) have building/maintenance training facilities... that make money.

The Taylorcraft Foundation has the charter and mission statement that 100% matches this concept. There are several people who are well qualified to do a seminar that would take an average T-craft owner to the point where he would be safe doing basic maintenance and repair. Hell, even the T-craft factory might have an interest in putting on such a seminar on a for-profit or for-publicity basis. Harry could offer an owner training seminar as a freebie if someone bought a new T-craft. this could be done with the Foundation or separately as appropriate.

A graduate of such a seminar would be a far safer, more educated pilot, as well as being capable of saving money on maintenance, AS WELL as knowing when to step aside and let (a pro welder, a pro engine machinist, a pro painter) do something.

I would guess that someone could put on this seminar for about $300-500 per person in groups of 10, which should cover the cost of insurance to protect the foundation and the time of the instructor.

The big obstacle, as usual, would be insurance. The FAA and EAA (and EAA insurance carrier) would HAVE to create a situation where the type club could afford the insurance. Perhaps a "no-fault" rule in the FAR's would have to be written. This would also serve to shield the FAA from liability in the same paragraph as it shields the type clubs.

End of rant...

[zero.one.victor]

Re: FS: Tcraft in AZ

Everyone who wouild like to see an owner-maintained category here in the US like in Canada should contact EAA (and maybe AOPA) and urge them to pursue it. It's a natural follow-on to the LSA maintenance/inspection courses they're pushing now.
I think an O-M category here would be great! I also would not object to mandatory instructional courses similar to the ones mandated for maintenance and inspection licenses for LSA's.
About that- those courses are for S-LSA's and E-LSA's ONLY! No type-certificated airplanes, no experimentals, no amateur-builts. If you have a 51% amateur built that you built (or say you did!), you can get the repairman certificate for it. If you sell it, and buy another exactly like it built by someone else,that repairman ticket is no good for the new one.
BTW, the EAA told me that they have pushed for O-M in the past, and that the type clubs are ones who killed it. FWIW

Eric