bc12d compaired to c150??

[wayne turner]

id like to hear how you that have flown both planes compair them?clime ,short field,economy,cruise,and fun,thanks wayne

[murphy]

Re: bc12d compaired to c150??

Wayne,
I have never flown a BC12D but did stay at a Holiday Inn last night and I would take a tailwheel over a tricycle any day. I have owned a 150 with a Texas Tailwheel mod and it did good it had a climb prop and still cruised @ 100 mph.
My plane now is a F21A Taylorcraft and it beats the pants off 150 and 152's for short field but is slow at cruise @ about 100 mph. They weight close to the same and mine has the 0235 118 hp engine same as the 152 but the Tcraft wing is a marvel, get some airspeed across it and your gone. Cessna's seam to waller in ground efect where the Taylorcraft climbs.
Next time your at the airport and you see a 150 and Taylorcraft check out which one has the crowd around it at least the airports we fly around (grass) they will be looking over the Taylorcraft.
Just one mans opinon,
Mike

[fearofpavement]

Re: bc12d compaired to c150??

Well, regarding comparing a T-craft to a C-150 I would say the most similar thing is the price range. The performance is similar but a T-craft would probably burn less fuel and have better short field performance. The T-craft is more challenging to fly. The T-craft is very simple which has good and bad points. It is easy and relatively inexpensive to maintain but it also doesn't have some things that some want such as an electrical system, radios, flaps, hydraulic brakes, etc. But that is why it is easy to maintain. The Cessna is better suited to being parked outside and if I wasn't able to keep a plane under cover I would lean toward the Cessna. The planes are both small two seat planes. Some other things to consider is that most mechanics are familiar with the C-150 but not all with the T-craft as the tube and fabric planes are not as prevalent as they were a half century ago. Parts availability is very good for the Cessna and I would say fair to good for the T-craft. Because so much of the plane can be field fabricated on the T-craft it limits the amount of pieces that "must" be acquired from a manufacturer. Market wise both aircraft would probably be considered fully depreciated in that if they stay in a similar condition as to when they were acquired they will probably either maintain or increase in value. (at least they would stay even with inflation) Most of the T-crafts qualify for sport plane category which increases their desireability in the market. If you want a plane to go to far away places the Cessna may be a better choice. If you want a plane to buzz around in to experience flight I think the T-craft would make you happier. Best way to tell is to spend an hour in each within a short time span and see which one puts a bigger smile on your face... As with any aircraft it would be very prudent to have someone very familiar with the model look it over thoroughly before shelling out any money for it.

[Winston L.]

Re: bc12d compaired to c150??

The short field performance of a BC-65 is alot better than a 150. The Taylorcraft is lighter and a lot more fuel efficient. I also think a Taylorcraft flies alot better. The Taylorcraft wants to fly at a real low speed and has a positive climb initially. The 150 feels heavy to me. I always feel like I am in a stall the whole time in cruise with the 150. I haven't flown a BC12D but the BC-65 is very close in everything including weight. I prefer the Tcraft because maintaining and repairing a cessna is alot more expensive and difficult. I also agree with the previous reply about the appearance of the Tcraft being better. Winston

[gnflyn]

Re: bc12d compaired to c150??

What an interesting discussion, I just had to pipe in as I have about 100 hours in a 150 and about 350 in my BC-12D. I learned and got my ticket in the 150, can't say too much bad about it other than it not a T-craft. I love my T-craft, I have been sport pilot class for a year now since said bye bye to 3rd class medical.
I fly where and when I wish in the T-craft and am using 3 3/4 gallons of Citgos 87 octane an hour. I could not be more pleased with my T-cart, and as mentioned earlier, who looks at a 150?, always folks check out the T-cart.
I wouldn't trade my T-cart for any 150.

[Len Petterson]

Re: bc12d compaired to c150??

Flown both, have more dragger time then nose wheel time of 200 hr +.
A C 150 takes more load but the Tailorcraft fitts budget.
It does not like to be tied down outside, but I have no other choise.
With a A 65 I cruise 85 - 89 IAS @ 2150 much the same as the C150 I rented.
A C 150 is a true 2 place and a 152 is nice and wide inside.
If you fly often with a passanger a 150 152 is nicer.
But if you want show of an antique at airshow you need a Nice Taylorcraft.
C 150 are a dime a dussin.Nice or not!
Secondly friends don't let friends DRIVE nosewheels airplanes!
I take it you may need a taildragger endorsment in USA.
Why did I by my T-Craft 17.5 K I hade not 25K+.
Just make shure you don't get one with CASE mags, they need to be replaced sooner then later! Everything else is good by it and change the mags cost 2K. Deduct it off the price.
Len

[Robert Lees]

Re: bc12d compaired to c150??

I have never flown a BC12D but did stay at a Holiday Inn last night

THAT had me in stitches...well done.

Wayne slowly, slowly, catchee monkee...welcome to the Taylorcraft Forum.

[Tom G]

Re: bc12d compaired to c150??

Wayne: Is this ever a good question and one that I could spend a lot of time on. I've had lots of experience with both aircraft. I've been flying in my Taylorcraft since my dad bought it when I was 13 in 1964. I soled in it when I was sixteen. I'm 55 now and still flying it. I've also given over 3,000 hours of instruction in Cessna 150s and 152s back in the late seventies and eighties.

When we first got the T-Craft the 150s were the modern airplanes. I was in awe of an airplane that could start itself! The field we were based at then like all similar ones was filled with T-Crafts, Luscombes, Cubs, Chiefs, Champs, Stinsons, Cessna 120s and 140s etc etc.

In my opinion they are both fine machines. I think the 150 is probably the best trainer ever divised. It does everything well (except maybe climb when heavy on a hot day) The Taylorcraft is also the best at what it does. It will fly rings around its contemporaries and I really don't know just why it doesn't have the value of a cub or a champ. I guess its panache. A tamdem stick beats a side by side wheel. The only real fault I find with the T-Craft is the lousy visibility but flying qualities are excellent and no airplane does as much with 65 hp as the T-Craft.

My plane has gotten to the point where I'm so attached to it I don't see how I could ever part with it. It has great memories along with providing much pleasure today. There is a character to it that just makes it stand out. It just looks good!

As good as a 150 is it somehow isn't as special but I could definitely see how someone starting out today who isn't into the antiques would prefer it.

I've been giving instruction in the T-Craft to a friend of mine and his wife (who is on this forum and actually owns a T-Craft and a 150) and my cousin who is getting his sport pilots license. Most of my dual given is in the 150s and I've got to say that it was considerably easier to teach in! Obviously an instructor can relax a lot more in the 150 on the ground. The thing with the T-Craft is that when you've mastered it you can really fly just about anything. The reverse isn't true.

The fact is that you an get a decent 150 for similar money to a BC12D. In the 150 you don't hold the electrical system on your lap, you can see out of it, it starts itself, has more room and has all the modern conveniences and in my opinion is more usuable when the crosswinds are blowing.

I would never sell my T-Craft to get one but I 'd have to say if anything ever happened to it I'd really have to think about which way to go.

Of course the T-Craft also works with the Sport Pilot license. And that could be a major consideration for some people.

To sum up I really don't think that performance would be an issue as they aren't really that much different. The 150 may cruise slightly faster but the T-Craft may outclimb it. I guess its just if you are into the antiques or not.

Just my opinion.

[VictorBravo]

Re: bc12d compaired to c150??

Someone said they stayed at a Holiday Inn. That's the equivalent of the Cessna 150. If you've ever camped out in the wild, then that's the Taylorcraft.

There's a time and place for both. Despite my stated preference for tailwheels, the 150 is indeed a great aircraft. Like my camping analogy, it is less fun to fly but it is more comfortable and more civilized than the Taylorcraft. But like camping, the T-craft will make you a better pilot and let you have many kinds of fun that you can't in a 150.

If you are flying for fun, you will get more bang for your buck with the Taylorcraft. If you're flying for business or towards a career as a professional pilot, you iwll get more bang with the 150.

[IslandGuy]

Re: bc12d compaired to c150??

I read this thread with great interest as I wresteld with C150 vs TCraft for quite a some time. Just recently bought a BC-12D with a C75 and I think in the long run I'm going to be glad I picked it over the 150. I'm using my plane as a trainer and just finished lesson five today! Pushing 40 now and wish I had done this years ago, but still got a few flying days left in these ol bones I think, haha.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: bc12d compaired to c150??

Is your instructor the one that asked about the Flight Manual??

[N74DV]

Re: bc12d compaired to c150??

having owned a 152 Sparrowhawk and now having about 6 hours in a Tcraft I can say that I love them both but the Tcraft gets my affection just a tad more.

You just can't beat the grass roots "low and slow" and "stick & rudder" syle of flying that the Tcraft offers (even though it's more like "yoke & rudder")

I love taildraggers for the challenge they provide and the sense of nostalgia they offer, but my favorite two planes I've flown would be the Tcraft & 152.... althought the Super Cub comes in about the same in terms of fun... but at over $80K for a nice Super Cub I'll go for the Tcraft for now.

[d.grimm]

Re: bc12d compaired to c150??

Well, It wasn't a BC12D, but it was a F19. Having done some flight instruction and some hiring of flight instructors I can say if you a looking at it for professional advancement you cannot beat a T-Craft or any of the old taildraggers. It's what you need to set yourself apart from everyone else that goes the standard way.
For fun flying you can't beat grass strips on a summers evening.
The C-150/152 are fun airplanes to fly, they are just a little to common and plain for my tastes.

[jdoran]

Re: bc12d compaired to c150??

I learned to fly in a 152, and got my license in one. I thought I was really some hotshot pilot!

When I bought the Tcraft, I learned quickly what the rudder pedals are for, and am still learning 5 years later.

The Tcraft will make you a better pilot.