T-Craft Bug

[Peter Collin]

Hi everyone.

I’m sort of new here I have been lurking around this great site for years, because the Taylorcraft intrigues me.
I own a 1960 Cessna 150 that I converted to a taildragger. It’s a great plane, it performs pretty well and flies great. However it has its limitations, not legal on skis and floats, short field is not that of a T-Craft.
I always thought the T-Craft was too cramped for me (6’1”) and the visibility under the wing was bad, not any worse than the 150.
I got to fly a T-craft on floats a some weekends ago, what a blast, this T-Craft won the take of contest at Greenville this year. I have always wanted a float/ski plane. As I’m getting older and closer to retirement I’m defining what I would like in a plane, I don’t want to spend 60K+ for a Supercub, or a 170.
We are thinking about moving to Alaska, in the Slana / Nabesna area elevation 3000 feet. I see a bunch of Alaska members on this site. My question is what is your experience with the T-craft in Alaska. What engines do you have, what floats do you use how well does it work. Needless to say I would like input from anybody Alaska or not.
When I bought my first plane I almost bought a T-Craft, the same plane I flew on floats a few weeks ago and it keeps on bugging me why not. But as a new pilot I thought I wanted something a little more elaborate, like transponder, radio, lights etc. Some of those things I seldom use now.
I guess its part of the whole process to define what you really are going to use it for and I think that for me a T-Craft will fill the bill just fine and oh yes I would not mind an electric start on a floatplane.

Thanks
Peter

[crispy critter]

Re: T-Craft Bug

Peter,
I have a 1946 BC12D Taylorcraft for sell that has been converted to a model 19 with 1500lbs gross(not sprot legal),C-85-12.starter,alternator,KY97A digital King comm,transponder,incoder,big baggage,float fittings(no floats),and all the good stuff to fly on the land,snow,or water.I'm asking $20,000obo......just something for ya to think about.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: T-Craft Bug

Peter,
I am just under 6'3" and weigh 216#. I honestly feel more cramped in a 150 but I think a big part of it is the "feel" of flying each of them and the "legs straight out" position in the 150. Getting in and out of the Taylorcraft is harder till you figure it out (and even after honestly) and the visability is better in the 150. A skylight Taylorcraft is better than a 150 (in my opinion, but I am used to the blind spots and know exactly how to bend, twist and turn to see where I want to look in the Taylorcraft. You have to lift a wing in both to make a turn, although I don't seem to see the 150 guys do it as much as we do. I DON'T have a lot of hours in the 150, and to be honest have never bothered to log a single flight in one. I flew them, but never bothered to put them in my log. I guess I am a little afraid my baby will think I cheated on her.
150s are nice, but Taylorcrafts are MUCH better (of course this IS the Taylorcraft group).
Hank

[Peter Collin]

Re: T-Craft Bug

Hank
My 150 is a 1960 so the seats are not adjustable. I'm 6' 1", I don't find the visibility much better in the 150. I realize both planes have their pros and cons, but if you want to fly skis, floats and go in and out of shorter strips I think the T-Craft is hard to beat for the money. If I wasn't going to do all those things I would stick to the 150.
How would a T-Craft perform at 3000 feet elevation?

Thanks.
Peter

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: T-Craft Bug

I live and operate withing 50' of sea level so I'm the wrong person to ask, but the guys who fly high usually seem to like their Taylorcrafts. I hear some talk ever once in a while about the really high field guys wanting a little more HP but can't say anything from experiance. I fly around at 3k some but I doubt you want to know about that.(;f
Hank

[Robert Peasley]

Re: T-Craft Bug

I hear there is a 1946 Taylorcraft with an 85 hp with float fittings for sale.
$19,000.00 @ Peasley Field - Otis, Maine

[Peter Collin]

Re: T-Craft Bug

Robert and Kevin thanks for your info.
Robert I met you after you landed with Brian a few weeks ago.

Peter

[cpirrmann]

Re: T-Craft Bug

HI Pete,
I'm 6'0" and 255 lbs and I have great fun flying my Tcraft. Like Hank saud, it does take a technique to get in and out of, but it's not bad and it's worth it. I never had an easy time in a 150 for that matter. I just flew from Ohio to Georgia. I use a hand-held radio and gps. I had no problem navigating around class B airspace, the mode C veil doesn't apply and I had no problem talking with Knoxville controllers, staying out of the Class C and letting them no where I was to make their job easier. I corssed the mountains at @ 9000 feet with 85 mph indicated, 96 mph ground speed. It was cool and clear that day, but she felt like she could've easily gone to 10,000 or more.

I rented a C150 a few time down here til I got my plane down and it isn't nearly as enjoyable to me as my Taylorcraft. Even with the starter.

I just wanted to relate this to you so you could get some idea of performance. Oh yeah, she's a 1946 BC-12D 65hp. This trip was also done with full fuel in the nose and rt. wing (18 gallons).

[Forrest Barber]

Re: T-Craft Bug

Chris I knew we had a lot on common , but at 6-1 & 252, we are real close now! YES it is amazing what the Taylorcraft will do when asked correctly to do it The entry to a lot of aircraft is a bit of a project for us portly folks but once inside there are ways to "get small".
I have had to do it for over 45 yrs of instructing I remember the think tank back at Lock Haven when we discussed improvements IF there was time to do them. 4 inches wider, remove the bar behind the seat, adjustable seats, fuel all in the wings, etc.... HOPE to see it done sometime.

[Jim Hartley]

Re: T-Craft Bug

Hi Peter.
My wife and I flew in to Eureka(3289 MSL)a few years ago on a summer day about 70 degrees and no wind. From a quick search on the topo maps it would appear that the lake is around 2400 feet long. I don't remember it being thaaat long...LOL! Must have been the 3-400 feet of dense lilly pads that I elected not to start the take off run in. I had 14 gal fuel,50 pounds baggage and my wife at 130 pounds and myself at 175 pounds. I used the majority of the lake to get airborne. There are no obstacles at either end of the lake. A breeze would have made a huge difference and a mixture control perhaps an even larger difference. The engine was running a little rough and I kept the power up when taxiing. I normally develop 2450 rpm or therabouts here close to sea level and I am sure that I had lost two or three hundred RPM at that altitude. Glassy water and underpowered you know that I was really fishing for the "sweet spot" on the floats that day...

Peter, if all goes well and my ship comes in I plan to plan to sell the T craft after ski season and upgrade. my plane needs some cosmetic work but is very strong and gets the job done. It may be an option for you if you move up this way.?

Jim

Hank
My 150 is a 1960 so the seats are not adjustable. I'm 6' 1", I don't find the visibility much better in the 150. I realize both planes have their pros and cons, but if you want to fly skis, floats and go in and out of shorter strips I think the T-Craft is hard to beat for the money. If I wasn't going to do all those things I would stick to the 150.
How would a T-Craft perform at 3000 feet elevation?

Thanks.
Peter

[Peter Collin]

Re: T-Craft Bug

Hi Jim.
Nice to hear from you, I was thinking I had not seen any posts from you in a while. I enjoyed the flight you gave me when we viseted Alaska.

Peter

[210turbo]

Re: T-Craft Bug

I was 190 at the time and 6'3.5", my buddy was about 180lbs flew in and out of Big Bear, Ca in the summer NO PROBLEM. I think the ele was 4000 plus?? can't remember. Have owned a 150 and would not try this. It's the wing on the t-cart that makes things happen.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: T-Craft Bug

That is T-Craft when I face the wires on 27 with my 6-2 245 lbs. & heavy student they kind of look at me with those big eyes and I assure them we will make it. Kind of like my look at myself when I flew the Model A for the first time with the 40 HP, she ran about the same distance as the B only slower, lifted off and climbed out a bit flater.
WHY did the factory not build or rebuildthe BC12D-85 with 0-200 & 18 gal of fuel as the finest LSA to be found......Already Certified and proven in the field.

[selje]

Re: T-Craft Bug

I think the BC12-D airframe with a Rotax 912S (100 HP) would be a good LSA.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: T-Craft Bug

Indeed it would, BUT the other way is "certified" I think they would hold value more, I have flown the 912 & 914, I am flying a Capella with 912 at the moment. IMHO (humble, me! ) IT does not have the longevity of the 0-200 .. And it scares me then it shuts down, kind of like Kelli-Belle passing razor blades.