F-22C Trooper

[Sunriser]

I'm a new pilot and am currently looking into buying my first airplane. I learned how to fly in a Cessna 172, and that's the only plane I have logged time in. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I have been looking at the Taylorcraft F-19's, but I just ran across an ad for a F-22C. It's located in Texas, and I understand there were very few of them made. I have the technical specs on this airplane, but I have not been able to find any articles or other information about this plane on the Internet. With the Taylorcraft.com website not operating, I haven't been able to find any other information.

I'd like to know why Taylorcraft introduced this plane, and who the intended customer was. What niche in the market did Taylorcraft see this plane filling?
I can't find any articles that describe how this airplane flew, and what its characteristics were like. I'd like to know more about the pros and cons of this aircraft.

Thanks for your help. My first airplane ride was in a Taylorcraft on skis. My brother, Al Peterson, flew me to Lake George just to the east of Palmer, Alaska.

[Brady]

Re: F-22C Trooper

Sunriser,

I can probably speak to some of your questions/concerns. I currently own an F-19 and an F-21 (which is basically the same as an F-22. I believe the F-22 has more fuel capacity and higher gross weight certification).

Specs on my F-21 as follows, with me (250 lbs), and full fuel (24 gallons).

--Takeoff 250-300 ft
--Climb, full-power, 65-70 mph, 1000 fpm
--Cruise 115 mph TAS, 2500 rpm, 6.0-6.5 gph
--Very strong and maneuverable airplane
--Very low stall speed, approx 40-45 mph
--Easy taildragger to fly
--Floats like hell on landing if you don't get it slowed down. If on speed, you can land in about 300-400 feet consistently.
--Brakes on both sides of the cockpit
--slips nicely
--Will carry about as much crap as you can fit in it. The F-21 has a 1500 lb max gross (which is extremely conservative). I believe the F-22 has 1700 lb max gross.

I've had mine numerous times up to 12,500 ft with no problems, spent time with the airplane in Colorado and New Mexico, and operated out of airports up '8000 MSL. Properly leaned at altitude the aircraft performed amazingly well. The Lycoming engine (O-235, 118 HP) runs real strong. It has been fairly low cost to maintain and operate. Most of the parts are the same as the F-19, except the cowlings and spinner.

I would say that any Taylorcraft is a good airplane for the money. Compare the performance of an F-21/22 or an F-19 to that of a Supercub. Then compare the price!

Good luck.

[murphy]

Re: F-22C Trooper

Hey Brady,
Did you get your F19 back together and if so how about some pictures.
Mike

[CraigH]

Re: F-22C Trooper

Be sure to check the fuel tanks for leaks / shoddy repairs. The design/mounting of the 21 gallon tanks leaves something to be desired.

[Brady]

Re: F-22C Trooper

Murphy,

Yes, we got finished recovering the F-19 around June/July. I've flown it a bunch. Flew it to Ohio this fall for a reunion, and to Port Mansfield, Texas a couple weeks ago (both pretty long trips from Shreveport).

I've got some good pictures taken with my digital camera, but I don't know how to get them to 125 KB so that I can attach them on this forum. They are currently about 3.4 MB. I'm sure it is easy to do. Any help?

[M Jones]

Re: F-22C Trooper

I've got some good pictures taken with my digital camera, but I don't know how to get them to 125 KB so that I can attach them on this forum. They are currently about 3.4 MB. I'm sure it is easy to do. Any help?

Brady,

Free software to do this is available for downlaod. I'd suggest you try "IrfanView". It's a good viewer also. You can download it from a few sites. The "Tucows" site is easy:

http://www.tucows.com/preview/194967

Once you have it installed, open the image you want to modify, and use the "Image -> Resize/Resample..." pull down menu. Try playing around with the options. I like to use the "percentage of original" or select the pixel size you want.

Hope this helps...

[VictorBravo]

Re: F-22C Trooper

I'm a new pilot and am currently looking into buying my first airplane.

I have been looking at the Taylorcraft F-19's, but I just ran across an ad for a F-22C. .

The Taylorcraft is a far better value for the money than just about anything out there. I strongly recommend the Taylorcraft as a first aircraft for one or two major reasons, over and above the "classic" and antique factors... this is the IMPORTANT stuff:

The T-craft can slow down to about 40 mph (maybe less with the F-22's flaps) and land in a few hundred feet. Everyone has their own definition of safety or what makes a plane safe. My personal definition is ...

after every mistake you are not supposed to make, after the bird flies into the carburetor, the carb ices over, the weather closes in around you, your passenger throws up, your appendix ruptures, after you screwed up your flight planning and ran out of gas, the clouds open up into a downpour and the sun has gone down... WHERE can your airplane be landed safely with you not getting hurt or hurting anyone else? How many Wal-mart parking lots, or football fields, or small dirt clearings can your airplane make it into, to get you back on the ground to fly another day?

With a Taylorcraft, the answer is "A LOT more places than a 172, Tri-Pacer, etc. can land" Only a SMALL number of airplanes can do better in that situation, and each of those airplanes has some other big disadvantage versus a Taylorcraft:

The Super Cub will unfortunately beat a T-craft in the landing contest, I hate to admit. But it costs 2-3X as much as the T-craft.

The Fieseler Fi-156 Storch will definitely do it, and you can even fly inside a large building if you happen to be a small cute German female test pilot, but these days it's an exotic WW2 relic that costs much more to buy, fly, and maintain that the T-craft (and the bald, ranting Italian dictator must be purchased separately).

There are only one or two Boeing YL-15's in existence and they too are exotic military collector items. I think one of them is up in Alaska.

The Helio Courier can do a short field landing almost as well as a Taylorcraft (carrying three or four CIA spooks and a couple of sacks full of artificial sweetener to boot), but they are a great big expensive monster with a high maintenance engine.

The other reason I recommend a Taylorcraft is that will make you a much better pilot than a 172 or Tri-Pacer will. It will teach you what the rudder pedals are for, it will demonstrate the old saying of "fly it until the hangar door is closed", and it will definitely teach you how to fly in concert with the sky instead of just boring a hole through it. These lessons are rarely if ever taught anymore by "normal" flight instructors or "normal" airplanes.

On the list of other secondary items is the fact that the F-22C Trooper, if I recall, has 180 horsepower, so you will get an airplane that has far far more capability than most other airplanes. The 180 will blast you up "over tall buildings in a single bound"... this combination of airplane and engine will get you in AND out of some very interesting places.

I forget whether the Trooper is the one with the nosewheel landing gear... but buy it anyway. After a very short time of owning it, we'll loan you a hacksaw so you can remove the nosewheel The nosewheel planes still have the mounting lugs for the ... correct... landing gear so it will be a bolt-on installation.

In short, there are many many good reasons to choose the Taylorcraft. Everyone else feel free to jump in and add whatever I forgot!

[taylorcraftbc65]

Re: F-22C Trooper

AMEN BILL!!!! My BC 65 has MUCH less cargo capacity than the F-22, but then it stalls at 35 at gross, and only burns 3.8 GAL at cruise, so I don't mind.

[Carl Ellis]

Re: F-22C Trooper

I've got some good pictures taken with my digital camera, but I don't know how to get them to 125 KB so that I can attach them on this forum. They are currently about 3.4 MB. I'm sure it is easy to do. Any help?

See my message from a week ago - Microsoft has a tool for this. The resizing is accomplished with an easy right click from the File Explorer.

http://vb.taylorcraft.org/showthread.php?t=3490

- Carl -

[Dusty]

Re: F-22C Trooper

How many Wal-mart parking lots, or football fields, or small dirt clearings can your airplane make it into, to get you back on the ground to fly another day?

With a Taylorcraft, the answer is "A LOT more places than a [...] Tri-Pacer

Would you like to bet on that last statement? I can get a flying milkstool into LOTS of places you can't get a Tcart into. Full flaps, as slow as she'll fly, brakes on HARD (you aren't going over the nosewheel, after all!), and just enough power to keep MOST of your loose crap from floating around up by the skylight, and a tripacer will get down over trees better than anything besides a brick - and maybe better than the brick!

I believe one won the landing contest with a distance of something less than 50' at Valdez a few years back. Getting back off is another story, but with the right prop a (tailwheel) Pacer is pretty comparable to a Tcart when carrying the same weight.

All in all, a lot of airplane for the $$ - much like a Tcart!

[fearofpavement]

Re: F-22C Trooper

Well, I would have to agree with the descent profile of a Tri-pacer as being pretty incredible. I also concur they are a lot of bang for the buck if looking for a four seater. (ok, almost a four seater...)

[flyguy]

Re: F-22C Trooper

On second thought I just deleted it.
DC

[Dusty]

Re: F-22C Trooper

That must be why they don't make 85HP Tripacers. You aren't likely to find too many 1200lb Tcarts either.

Mine stalled - if you can call it that - about 50 without power, around 45 with - they don't have enough tail to keep the nose up without a little help from the prop. Crankin' the trim all the way down makes a pretty big difference, but not quite enough. They DO have this neat thing called "brakes." Makes em stop in a big hurry. Nothing like that in Taylorcraft land...

On skis, they take a LONG time to get shut down on ice - all that weight makes for a LOT of inertia. In deep powder, you can land in about 50 feet and get off in a half-mile or so - too much weight on the nose and, again, not enough tailfeathers to get it up till you're damn near flying. I can't recommend it.

I bet there are Tcarts out there that can keep up. I flight planned for 110MPH - you can supposedly get 125 or so with a steeper prop, but you give up a LOT in short-field performance.

The same weight would put you over gross and the Pacer out of gas! Empty, a Pacer will outclimb an empty Tcart anyday. At gross, you win every time. The guy who set gross weight in the Pacer liked living much closer to the edge than Mr. Taylor - unlike the Tcart, Pacers don't climb fer $(^&( at gross! FOP must have some time in them - they aren't a bit of fun with the 4th seat occupied.

Comfort is the polar opposite of a Tcart - it's like I imagine driving a golf cart must be! Quiet, smooth, roomy, easy to fly, and fairly fast.

As you suggest, airplanes are a big ball of compromises. I disliked a lot of things about the Tripacer - mainly the performance on skis. A pacer is a much better airplane for my type of flying, but still far from ideal - visibility leaves something to be desired, they don't haul weight all that well, and if you can see it you can't land there without some power (glide ratio=DOWN!!). But, I still say it's a hell of an airplane for the cost if you need the extra seats. It's to a 180 what a Tcart is to a Supercub - you can do all the same things for 1/4 the money, only out of twice the strip hauling half the weight.

But you can still land shorter than any 180 or Tcart!

[Brady]

Re: F-22C Trooper

Mike Jones and Carl Ellis,

Thanks for the tip on how to get the image resizing software.

Murphy,
This is how my F-19 came out after recovering.

[N95179]

Re: F-22C Trooper

Sharp looking Taylorcraft, Brady!