NEW Taylorcraft design features

[Hank Jarrett]

This was actually posted ont eh Factory thread but is really off topic there. I decided to move it to a new thread since there is probably some interest and it would seriously mess with the factory update thread.

A clean sheet Taylorcraft is a dream for a lot of us. Never going to happen without a market and right now there isn't enough market to support what is already out there flying already.
What would be fun is to design a home-built incorporating all the great ideas for what would have been in a Taylorcraft by now if it (the company) had been run right since the 40's
Basic airframe with an ~100HP up front (options for more), slightly wider cockpit with a 2" lower seat that's adjustable fore and aft (I'm 6'3" and 220# and you CAN fit comfortably in the cockpit! Not with TWO 200#+ though.) The door needs to be redesigned to ease entry and exit. It needs a skylight. We need to get rid of the bungees. Need to move the fuel to the wings and add a starter. How about a light weight glass cockpit (I don't want one, and I helped develop it, but some might).
For me the stuff I DON'T want are IFR capability, the glass cockpit, metal spars (just kind of like them trees, never seen one with a fatigue crack). I LIKE the pre-war flip up windows. Much nicer than the post was sliders. It doesn't NEED stronger brakes, but it could use smoother, easier to rig brakes.
Hank

Any other suggestions from the tribe? Probably should move this to another thread.

[mohawktipi]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

As stated in another post, I like the tandem seating of my L-2B. But while we are talking about a "new" Tcraft, how about a ground adjustable prop. Then when someone wants to add skis or floats, they don't need to have two props. I say keep it simple, standard day VFR with options. Keep the gross weight at 1320 (light sport) and maybe metalized with large rear windows.

[astjp2]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

Well the adjustable seats were already designed and used in the latest model Tcraft, and D&E already makes the wings with metal spars.tanks in the wings and uses a cub style fuselage. Oh and for the brakes, if you use anything other than 600x6 you DO need hydraulic brakes and if you want to run 26 inch tires you need 6 bolt wheels. I can do without the skylight and if its experimental an IVO prop is ground adjustable. Also one thing about bungies is they are self dampening compared to a steel spring style gear, that is per an FAA engineer, I would consider a cub style as an option since it seems to be the strongest gear you can get on an aircraft in production today expcially if you get any side loading due to either a groud loop or bad landing. Tim

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

I'm all for hydraulic brakes. The rigging of mechanical brakes is a PITA. What I DON'T want it massively stronger brakes. It's an easy way to bend the fin and rudder over. What would be really nice would be a way to adjust the hydraulic brakes so they could be adjusted for the type of tires and wheels used. As someone else said, all the brakes in a Taylorcraft should be able to do is hold you for a run-up. If they can stop a freight train you will end up on your back.

The reason I want to get rid of the bungees is I see them as getting hard to get in the future. The principal market for the rubber has evaporated and Aero rubber uses were always a tiny part of the market in the past. Once golf balls stopped using massive quantities of the rubber the side market for our bungees became economically unsupportable (In layman's terms, they are going to have a price explosion in the next decade unless a new mass market for the rubber is found). A spring based solution with a dash pot would go for decades without servicing.

Hank

[VictorBravo]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

D&E already makes the wings with metal spars.tanks in the wings and uses a cub style fuselage.

But that would be a Cub derivative instead of a T-craft derivative? Wing mounted fuel is definitely the right way to go, but a tandem fuselage like an L-2 or a Cub would be somewhat redundant. There's already 500 different Cub clones. Attempting to sell one like that would put you in competition with Cub Crafters and Dakota Cubs and a bunch of others. Crowded market against experienced Cub builders.

Remember that one of the big selling points of the T-craft is that it's cleaner aerodynamically, faster per the same power, etc. A newfangled Taylorcraft derivative should build on that advantage first, then try to recover as much lost ground (to the Cub's STOL advantage) as possible.

IMHO, Hank's "Fantasy football" Taylorcraft would have:

• A composite leaf spring gear would reduce drag significantly and be a zero maintenance item.
• A 4 inch wider fuselage, but keeping the same T-craft "pumpkin seed" shape is important.
• The adjustable seats and cutting out that cross tube is great, so long as it can be done without weakening the fuselage or adding a lot of weight.
• Bigger doors of course, which I also think the F-22 has.
• Different cowling and cooling system FOR SURE. We finally need to get rid of the no-clearance problem at the front left side of the cowling. This means that a lighter composite propeller needs to be mounted about 3 or 4 inches further forward of the cylinder.
• Engine mounted at the same "short mount" location, but using an electronic ignition system.
• 1320 pounds gross weight of course, with a larger baggage compartment that is dictated by the short engine mount.
• The one thing we need to steal back from the Cub is the pitch trim. Moving the leading edge of the stabilizer up and down allows a wider CG range, allows larger flaps to be used, and allows more trim "power". I know the Cubs have a maintenance issue with the jackscrew... that is solve-able if we're coming with a clean sheet of paper. Bigger jackscrew, better metal, replace-able bearings, whatever.
• Better shaped wingtips. Those nice round tip bows on old airplanes are just throwing away valuable efficiency, speed, climb rate, stall speed, etc. I'm not talking about longhorn winglets, I'm talking about a good upswept and raked back tip shape. The new "zip tips" that RV homebuilt airplanes are using is a good example because it's working on a constant chord wing with the same family of airfoil. Even the stock Hoerner style RV tips would be an improvement. For the same dimensional wingspan you'd get a measurable increase in effective span, effective aspect ratio, etc., etc.
• Now here's the big one... wing flaps, and not small ones either. 60% span flaps, 40% span ailerons. The ailerons need a little more "differential" and a little more throw to make up for lost span. The flaps need to come down 40 degrees (assuming that the airflow into the stabilizer is still good enough). This would put the T-craft solidly into Super Cub STOL territory and piss off a lot of folks in AK. An airplane with T-craft speed and even 90% of Cub STOL would be a huge winner. But on the same 100 HP I think that a long flapped 23012 wing would do even better than 90% of a short flapped USA 35B wing. Perhaps Hank or one of the other high brain function types can see if I'm off base on this?

Oh hell, I forgot the floor mounted sticks...

[Ray36048]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

What you are saying is for someone to do to the Taylorcraft like the Legend Cub people did with the Piper PA-11.

Wider fuse, bigger engine, electrical system, starter, modern brakes.

But, no glass panels, please. Real airplanes have tailwheels and round guages.

[Jim Hartley]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

I can do without the skylight

I think that a skylight is a must have in the Taylorcraft. It greatly improves your field of vision and reduces the risk of a mid-air collision.

The greatest risk to me, when flying... IS... a mid-air collision.

Jim

[jim cooper]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

I like all the suggestions! Keep the basic design which is GOOD LOOKING! 0200 or more is a must. Little wider cockpit and MORE GLASS! I too am always afraid of a pattern collision mostly due to those who want to mimick airline pilots,who speak in clipped unintelligible sentences and just confuse everyone around them. Speak slowly, clearly your intentions while entering pattern, turning base, final ,etc. On take off, are you staying in the pattern? or departing and in which direction? Steam gages are fine for training and sport flying in my humble estimation.. Just think of the millions of miles flown on basic instuments, including the WASPS! These women flew cubs, stinsons, P-51's, P-38's B-24's, etc. All over the place during WW2! All with mostly basic instuments, no GPS for sure, time and distance, lousy charts. Weather killed some, most made it! JC

[Jim Hartley]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

No substitute for the eyes and I will take the steam gauges first...look at Toyota and the electronic issues. Hell..A throttle/accelerator cable routed properly will last thousands of hours...a computer chip??? I Opt for the cable!

To much time is spent fiddling with electronics in the cockpit when we should be seeing and being seen. Radio transmissons of our position is a "heads up".

"See and be seen".

Jim

I too am always afraid of a pattern collision mostly due to those who want to mimick airline pilots,who speak in clipped unintelligible sentences and just confuse everyone around them. Speak slowly, clearly your intentions while entering pattern, turning base, final ,etc. On take off, are you staying in the pattern? or departing and in which direction? Steam gages are fine for training and sport flying in my humble estimation.. JC

[barnstmr]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

Check out the latest copy of Vintage airplane...

What you've just described is a Fleet Canuk

[tim]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

Ya I like how this is going but what about those of us that want more then the 1320gw I would liketo get more then 1500 up to 1750 would really be nice to turn my bc12d to a f22 and an engine from 0-235 to 0-320 but some glass would be nice flaps would be cool a cs prop and I like the green house look. Ok my two cents

[fearofpavement]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

Lots of dreaming going on here.... Pretty soon the $100,000 T-craft/Cessna 185 will be parked in the hangar and the owner will be out flying the rickety vintage BC-12D to get back to the roots of aviation. We have a hangar full of planes but I like the T-craft for what it is. If I need something that will work in other situations I use one of the "others". There are so many choices of planes out there to fit every niche and not too many can fill a lot of the cubby holes. The T-craft is cheap, simple and fun. It doesn't make a good cargo plane or interstate commuter but it is cheap, simple and fun. go flyin!

[astjp2]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

Ya I like how this is going but what about those of us that want more then the 1320gw I would liketo get more then 1500 up to 1750 would really be nice to turn my bc12d to a f22 and an engine from 0-235 to 0-320 but some glass would be nice flaps would be cool a cs prop and I like the green house look. Ok my two cents

So you basically want an Alsworth airplane, they have the O-320/O-360, and all of the bush mods. Tim

[Pearson]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

I am with Fear of Pavement! If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

Sounds like there are two schools.
1) Cheap (I like inexpensive, everything I have ever owned that was "cheap" was expensive in the end), simple and fun....and
2) The ultimate bush plane

For me, I want inexpensive, simple and fun. The guys who want a replacement for the Maul or a DC-3 on skis may want to make a second thread. There is probably no top end for that path. Pretty soon you end up with a 6 place Maul with a PT-6 and an exterior rack for a Moose or two. Don't get me wrong, that would be a GREAT plane, but I could never afford to buy or operate it.

For option 1, I second the motion for electronic ignition and "maybe" a simple starter, if you want it. I would also make it a requirement that it stay under the LSA weight limit (see paragraph 2). I like the idea of flaps as and option, but not base equipment. Same for a more complex prop and glass in the cockpit. Make them an option. I don't WANT glass, but it is going to be much less expensive, lighter and more reliable in the next decade than steam gauges. I'm afraid our steam gauges will be going the way of mechanical watches.
Hank

By the way, I still have a mechanical watch. Expensive and a $10 Timex keeps better time.