NEW Taylorcraft design features

[rammon3]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

I agree with Hank on this. If we want to encourage more people to get into flying for fun, then we need airplanes that are within the financial reach of more people. The Cirrus is a great airplane, but WAY beyond my budget. Long gone are the great days of $2000 J3s, $1000 Tcrafts. We can't go back there, but we can do better than $189,000 base price for something.

[VictorBravo]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

I thought we WERE talking about a "dream" new Taylorcraft? But as far as actual hard dollars...

The flaps don't cost more than another set of ailerons. Not much for what you get. The airplane does need SOME better method of glidepath control than flying sideways, especially for training pilots in today's environment. Whether it's flaps, spoilers, a drogue chute, or Rutan's de-thermalizer... there ought to be something. The flaps at least give you the drag for landing... and then you can get takeoff and climb lift for just the cost of an extra notch in the handle quadrant.

The skylight is a safety feature, no ifs, ands or buts. Gotta have it IMHO. It's $20 worth of plastic and $10 worth of steel tabs and welding labor.

The composite landing gear is cheaper than the welded gear. One piece, non-skilled labor, and lots less time.. We were also talking about bungees becoming difficult or expensive.

The electronic ignition may be a little more expensive up front but pays for itself in performance, economy and maintenance. It would be a good selling point, and if done right it WILL reduce fuel consumption by 25%. It also WILL just about eliminate starting accidents.

The larger baggage compartment don't cost anything different than the little lunch sack we have now. What... 75 cents more in fabric and 50 cents more in sewing time?

Tools for making the cowling will have to be made anyway. Making the cowl 3 inches longer adds another five bucks to the wood buck materials, or to the concrete for a 'glass mold.

The 3 or 4 inch prop extension costs a hundred bucks or less. It's a pretty simple chunk of aluminum.

I have no idea how much a wood or a composite propeller costs. I do know for certain that a new aluminum propeller is about two grand. Composite is lighter than metal, stronger than wood, less maintenance than wood, and better performance than wood.

I'm sorry if I appear to be shooting down other people's ideas... I'm not being combative. I'd be thrilled to pieces of they put the 1940 Taylorcraft back into production as-is. It just bears mentioning that many of the modern ideas that were mentioned are in reality not much more expensive than what their older counterparts cost, and offer significant benefits.

[mohawktipi]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

No one has mentioned running on auto gas or deisel. There is a very promising deisel being developed in Europe (England I think). A gentleman at Grand Prairie Airport in Texas is working on a STC to convert a Cessna 150 to a 150 hp deisel (weighs less than an O-200). Would definately like to see something that could use ethynol laced fuels instead of Avgas.

[Dusty]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

I think you guys are designing a shitwagon. Stretch a Taylorcraft out in every direction, add a bunch of weight, hang 100HP off the nose, and you've got a dog.

A few specifics:

The door needs to be redesigned

I like the idea, but where are you going to go with it?

We need to get rid of the bungees.

Are you going with carbon-fiber spring gear? I don't know if it's lighter and tougher than bungees or not, but nothing else is.

gross weight at 1320 (light sport) and maybe metalized

You can't have both, not on a Taylorcraft-sized fuselage. Pick one. I like fabric.

if you want to run 26 inch tires you need 6 bolt wheels

Why?

...stronger brakes...bend the fin and rudder...could be adjusted...If they can stop a freight train you will end up on your back.

Or you could just learn to fly the damned thing. Only smash your feet down as hard as the conditions warrant - there's your adjustment. And can somebody add "move the brake pedals somewhere useful" to the redesign list?

solidly into Super Cub STOL territory and piss off a lot of folks in AK

Have you flown both? The Cub dominates the short field market because it's PREDICTABLE. A TCart wing has a lot going for it - speed, climb - it even slows down pretty good - but it's UNPREDICTABLE at low speeds, and therefore will never be a great STOL machine. Add a little ice to the mix, and a TCart is downright scary. Maybe VGs or some other aerodynamic device can help stabilize it at slow speeds - I don't know. I don't think anything will make it carry weight like a Cub, but that's OK by me.

Visibility is a big deal for off-airport operations, but I don't know if you can address that in a side-by-side airplane with TCart dimensions.

And you're never going to piss anyone off by developing a better airplane.

need SOME better method of glidepath control

Slow down. Seriously. A SLOW TCart comes down like a brick.

I think that a skylight is a must have in the Taylorcraft.

Amen. And I bet it could be made as light as fabric, maybe with Mylar or something. The standard 10-pound hunk of Plexi strapped on top is another story. (But still worth having in a T-Cart.)

However, as long as it's a TCart you're going to be staring at a wingroot most of the time.

an exterior rack for a Moose or two

Wing struts are a good thing.

Here's my version of the dream: 750 pounds, 100HP, big composite prop on the TC, hydraulic brakes with pedals not designed for an elf with sideways knees, big baggage, good heater, 1-pound skylight, transparent doors, can be hand propped, under $100K. I think it's doable, but you'd have to look for some new materials, and don't add anything (at least to the "base version") that isn't absolutely necessary.

Fabric interior and baggage is fine. Carbon fiber would be better, but there's the whole $100K thing.

No requirement for a 30-amp alternator or huge battery. A 5-amp B&C and motorcycle battery is fine, if the sum of the electrical/ignition/instruments can be lighter than without.

Lots of fuel, maybe as options. 12 in the nose and optionally 6 (or more) in each wing.

I'd buy one...

[RobertP]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

In my IMHO just start up manafacturing the F22A again with the TRI gear set up and a good Nav Com's set up like in my aircraft ( DME, VOR, ADF, Transponder ) 112 HP Lycoming 0235. Forget about ground loops and a good solid nose wheel set up instead. Brakes which work, Electric starter and a dare say a heater which works! 20 US gallons in each wing tank (preferably one's which don't leak! ) Good cruise speed and excellent duration Extra room in the cabin, good perpex roof for added vision and an excellent load capacity.

All the looks of the older tail draggers but without the hassle. My aircraft gets all the plaudits at my airport or wherever I go but a whole lot less hassle. The F22 series was definetly the way to go and a pitty no one managed to get their act together to manafacture them in any numbers.

[jim cooper]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

T Craft is unpredictable on landing?! I can't think of another light aircraft that is more predictable. In my very humble estimation, a Champ, a T- Craft, a Cub, are all very simple, easy to fly aircraft and perform in a very similar way. My T-Craft , however, does NOT come down like a brick. It comes down as any plane with a wing design like this would. Its a miniture U2! It likes to fly and unless its really slowed down it will float on in ground effect. A Mooney is another that comes to mind. They even made SPOILERS for it. BUT.....if you slow a Mooney down, over the fence at 65, its a pussy cat, lands beautifully in a mains first type landing. All these little aircraft were underpowered, I guess because they built during the DEPPRESSION and were built for the masses. Notice that the "Rich folk" designs had much higher horsepower and were alot faster. These were simple trainers, cheap to fly, easy to recover and work on. If I were younger, didn't have to fly light sport, I'd have a super cub or a husky and get the f--- on with it! JC

[Dusty]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

Jim,

The comment was made that a redesigned Taylorcraft could be happy in Cub territory. To get there, you have to slow down. I could never consistently slow a Taylorcraft down without it trying to fall out from under me. (I can attest that the bungee gear is hell for stout.) Sometimes I could land in 250 feet, sometimes twice that, and I was never sure which it was going to be until I was stopped. I like a little breathing room, which means I need maybe 800 feet to feel comfortable - and that's in a light airplane. I'm comfortable on half that in my Champ, and it's a heavy pig of an airplane.

Maybe it's just me. How short of a strip do you feel comfortable taking a T-Cart into?

[tim]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

Wow really where can I get the info on them and is ther work backed up by stc would like to get tcart as close to an f22 as I can

[tim]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

No one has mentioned running on auto gas or deisel. There is a very promising deisel being developed in Europe (England I think). A gentleman at Grand Prairie Airport in Texas is working on a STC to convert a Cessna 150 to a 150 hp deisel (weighs less than an O-200). Would definately like to see something that could use ethynol laced fuels instead of Avgas.

Really do you know where he is at would be nice that's one bad thing with the 150 Togo big engine and im in the 150/152 club they would really like to hear this sorry I mean name of said person I'm on my wifes ituch

[astjp2]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

Jim,

The comment was made that a redesigned Taylorcraft could be happy in Cub territory. To get there, you have to slow down. I could never consistently slow a Taylorcraft down without it trying to fall out from under me. (I can attest that the bungee gear is hell for stout.) Sometimes I could land in 250 feet, sometimes twice that, and I was never sure which it was going to be until I was stopped. I like a little breathing room, which means I need maybe 800 feet to feel comfortable - and that's in a light airplane. I'm comfortable on half that in my Champ, and it's a heavy pig of an airplane.

Maybe it's just me. How short of a strip do you feel comfortable taking a T-Cart into?

The 6 bolt wheels for the 26" tires are to prevent the wheel from blowing apart because of the surface area of the tire, Do you have VG's? With practice I am comfortable with 400' in or out with just myself. I have not been able to fly mine in a year and a half. I have the 100 hp with no electrical system and I am happy with it. I am not afraid of hand proping since it is all I have done since I have owned mine. Have many on here ever prop a comanche 250 or a 182? For me it is just another day. Tim


Tim

[VictorBravo]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

VG's and flaps would make the Taylorcraft very predictable and docile at slow speeds. The un-predictability you refer to now is probably because of the low drag and lack of speed/glide control.

Change my previous comment to "... glidepath and SPEED control" , and I'll stand behind it much mo' better. The Auster is a T-craft with flaps, and has a much higher "predictable" nature when landing. Any of us who have flown the Auster (not a common thing) can tell you that the flaps get rid of that skittishness.

I have flown the J-3 but I've never owned/flown a Super Cub. What I meant by "super Cub territory" is that the airplane would be able to do a lot more of what a PA-18 will do in terms of short field operation. The Cub will always carry more weight legally, and will always have some amount of STOL advantage from the airfoil and horsepower difference.

'seems I already pissed off people in Alaska and didn't even build the airplane yet

[tim]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

that just means your doin somethin right

[RobertP]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

What's wrong with the F22 series then for a starter model? carry on where the factory finally finished up when it actually last produced aeroplanes? A good solid nosewheel set up as well!!!!

My F22A is a joy to fly with flaps which work and give excellent low speed handling. A good nav / comm fit as well and ideally a fitted GPS at the same level as the trim tab but on the same level as the Pilots head with the aerial between the top bar and the perspex facing upwards to receive a good signal. They would be relativly cheap to produce again as there still must be the paperwork and tools somewhere at the factory?

All the good looks of your tail wheels but with a more modern feel?

[Dusty]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

Some of us don't need to haul weight very often, and don't mind making a couple trips when we do. I think you can design a viable, marketable airplane without it being able to haul the weight. However, go look at empty weight on any of the current crop of "full-sized" LSAs. I can buy half a dozen brand-new 900 pound airplanes today, or my choice of "toy" airplanes that would last about 5 hard landings on skis. Build a 750LB Taylorcraft, and you can brag that it hauls 150 pounds more than the LSA Cubs (at least on paper).

I wonder what the flaps would weigh, and if VGs would be enough to stabilize things? I've never flown either, and have no idea what they do to the airplane.

There is no lack of drag against a SLOW T-Cart wing, and I still think that anyone who doesn't recognize that has never tried to slow one down.

RobertP: At least some of us fly these sorts of airplanes for what they can do, not how they look. Nosewheel airplanes just do not do well in the sorts of environments in which some of us fly. What sets a nosewheel Taylorcraft apart from the pack of existing LSAs?

[VictorBravo]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

But when you slow the Taylorcraft down to all the way into the high drag mode, you have also put it a lot closer to stall and/or mushy controls than the same approach in a flapped airplane.

In a flapped T-craft (the Auster is my only experience, but I believe it's the same for a Cessna, PA-18, etc.) you can have a high descent rate, with good forward visibility, plenty of drag, and lots of effective washout (wing twist) for an added margin of safety because you're not as close to stall or mushy controls.

You also have better aileron authority (because of the washout). I'm guessing that's where the "solid" feel you're talking about in the Super Cub comes from.

I know that Forrest and several of the other high-time Taylorcraft pilots slow it down a lot further on approach than most. I slowed mine down some, perhaps not as much as those super high-timers. 53 to 58 miles indicated on short short final is what I used on a normal day, but that's totally a SWAG because the airspeed system is BS on these airplanes.

Re: a previous question, yes I was suggesting a "carbon fiber rod" based landing gear spring. The primary advantages are that it would reduce weight a LITTLE, and reduce drag a LITTLE, and cost a LITTLE less to build. If bungees become scarce then there's another advantage.

The tailwheel version is lighter, period. LSA weight limits drive a lot of decisions, some of which have killed people. LSA weight limits have confounded and angered some very very successful light airplane designers, like VanGrunsven. So the 15 or 18 pounds that is saved by a tailwheel (and ANOTHER 2+ pounds using a composite buggy spring on the tail instead of steel harvested from the Titanic wreck) is well worth the slight nuisance of having to learn how to fly it with a tailwheel.

It is very possible to build a 750 pound LSA Taylorcraft derivative, even using the basic existing fuselage/wing/tail structure. Save 7-10 pounds switching to electronic ignition. Save 15 pounds using a composite prop. Save 10-15 pounds using a carbon spring gear. Save 10 pounds using the Stewart Systems fabric method. Save 5-6 pounds using composite door frames and thin plexiglas patroller doors. Have the option to save another 30 pounds by leaving the starter and generator off (even the light stuff) and just a smaller 2 pound battery to run your whiz-bang low-drain radio.

IMHO the F-22 is too heavy for LSA? I know that LSA was not a primary requirement of this discussion but it should have been. The market for LSA airplanes is larger than the market for non-LSA airplanes in this category.

Anyway, we're talking fantasy here of course. Someone who wanted to actually build airplanes like this should start off by doing all those mods as STC modifications to existing airframes.There's plenty of half-dead carcasses laying around at airports which could be rebuilt using these mods, and plenty more that owners might want to rebuild with these ideas. If it turned out THAT good, then someone could start talking about building new ones. But there could be a hundred or two of these hotrods built up using STC's a lot sooner than a new airplane production certificate. THAT's something the factory could consider... because they have a leg up on having STC's issued using the factory data they own.

Bill