NEW Taylorcraft design features

[3Dreaming]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

I like these old airplanes in original condition, but if you are going to build a new airlpane with a new engine I would go with a Rotax 912. The 100hp would have some serious yank power on a 750 pound airplane. I have been around these now for a couple years on another LSA, and they seem to be a really good engine. Plus you have all that new technoligy. Tom

[Dusty]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

For really short work, short final is right at stall. The idea is to arrive where you're going with exactly not enough energy to fly anymore.

The only airspeed indicator I trust at high AOA is in my pants.

I wonder how CF compares to TI for gear legs?

I suspect lots of people are like 3D and want their 1940s airplane to just be a 1940s airplane. I think a new airplane would sell better than the STCs to modernize an old airframe.

I know nothing about them, but understand that there are two problems with the Rotax: It won't swing a big prop, and you need a battery to get it going. Either of those is a dealbreaker for my conditions. Maybe it would swing something like a 76" MT, and maybe there's a way to hand start it - if so, I think it's a fabulous idea. I'd have no problem rebuilding the gearbox every year or something if that's what it took to turn the big prop, and hand starting could be as complicated as necessary as long as it was possible.

Do the electronic ignitions suffer from requiring a battery?

I had a hot C-90 swinging a 74/40 prop on an 840 pound airplane, and it was quite the performer - both for takeoff and climb, and for dealing with things like overflow or deep snow on the ground. Lose another hundred pounds, add good brakes and flaps/VGs/whatever to deal with landing slower, and you've really got something!

[RobertP]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

I accept what you say about the enviroment in which you live like needing ski's or floats but if you wish to move forward in the mass market to make money ( which is all about at the end of the day! ) It has all to do with a good nosewheel, Nav coms and good looks! The rest is history IMHO! Sorry to create a row!

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

Got to agree that the ASI is useless at very low speeds, BUT, I have NO IDEA what speed I am at when I'm slow. It's about the feel, not the indicator needle.

The reason Forrest can fly so slow is he has practiced it. I have been amazed at how FAST we are going when some guys think we are on the edge of a stall. The ailerons get really soft and mushy long before the stall. Get some altitude (review your stall spin procedures first), pull the power and wheel back and feel the aileron sloppiness. Cruise around like that for a while and get used to it. You can fly a LOT slower than you think. A Taylorcraft is VERY predictable. Don't feel the ailerons to approach stall speed.

One thing I should have put on my list of things for a new Taylorcraft was an AoA. That's one thing I really want to experiment with once I get my plane back up. Now THAT is something that needs to get an STC for all the Taylorcrafts. Remember that wings always stall at the same angle of attack, not airspeed. If you know the AoA you can fly around safely all day MUCH closer to the stall.

Hank

[Dusty]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

RobertP: It's also about wheels. Floats can work very well on a nosedragger.

I think successful marketing requires filling an open niche. So, I ask again: what sets a nosedragger Taylorcraft apart from the eleventy bajillion LSA nosedraggers already on the market?

It won't be more STOL-capable than something like a Zenith 701. It won't be faster than an RV, nor burn less fuel. Being a "full-sized" airplane with full-sized tubes isn't very important for a nosedragger, because you'll pull the nosewheel off long before you stress anything else. It won't stand out as particularly sexy, except for a small "It's kind of like a Taylorcraft, but newer" niche.

However, compared to the full-size LSA taildraggers, most of which are 900-pound Cub clones, it stands out. Most of the STOL capability (assuming flaps/VGs/etc. work). Faster. Burns less gas. Just as tough. 150 pounds lighter. What's not to love?

I won't argue that much of the market wants gizmos and doodads, but why not make them optional and modular? That way, I can have my 700 pound performer with an oil pressure gauge and an altimeter, and you can have your 820-pound velour-and-leather lined VOR/DME/Loran/autopilot equipped space shuttle with 6 landing lights and 15 flat panels, all run by dual 100-amp alternators and 3 batteries - or anything in the middle.

[jim cooper]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

I have about 3200 hours in taildraggers, 195 cessna 180 cessna, champs, cubs, super cubs, etc. I do not or have not flown in Alaska so I never got in the habit of slowing any airplane Waaaaay down on final. It bothers my common sense department. In a T-Craft I'm doing probably 55-60 over the fence. The field is 2200 feet, asphalt with grass option which I use in cross wind. I usually full stop half way down the runway. I never....NEVER use a long final and like to slip an aircraft so flaps or the lack of don't bother me that much. I would be uncomfortable in the 65hp T-Craft in less than 2000 feet with obstacles at both ends. I don't think theres any substitue for power. While I am NOT a high time pilot and probably have become set in my ways, I'm alive so far while many people I used to fly with are not due to misjudgement, usually weather related, or depending on an older aircraft to exceed its obvious limitations. Personally I think slowing a T-Craft down to around fifty, say a half mile out with a 60 yearold engine and carb. is above my pay grade . Hanging on the prop, nose high landing in very short field is for much younger pilots than I. They usually get away with it.....until.....JC

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

Hey Jim, I agree it is STUPID to play close to stall and close to the ground unless you are REALLY familiar with your plane or REALLY have to in a bad situation.

My instructor made me fly within a few MPH of the stall for quite a while to really get comfortable with it, but we did it about three screw-ups high, and I DID screw up a few times. Hey, everybody should take some spin training, right?

As for slips, when my instructor asked me to do one the first time I just remember he grabbed the top of the panel and said something I don't remember, followed by, "Well, I guess YOU aren't afraid of slips!" I LOVE them! When the whole plane gets that low "rumble" and you get light in the seat looking out the side window as you come down like an elevator, well, it don't get no better. Punch the rudder at the end and arrest the descent for a smooth light touch down.

All it takes is practice (and learning is a sailplane first kind of helps). If the Taylorcraft didn't have those nice big fuselage sides, spoilers would have been on my list. Just like a throttle with an minus sign in front of it!

Hank

This talk is REALLY making me want to get my plane back up. I need to put in for an extra day off this week!

[Dusty]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

Good advice, Hank.

Once you get comfortable with that, add some power - maybe 1500RPM or so. The propwash will help push your tail down, along with moving more air across your wing, and you can fly a fair bit slower. If you start climbing you had way too much energy to start with - you're too fast. You should be able to feel the turbulence across the wingroot bouncing your tailfeathers around, and that's amplified with some power.

Once you get comfortable with that, go land the same way. Get to the point where the airplane is just barely (but still completely and comfortably) flying as you get to the surface, in exactly the spot of your choosing, every time, and you're a way better T-Cart pilot than I!

Do please be aware that if you get too slow too high you will NOT have enough power to arrest your descent rate, and you will, at the very least, give your bungees a good workout and come away with an entirely different perspective pertaining to the float characteristics of that wing. I'm not an instructor, and I'd never let you land like this with me in the airplane if I were. Be careful out there.

Jim - that's not my style of flying, but I certainly respect it. I would only add that, along with respecting the aircraft's limitations, you have to know and respect your own. I never figured out how to slow down a Taylorcraft enough to go many of the places I go with my Champ, and I have cubdriver friends who regularly land in places I wouldn't pick as survivable crash sites. We all have different limitations, and I'd like to think I've never bent an airplane only because I know the limitations of myself and my airplane.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

Just remember, practice THREE MISTAKES HIGH! You may stall, spin, screw up the recovery and go into a second stall! Make sure there is still enough altitude to recover!

It's about PRACTICE, not scaring yourself.

Hank

[Ron Coleman]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

I'm with Dusty. I would add a couple of notes. Rudder. Fly with the rudder. Let's hear some opinion about that. Also you can tell when you are in the ball park when you can transition into ground effect without picking up speed while maintaining the desired rate of descent. Although I have 1200' of usable runway, I usually use 400' to 500' except when it is hot or when I am really loaded. I notice that when I T-Craft visitors they usually roll out a little longer than I do, but thay are off of the ground in the same area than I am.

I also notice that when a cessna 150 comes to visit they use most of the runway to get stopped and use about 750/800' to get off and they are always empty or they won't come in.

Ronc

[RobertP]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

I think Bill made a very valid point about any new aircraft fitting in the LSA class as that certainly seems to be the way to go, certainly in the UK and it probably shoots down my case for the F22 series as the MTOW for my F22A is 1750 in the normal cat with 200 lb in the baggage ( reduced to 190 if the tail cylinder weight is installed and 1380 lbs in the utility class. I don't know what your weight limit is for LSA in the States but I guess it is less than that? The 200lb baggage looks good until you calculate the weight and ballance with two good size adults and fuel ( 20 USG per side ) then it is no so clever but useful non the less!

[VictorBravo]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

Our LSA category is 1320 pounds. The previous comments back and forth about a 750 pound ideal empty weight are a perfect match for this gross weight. We know the structure is safe at this weight, and almost 600 pounds of useful load would make it a much more usable light utility aircraft than some other LSA airplanes.

There are simply too many "returning" older pilots, medically challenged pilots, and new "pilot-lite" potential customers to ignore. It HAS to be LSA compliant in order to keep your market as large as it can be.

[Ragwing nut]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

This entire thread is exactly why people like Harry Ingram try to build airplanes THINKING someone will buy them. Why would someone buy a $70K Taylorcraft when they could buy the same airplane restored for $25K. Get right down to it, I Have not found anyone yet willing to pay me $50K to rebuild a Taylorcraft either, which is still $20k cheaper than what a new one was priced at. Only a few have been willing to give that to have Cubs done.

Also need to take into account when you get into those prices, you move into a completely different class of aircraft. You think I am going to pay $70k for a new Taylorcraft when I can go buy a late model Bonanza for the same money? Hell no. I can think of a handful other antique airplanes I would rather have for that kind of money as well.

It is always nice to dream, but unless you need a bush plane, few to none are going to give the kind of money that will be required to put the Taylorcraft back into production. A broken record I have been playing since Taylorcraft was still in Lockhaven and we were factory direct parts distributors.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

Mike, you are absolutely right, but if you look back, this thread IS about dreaming. We made note early on that this would be a homebuilt based on a 40s Taylorcraft.
I think we all pretty much think the factory needs to build PARTS. If they get to a point where there are enough parts to build an airplane (and I was running the factory) I would build ONE airplane, FOR ME to fly to airshows and brag about how my factory provides every part needed to make a complete Taylorcraft.
If someone walked up to me with a wad of cash, I would build one for him to order. If you have all the parts in stock (or the tooling to make them quickly) custom builds are the way to go, but you will always survive on parts sales unless the economy REALLY changes. Taylorcraft will only make a go of it as a garage industry staffed by enthusiasts (read that people who don't care if they are paid) until the economy really turns around, if ever.
Hank

If the new factory decides to build airplanes, we need to start putting side money for the foundation to buy it at the next Sheriff's sale.

[Ragwing nut]

Re: NEW Taylorcraft design features

I know it is about dreaming, and if I am dreaming, I wish they would just build the damn parts to keep these planes aloft. Been dreaming that for 20 years now.