For sale 1946 Taylorcraft BC-12D

[N95334]

With great sorry I have to sell my damaged Taylorcraft.
I just can't afford to fix it.
It was flying but a friend ran it into a Citabria. Wing tip was damaged but fixed and recovered that.
The main problem is the engine and prop? The prop struck the wing strut fitting and damaged the alum prop beyond repair. Now the engine is the unknown. With a sudden stop it will have to be torn down and inspected. I just fixed her up with all new glass and rudder cables and interior. All new instruments. Fabric is kinda old but always been hangered.
Has new sealed struts from Alaska. After retirement I just don't have the funds to fix her up. The last annual the A/I said need to get new mags and tailwheel also.
Dennis McGuire
Jacksonville Fla
904-735-5140.
[email protected]

[crispy critter]

Re: For sale 1946 Taylorcraft BC-12D

Dennis, I sent you a private message.

[astjp2]

Re: For sale 1946 Taylorcraft BC-12D

There is absolutely NO FAA document that says you have to tear down the engine, dial the crank, if its good, fly it. Tim

[Ragwing nut]

Re: For sale 1946 Taylorcraft BC-12D

There is on a Lycoming, no requirement on Continental. Depending on how bad the prop is bent would depend on whether I tore it down.

[astjp2]

Re: For sale 1946 Taylorcraft BC-12D

So what FAR or AD is that?

There is on a Lycoming, no requirement on Continental. Depending on how bad the prop is bent would depend on whether I tore it down.

[Ragwing nut]

Re: For sale 1946 Taylorcraft BC-12D

So what FAR or AD is that?

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/support/publications/service-bulletins/pdfs/SB533A.pdf

[astjp2]

Re: For sale 1946 Taylorcraft BC-12D

AS an IA, when did service bulletins become mandatory? That is a Lycoming requirement, NOT AN FAA REQUIREMENT!

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: For sale 1946 Taylorcraft BC-12D

If it was my engine I would find a good A&P/IA and tear it down for inspection myself and rebuild it. I did that with a long stored engine that was preserved after a major. My thinking was (and is) that if the engine was good, it would cost me my time and a seal kit plus something for the "professional". If I found something wrong, well, I didn't want to be flying the engine anyway.
It turned out that the engine had gotten an "aerosol overhaul" and looked pretty, but was full of JUNK. The valve seats weren't even cut and one was pressed in crooked! This engine HAD RUN, and ran pretty well, with some smoke that a mechanic said was just because there was preservative still in the chambers that was burning out. The low compression on a cylinder was explained as a sticking valve that had to "loosen up".
I ended up going to the FAA to report the IA who had done the major and was told the number in the log did not match the name and they had NO IA by that name. Also the IA number (not the name) in the log was for a real IA in Connecticut, but the paperwork said the work was done in either Texas or Oklahoma (been a long time so my memory is rusty on the details).
Long story short, I majored the engine, and the cost WAS NOT that bad. Now I know what I have and I learned a lot in the process. If you can work on your car engine, you won't have trouble with our engines if you have a good mechanic looking over your shoulder and a manual to go by. It was FUN.
Hank

[astjp2]

Re: For sale 1946 Taylorcraft BC-12D

Hank, what does that have to do with FAA MANDATORY teardown?

[M Towsley]

Re: For sale 1946 Taylorcraft BC-12D

I just cut this from another forum. I think it comes down to common sense, liability, insurance requirements, etc.

A prop strike is? Is it a sudden engine stoppage regardless of the cause? Is it an occasion when a prop blade strikes a foreign object and the engine continues to run? Is it hitting a rock or other loose object with a prop blade while operating on a runway or taxiway? Is it when something or someone impacts a prop blade when the engine isn't running?

The only pertinent F.A.A. definition that I have been able to find is in Advisory Circular 43.13-1B. It defines a sudden engine stoppage as; stopping an engine in one revolution or less for any reason, be it from propeller impact or from an engine failure of some sort. Both major engine manufacturer's have service literature that explains the desired course of action after accidental propeller damage and, in the case of Teledyne Continental, defines what their interpretation of a propeller strike is.

T.C.M.'s Service Bulletin 96-11, in a nutshell, says that if a propeller must be removed from the aircraft to be repaired following a propeller blade impact of any sort or if the engine physically lost R.P.M.'s from the incident, then the engine has experienced a propeller strike and it should be removed from service and completely disassembled and thoroughly inspected for damage from the incident.

Textron Lycoming, in their Service Bulletin 533, takes the approach that the safest procedure is to take the engine apart for inspection following any incident involving propeller blade damage. However, they have the caveat that the inspecting mechanic may override that position and return the engine to service without disassembly and inspection if he feels that it is the prudent and responsible thing to do.

Textron Lycoming has also published Service Bulletin 475B which requires, in the event that the engine has experienced a propeller strike, inspection and possible rework of the accessory gear train as well as the rear of the engine's crankshaft. Compliance with this service bulletin is mandatory in the eyes of the F.A.A. by A.D. note 91-14-22, if and only if, the engine has experienced a sudden engine stoppage not a propeller strike. It should be noted that to comply with A.D. note 91-14-22, the engine does not need to be completely disassembled and that access to the accessory gear train can be accomplished, in most cases, with the engine still installed in the aircraft.

What this all boils down to is that in the case of any accidental damage to a propeller installed on a aircraft operating under Part 91 of the F.A.R.'s, it is up to the inspecting technician to determine if the engine should continue in service without total disassembly and inspection. A Textron Lycoming engine, that is being operated on a Part 91 aircraft, that had a sudden engine stoppage, not a propeller strike, must comply with A.D. note 91-14-22 and Service Bulletin 475B at a minimum.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: For sale 1946 Taylorcraft BC-12D

I have always done maintenance at more than one level.
The first level is what is REQUIRED for me to legally operate the plane.
The second level is anything ADDITIONAL that someone suggests that I don't know for sure is bogus.
The third level is anything my A&P or IA suggests (unless it is also bogus, in which case we are in for a long discussion until I agree)
The forth level is anything (and I mean ANYTHING) I deem is needed to satisfy myself that the plane is safe.

I HAVE TO DO the first
I do the second because I have never known anyone I couldn't learn from
The third level I will talk about, but I DON'T fly till I accept or reject the suggestion with good cause. I have NEVER gotten a bad suggestion from MY A&P or IA, but there ARE idiots out there with a piece of paper from the FAA. It doesn't make them right.
The forth level is because I can. If I don't think it is right, I don't fly it. No one MAKES you fly, it's YOUR decision..

When I tore the majored engine down it was a number 4 level. It just didn't feel right. EVERYONE who looked at the engine said I was nuts, but NO ONE can MAKE me fly. The FAA said it was OK, so did my mechanics and the guys on the field. My engine was not a mandatory tear down, I did it because I wanted to, and I am REALLY glad I did.

Hank

When your instincts tell you to do something SAFER than what is required, DO IT. When expediency tells you to skip something that is needed, go back to bed and live to fly tomorrow.

[magman]

Re: For sale 1946 Taylorcraft BC-12D

For the record AD 91-14-22 was superceded by AD 2004-10-14 as per MSB 475C.

It mandates that if the prop is damaged in a way that requires removal then the AD must be complied with.

As M Towsley stated it can be done with the engine installed ( on wing?) in most cases.

Included is the note that if the Hangar Door damages the prop which then must be removed then the

Acc Case must be pulled as well.

MANY folks find they disagree with AD's when it affects THEM.

Often there is little interest in NPRM's until the case is settled.

Many of the "alphabets" ignore this so my belief is the Type Clubs & forums are

the ones to encourage folks to participate in the process.

I believe AD 87-26-02 ( Cessna Seats- now superceded) affected the most aircraft of any AD.

It seems there were something like 6 comments.

[astjp2]

Re: For sale 1946 Taylorcraft BC-12D

Hank, you still have not justified MANDATORY FAA requirements, "I wants" are ok for those that can afford them, for those that dont may not be able to afford your "levels" of maintenance. I bet if you were paying $80 per hour, your attitude would change. I can guarantee that most people on this board would call me a crook if I included some of your detailed work during a standard annual. Most owners I know want to fly, not massage it to death.

As an IA, I follow the regulations, if the owner desires, then Service Bulletins are included. The AD for the accessory case only requres the gear hardware to be checked. It is not requred to do a complete tear down. Tim

I have always done maintenance at more than one level.
The first level is what is REQUIRED for me to legally operate the plane.
The second level is anything ADDITIONAL that someone suggests that I don't know for sure is bogus.
The third level is anything my A&P or IA suggests (unless it is also bogus, in which case we are in for a long discussion until I agree)
The forth level is anything (and I mean ANYTHING) I deem is needed to satisfy myself that the plane is safe.

I HAVE TO DO the first
I do the second because I have never known anyone I couldn't learn from
The third level I will talk about, but I DON'T fly till I accept or reject the suggestion with good cause. I have NEVER gotten a bad suggestion from MY A&P or IA, but there ARE idiots out there with a piece of paper from the FAA. It doesn't make them right.
The forth level is because I can. If I don't think it is right, I don't fly it. No one MAKES you fly, it's YOUR decision..

When I tore the majored engine down it was a number 4 level. It just didn't feel right. EVERYONE who looked at the engine said I was nuts, but NO ONE can MAKE me fly. The FAA said it was OK, so did my mechanics and the guys on the field. My engine was not a mandatory tear down, I did it because I wanted to, and I am REALLY glad I did.

Hank

When your instincts tell you to do something SAFER than what is required, DO IT. When expediency tells you to skip something that is needed, go back to bed and live to fly tomorrow.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: For sale 1946 Taylorcraft BC-12D

Tim, I think we are actually in agreement. You have to do what the feds say you have to do. If your A&P or IA wants more, but it is not supported by a regulatory requirement, you are free to go to another maintenance professional. There are minimum requirements he HAS to do, but the rest is open for discussion.
None of the rest of my levels are "required". I do them because I WANT to. Every time someone on this group finds something wrong with his plane, I look for it on mine. I don't have to, I want to. I also don't need a professional with me to do the great majority of them. When I do need a professional, I have friends with the tickets who will watch me to be sure I don't do something stupid.

My A&P/IA suggests a LOT of things when he does an annual. He usually has three lists, things he won't sign the annual unless I fix them, NOW (at least before I fly it again) things that will need fixing before the next annual (in his opinion) that I should watch and can take care of later, and things that just make him uncomfortable, but do not impact safety. There are generally some things he looks at me and asks why I am worried about it, but those are MY desires, not something that the feds require me to do. Good example was changing the plexi in the "D" window. The pilot can't even really see out of it, but I put new plexi in anyway, because I wanted to.

MANDATORY FAA requirements are just that, MANDATORY. I don't have to justify them, if I don't do them, the IA won't sign off my plane.

I must be missing something, why do you think I need to justify a mandatory inspection or tear down? If it is mandatory, you have to do it. I am not telling you to, the FAA is.

Hank

[swoeric]

Re: For sale 1946 Taylorcraft BC-12D

Im with tim on this one....Dial it and check the runout...get a wood prop till a metal one can be afforded.....maybe somebody in the tribe has something or a list of needed parts to get you in the air....besides wheres the buddy that wrecked it....over on the sc site folks ding something all the time.....those discussions are kept in pm's without n numbers for a reason.....then the group comes together to get the bird back in the air....this is similar to the purchase of aircraft without documentation of mods discussion .......were they done cleanly....factory appearance....do they make sense...then balance the odds that youll ever get checked...that they know what they are even looking at or care....we aren't dealing in citations as much as we are an under powered four wheeler....