Fuselage stretch mod for Taylor Monoplane

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

fly2kads

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
1,818
Location
Justin, TX
I have seen in a couple of places, for example, here:
Taylor Monoplanes of New Zealand (1)
that the Taylor Monoplanes built in New Zealand have had stretched fuselages. This blog article makes it sound like they just added one bay to the tail cone. Does anyone know anything about this mod, or how to get information about it? Is there any stretch of the forward fuselage to maintain the same c.g. location? I seem to recall that this mod was actually required, but now I can't find a reference to back that up.
 

Chris Matheny

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Nov 26, 2019
Messages
200
Location
St. Paris OH
The KR2s and KR2S (stretched) are based on the taylor mono plane. You may look into those as they are also commonly built with 2 additional bays compared to the original design these days.
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
8,558
Location
World traveler
New Zealand has pretty strict rules about changing designs, so I bet the SAANZ or the New Zealand CAA could provide you with details of the approved modifications to the Taylor Monoplane.

 

don january

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
3,096
Location
Midwest
Personally I would not worry about stretching the Fus. but would like to see it widened about 1-1/2"on each side. Chris Matheny has a good point. I have not come across any talk of stretching the Mono. I found there is other areas of the build that need attention or mods.
 

fly2kads

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
1,818
Location
Justin, TX
I may go ahead and contact the SAANZ, and see what they have to say. Thanks for the links, Matthew.

To clarify for those wondering, the purpose of the fuselage stretch was to make the plane a bit less sensitive in pitch. The aircraft, as designed, is pretty short, in keeping with the design goal of making it easy to build in a small space. A side effect is that it is known to be pretty sensitive to pitch input. An article from an early U.S. builder in EAA Sport Aviation advised to make first flights with ones hand only halfway up the stick.

This is just for my own curiosity, at this point.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
13,558
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
the purpose of the fuselage stretch was to make the plane a bit less sensitive in pitch.
I don’t know about the Taylor Monoplane, but most homebuilts are more responsive in pitch than most TC airplanes. We like them like that. If you are just beginning to fly, I encourage you to fly some homebuilts before changing a design.


BJC
 

Bill-Higdon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
1,455
Location
Salem, Oregon, USA
The KR2s and KR2S (stretched) are based on the taylor mono plane. You may look into those as they are also commonly built with 2 additional bays compared to the original design these days.
Operating from memory here IIRC the KR's were a short extra bay in front of the main spar & a longer extra bay behind the main spar
 

fly2kads

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
1,818
Location
Justin, TX
I don’t know about the Taylor Monoplane, but most homebuilts are more responsive in pitch than most TC airplanes. We like them like that. If you are just beginning to fly, I encourage you to fly some homebuilts before changing a design.


BJC
Like I said, I'm just curious. There are over 100 examples around the world flying as-designed, so it obviously works in its original form.
 

don january

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
3,096
Location
Midwest
Z-TAYOR 1.jpg This is the only one I've seen that appears to be stretched about one bay and ailerons look larger also
 

flitzerpilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2017
Messages
176
Location
Hirwaun, Aberdare, S.Wales, UK.
CF-CKE appears to have had a mega-stretch and the aileron actuation differs from the original which had underwing aileron pushrods only.

While the span-to-legth ratio of the basic JT-1 is relatively high, the broad chord (48") of the RAF 48 section offering limited CP travel with the pilot very close to the CG provides a stable platform, in my experience, throughout the performance envelope. The PFA (LAA) sanctioned a fuselage stretch on the JT-1 many years ago, which would possibly have allowed them to rescind the ban on flaps, but in stability terms 'clean' there's nothing wrong with the basic aeroplane. It had little or no stall warning but that never appeared to be a problem. But at least one pilot was killed performing a steep turn over his domicile when the aircraft departed without warning.
 

don january

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
3,096
Location
Midwest
CF-CKE also appears to have fuel tank in left root of the wing and possibly in both sides. I would like to see more info on this plane but have had no luck finding any. Its rather cool that the T-mono went from it's original form into a KR-1 then to the KR-2 next to the KR-2S. Who knows what the future will bring with this design ? :pilot:
 

T Taylor

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
9
The NZ Monos have a compulsory 14" tail only extension that has been copied by others and was to reduce pitch sensitivity slightly. John Gibson, a homebuilder and leading aerodynamicist on the Eurofighter found the PFA ban on flaps to be totally incorrect and managed to get them reinstated on the short fuselage as well so builders have that option.
Regarding cockpit widths, I advise present builders to add 2" to both Mono and Titch, the days of 150 lbs pilots 18" wide seem extinct!
 

T Taylor

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
9
I would just like to clarify that the KR1 was a blatant rip off of the Mono and no permission was asked for or given. The EAA took up the case but with the loss of Ken Rand no further action was taken. It was considered a very dangerous thing to do and not a bit like the WAR replicas, that were based on a common airframe from the start.
 

mcrae0104

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
4,017
Location
KBJC
I would just like to clarify that the KR1 was a blatant rip off of the Mono and no permission was asked for or given.
I see similarities. But you need to make your case with a few more details with a claim like that.
 

don january

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
3,096
Location
Midwest
I see similarities. But you need to make your case with a few more details with a claim like that.
mcrae0104 Take a look at my build log mainly because I'm using every part I can from my KR-2 and it's amazing just what fits and works
 

Kiwi_

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2020
Messages
6
New Zealand has pretty strict rules about changing designs, so I bet the SAANZ or the New Zealand CAA could provide you with details of the approved modifications to the Taylor Monoplane.

The NZ Monos have a compulsory 14" tail only extension that has been copied by others and was to reduce pitch sensitivity slightly. John Gibson, a homebuilder and leading aerodynamicist on the Eurofighter found the PFA ban on flaps to be totally incorrect and managed to get them reinstated on the short fuselage as well so builders have that option.
Regarding cockpit widths, I advise present builders to add 2" to both Mono and Titch, the days of 150 lbs pilots 18" wide seem extinct!
Solely for the benefit of any New Zealanders following this thread and considering the build of this fine little aeroplane ('airplane').

The examples of John Taylor's JT1 cited in above article and built in NZ seem to have been constructed in the late 1960's/early 1970's. The rules surrounding aircraft building in that era were very restrictive, as the Authority took responsibility for issuing an airworthiness certificate. This was very similar to the PFA/LAA in the UK nowadays, where amateur construction outside the provisions of SSDR is administratively onerous (for your own good of course).

The New Zealand regulatory model was restructured based upon the FAA model, with the introduction of Parts 21, 103 and 149 in the 1990's. There is an Experimental Category which allows one to do just that, and now New Zealand is one of the most straightforward countries in which to construct an amateur-built aircraft.

The corollary of all this is that in NZ there is no 'mandatory' tail extension required for the JT1, and you are at liberty to incorporate flaps, flaperons, spoilers or a deep fat fryer so long as you can justify the safety and integrity of the machine by test.

Regarding cockpit width on the JT2 Titch. My wife's completed Titch (ZK-RMC) has the 2" width increase, as does the Titch that she has under construction. It does indeed provide a far more comfortable working environment for those of us that appreciate beverages of the grain on a regular basis.
 

JimCrawford

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
Messages
16
Location
Oxford, UK
The NZ Monos have a compulsory 14" tail only extension that has been copied by others and was to reduce pitch sensitivity slightly. John Gibson, a homebuilder and leading aerodynamicist on the Eurofighter found the PFA ban on flaps to be totally incorrect and managed to get them reinstated on the short fuselage as well so builders have that option.
Regarding cockpit widths, I advise present builders to add 2" to both Mono and Titch, the days of 150 lbs pilots 18" wide seem extinct!
My Mono structure was complete and covered while the no flaps edit was in force so that's how it will stay. I believe that an aircraft which has a low stalling speed and low wing really needs an airbrake to kill any float after the flare. It certainly doesn't need to fly any slower. I believe the early Jodels have an arrangement where the flap deploys to a large deflection and acts more as an airbrake. This would allow a slightly higher approach speed, further away from the poor stall warning, and prevent a long float.

The fuselage extension to reduce pitch sensitivity is all well and good if the aircraft is in an early stage of build but tricky on a complete aircraft. Reports I've read suggest that the aircraft is sensitive but perfectly pleasant to fly, however if it was found to be too sensitive for the owner a solution to give more feel would be a simple retrofit of an anti-balance tab. This has been done on a couple of gliders I'm familiar with.

Jim
 

flitzerpilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2017
Messages
176
Location
Hirwaun, Aberdare, S.Wales, UK.
Hi Jim,

I found the JT-1 prototype very pleasant to fly but cursed the fact that the flaps had been banned. I had asked permission to use them as a single position airbrake only but this was denied. When I suffered an engine failure and was forced to change my chosen emergency landing field due to children running onto the threshold from a nearby gymkhana, it left me with a poor second choice of landing area, too short for comfort. Passing over some tall chimneys, the aircraft floated towards the far hedge and I used brake as much as I dared once I'd touched down, dropping the tail, braking, releasing, etc., to slow down. Eventually I rammed the hedge incurring mild damage. But if I'd had an airbrake I think I would have got away with it.

Lynn
 

T Taylor

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
9
Solely for the benefit of any New Zealanders following this thread and considering the build of this fine little aeroplane ('airplane').

The examples of John Taylor's JT1 cited in above article and built in NZ seem to have been constructed in the late 1960's/early 1970's. The rules surrounding aircraft building in that era were very restrictive, as the Authority took responsibility for issuing an airworthiness certificate. This was very similar to the PFA/LAA in the UK nowadays, where amateur construction outside the provisions of SSDR is administratively onerous (for your own good of course).

The New Zealand regulatory model was restructured based upon the FAA model, with the introduction of Parts 21, 103 and 149 in the 1990's. There is an Experimental Category which allows one to do just that, and now New Zealand is one of the most straightforward countries in which to construct an amateur-built aircraft.

The corollary of all this is that in NZ there is no 'mandatory' tail extension required for the JT1, and you are at liberty to incorporate flaps, flaperons, spoilers or a deep fat fryer so long as you can justify the safety and integrity of the machine by test.

Regarding cockpit width on the JT2 Titch. My wife's completed Titch (ZK-RMC) has the 2" width increase, as does the Titch that she has under construction. It does indeed provide a far more comfortable working environment for those of us that appreciate beverages of the grain on a regular basis.
Thank you for correcting that Kiwi, I wasn't aware of that change, the original was of course limited by the length of our lounge!
Great to make contact with you and Rhona again and seeing the Titch progressing nicely.
 
Top