Most Bang for the Buck

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
10,522
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
That particular Taylorcraft is NOT LSA compliant.

It has the "Model 19" conversion, which is easily identifiable by the longer cowling (4 inch longer engine mount to make room for the starter and balance the additional baggage capacity) and the larger baggage compartment (rear windows).

Although it's been a few years since I did this, IIRC when you buy the "Gilberti/Harer" STC (now owned and operated by Terry Bowden in TX) you have the option of either:

1) Adding 85 HP to a stock T-craft, keeping the short engine mount and small fabric baggage sack, no starter or generator, and having a gross weight of 1280 which is legal LSA (that's what I did), or;

2) Adding the 85HP engine with the starter & generator. This requires a longer engine mount and cowling, and allows you to put in the much larger "dog playpen" baggage compartment. Moving the engine forward allows the extra baggage weight as well as the gigantic old Delco or Prestolite starter. The gross weight goes to 1500 pounds, well outside of LSA.

The wing spar mods are the same, the fuel system mods are the same.

The Model 19 conversion adds utility to the Taylorcraft but it ruins a lot of the "sportscar handling" of the stock T-craft because it is adding mass further away from the CG.

The T-craft in the picture has the longer engine mount and cowl, and has the larger rear windows that go along with the big baggage box. Unless I'm missing something very strange, or forgetting something very significant, the STC does not allow you to put in the big baggage compartment and long engine mount... and still leave the gross at 1280.

One-shot field approval... maybe. Not many FAA inspectors out there today that can tell one T-craft from another... probably.
 
Last edited:

wildhorsesracing

Active Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
34
So many planes, so many choices - one man's perfect plane is another man's junk. I'll play along:

Certified: Stinson 108-n
Experimental Fun: Hatz Biplane or Cub Derivative or Breezy
Experimental Fast: RV-4 or Varieze
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
94
Location
Madera, California U.S.A.
That particular Taylorcraft is NOT LSA compliant.

It has the "Model 19" conversion, which is easily identifiable by the longer cowling (4 inch longer engine mount to make room for the starter and balance the additional baggage capacity) and the larger baggage compartment (rear windows).

Although it's been a few years since I did this, IIRC when you buy the "Gilberti/Harer" STC (now owned and operated by Terry Bowden in TX) you have the option of either:

1) Adding 85 HP to a stock T-craft, keeping the short engine mount and small fabric baggage sack, no starter or generator, and having a gross weight of 1280 which is legal LSA (that's what I did), or;

2) Adding the 85HP engine with the starter & generator. This requires a longer engine mount and cowling, and allows you to put in the much larger "dog playpen" baggage compartment. Moving the engine forward allows the extra baggage weight as well as the gigantic old Delco or Prestolite starter. The gross weight goes to 1500 pounds, well outside of LSA.

The wing spar mods are the same, the fuel system mods are the same.

The Model 19 conversion adds utility to the Taylorcraft but it ruins a lot of the "sportscar handling" of the stock T-craft because it is adding mass further away from the CG.

The T-craft in the picture has the longer engine mount and cowl, and has the larger rear windows that go along with the big baggage box. Unless I'm missing something very strange, or forgetting something very significant, the STC does not allow you to put in the big baggage compartment and long engine mount... and still leave the gross at 1280.

One-shot field approval... maybe. Not many FAA inspectors out there today that can tell one T-craft from another... probably.
 

Rhino

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
1,978
Location
KTHA
Of course you always do the wing modification as necessary when wings are open, however, I was told install C-85 keep markings A-65 @ 2300 and not C-85 @ 2575 and you did not have to modify fuel system.
Just as an FYI, when you quote a post, all you need do is add your text directly after the quoted text (underneath where it says /QUOTE). There's no need to create an extra post.
 

Kyle Boatright

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2012
Messages
1,423
Location
Marietta, GA
Tailwind or Hiperbipe. Both offer unmatched performance for the paltry buy in.
Have you (or others on the forum) flown the Tailwind much? An acquaintance of mine with a fair amount of RV and Sonex time had one briefly and described its characteristics as "nasty" or something like that. He thought the RV and Sonex had much more friendly low speed characteristics.
 

wildhorsesracing

Active Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
34
Have you (or others on the forum) flown the Tailwind much? An acquaintance of mine with a fair amount of RV and Sonex time had one briefly and described its characteristics as "nasty" or something like that. He thought the RV and Sonex had much more friendly low speed characteristics.
I was seriously looking at a Tailwind to purchase and after a lengthy discussion with the owner about it's flying characteristics I decided not to buy it. It is also very CG sensitive.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
16,810
Location
Memphis, TN
Tailwinds are all over the place in performance. Steve Wittman taught his first wife to fly in his. There is a 600 lb gross difference in Wittman’s first and a regular W10. There are people flying W10s 400 lbs over book gross. Wittman built his O&O which was essentially a O-470 powered W10. There is a lot to cover with a Tailwind.

It was designed to follow Wittman’s Buster to races as parts hauler, so it’s a cross country Cassutt, not a Bonanza. It’s all relative. Betty Skelton wanted to fly Wittman’s Tailwind, which she did end up owning, but he didn’t believe she was competent to fly it. She let him fly her Pitts. It completely surprised him, that he felt a little embarrassed that he didn’t think she could fly his plane well.

Wittman had control reaction off center fast ratio, although actual control is about Cessna 150 like. Pre autopilot, he flew with his fingertips like a joystick in route. Just like any airplane, you should be able to fly it. Smart people try and get transition training. Instead of trying to cowboy it.

All planes have personality just like people. Some don’t match and some are locked.
 

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
5,542
Location
Mojave, Ca
I have 400 hours of Hiperbipe time and admit its a bit of a handfull, but honest once you make your peace with it. Its a comfortable, roomy and relatively fast cross country hauler that will lift anything you can close the doors on.

I have flown a Tailwind once, an O-300 powered W-8, and found it to be honest and docile. Certainly more responsive than a typical Cessna, but easy to handle.
 

Doran Jaffas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2019
Messages
612
Have you (or others on the forum) flown the Tailwind much? An acquaintance of mine with a fair amount of RV and Sonex time had one briefly and described its characteristics as "nasty" or something like that. He thought the RV and Sonex had much more friendly low speed characteristics.
I have 160 plus hrs in mine. 0-200A upfront. I have a video that I posted a couple 2 or 3 months ago. That may help you. You tube my name and it will come up. It's the ONLY one with me personally in front of the camera.
 

Attachments

Doran Jaffas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2019
Messages
612
Have you (or others on the forum) flown the Tailwind much? An acquaintance of mine with a fair amount of RV and Sonex time had one briefly and described its characteristics as "nasty" or something like that. He thought the RV and Sonex had much more friendly low speed characteristics.
This may be a double post but it didn't look like my 1st one went through as far as a reply goes. I have a 160 plus hours in mine.
You can YouTube my name to come up with a video that I put out a couple of months ago. It is the only one with me in it personally for reasons I will not get into here. Also rather than posting all the information here and using up a lot of space about about 10 minutes of a video will tell you about my experience anyway. Footnote, I absolutely thoroughly enjoy the airplane.
 

speedracer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
315
How about a Long EZ? A friend recently sold his 290 G (with D2 pistons for 135 HP) powered one for $26,000.00. The buyer had never ridden in one, let alone flown one. He hopped into it and flew it 200 miles to home. I've flown it around 20 hours, and it cruises at 170 MPH, an average, utilitarian Long EZ. The buyer calls my friend every couple weeks and tells him how much he LOVES that airplane.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
14,907
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
Have you (or others on the forum) flown the Tailwind much? An acquaintance of mine with a fair amount of RV and Sonex time had one briefly and described its characteristics as "nasty" or something like that. He thought the RV and Sonex had much more friendly low speed characteristics.
It would be better if your friend could actually describe and quantify the characteristics that he didn’t like. Some things that are described as “nasty” may be something different to another pilot.


BJC
 
Top