Taylor Monoplane.

[FREMY JEAN CLAUDE]

Hi Pilots,

I am considering to built a Taylor Monoplane, I find informations about the
handling of this 'petite craft', especially on landing, stall speed, cross
wind fighting and all these little things that make worry to a medium
(pretty low) skill pilot.
I find information about the construction , the way to loss weight and so
on.

Thank's

Jean Claude from Paris

[PureEmotion]

You may try Thomas Phillipa's 2 seat design based of the Tailor
http://tp-3.wds.net.au/.... but be careful for Thomas, he can be a hard man
to get on with.

If interested, there are a group of builders at
http://www.communityzero.com/tp-3/

Good luck.
Trevor

"FREMY JEAN CLAUDE" <jeanclau...@worldonline.fr> wrote in message
news:aeb1n6$fr$1...@news2adm.admin.in.none.net...

[Ryan Young]

there is a brief commentary on this airplane on my web page of VW powered
homebuilts http://users.lmi.net/~ryoung/Sonerai/rant.htm

Here is some more, from the first US Builder (contact me privately for his
E-mail):

> Ryan
>
> Of course I never built a Jodel so I do not really know the answer to your
> question but there is nothing very dificult to building the Taylor Mono. No
> special jig fixtures or anything like that. The Jodel does have that big one
> piece spar but it may not be that rough.
>
> The Taylor, as designed, has a box spar and the inconvenience of having the
> gear on the outer wing panel so that it is only possible to have the airplane
> on the gear if the wing panels are installed. I built a "I" beam spar instead
> which was pretty simple to do. I also moved the wing attach point outboard 2
> or 3 ribs so that I could install the landing gear on the center section
> instead of the wing panel. I do not know if the drawings were ever changed to
> show this due to John Taylor's untimely death but all of the Monos that were
> being built at that time were modified per my lead. Bob Ladd extended the
> center section even one more bay on his and put a retractable gear in the
> center section. I think that it is still possible to buy drawings from Bob
> Ladd for the retractable gear but if not I do have a set that could be copied.
>
> The Mono is a much faster airplane than the Jodel on the same power, perhaps
> as much as 20 mph faster.
>
> As for comparing either to my present project it is pretty hard to compare
> wood construction to metal construction. There are many arguments in favor of
> each. Louis Armstrong from Liberal Kansas decided that he preferred metal
> construction and built an all metal Taylor Mono.
>
> You pays yur money and takes yur choice.
>
> Hugh
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Ryan Young
>
> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:58 PM
>
> To: HUGH Beckham
>
> Subject: Re: A minor correction
>
>
> I corrected those two minor points.
>
> I've recently been looking into yet another French effort at cheap
> homebuilding, "Le Blue Citron", two designs by Jean Poitier.
>
> http://users.lmi.net/~ryoung/Sonerai/RSA_dossier.htm
>
> So, I got to thinking, maybe somebody should translate his plans into English.
> Hmmm, Frank Rogers of Australia has done that for the Jodel's, maybe he could
> be persuaded.
>
> So, I started looking at the Jodels again. Other than that box spar, they
> look pretty simple - and Frank has ALREADY translated those plans. Maybe
> there are already enough wooden 1 and 2 place VW powered designs out there...
>
> Anyway, I do have a question - do you have any insight on the difficulty of
> building a Taylor Monoplane vs a Jodel D9? Can you compare either to your
> present project?
>
> Highest Regards,
> --
> Ryan R Young
> Oakland, CA
> http://users.lmi.net/~ryoung
>
>
> From: "HUGH Beckham"
> Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 19:22:03 -0600
> To: <ryo...@lmi.net>
> Subject: A minor correction
>
>
>
> Ryan,
>
> Back in January I sent you information regarding the installation of a VW
> engine in a Taylor Mono and the early history of the VW engine in aircraft in
> the US.
>
> To be completely honest, I had forgotten about it until today when the article
> was called to my attention because one of the Sonex builders suggested that
> all Sonex builders read it and attached the link to his letter.
>
> I would like to correct one small error and that is that the airplane, as well
> as the Disney character, was named "FIFINELLA". Because the airplane was known
> all over the world by the name Fifinella, many who remember her may not
> realize that it is the same airplane referred to in your article.
>
> As regards my "donating the plans to EAA", you are correct in your assumption
> that what I donated were the plans for the engine conversion, not the Taylor
> Mono.
>
> My best personal regards,
>
> Hugh
>
>
> Hugh and Merry Beckham
> Home of Sonex N77ZZ

--
Ryan R Young
Oakland, CA
http://users.lmi.net/~ryoung

[Stealth Pilot]

I quote from a builder's guide

with 45hp VW engine
span 21'
RAF 48 aerofoil.
length 15'
wing area 76 sq ft
empty wt 450lb max
loaded weight 700 lb
wing loading 9.2 lb/sq ft
mas speed 104mph
cruise speed 92 mph
stall speed 43 mph
climb 650 ft per min.
range 230 miles (6 gallon tank)
load factor +/- 4.5g at 700lb

John Taylor was a scrounger :-)
his main wheels were old Avro Anson tailwheels. :-) (i like that)
prototype flew with a 37 hp JAP engine. converted VW engines also
suitable.

I see you asked about construction....
his original design objective was a fuselage costing under 100 english
pounds. 3 part wing in wood. spar ribs and leading edge ply D box with
fabric for the rest. wing centre section integral with fuz.
fuz has ply covered wooden structure.
main undercart is cantilever legs with coilsprings.

there is one that has been flying for years in australia.

hope that helps
Stealth Pilot

[Dan Thomas]

I once spent three years of spare time, on and off, trying to rebuild
a Taylor Monoplane. It was hopeless; the builder had used Aerolite but
had not adhered to temperature considerations and the glue had dried
rather than properly set. He had also not paid attention to wing
alignment when gluing up the D-section skins and the wings were badly
twisted. It must have been a stinker in the air. He had used a
McCulloch 72 HP drone engine, derated to 50 HP through compression
reduction, and this thing vibrated so bad that the glue joints in the
forward fuselage were all busted. The airplane had about six hours on
it when I got it.
The airplane is not particularly simple. There are plenty of
metal fittings in the wing attachment, and their alignment is
critical. Ken Rand's
KR-1 started life as a Taylor Monoplane, and he simplified some
things. His retractable gear was simpler than Taylor's fixed gear,
though not as strong. The KR-1 is a lot faster, but I don't think any
of the flight controls are mass balanced, and that makes me nervous.

Dan