Light Miniature Aircraft's 87% Taylorcraft
Rich Boling
used? Folding wings? Performance? Company web site? Builder web
site? Safety record? Cautions?
Bill Berle
You know, unless I am having a mushroom flashback or something, the cost
of a kitbuilt 87% scale T-craft is probably more than you'd have to
spend on a real T-craft. And having flown the T-craft, I cannot fathom
how uncomfortable the 87% size one must be. The real one isn't long on
comfort or visibility.
The LMA 87% kitplane may be a _perfectly good_ flying machine, BUT:
It will not ever be as safe as the original one. Mine has over 50 years
of safe and reliable flights under its belt, which may be slightly more
than the replica version???
It may indeed have folding wings, which would be a very unpleasant thing
to have happen.
Chances are that it will not cruise at 100 mph with two people in it on
4.5 gallons of gas, with any degree of XC reliability.
Just call up a bunch of people who are selling two-stroke powered
airplanes. Bring up the subject of trailers. Either the airplanes come
with a trailer, there is one available at extra cost, the kit comes with
a coupon for 10% off the trailer, the trailer manufacturers have special
models for you, the trialer needs to have this and that fixed up, there
are trailer plans that come with it, they know someone who has one for
sale, etc. Trailers are a normal part of the conversation, and are
normally affiliated with the airplanes.
Why would a powered airplane need a trailer?
If you have the gumption to really make a fair apples to apples
comparison, you might want to take a second look at buying a rag and
tube antique aircraft. I truly think building an airplane is great, and
I would love to do it myself. I rebuilt an Experimental once and would
be thrilled to build up a Kitfox or similar project. But I would not for
a minute think that I was saving any money or getting a better quality
airplane than an old humble T-cart or Chief.
Bill Berle
pierce day
> >
> > Anybody have any info about this kit? Cost? Build time? Engines
> > used? Folding wings? Performance? Company web site? Builder web
> > site? Safety record? Cautions?
Cautions? Yeah.
Rich, visit the "production facility" at Opa Locka airport, FL, right near
of Miami Lakes, FL. I was interested - once, until I went to the "Plant".
He's a nice old guy but the kits have "Gone over the hill with the brakes
fading fast".
Pierce
highflyer
> I would love to do it myself. I rebuilt an Experimental once and would
> be thrilled to build up a Kitfox or similar project. But I would not for
> a minute think that I was saving any money or getting a better quality
> airplane than an old humble T-cart or Chief.
>
> Bill Berle
Just to help put Bill's comment into perspective, one of the fellows
in our chapter has two projects. One is a Kitfox. It is ready to
fly. One is an aging Aeronca Chief.
The complete Chief project purchase and restoration to like new, cost
less than the Kitfox KIT.
The airplanes are very different. The Kitfox gets off the ground more
quickly, makes more noise, is draftier and no faster. It is quite
spritely to fly, but one would have to think seriously before taking
it on a long cross country.
The Chief takes a little more runway, doesn't climb quite as fast and
isn't quite as spritely on the controls. It is considerably more
comfortable to fly, and is MUCH more comfortable on a long cross
country flight.
Rich Boling
wrote:
But if most of my flying is not cross country flying and I don't want
to pay hangar fees and annual inspection fees does that swing the
advantage back toward the kitfox?
Bill Berle
> But if most of my flying is not cross country flying and I don't want
> to pay hangar fees and annual inspection fees does that swing the
> advantage back toward the kitfox?
Yes, it swings the advantage back toward the Kitfox by about a thousand
or two dollars a year. That is undeniably true. The lifespan and
overhaul interval of the two stroke engines begins to swing the pendulum
back toward the T-craft pretty fast, even considering the cheaper
overhaul of the Rotaxes.
Then, of course, there's the cost of one groundloop on a dirt road after
an engine failure in a 2 stroke. That costs anywhere between three grand
and a total loss (minus deductible), plus the 2 stroke engine rebuild.
The cost of hair coloring to compensate for the gray hair caused by the
landing, the cost of dry cleaning for the underwear, and the cost of the
ensuing divorce are not computed into this formula.
If you had the reliability of a 50 year old Continental engine, then
cross country might become a part of your flying.
Ask around a local airport, as to the cost of an "owner assisted annual"
on a Champ or Cub. You will find that it is not a very large expense.
I am not talking down the Kitfox out of disrespect, I would LOVE to have
one and I think it is a wonderful toy. The Kitfox has advantages that
are enjoyed by thousands of builders. But I will not turn my back on the
facts and I don't think anyone else should. The advantages of the Kitfox
are in the joy of building an airplane, and the saved space by folding
the wings. The Kitfox does NOT have a cost advantage compared to a used
airplane, and does not have a reliability advantage, even compared to a
50 year old Luscombe or Ercoupe. There is a performance advantage to the
Kitfox compared to Aeroncas and Cubs. The T-craft and Luscombe can hold
their own against the Kitfox in all but "power to weight"-based factors.
The Kitfox would have a tremendous advantage compared to any NEW
Taylorcraft, Cub, Luscombe, etc. that could be produced today.
Bill Berle
Respector of Kitfoxes, disciple of T-crafts
highflyer
> >country flight.
>
> But if most of my flying is not cross country flying and I don't want
> to pay hangar fees and annual inspection fees does that swing the
> advantage back toward the kitfox?
Perhaps. Perhaps not. For my fun plane that is not so great for
cross countries but a blast locally I am building a Pietenpol Air
Camper.
Fortunately, one persons solution is not necessarily another's!
A Pitt's Special is not a great cross country machine either! But
they can sure be a lot of fun to fly.
You pay your money and you take your choice. All the choices are
good ones. Some are better for some people than others.
Rich Boling
wrote:
>Rich Boling wrote:
>
>> But if most of my flying is not cross country flying and I don't want
>> to pay hangar fees and annual inspection fees does that swing the
>> advantage back toward the kitfox?
>
OK Bill you've got my attention. What's this owner-assisted annual.
And what about those Subaru conversions vs. Rotax. Are the TBOs close
to that of a certified engine. What would a rebuilt engine, like the
one on your Taylorcraft, cost?
Thanks,
Rich Boling
highflyer
>
> OK Bill you've got my attention. What's this owner-assisted annual.
>
> And what about those Subaru conversions vs. Rotax. Are the TBOs close
> to that of a certified engine. What would a rebuilt engine, like the
> one on your Taylorcraft, cost?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rich Boling
An "owner assisted" annual in an annual where all of the actual work
that can be is performed by the aircraft owner, while the A&P does
the supervision and the inspection. The owner does things like
remove the wheel pants, the cowling, the inspection panels, remove
and grease the wheel bearings, remove the clean and inspect the
spark plugs, change the oil and the oil filter, remove the seats,
replace all these things after the inspection, etc.
The A&P directs the owner in the required procedure, answers questions
the owner may have, and inspects everything for compliance and for
airworthyness. The A&P also performs the required paperwork. It is
a cooperative venture and does require a good relationship with your
A&P.
If it is a certified aircraft the A&P must have an Inspection
Authorization from the FAA.
I prefer to do "owner assisted" annuals. I do have to charge something
for the time you airplane spends useing space in my hangar and for
the parts and incidentals used in cleaning and resafetying everything.
In general it can make a major reduction in the cost of the annual if
you don't have to pay ME to do all the tasks that you can easily
perform yourself. Also, you will gain a familiarity with your aircraft
that is hard to obtain in any other way. You usually feel a bit more
confident in your airplane when you have personally opened it up and
peered into its innards alongside a knowledgeable inspector who is
pointing out what to look at and how it should look.
Bill Berle
>
> Rich Boling wrote:
> >
> > OK Bill you've got my attention. What's this owner-assisted annual.
> >
> > And what about those Subaru conversions vs. Rotax. Are the TBOs close
> > to that of a certified engine. What would a rebuilt engine, like the
> > one on your Taylorcraft, cost?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Rich Boling
Highflyer may know more about this than I do, but I have always done the
owner-assist thing myself. First, I am terminally cheap. Second, I agree
completely with 'flyer that you will learn nuch more about your
airplane, which will make you more confident and safer. To do an
owner-assist annual, you do need to find the right I.A. or A&P. Ususally
the folks who will do this are fairly knowledgable about old airplanes.
The huge FBO that works on King-Airs and new $250K Cessna 172's probably
are not the right place to get a Champ or Cub fixed anyway. That old
fart with gray hair and really old worn out tools who works our of his
truck has probably been working on Taylorcrafts and Ercoupes for fifty
years. There are certainly exceptions.
If you do all the grunt work, take off the inspection covers, change the
oil, etc. etc. like 'flyer said, you will greatly reduce the man-hours
that the IA has to charge you for. Even if something needs fixing, the
IA can tell you how to do it (if you are capable and willing) and then
he has to inspect it and give it his signature. Doing minor repairs this
way if needed will save you a bundle. Many many entire airplanes are
restored this way, by owners who had an IA come over and inspect things
at several stages. Then when the plane is restored, the IA has seen and
inspected everything along the way, he can happily sign it off, and the
owner of the airplane has saved ten thousand dollars in resotration
costs versus a shop. Not to mention the owner is now truly an expert on
his own airplane.
As far as my T-craft goes, a freshly rebuilt engine costs between $3500
and $5000 from a good quality engine man. Buying a used, half-time 65
Continental will run you $1500 to $3500 outright depending on if you're
a bargain hunter.
Comparing the Continental engine to the Rotax or Subaru is fodder for a
really dandy cyber-fistfight. But in my opinion, it is like comparing a
Honda Civic to a Ferrari 512 Boxer. Standing at an airshow boasting and
displaying the new technology engine, scarf flapping in the breeze,
would be lots of fun. When it came time to put your family and your own
ass in the plane and fly over the desert, you'd unbolt that Ferrari and
reach for a 50 year old Continental every time. I caannot say for
certain, but I believe that an overhauled, certified, or low-time used
Continental 65 is cheaper than any of the Rotax or Subaru conversions
(in flightworthy condition). This is possible only because just like the
airframe, we are comparing a new item to a used item costwise, which is
not a fair comparison.
To get an owner-assist annual on my airplane will cost between $100 and
$200 assuming that I have done all the work and there was no repairs or
extra work that the IA needed to supervise. This is based on what I paid
for the J-3 Cub annual, the last airplane I annualled. Mind you, I am
capable of patching fabric, doing much of the mechanical work, replacing
the bungees, safety-wiring, and I am pretty well familiar with the
T-craft. I am FAR from a gifted craftsman and mechanic, and I know what
my limits are. If the annual discovered that I needed a weld repair, I
would pay for a welder to do it because I am a dangerously incompetent
hacker with a torch. Same for major sheet metal repairs.
Once again, I think the Kitfoxes, Avids, and many other new style light
airplanes are great. They cost half or a third of what a new Taylorcraft
or Champ would cost. But as long as there are flying T-crafts for sale
at half the cost of an unbuilt Kitfox the buyer has a valid choice to
make between the two airplanes. Someday if I had the money to spend on
it, I would buy a Kitfox (or Avid Flyer or whatever the next thing is)
to build an airplane. The joy of that project, and building my skills
beyond the incompetent hacker stage, would be fantastic. I am truly glad
the kit airplane companies are prospering.
Bill