New website!
4 posters
Page 1 of 1
Taylorman- Admin
- Posts : 16
Join date : 2013-03-04
Age : 33
Location : Holland -
New Website
by vands Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:00 am
What a joy to find the TM's new site. I really appreciate you taking the time and trouble to revive it. I have a TM which took me 40 years to build and can say the joy of flying this little tiger is everything I hoped for.
vands- Posts : 75
Join date : 2013-07-08
Hello Taylor Forum
by kessler Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:02 pm
I've just joined this illustrious society to share some memories of the prototype, G-APRT.
First off I'm very glad to note that permission for the use of the original split flaps has been reinstated by LAA Engineering and that the tailplane incidence has reverted to zero. Although a large (-5 deg.) negative incidence was demanded at one time, along with the flaps being sealed up, the prototype was actually flown during the late 1970s with the tailplane still at zero and no untoward characteristics were encountered.
I span this aeroplane right and left on my first flight after our small group acquired it in 1973 and its recovery was rapid and predictable, but the aeroplane was unsafe at this time despite it's valid Permit to Fly. We discovered later on teardown that there were no split pins in the rudder pedal clevises, something that could not be easily inspected when the aircraft was examined and numerous other faults came to light as the structure was reduced to its skeleton.
The ailerons had been fitted with enormous, oversize external mass balances which fouled the fabric at full 'up' travel, added to which the cables were adjusted in such a way that the bellcrank differential drives delivered variable travel each side with some control reversal at extremes of stick travel. The mass balance attachment brackets had been so powerfully torqued-up that the aileron spars were crushed locally and much corrosion of these attachments was evident under the fabric. The reason given by the professional organisation which fitted this was 'low speed aileron flutter'. As I knew of no other Taylor Monoplane having suffered from this, I suspected that incorrectly tensioned aileron cables were the true cause.
The wheel bearings were close to disintegration and the tailskid shoe in fact disintegrated during taxying and both these issues were addressed before I ferried the aeroplane to its new home for much remedial work.
One thing that was evident was the original 17+ degree forward rake of the main undercarriage legs did nothing for the ground handling and the very shallow ground angle did not help in terms of preventing ground loops when the brakes were inoperative. Indeed the spar attachment holes had become oval due to the binding of the legs through lack of maintenance. So the first thing I did was to redesign the landing gear at 12 degrees rake and increase the leg length by three inches and fit new torque links. This completely transformed the ground handling and with new wheels brakes and a new steerable tailwheel its ground handling behaviour was as good as any aeroplane I had flown or have flown since. Furthermore it was now possible to flare the aeroplane at a full three-point attitude where previously it had landed faster and /or struck tailwheel first. There was certainly plenty of elevator authority to flare the aeroplane at a slower speed with the zero incidence under all conditions.
At the time of the restoration I was taken by the superficial appearance of the basic JT-1 airframe to the WW2 Yak series of fighters and as the rudder profile had been crudely repaired by the previous owner who'd glued a wooden coat hanger into the upper lamination, I rebuilt the rudder with a more curved upper tip, exactly like a Yak 1M or 9. The glider canopy with which 'PRT had been fitted had been temporarily replaced by a fixed windscreen and open cockpit, so I lowered the seat and we fitted a good representation of a Yak fighter canopy complete with sliding hood, all of which hinged together with the access hatch. The ground angle was further improved by the fitting of the mainwheels on the insides of the legs, adding the the 'retractable' look and we did have thoughts of using Bob Ladd's retractable undercarriage, but felt that it would need a tapered wing to convey the full Yak appearance and so we passed on that idea. We did make undercarriage doors but these were not fitted as we weren't sure what effect they might have on the handling at 'speed'.
Just in case there really was a 'flutter' issue, I also fitted internal mass balance arms on the new-built ailerons, as on the Taylor JT-2 Titch, though in the event no mass balances were added. With a three-bladed propeller, a small 'chin' cowling, a large spinner which complemented the sleek engine cowling and subtle exhausts, it really looked like a Yak from some angles - where the slab wing was not apparent. The new covering and the accurate camouflage scheme complete with yellow-outlined red stars and the individual identity no. '23', G-APRT was transformed. It flew extremely well although we had some cooling issues, later resolved.
Sadly the aeroplane was damaged in a forced landing due to carburettor ice-induced engine failure when over the sea in 1977, but lived to fly again, reverting pretty much to standard Monoplane appearance, although its temporary 'Yak' identity can still be seen on close examination.
Just thought you might like to have the above to fill in some of the prototype's variagated history!
Ernst Kessler
First off I'm very glad to note that permission for the use of the original split flaps has been reinstated by LAA Engineering and that the tailplane incidence has reverted to zero. Although a large (-5 deg.) negative incidence was demanded at one time, along with the flaps being sealed up, the prototype was actually flown during the late 1970s with the tailplane still at zero and no untoward characteristics were encountered.
I span this aeroplane right and left on my first flight after our small group acquired it in 1973 and its recovery was rapid and predictable, but the aeroplane was unsafe at this time despite it's valid Permit to Fly. We discovered later on teardown that there were no split pins in the rudder pedal clevises, something that could not be easily inspected when the aircraft was examined and numerous other faults came to light as the structure was reduced to its skeleton.
The ailerons had been fitted with enormous, oversize external mass balances which fouled the fabric at full 'up' travel, added to which the cables were adjusted in such a way that the bellcrank differential drives delivered variable travel each side with some control reversal at extremes of stick travel. The mass balance attachment brackets had been so powerfully torqued-up that the aileron spars were crushed locally and much corrosion of these attachments was evident under the fabric. The reason given by the professional organisation which fitted this was 'low speed aileron flutter'. As I knew of no other Taylor Monoplane having suffered from this, I suspected that incorrectly tensioned aileron cables were the true cause.
The wheel bearings were close to disintegration and the tailskid shoe in fact disintegrated during taxying and both these issues were addressed before I ferried the aeroplane to its new home for much remedial work.
One thing that was evident was the original 17+ degree forward rake of the main undercarriage legs did nothing for the ground handling and the very shallow ground angle did not help in terms of preventing ground loops when the brakes were inoperative. Indeed the spar attachment holes had become oval due to the binding of the legs through lack of maintenance. So the first thing I did was to redesign the landing gear at 12 degrees rake and increase the leg length by three inches and fit new torque links. This completely transformed the ground handling and with new wheels brakes and a new steerable tailwheel its ground handling behaviour was as good as any aeroplane I had flown or have flown since. Furthermore it was now possible to flare the aeroplane at a full three-point attitude where previously it had landed faster and /or struck tailwheel first. There was certainly plenty of elevator authority to flare the aeroplane at a slower speed with the zero incidence under all conditions.
At the time of the restoration I was taken by the superficial appearance of the basic JT-1 airframe to the WW2 Yak series of fighters and as the rudder profile had been crudely repaired by the previous owner who'd glued a wooden coat hanger into the upper lamination, I rebuilt the rudder with a more curved upper tip, exactly like a Yak 1M or 9. The glider canopy with which 'PRT had been fitted had been temporarily replaced by a fixed windscreen and open cockpit, so I lowered the seat and we fitted a good representation of a Yak fighter canopy complete with sliding hood, all of which hinged together with the access hatch. The ground angle was further improved by the fitting of the mainwheels on the insides of the legs, adding the the 'retractable' look and we did have thoughts of using Bob Ladd's retractable undercarriage, but felt that it would need a tapered wing to convey the full Yak appearance and so we passed on that idea. We did make undercarriage doors but these were not fitted as we weren't sure what effect they might have on the handling at 'speed'.
Just in case there really was a 'flutter' issue, I also fitted internal mass balance arms on the new-built ailerons, as on the Taylor JT-2 Titch, though in the event no mass balances were added. With a three-bladed propeller, a small 'chin' cowling, a large spinner which complemented the sleek engine cowling and subtle exhausts, it really looked like a Yak from some angles - where the slab wing was not apparent. The new covering and the accurate camouflage scheme complete with yellow-outlined red stars and the individual identity no. '23', G-APRT was transformed. It flew extremely well although we had some cooling issues, later resolved.
Sadly the aeroplane was damaged in a forced landing due to carburettor ice-induced engine failure when over the sea in 1977, but lived to fly again, reverting pretty much to standard Monoplane appearance, although its temporary 'Yak' identity can still be seen on close examination.
Just thought you might like to have the above to fill in some of the prototype's variagated history!
Ernst Kessler
kessler- Posts : 1
Join date : 2013-07-18
Re: New website!
by Taylorman Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:09 pm
@vands, thanks! It's nice to hear that people are still looking at this small plane and my website 
@Kessler, thanks for the story, very nice!
@Kessler, thanks for the story, very nice!
Taylorman- Admin
- Posts : 16
Join date : 2013-03-04
Age : 33
Location : Holland -
Re: New website!
by Etonclive Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:25 pm
Hello everyone,
I have just joined this forum, after being a fan of the TM for many years!
I built a couple of aeroplanes back in my teens and twenties when the TM was fairly new to the scene! I have been looking a new project to fill my retirement years, now I am back in UK, I would like to ask, as I have put a bit of weight on in last few years, would I fit the TM , 16 stone and 6ft 1"?
Are the materials readily available, is there one flying in Scotland?
What is average build time?
Thank you
Clive ( last aircraft built was two seat Luton minor )
I have just joined this forum, after being a fan of the TM for many years!
I built a couple of aeroplanes back in my teens and twenties when the TM was fairly new to the scene! I have been looking a new project to fill my retirement years, now I am back in UK, I would like to ask, as I have put a bit of weight on in last few years, would I fit the TM , 16 stone and 6ft 1"?
Are the materials readily available, is there one flying in Scotland?
What is average build time?
Thank you
Clive ( last aircraft built was two seat Luton minor )
Etonclive- Posts : 1
Join date : 2014-07-06
Fit
by vands Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:10 am
Given your physical dimensions I would say you would find the TM extremely difficult to fit into. It is really a small airplane. I am 5ft 11 and 12 stone and I wear my TM quite snugly. Built to plans it is quite narrow and the extended forward fuselage is necessary for us long legged folk. I am running an 1835 and this is maximum HP for this fuselage. Myself, 9gal fuel and 20 lb baggage is max for reasonable performance. Check with Terry Taylor regarding dimensions and power capability of the Titch, It may be a better fit for your size and weight.
vands- Posts : 75
Join date : 2013-07-08
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum|
|
|