Taylorcraft: Potential project available

[Michael Horowitz]

Folks -

I had an 'incident' with my T'craft last month. We've been totaling
up the costs and up until yesterday things looked good, then we took
what the A&P called a "dial-out' reading on the engine and it is out
of limits by .004. I don't know if that was there when I bought the
a/c or was due to the prop strike (wooden prop does not appear to be
hurt).

Anyway, because the engine needs to be taken apart, the a/c will
probably be totaled; the insurance may well offer it back to me, but I
don't have the resources to put her back into shape. On the other hand
I don't think the salvagers would have any love for her.

If you are interested in stepping between the insurance company and
the salvagers, drop me a line and I'll advise the insurance company
you are interested in owning it.

Regards, Mike

[kage]

Why would an aircraft be totaled for a prop strike inspection?

Highly doubtful, unless the frame was a rusted out POS.

Karl
"Michael Horowitz" > wrote in message
...
> Folks -
>
> I had an 'incident' with my T'craft last month. We've been totaling
> up the costs and up until yesterday things looked good, then we took
> what the A&P called a "dial-out' reading on the engine and it is out
> of limits by .004. I don't know if that was there when I bought the
> a/c or was due to the prop strike (wooden prop does not appear to be
> hurt).
>
> Anyway, because the engine needs to be taken apart, the a/c will
> probably be totaled; the insurance may well offer it back to me, but I
> don't have the resources to put her back into shape. On the other hand
> I don't think the salvagers would have any love for her.
>
> If you are interested in stepping between the insurance company and
> the salvagers, drop me a line and I'll advise the insurance company
> you are interested in owning it.
>
> Regards, Mike

[Michael Horowitz]

"kage" > wrote:

>Why would an aircraft be totaled for a prop strike inspection?
>
>Highly doubtful, unless the frame was a rusted out POS.
>
>Karl
>

The insured value is 14K. If the cost to repair approaches 8.5K the
insurance co starts thinking about totaling it.
In this case, we knew the landing gear and at least two struts needed
replacement and we had a bent member under the floorboard. There was a
wrinkle in the fabric of one of the wings so we had to include
something in the estimate to cover something wrong there. Then when
the engine measured out of limits, the red light went on. No, it's not
a rusted out POS; went thru an annual last November.

[kage]

Nonsense,

How could it POSSIBLY go through an annual when two struts need replacing
and had bent structure. Just WHO was the IA with the "Parker Pen?"


"Michael Horowitz" > wrote in message
...
> "kage" > wrote:
>
> >Why would an aircraft be totaled for a prop strike inspection?
> >
> >Highly doubtful, unless the frame was a rusted out POS.
> >
> >Karl
> >
>
> The insured value is 14K. If the cost to repair approaches 8.5K the
> insurance co starts thinking about totaling it.
> In this case, we knew the landing gear and at least two struts needed
> replacement and we had a bent member under the floorboard. There was a
> wrinkle in the fabric of one of the wings so we had to include
> something in the estimate to cover something wrong there. Then when
> the engine measured out of limits, the red light went on. No, it's not
> a rusted out POS; went thru an annual last November.

[jls]

"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:55:33 -0700, "kage" >
> wrote:
>
> >Nonsense,
> >
> >How could it POSSIBLY go through an annual when two struts need replacing
> >and had bent structure. Just WHO was the IA with the "Parker Pen?"
> >
>
> Uh.... do you suppose they were bent after the annual and during the
> "incident" that caused the prop strike?
>

That's the way I read it, except that it is debatable whether there was a
prop strike since the wooden prop was not damaged. Most of those old
crankshafts have excessive runout from a myriad of circumstances, including
being dropped when out of the case or getting the prop slammed in the
hangar. I remember one that had .005" runout and they sent it off to have
it baked, which according to what I was told restored its memory and brought
it back to within .001" runout.

OTOH I've seen experimentals running right smoothly on an A-65 ( with
probably the same crankshaft Michael is running) with .010 runout.

[Michael Horowitz]

" jls" > wrote:

>
>"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:55:33 -0700, "kage" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Nonsense,
>> >
>> >How could it POSSIBLY go through an annual when two struts need replacing
>> >and had bent structure. Just WHO was the IA with the "Parker Pen?"
>> >
>>
>> Uh.... do you suppose they were bent after the annual and during the
>> "incident" that caused the prop strike?
>>
>
>That's the way I read it, except that it is debatable whether there was a
>prop strike since the wooden prop was not damaged. Most of those old
>crankshafts have excessive runout from a myriad of circumstances, including
>being dropped when out of the case or getting the prop slammed in the
>hangar. I remember one that had .005" runout and they sent it off to have
>it baked, which according to what I was told restored its memory and brought
>it back to within .001" runout.
>
>OTOH I've seen experimentals running right smoothly on an A-65 ( with
>probably the same crankshaft Michael is running) with .010 runout.


Are you saying there is any chance that even though the runout is
outside limits, that the A&P could have some leeway in not painting a
dire future for this a/c? It's an A-65 - I figured that there are
specs that say ".006 is the limit". I'm sorry if I'm not too coherent,
but if there is a chance that I don't need a new crank....
>

[Brian Cox]

"kage" > wrote in message >...
> Nonsense,
>
> How could it POSSIBLY go through an annual when two struts need replacing
> and had bent structure. Just WHO was the IA with the "Parker Pen?"
>

Hi,
What I gathered from the earlier postings is that the plane went
through annual last November, and that the damage to the struts and
bent structure, in addition to the other mentioned damage, occurred
during the subsequent incident.

B