This Taylorcraft BC12D is sitting in a hangar as a forgotten project, having last left the ground in 1990. Don’t mind the mood lighting; there’s nothing particularly eerie about this budget-friendly flyer that was seemingly designed to be the Ford Escort of the skies. A cheaper alternative to one of the household names in personal aircraft, it’s not exactly a powerhouse nor particularly collectible. But if you’re looking to get a foot into the world of flying, it could be a smart choice for a beginner who isn’t afraid of analog controls. Find it here on Facebook Marketplace for $4,500 in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.
When we talk about vintage cars that were built to be budget-friendly but still provide a reasonably competent driving experience, there’s any number of obscure imports that come to mind. From the Renault Alliance to the Diahatsu Rocky, these were vehicles that did what more expensive models were designed to do for a much lower price. Taking that example a little bit further, an Alliance may have offered some European flair in a cheap, econobox package, making the car less of a penalty box than its Korean competitors; similarly, a Rocky could perform reasonably well off-road while being more affordable that a contemporary Jeep Wrangler. But is affordability what you want to focus on when embarking on a long road trip or off-road excursion deep into the woods?
In a similar vein, I wonder what the perception is of an aircraft like this among flying fanatics. Is it a smart way to get into flying without spending big bucks, while also not putting your life in danger? Or is it a case of being great for short hop flights and/or getting your wits about you as a novice pilot before stepping up to a more powerful, proven machine? I’ll leave it to our air experts to confirm the sentiment about the BC12D, but the general sentiment I’m seeing on the enthusiast boards indicates older fabric airplanes like these have all sorts of issues caused by deferred maintenance or poor storage (or both), so a comprehensive inspection is definitely warranted before taking the plunge and moving this non-running aircraft to your hangar.
The other big question is whether this is the 65 horsepower or 85 horsepower model. Some of you may be able to tell by looking at the engine; I’m not that sharp. Most of the other feedback I’ve seen on this model revolves around the engine, with the 65 horse option being fairly lethargic and presenting definite limitations in terms of where you can fly it and how much weight you add to the cockpit. The 85 horse engine is spoken of far more positively, and all indications are it actually delivers sprightly performance. There’s undoubtedly a following for these vintage aircraft, so check out an owner’s group or message board for more information. Would you consider bringing this BCD12 back to life?
I looked up the tail Registration Number, some things you need to know.
Model Year appears 1955, first year of Air Worthiness (66 years old)
Engine is a Contenental A&C65 65 Horsepower
It appears that its registration is current until 2023 but its airworthiness would be questionable given the photos show no wings attached. A close inspections of logbooks and maintenance records would be the key to whether this is a good buy or not. Engine overhauls can be quite expensive and this at minimum would need an annual inspection after its assembled. Is it a good buy???????
Might be cheaper and easier to grow a set of wings.
Would you like to take it out for a test flight?
Without wings? The glide ratio would be a little skimpy…
The value of any old plane that has not been kept up is highly questionable. Years ago I was offered a Cessna for free and I turned it down, because unless the owner has his own A & P cert things get very expensive very fast, sort of like buying an old exotic rare car.
On a warm day, with only me aboard, one of these will not leave the ground..
A couple of skinny short people on a fresh fall day? It will fly, but even in my dotage I can climb stairs faster than this will climb out …The later Beetles were 60hp and think how well they climbed hills with a few hefty passengers. This is the same idea. IF it had a current annual? DEAL. Short of that? Run away screaming while waving your arms over your head. It will be cheaper and more likely to get you airborne….
LOL too true!
To the person who buys this intending to put it in the air, please do your loved ones and the rest of us a favor and when doing so leave the GoPro at home. Your life is too valuable to have your legacy relegated to a YouTube video.
My beloved brother Dale bought one circa 2000 from a local Doctor. They took it up, flew around, landed, Dale forked over the cash. It had a carb problem that caused it to run poorly he told me, but as a mechanic, that didn’t phase him. That was his ONLY flying lesson, and he flew it lots of times afterward, no license, no inspections, not always totally sober I expect. After he passed away I spent a few days in his shop digging around for parts odds and ends so my Sis could sell it for the estate. :-) Terry J
Unfortunately many of the comments are true, Steve is exactly right, and you think Terry is lying about his brother, but he is not. I know of many of these type of people ,in the good old days. A coupe of quick lessons and away you go, no license ,physicals, check rides, annuals, certifications, how cool is that. Maybe not a smart idea, now.
LOL. Smart? No, but Dale was fearless. His Taylorcraft was kept out at a friends farm and required only a short bare field. In fact out in Eastern Oregon/Washington farm country there are many such private “airfields”. You can only tell (sometimes) by the wind sock near the barn. Growing up ( 1950s-60s) a favorite pass time for us kids was to watch the crop dusters, usually Stearman bi planes and then later Ag Cats. The farmers “airfields” became a busy place for a few weeks. Flying just above the fence tops and just under the telephone/power lines was normal activity. :-) Terry J
First aircraft I flew when I moved to Alaska in 1988. Can’t haul a lot but it’s a good little plane for getting around without a huge cash outlay. Only had the 65 horse engine. Great little plane.
Seems like old airplanes are just like old wooden boats. Very cool but high maintenance and the need for specialists to bring back to life.
as I read this I see ‘ezoic’ right beside in the ‘advertiser’s column’ (3rd of 3 to the right on most puter screens). All fields or markets have entry level offerings. Some are value oriented (value = a good buy and low prices) some are simply inexpensive (not durable but easily bought). I have not researched the ezoc (a mini dozer) but the Taylorcraft is worth a look. Most the costs in an airship lies in maintenance (fed rules to ownership if wishing to fly even 1X/yr). The HP matters lill (unless caring large weights) as most can drift to the ground (prt of design) even w/o engine operation. Then there’s gliders, hang gliders, and ultralight aviation.
What I THINK I recall about Taylorcrafts is that they were the cheapest all-metal planes. My only experience was with a couple of model kits, one Comet and one Guillow (I think it’s spelled). The latter was all-balsa, so I suppose closer in character than the tissue-covered Comet kit …
My grandpa’s ’41 Aeronca Chief had that 65 hp engine, or one of several. Its gross weight sans load was about 750 lb; Grandpa took it out of the hangar by lifting the tail and rolling it out like a wheelbarrow. If the grass hadn’t been cut recently I might need to help by pushing on a strut. The dash plaque cautioned us not to “exceed 153 mph true indicated airspeed at any time”, a velocity that it could not attain power-diving in a strong thermal.
The one similarity between that craft and this is the 2-place side-by-side seating and the twin control wheels. I have never had control of a stick aircraft, but I did learn the turn-and-bank procedure a year or two before I got to drive a car. That was it, though. I figured I’d have first crack at it when he moved it on, but I was still in school when he found himself doing a ground check one day and realized he had no memory of getting there, nor where he’d meant to go. He re-hangared it and drove to his doctor’s office; adult-onset diabetes. He sold it a month or two later.
Relevance? Sorry, not much, but the fact that I know exactly what the inside of that hangar (barn?) smells like, and it all took me back, right then.
Interesting story, thanks.
Taylorcraft were made in Alliance Ohio. They were used as spotter planes during wars. Do not remember all the history of these planes. Every year there is a fly -in of these planes in a airport near the old factory. Taylor planes come from all over the country to show off their planes.
A bad prop can set you back 15k plus. Ask me how I know?
Nice little playhouse for the kids!
IMHO, the rebuild for this is “Sky-High” !!!✈️
Terry, You are dead nuts on, I experienced the same things. Only thing to ad, is real aviator’s ,”FLY TAIL DRAGGERS”.
in 1970 I flew my 1000 dollar taylorcraft from omaha Ne. to Dallas Tx. at a ground speed of 40 mph all the way. facing a 40 mile head wind.
owned many airplanes since then, but none as much fun as that little BC12
I owned a 1946 Taylorcraft for a few years. I loved the adverse aileron yaw. I kept wings level with the rudder. Crosswind landings were strange, you set the appropriate bank angle and kept the t-craft lined up with the runway using rudder. The ailerons had so much adverse yaw that they had very little turning action but they maintained a very stable bank-crab.