Any Aircoupe owners here?

Dean

Dean

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Messages
2,222
Location
Southwest Missouri
Display Name
Display name:
Dean
I am in the market for another airplane and have been thinking of an Aircoupe/Ercoupe. I looked at one Saturday, a 1946 model, and did a short flight with the owner. That was the first time I had been in one and was very pleased. I have read several articles on them, and like everything else, there are mixed reviews. So my fellow POAers, any of you have one of these or have had one? If so, lets hear what you have to say. I am going to look at another one next week. From the reviews I've read, I am leaning toward the Alon Model of the 1960s.
 
Not a 'coupe owner, but I've flown one a couple of times, and I know a group of guys here at SBY with a couple of decades of 'coupe ownership/flying experience. It's a simple, easy to fly plane, easy on the wallet, and (depending on which engine), not unreasonably slow. It's certainly not a great XC plane (very limited baggage), but for cheap fun and $100 hamburgers not too far away, it's a nice bird as long as you aren't looking at too much xwind on paved runways, and there are ones with rudder pedals that can handle that (I think the Alons all have them). The only big deal might be this spar AD that could become a recurring, expensive, and intrusive inspection. Check with a 'coupe owners group for more on that before you commit.
 
Dean said:
I am in the market for another airplane and have been thinking of an Aircoupe/Ercoupe. I looked at one Saturday, a 1946 model, and did a short flight with the owner. That was the first time I had been in one and was very pleased. I have read several articles on them, and like everything else, there are mixed reviews. So my fellow POAers, any of you have one of these or have had one? If so, lets hear what you have to say. I am going to look at another one next week. From the reviews I've read, I am leaning toward the Alon Model of the 1960s.
Click to expand...


Tony has been flying them some and gave me my Ercoupe intro just a few months ago. I've studied and admired them for years and have looked at a number of projects so have some knowledge but precious little flight time. That said, I was very very pleased and impressed with the flights I've had. The original no rudder design is a spectactular achievement. It's a very safe aircraft if understood and operated within limits. I remarked to Tony after flying that "This is what all light sport and sunday afternoon pilots should be flying. For safety, efficiency, and fun, nothing touches it." If you want simplicity, fun, and low cost flying stick with the earlier lower HP models. The 415 C is the only one that qualifies for Light Sport and some of them are more costly as a result. CD and D models can be had a tad cheaper due to this. Later models may cruise a little faster and have more payload but burn more per hour with little increase in speed. Whatever you get sticking with fabric wings is considered prudent by most Coupe gurus and there is absolutely nothing to be gained, and some to be lost, by having rudder pedals. The other thing with some of the later ones is that the original canopy arrangement that allows the side windows to slide down is replaced with a modern sliding canopy. This eliminates one of the best features of the type, that being able to have an open cockpit airplane whenever you want.

Matt Michael
 
I would point out that the up/down sliding windows do improve xwind landing capability by allowing a special technique taught to me by Howard "Eye of the Examiner" Fried. Say you've got a xwind from the right -- you roll in right aileron to lower the right wing, and roll down the left window to hang your left arm/shoulder out to provide opposing yaw for a slipped approach/landing. Only problem is when you've got a xwind from the left and you ask your passenger to hang out the window while you land -- some pax may see this as indicative of the pilot's loosening grip on sanity and react badly to your request.
 
I've heard several very experienced pilots including a retired Air Force U2 pilot claim that the stock no pedals Ercoupe was the best cross wind landing airplane ever made and that they could land it in more X wind than anything else they'd ever flown. Further, if pedals were installed it's said to substantially reduce the cross wind capability, to some, becoming totally useless.


Ron Levy said:
Not a 'coupe owner, but I've flown one a couple of times, and I know a group of guys here at SBY with a couple of decades of 'coupe ownership/flying experience. It's a simple, easy to fly plane, easy on the wallet, and (depending on which engine), not unreasonably slow. It's certainly not a great XC plane (very limited baggage), but for cheap fun and $100 hamburgers not too far away, it's a nice bird as long as you aren't looking at too much xwind on paved runways, and there are ones with rudder pedals that can handle that (I think the Alons all have them). The only big deal might be this spar AD that could become a recurring, expensive, and intrusive inspection. Check with a 'coupe owners group for more on that before you commit.
Click to expand...
 
Where the heck is Kate on this thread? She's been helping to restore one which she'll be teaching Sport Pilot students in when they're done with it. It's a purty little bird, with blue fuselage and bright yellow wings.
 
wby0nder said:
I've heard several very experienced pilots including a retired Air Force U2 pilot claim that the stock no pedals Ercoupe was the best cross wind landing airplane ever made and that they could land it in more X wind than anything else they'd ever flown. Further, if pedals were installed it's said to substantially reduce the cross wind capability, to some, becoming totally useless.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting statement. I'd like to know how he came to that conclusion and what techniques he can use in the 'coupe that won't work in a plane with rudder pedals. Any chance you can get their explanation?
 
wby0nder said:
I've heard several very experienced pilots including a retired Air Force U2 pilot claim that the stock no pedals Ercoupe was the best cross wind landing airplane ever made and that they could land it in more X wind than anything else they'd ever flown. Further, if pedals were installed it's said to substantially reduce the cross wind capability, to some, becoming totally useless.
Click to expand...

From talking to a few sellers and a few that have flown them, thats what I am being told. They have all said the ones without the pedals with handle more xwind than any other airplane I have flown. On told me he landed in a xwind that had him looking at the runway off the end of the left wing. He said you land on the trailing main gear and then release the yoke pressure, let it straighten itself out and then push the yoke forward.
 
I found this article, it talks about xwind landings.

Like most planes, pilots report having landed in crosswinds much higher than the demonstrated crosswind component. Some Coupe pilots say they don't think twice about 30 kt. direct crosswind component, others claim to have done even higher crosswinds. In practice, many Coupe owners are comfortable flying in crosswinds that keep them on the ground if they were flying most other light planes. Smart pilots first work their way up to the demonstrated crosswind component listed in their owners manual. First they get fully competent at that level, and only then experiment as their own skill and equipment allow. Be sure your tail is at or very near regulation height of 75 inches for good crosswind behavior (see detailed discussion below).
 
Dean, I've got a friend with a very nice (show quality) '46 Ercoupe. I've been in it many times and have always been amazed at it's landing abilities. It's goa a trailing ling suspension that when it's set up properly makes pretty crosswind landings a "breeze". I'm sure he's be happy to talk to you on the phone. If ypu'd like, I'll check and see what would be a good time to get you two together (telephonically). It really is about the cheapest fun you can have and still have reasonable speed in the air. PM me if you want to talk to him.
 

Attachments

  • D4934_Ercoupe.jpg
    D4934_Ercoupe.jpg
    244.9 KB · Views: 31
Dean said:
From talking to a few sellers and a few that have flown them, thats what I am being told. They have all said the ones without the pedals with handle more xwind than any other airplane I have flown. On told me he landed in a xwind that had him looking at the runway off the end of the left wing. He said you land on the trailing main gear and then release the yoke pressure, let it straighten itself out and then push the yoke forward.
Click to expand...

Landing in the crab on the main gear is the way to go. Takes some getting used to but works like a charm. Everything has to be rigged properly. If the main gear "donuts" are soft or worn and the tail sits lower than specs you can get into a scary deal on x wind landing due to the excessive AOA. Some have experienced this not knowing why. But, in the stock design config apparently you can land in radical X winds.

My first landing in the type was in a mild X wind and it was a snap. I was crabbed to the right so was watching the centerline out the side window to the left of the cowl. It was actually really nice to not have to look over the nose. I'm used to landing gliders in X winds where you don't have to straighten out till you are inches above the runway so it was fairly easy to keep the crab in till the mains hit. It immediately straightens out and you push on the yoke and start steering like a car, and in my case, bust out laughing!

MM
 
yea the crosswind crab landings are no biggie. my club flies a coupe off a 24 foot wide runway and i never went off the side due to a crosswind.

The C and CD models qualify as light sport. The D's had too high of a gross weight.

some of my biggest flying smiles have been in the coupe with the window down.
 
I fell in love with the Ercoupe, even in my limited 11.7-hour experience, and suggested (er, begged) that we get one here for light-sport training and rental. This all stemmed from my experience of ferrying one 800 nm from here to Montana. It was a 1946 -C model converted to a -D with 100 HP. One of these days I am going to finish writing the story about that.

Indeed as Tony corrected, the -C and -CD models can be light-sport qualified. No one has yet mentioned the caveat. The FAA regulations specify that if a standard-category aircraft is EVER modified outside the sport pilot definition, it can no longer be an LSA even if you change it back to its original configuration.

This is a problem because of the 4,000+ -C and -CD models, a great many have been converted to -D models which ups the gross weight to I think 1,400 lbs. One has to review the logs, etc. to make sure the plane has never been changed to a -D model or anything else disqualifying. (There are other letters but I can't recall all the differences.)

There is an STC to modify the 1,260-lb gross weight 'coupes to 1,320, and this does not change the model designation... Costs only a couple hundred bucks and requires some minor adjustments.

So, yes, prices have shot up and demand has gone crazy for the LSA-qualified models. What was once a $15,000 airplane can be found for $40,000 all of a sudden. They sell quickly, too. We had two different ones sold out from under us before we even had chances to see them. The only way we nabbed the two we have now is that we put a deposit down, sight-unseen, so we could actually get to Missouri to look at them. I was the official representative to go look on the way to Gaston's. I brought back pictures, the deal was sealed, and our mechanic went to pick the planes up via trailer. One is for our school and one is for said mechanic's personal use. That second one is totally in pieces and didn't come with an engine... we got a good deal on the pair.

I can only imagine the demand and prices increasing as more people obtain a sport pilot certificate and look for an airplane to buy. From what I've seen, the non-LSA models can be cheaper even though they are more capable airplanes. Dean if you don't care about the LSA status of the plane, you're at a big advantage in hunting for one to buy.

Advantages: This airplane is a joy to fly, especially open-cockpit. It is very easy to fly and light on the controls. The non-rudder pedal version takes getting used to but seems natural after a while. Climb performance was great with 100 HP... I guess the lower-powered ones are kind of doggy (65-75 HP), but I've seen 85-HP ones do well, and many of the original 65-75 HP planes have had their engines replaced w/ 85 HP. I remember the 100 HP model cruised at about 100 mph and I hear the lesser-powered ones are almost the same. Cheap to fly. Burns 5-ish gallons per hour, maybe less. Ours will rent for only $65/hour.

Disadvantages are that the useful load is very limited and the cockpit is quite small, so this is not a plane for larger people unless you intend to fly solo. The planes weigh 800-900 empty depending on model so you can do the math... most hold 24 gallons of fuel spread among three tanks. The baggage area on most is about 36"x18"x9"... but you can modify that to open things up and end up with much more space. Also, what some people overlook is that with no rudder pedals, you can put stuff on the floor under your legs. Been there done that. And I should have taken a picture. Anyway another disadvantage of this plane is that it is not fun at all to fly in turbulence, especially without rudder pedals... not only does it get tossed around as badly as any lightweight airplane, but it tends to fishtail a bit. I'm guessing with rudder pedals you could eliminate some of that.

As far as crosswind, that's the greatest source of misunderstanding with this airplane. Some people believe the wheels must caster, which is definitely not the case. Without rudder pedals, you simply land crabbed, and unlike in just about every other airplane, you aren't penalized for it. The airplane straightens itself out after touchdown. That "swerve" happens gently if done correctly. Unlike in a conventional plane, you have to remember to turn the yoke/wheel away from the wind upon touchdown, since it steers the nosewheel. In any other plane this would be a no-no, but in an Ercoupe with the proper tail height, your wings are done flying when the nose is on the ground. (It's very important for the tail height to be correct, and if it's not, you can and should fix it.) The Ercoupe can handle ridiculous amounts of crosswind because it can land in a big crab angle just fine... don't try this at home in your 172. I hear that rudder pedals help you land straighter... but in strong crosswinds a "pedaled" 'coupe that has run out of rudder can be landed sideways.

In flight a pedal-less Ercoupe's rudders deflect automatically (one at a time) when the yoke/wheel is turned. In climbs the ball hangs a little off-center, but much of the left turning tendency has been eliminated by angling the engine way off to the right and placing the vertical tails out to the sides.

All these design features fascinate me, as they seem so ingenious and make for a unique airplane. Incidentally they make the airplane flyable by people who don't have the use of their legs.

The Ercoupe Owners Club is an excellent resource, especially about things to look for in a pre-buy and tips on flying. The site doesn't work correctly in Safari on a Mac but it does work in other browsers. I have also learned tons from the Yahoo! Ercoupe-tech group. They have already come to our rescue on helping solve a confusing problem with putting engine baffling together.

With most 'coupes being 60+ years old you can find anything from pristine well-kept ones to total heaps of junk, so you need to do your homework before buying and find a really good mechanic for a pre-buy or advice. The good news is these airplanes have a loyal and knowledgeable fan club, and you can still get parts and support from companies like Univair and Skyport.

AOPA members-only article:
Ercoupe Pilots Smile a Lot

We've been restoring N3003H since June, so when the big day arrives and I finally get to fly it, I'll definitely be posting about it here.
 
Last edited:
skyflyer8 said:
I fell in love with the Ercoupe, even in my limited 11.7-hour experience, and suggested (er, begged) that we get one here for light-sport training and rental. This all stemmed from my experience of ferrying one 800 nm from here to Montana. It was a 1946 -C model converted to a -D with 100 HP. One of these days I am going to finish writing the story about that.

Indeed as Tony corrected, the -C and -CD models can be light-sport qualified. No one has yet mentioned the caveat. The FAA regulations specify that if a standard-category aircraft is EVER modified outside the sport pilot definition, it can no longer be an LSA even if you change it back to its original configuration.

This is a problem because of the 4,000+ -C and -CD models, a great many have been converted to -D models which ups the gross weight to I think 1,400 lbs. One has to review the logs, etc. to make sure the plane has never been changed to a -D model or anything else disqualifying. (There are other letters but I can't recall all the differences.)

There is an STC to modify the 1,260-lb gross weight 'coupes to 1,320, and this does not change the model designation... Costs only a couple hundred bucks and requires some minor adjustments.

So, yes, prices have shot up and demand has gone crazy for the LSA-qualified models. What was once a $15,000 airplane can be found for $40,000 all of a sudden. They sell quickly, too. We had two different ones sold out from under us before we even had chances to see them. The only way we nabbed the two we have now is that we put a deposit down, sight-unseen, so we could actually get to Missouri to look at them. I was the official representative to go look on the way to Gaston's. I brought back pictures, the deal was sealed, and our mechanic went to pick the planes up via trailer. One is for our school and one is for said mechanic's personal use. That second one is totally in pieces and didn't come with an engine... we got a good deal on the pair.

I can only imagine the demand and prices increasing as more people obtain a sport pilot certificate and look for an airplane to buy. From what I've seen, the non-LSA models can be cheaper even though they are more capable airplanes. Dean if you don't care about the LSA status of the plane, you're at a big advantage in hunting for one to buy.

Advantages: This airplane is a joy to fly, especially open-cockpit. It is very easy to fly and light on the controls. The non-rudder pedal version takes getting used to but seems natural after a while. Climb performance was great with 100 HP... I guess the lower-powered ones are kind of doggy (65-75 HP), but I've seen 85-HP ones do well, and many of the original 65-75 HP planes have had their engines replaced w/ 85 HP. I remember the 100 HP model cruised at about 100 mph and I hear the lesser-powered ones are almost the same. Cheap to fly. Burns 5-ish gallons per hour, maybe less. Ours will rent for only $65/hour.

Disadvantages are that the useful load is very limited and the cockpit is quite small, so this is not a plane for larger people unless you intend to fly solo. The planes weigh 800-900 empty depending on model so you can do the math... most hold 24 gallons of fuel spread among three tanks. The baggage area on most is about 36"x18"x9"... but you can modify that to open things up and end up with much more space. Also, what some people overlook is that with no rudder pedals, you can put stuff on the floor under your legs. Been there done that. And I should have taken a picture. Anyway another disadvantage of this plane is that it is not fun at all to fly in turbulence, especially without rudder pedals... not only does it get tossed around as badly as any lightweight airplane, but it tends to fishtail a bit. I'm guessing with rudder pedals you could eliminate some of that.

As far as crosswind, that's the greatest source of misunderstanding with this airplane. Some people believe the wheels must caster, which is definitely not the case. Without rudder pedals, you simply land crabbed, and unlike in just about every other airplane, you aren't penalized for it. The airplane straightens itself out after touchdown. That "swerve" happens gently if done correctly. Unlike in a conventional plane, you have to remember to turn the yoke/wheel away from the wind upon touchdown, since it steers the nosewheel. In any other plane this would be a no-no, but in an Ercoupe with the proper tail height, your wings are done flying when the nose is on the ground. (It's very important for the tail height to be correct, and if it's not, you can and should fix it.) The Ercoupe can handle ridiculous amounts of crosswind because it can land in a big crab angle just fine... don't try this at home in your 172. I hear that rudder pedals help you land straighter... but in strong crosswinds a "pedaled" 'coupe that has run out of rudder can be landed sideways.

In flight a pedal-less Ercoupe's rudders deflect automatically (one at a time) when the yoke/wheel is turned. In climbs the ball hangs a little off-center, but much of the left turning tendency has been eliminated by angling the engine way off to the right and placing the vertical tails out to the sides.

All these design features fascinate me, as they seem so ingenious and make for a unique airplane. Incidentally they make the airplane flyable by people who don't have the use of their legs.

The Ercoupe Owners Club is an excellent resource, especially about things to look for in a pre-buy and tips on flying. The site doesn't work correctly in Safari on a Mac but it does work in other browsers. I have also learned tons from the Yahoo! Ercoupe-tech group. They have already come to our rescue on helping solve a confusing problem with putting engine baffling together.

With most 'coupes being 60+ years old you can find anything from pristine well-kept ones to total heaps of junk, so you need to do your homework before buying and find a really good mechanic for a pre-buy or advice. The good news is these airplanes have a loyal and knowledgeable fan club, and you can still get parts and support from companies like Univair and Skyport.

AOPA members-only article:
Ercoupe Pilots Smile a Lot

We've been restoring N3003H since June, so when the big day arrives and I finally get to fly it, I'll definitely be posting about it here.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the great wright up Kate, as for LSA, I'm not interested in those. The ones I am looking at are the O-200 models or ones with the STC O-200 crank upgrade. It wasn't very nice of you to come to Missouri and still one out of my own back yard.:D But you missed a couple so I still a have a change to find the right one for me.
 
Dean said:
Thanks for the great wright up Kate, as for LSA, I'm not interested in those. The ones I am looking at are the O-200 models or ones with the STC O-200 crank upgrade. It wasn't very nice of you to come to Missouri and still one out of my own back yard.:D But you missed a couple so I still a have a change to find the right one for me.
Click to expand...

Hehe, I thought about the Missouri connection when Kent told me about this thread. Hey, we could have left the planes there for you, but then YOU would have to do the zillions of hours of work on restoring them. ;) Good luck in your search... I hope yours comes put-together!
 
skyflyer8 said:
Hehe, I thought about the Missouri connection when Kent told me about this thread. Hey, we could have left the planes there for you, but then YOU would have to do the zillions of hours of work on restoring them. ;) Good luck in your search... I hope yours comes put-together!
Click to expand...


If you don't mind telling, where in MO did you find them? There is a story of a guy losing an engine down buy Burbon, MO and landing it in a field in the Meramec River bottoms. Story goes that he pulled it up by the farmers barn covered it up and never came back after it.
 
Dean said:
If you don't mind telling, where in MO did you find them? There is a story of a guy losing an engine down buy Burbon, MO and landing it in a field in the Meramec River bottoms. Story goes that he pulled it up by the farmers barn covered it up and never came back after it.
Click to expand...
We had a wrecked Aircoupe sit in one of our hangars in Lamar, MO for a year or so. The guy had just bought it and underestimated the crosswind when he landed, blew off the runway, and bent some metal here and there.
 
Dean said:
Thanks for the great wright up Kate, as for LSA, I'm not interested in those. The ones I am looking at are the O-200 models or ones with the STC O-200 crank upgrade. It wasn't very nice of you to come to Missouri and still one out of my own back yard.:D But you missed a couple so I still a have a change to find the right one for me.
Click to expand...

Hello everyone,

I believe the preferred setup of these two is the O-200 crank because it offers a better prop selection. The full O-200 engine swap requires a prop that isn't optimum for the coupe.

If your not interested in an LSA version then the best performing of the family is the Alon A2. This is what I have and have noticed the difference when flying formation. They are also roomier, the only downsides are that they are speed limited to 100 mph canopy open where the others are not, they are a bit noisier than the others canopy open, and they are not LSA.

The coupes are fun and affordable airplanes. I get far more attention when flying it than anything else I've flown, people just seem to gravitate toward it when you go places. If your out in SoCal anytime in the near future PM me and we'll go on a burger run.
 
Diana said:
We had a wrecked Aircoupe sit in one of our hangars in Lamar, MO for a year or so. The guy had just bought it and underestimated the crosswind when he landed, blew off the runway, and bent some metal here and there.
Click to expand...

If the main gear "donut" springs on the trailing link versions sag the tail will set too low and cause some excitement on landing. I suspect this is what happened here. When you touch down in a crab (which is a whole lot of fun) and the plane straightens out the nose wheel "casters" down wind. Since the nose wheel, ailerons, and rudder are all rigidly connected the upwind aileron drops and can result in a lifting that side of the wing making for a very exciting moment.

Properly maintained coupes with the proper tail height set on the ground at a significant negative angle of attack so the wing cannot lift.

The Ercoupe/Aircoupe has a many design innovations which make it very fun and safe to fly, I cannot believe that more of them haven't been adopted in other designs.
 
Nice write-up, Kaite! Two questions:

  1. I'd think landing in a crab (you say it straightens out AFTER touchdown) would put excessive side loads on the gear. No?
  2. Are you going to fly the restored Ercoupe to Gastons?!
 
Ron Levy said:
I would point out that the up/down sliding windows do improve xwind landing capability by allowing a special technique taught to me by Howard "Eye of the Examiner" Fried. Say you've got a xwind from the right -- you roll in right aileron to lower the right wing, and roll down the left window to hang your left arm/shoulder out to provide opposing yaw for a slipped approach/landing. Only problem is when you've got a xwind from the left and you ask your passenger to hang out the window while you land -- some pax may see this as indicative of the pilot's loosening grip on sanity and react badly to your request.
Click to expand...
Fried was joking, right . . . ? :redface:

Wings of Hope is giving away a 'coupe in a sweepstakes - I just found out and can't get my entry in by Dec. 31, dangit!
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Nice write-up, Kaite! Two questions:

  1. I'd think landing in a crab (you say it straightens out AFTER touchdown) would put excessive side loads on the gear. No?
  2. Are you going to fly the restored Ercoupe to Gastons?!
Click to expand...

Gaston's, thinking about it. I have definitely envisioned it! Cost would be my biggest concern, weather would be the second.

Side loads, I would think so too, but the gear is designed to take it. There is a lot of travel in the strut in this trailing link design. Somehow it just works.

The Ercoupe Owners Club web site said:
"When you touch down crabbed, there is a side-ways push on the laterally firm main gears. But the nose wheel turns like all other tricycle gear planes and provides almost no side-ways resistance. The plane just rotates (yaws) around its center of gravity to line up with the direction of motion. We hold the control loosely at touchdown so this nose wheel turning can take place freely. An egg in a saucer on the pilot's lap will stay right in the saucer.

After that initial nose wheel turn, caused by the nose wheel touching down, all Coupes use their nose wheel steering for positive control on the ground."
Click to expand...

I did laugh after my first crosswind landing. As an instructor I am so anti-crooked-landing that I found it hard to accept the sideways touchdown, and when the airplane touched down very softly and straightened out, I just thought it was funny. It does exactly what it was designed to do.

The Ercoupe Instruction Manual said:
"This brings up a change in point of view that it seems an experienced pilot of conventional airplanes must pass through before he can be satisfied with two-control operation (without rudder pedals). He has been accustomed to controlling the attitude of his airplane about all three axes; as well as controlling the flight path and the speed. With two-control operation he must be willing to rely upon the stability of the landing gear to handle the drift in a cross wind landing. Not until he feels fully confident that the airplane itself will take care of this item satisfactorily and without strain, can he be expected to fly a two-control airplane with a feeling of comfort and pleasure."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I did laugh after my first crosswind landing. As an instructor I am so anti-crooked-landing that I found it hard to accept the sideways touchdown, and when the airplane touched down very softly and straightened out, I just thought it was funny. It does exactly what it was designed to do.[/quote]

Part of why I laughed on my first landing was not only the amazing ease and magic of the cross-wind aspect but also because I couldn't believe how smooth it all was even though I kind of dropped it in the last couple feet. Totally FELT like a greaser when I was expecting a good jolt. That is just an amazing design.
 
I have no personal experience with them, but I have heard that the trailing-link gear does in fact do wonders if everything is shipshape, but pilots who did not learn to land in them have occasionally made the mistake of putting the nosewheel down during a x-wind landing rollout before it's lined up properly. That nose gear assembly is not very stout, as I understand it, and it's just a fork- no trailing link. Not saying you can't take the nose wheel off any plane thru sloppiness... it's just that Ercoupes don't land themselves.
The other common mistake is assuming that because the 'coupe won't really stall or spin, you can't crash it. All it takes is the same thing that can happen with any plane: get yourself too slowed-up too low to the ground, and your arrival will not be called a "landing". I've seen a few Ercoupe accident reports citing "nose-high descent into trees/terrain". Again, possible with any plane, but again, the Ercoupe will not guarantee your safety. That's the pilot's job.

But they are awesome little birds, rudder pedals or no... even at the current jacked-up prices they're a good buy, an excellent investment as more and more pilots go Light Sport, and are supposedly a lot of fun to fly.
 
Matt - trailing link gear will save a bad landing on any design, rudders or not ;)
 
rottydaddy said:
That nose gear assembly is not very stout, as I understand it, and it's just a fork- no trailing link.
Click to expand...

Not even a whole fork. Only has support on one side IIRC. Looks really flimsy. I even pointed it out to my friend, and he shrugged it off saying just don't land on it first. He's flown Ercoupes for ~~20 years I guess and knows the planes well.
 
rottydaddy said:
The other common mistake is assuming that because the 'coupe won't really stall or spin, you can't crash it. All it takes is the same thing that can happen with any plane: get yourself too slowed-up too low to the ground, and your arrival will not be called a "landing". I've seen a few Ercoupe accident reports citing "nose-high descent into trees/terrain".

Apparently, if you HAVE to crash as in power failure over unlandable terrian the decent rate in this configuration, with the yoke full aft, is most times survivable and you have complete roll control as you mush down. And it's a good steep approach method for a normal landing as long as you push and regain speed a couple hundred feet above the deck.
Click to expand...
 
rottydaddy said:
That nose gear assembly is not very stout, as I understand it, and it's just a fork- no trailing link.
Click to expand...

Keith Lane said:
Not even a whole fork. Only has support on one side IIRC. Looks really flimsy. I even pointed it out to my friend, and he shrugged it off saying just don't land on it first. He's flown Ercoupes for ~~20 years I guess and knows the planes well.
Click to expand...

Correct, the nose gear is a fork-style like a Cessna or Piper, not trailing link like the mains. Earlier models had a single-fork design. When Forney took over production in 1956 they changed it to double-fork. Some of the older planes have been retrofitted with a double-fork. The double-fork is a little bit longer and can actually cause problems by lowering the tail a bit. Apparently shimmy is more of a problem with the single-fork, but other than that, I haven't heard about problems with strength. According to the Ercoupe Owners Club web site, "... if your plane has no shimmy problem, just keep it in good repair, there's no need to change." Either way, the flying technique suggested in the instruction manual is to keep a light grip or no grip on the controls when you touch down, thereby permitting the nosewheel to move freely when it contacts the ground. The steering linkage between the nose gear and your control column is solid... no springs or anything like that. If you're death-gripping your controls you're directly fighting the nosewheel's swiveling process.

rottydaddy said:
The other common mistake is assuming that because the 'coupe won't really stall or spin, you can't crash it. All it takes is the same thing that can happen with any plane: get yourself too slowed-up too low to the ground, and your arrival will not be called a "landing". I've seen a few Ercoupe accident reports citing "nose-high descent into trees/terrain". Again, possible with any plane, but again, the Ercoupe will not guarantee your safety. That's the pilot's job.
Click to expand...

Yes, most definitely. By its very nature of being "stall-proof," an Ercoupe can run out of up elevator and mush pretty badly at low speeds. I was shown this at altitude during my checkout, and we got a 500 fpm sink. Controls full back, the plane was still steerable, but the nose was up and we were sinking like a rock. Quite an eerie feeling. This is the most "stall" you're going to get. No nose drop.

You wouldn't want to hit the runway at 500 fpm either. If you approach too slowly and steeply in a mushy attitude, and then expect to arrest your descent rate with elevator alone like flaring a "normal" airplane, you're in for a nasty surprise. The book makes this warning clear and explains the only way to arrest this kind of descent is to add power and speed up. Prevention is a matter of approaching at a faster speed in the first place. The book says 60-70 mph but I thought 75 worked even better. Kind of bizarre considering we were loaded to the empty weight of the 172 I fly using a 70 mph approach. Lighter airplane ≠ slower approach in this case. Pilot education is the key. Once I learned the correct speed and approach profile (which seems very flat to me), it was a piece of cake.
 
Last edited:
Who owns the type certificate now? Seems like it would be a good plane to re-introduce to the market. Would love to see a larger, 4-seat version.

Interesting fact on Wikipedia... on 8/12/1941, the first JATO (rocket or jet-assisted take-off) was performed by the military, using a civilian Ercoupe as the test bed. Photos of the event are there.

250px-
 
Last edited:
TangoWhiskey said:
Who owns the type certificate now? Seems like it would be a good plane to re-introduce to the market. Would love to see a larger, 4-seat version.

Interesting fact on Wikipedia... on 8/12/1941, the first JATO (rocket or jet-assisted take-off) was performed by the military, using a civilian Ercoupe as the test bed. Photos of the event are there.

250px-
Click to expand...

They also used the coup for a crazy teathered spiril take-off method. The idea was to be able to take off in a small area by going around in a circle with the wing teathered to a central pylon with a long cable. I kid you not! And they were able to do it just fine. There was a glider release hook installed on the wing tip and once they got up and flying they'd just release and fly away. Sounds insane I know but they did it multiple times.

The 4 seat coupe was started but didn't get too far. I can't remember if they actually flew a prototype or not. I've got it and the circular runway thing in a book somewhere. Theres also been a group discussing new coupe production with Univair but they've so far concluded that it would end up costing an insane amount for each unit. Too bad
 
wby0nder said:
They also used the coup for a crazy teathered spiril take-off method. The idea was to be able to take off in a small area by going around in a circle with the wing teathered to a central pylon with a long cable. I kid you not! And they were able to do it just fine. There was a glider release hook installed on the wing tip and once they got up and flying they'd just release and fly away. Sounds insane I know but they did it multiple times.

The 4 seat coupe was started but didn't get too far. I can't remember if they actually flew a prototype or not. I've got it and the circular runway thing in a book somewhere. Theres also been a group discussing new coupe production with Univair but they've so far concluded that it would end up costing an insane amount for each unit. Too bad
Click to expand...

How'd you like to launch into low IMC on that circular runway? Talk about vertigo!

P.S.--How would the LANDING process work? Or was this for takeoffs only?
 
TangoWhiskey said:
How'd you like to launch into low IMC on that circular runway? Talk about vertigo!

P.S.--How would the LANDING process work? Or was this for takeoffs only?
Click to expand...

Take-offs only. Thats what requires the need for a long runway with clear approaches which the experiment was meant to eliminate. I think the big square field encompassing the circular runway was big enough to land in. I'll have to dig that book up and do some scanning. It looks like a fake report from the Onion. I haven't looked but I bet there is something on the web about it somewhere.
 
wby0nder said:
Take-offs only. Thats what requires the need for a long runway with clear approaches which the experiment was meant to eliminate. I think the big square field encompassing the circular runway was big enough to land in. I'll have to dig that book up and do some scanning. It looks like a fake report from the Onion. I haven't looked but I bet there is something on the web about it somewhere.
Click to expand...
Landing an aircraft on a circular runway with a wing tether was tested in the 1970s and found to work well. Both my brother and I had multiple successful tests of this system.

hairy%20canary1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top