Ercoupe as first airplane?

T

Todd82

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 19, 2017
Messages
980
Location
OH
Display Name
Display name:
Todd
I promise I'm not becoming "that guy" only asking questions about hypothetical new aircraft, but the Sundowner I was asking about last month fell through, and now I'm realizing that probably wasn't the plane for me.

It's just the wife and I, and between us we work out to FAA average weight (luckily she's well under to make up for me ) so I started looking at some 2 seaters to not be hauling to empty seats and the extra fuel burn. Many C150's I see don't even have room for fuel + 2 standard adults. Tomahawks have the bad rep, then I stumbled across the Ercoupe. Seems extremely safe considering what it was designed for.

Does anyone have experience with Ercoupes or own one? Are they really stall "proof" and spin proof? It looks like parts are well supported by Univair. With them being so old compared to your average C150/PA28 are there any real gotchas with maintenance? Am I just plain crazy looking at these for a first plane?
 
I won't comment on the Ercouple, but some of the kinks in the Tomahawk have been worked out over the years...as a personal airplane it's probably okay but I still wouldn't want to use one as a trainer. There is also the Beech Skipper which has a similar design as the Tomahawk but without the bad reputation.
 
You should think about a Cherokee or Skyhawk. Both are simple well-supported and common models. Both are economical to run. The advantage of the Cherokee is the back seat is quite small. Its nice to have if you do find yourself with an extra passenger, and is a good place to put bags. I didn't use mine for pax, but did for luggage quite a few times.
 
I have nothing to offer other than I think they are cool.

They seem very minimalist..which is what you are going for I'm guessing.
https://www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft-and-ownership/aircraft-fact-sheets/erco-ercoupe

and I believe the term would be 'plane crazy' :)

I would second the notion on the Cherokee or Skyhawk though. Probably more comfy and useable which may make you fly more? Unless money is an issue, then maybe the Ercoupe would allow you to fly more in that aspect.
good luck!
 
I would recommend looking at some Cherokees. I think they are one of the best bargains out there. They have a rear seat, but you aren't going to put full sized adults back there comfortably (it is small). They call it a 2 plus seater. A Cherokee can haul two adults, plus a reasonable amount of baggage, 5 hours of fuel and if you throttle back a bit and lean it, you can cruise on 7 or 8 GPH. There are many good examples to be had for the low to mid $20K range, which is about what you would pay for a 150.
 
Always wanted to fly a 'Coupe, but never had the opportunity. They are cozy, I understand, but a lot of fun. Most of the early ones are still "two-control" (i.e., no rudder pedals), which may not be what you want. There is some concern about corrosion in the wing spar center section, so thorough pre-buy is crucial.

The ones built in the '60s by Alon (A-2 Aircoupe) and Mooney (A-2A and M-10 Cadet) are three-control and have some nice features, but they are rare.

But I agree with the advice to consider a 172 or Cherokee. Initial outlay would not be much more than for a 2-seater, and you'd wind up with a lot more flexibility. The Cherokee 140 was more of a "2+2", with easily-removable rear seats and more than enough load capacity for two people and their bags -- and a huge 50-gallon fuel capacity.
 
I have about 85hrs in Coupes.

Fun as all get-out. If the weather is warm you can fly with the windows slid down converting the airplane to basically an open cockpit. I have tested the option of actually initiating a turn just by sticking your hand out in the slipstream.

Extremely easy to land, but you have to get used to touching down in a crab if there is a crosswind. I assume you realize there are no rudder pedals. Rudder deflection is linked to the ailerons. You basically steer the airplane during taxi, takeoff and landing like a car. Only pedal on the floor is a single brake pedal.

When looking at Ercoupes, make sure the "Swiss cheese" AD has been done, AKA several access panels cut in the underside of the wing to check for center section corrosion, which is an Achilles heel for the breed.

Most were powered by 80hp Continentals, but some have been changed out with C90's. Early versions were powered by 75hp continentals also as well.

Dual fork nose gears are preferable, as nose gear shimmy can be an issue.

You and your wife had better get along real well, as the cockpit is cozy. Because of the taper of the nose, you sort of feel like you are sitting at the bow of a small rowboat. The instrument panel is a bit close too. When I would flare at landing, the last little bit of pull on the yoke was done with my wrists.

Some have metalized wings (it's a rag covered wing, aluminum fuselage), but personally I would shy away. Just a bunch of added weight.

Some were converted to rudder pedals, but again in my opinion, a waste of effort.

Regarding stalls, all I could muster was a mush straight ahead. No break into a stall.

It's a really neat airplane.
 
Last edited:
Don't have any knowledge of the Erocupe but always thought that they were a cool little plane. To bad about the Sundowner I would love to step up to one myself. That said the little brother to the Sundowner is what I have owned for 20+ years, the Beech Sport. You can pick one up for 20K, they have a lot of room and are comfortable to fly. 8 gal/hr on 150hp, 60 gal of fuel, mine fly's at about 120mph. The Sport also has doors on each side, something I love. Took the rear seat out and use it for luggage, watch your fuel load if you carry a passenger. Good luck in your search for the right plane...:)
 
Thanks for the feedback on the Cherokees, most of my time to date is on rental Cherokee 140's / Warriors. As for the 172's, if I'm buying something in that lower end 4 place market it would be a Cherokee by personal preference.

The Beech sport is an interesting idea especially with two doors, but they don't seem too common on the market. Maybe I'll stumble into one like I did the Sundowner 4 miles away.

The lack of rudder pedals and the dual tail of the Ercoupe IMHO adds to the appeal of them, like a 57 Chevy or something. I have only sat in one (was a hard IFR kind of day) and they're definitely snug.
 
Ercoupes are kind of neat little planes. I've actually never flown one, but know a handful of Ercoupe owners. They all really enjoy them for what they do, which is put around low and slow, sightseeing, and doing touch and goes. It's not much of a travelling machine, but from what I gather, fantastic fun for a leisurely local flight.

You mentioned a few of the two seaters, but I noticed you didn't list the Grumman AA1Yankee. Have you considered it? If I were committed to sticking with an older two seater, that's where my money would go. Doesn't have that classic look of the Ercoupe, but it's sure a cool little plane as well.
 
Agree on the RV, but a 6a might be acquired a tad cheaper. Dependent on example of course.

I love my 6A, course I'm partial since I built it...
 
AA1 Yankee... An old-timer pilot told me awhile back that while the Tomahawk got all the bad rap, the AA1 was the real trouble maker for a newbie pilot. Said it has some nasty tendencies in stalls, etc. I'm only a 100 hour pilot currently. Looking for something benign.

For the Vans... As I said I'm only a 100hr pilot. Those are sweet planes but I think I'd be over my head right now in that.

Also I guess I should mention my budget is in the $30k ballpark.
 
As with most planes, fly before you buy. I have flown a couple of Ercoupes, and they are kind of fun. I don't mind the tight cockpit either, at least for short sightseeing type flights. However, the stock seats have absolutely no lower back support. There is some kind of bungee cord or webbing behind the seat cushion and that's it. I would be a cripple quickly if I spent any time in it. Perhaps there is some aftermarket something that could be put in to rectify this. If not, be sure the situation is something you could live with. I could not.
 
The ercoupe is super cute but really tiny... I tend to think the ideal you can't go wrong, well priced and easily maintained first plane is a Cherokee. Handle well, great for 2 people. Similar capability to a 172, but generally cheaper for what ya get.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There is a learning curve with owning your first plane. That's why I think there is a lot to be said for buying on the less exotic side of things. Easy to find parts, lots of people to work on em, big type clubs and forums, instructors know em, and on and on. Which kinda means.... 172, 152, Cherokee, maybe Cheetah/Tiger... keep it simple. Planes like this aren't hard to buy and sell. Then in a few years, with more ownership experience and perspective, trade up. Get a complex maybe to do an IR or commercial in - a traveling plane something fast like a Bo or Mooney or yes even a, *cough* Cirrus. Or a seaplane, or a classic tail dragger. But there is imho something good about getting started with an 'ole standby' that will be easy to maintain and jump in and just fly...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Todd82 said:
AA1 Yankee... An old-timer pilot told me awhile back that while the Tomahawk got all the bad rap, the AA1 was the real trouble maker for a newbie pilot. Said it has some nasty tendencies in stalls, etc. I'm only a 100 hour pilot currently. Looking for something benign.

For the Vans... As I said I'm only a 100hr pilot. Those are sweet planes but I think I'd be over my head right now in that.

Also I guess I should mention my budget is in the $30k ballpark.
Click to expand...

The original Yankee was intended as a personal airplane and not as a trainer. Some instructors got into trouble with them because they expected them to behave like a 150 or Cherokee 140, and they did not. If you are looking for something more docile than the Yankee the AA1A, AA1B, and AA1C are all more forgiving. I did all my training in AA1Bs and AA1Cs and never had any issues with the way the airplane behaved.

I also have time in the Tomahawk. It is not in any way vicious, but it does not behave like a Cessna 150, so don't treat it like one. It was designed to behave like a bigger, heavier airplane,so you have to fly it that way.

If I were looking for an airplane as personal transport for two people, first one on my list would be a Grumman Cheetah. It handles beautifully and would have plenty of room for two people and bags. Plus, you can get places in a Cheetah faster than you can in a car. That's not true of an Ercoupe.
 
Todd82 said:
AA1 Yankee... An old-timer pilot told me awhile back that while the Tomahawk got all the bad rap, the AA1 was the real trouble maker for a newbie pilot. Said it has some nasty tendencies in stalls, etc.
Click to expand...
Baloney. I instructed primary students in the original American* AA-1 Yankees. One of my students owned Yankee serial number 7. They were good trainers, roomy with great visibility. They taught the importance of airspeed control in the approach, and to avoid getting behind the power curve on takeoff. It had a sharp but predictable stall, better for training than the ultra-benign Cherokee. Stall was similar to the Tomahawk, which was purposely designed to have a "teachable moment" stall. You fly a Yankee like a transport in the pattern, and like a fighter elsewhere. Good for students planning to transition to higher-performance aircraft.

The later AA-1A Trainer had a recontoured wing leading edge (as on the four-seat AA-5 series), which made the stall more gentle, and lowered stall and cruise speeds.

*No such thing as "Grumman Yankee". That's like saying "Boeing DC-9". Grumman didn't buy out American Aviation Corp. until after the AA-1 Yankee was replaced by the AA-1A Trainer.
 
The coupe is a sweet little plane. Really cool windows, great ramp appeal, economical, mogas, yeah, they'd make a great first plane.

I'd just find one with the rudder pedal mod.

Also don't think of which aircraft is "safe" safety is about 3000 times more about YOU than a airplane.


But yeah, a coupe would be a great first plane.
 
Pilawt said:
Baloney. I instructed primary students in the original American* AA-1 Yankees. One of my students owned Yankee serial number 7. They were good trainers, roomy with great visibility. They taught the importance of airspeed control in the approach, and to avoid getting behind the power curve on takeoff. It had a sharp but predictable stall, better for training than the ultra-benign Cherokee. Stall was similar to the Tomahawk, which was purposely designed to have a "teachable moment" stall. You fly a Yankee like a transport in the pattern, and like a fighter elsewhere. Good for students planning to transition to higher-performance aircraft.
y
The later AA-1A Trainer had a recontoured wing leading edge (as on the four-seat AA-5 series), which made the stall more gentle, and lowered stall and cruise speeds.

*No such thing as "Grumman Yankee". That's like saying "Boeing DC-9". Grumman didn't buy out American Aviation Corp. until after the AA-1 Yankee was replaced by the AA-1A Trainer.
Click to expand...


That, trained folks from 0 in them

Plenty safe as long as you have a CFI who has experience and knows how to teach, landing attitude and stalls you just can't be as sloppy, falling leaf stalls are also manadatory before solo in my book, but they are great little planes, way better than a 150/172 IMO.
 
I love the Ercoupe, I prefer it with rudder pedals.
I have never had a bad time in one.
They are not fast, they are not heavy haulers, they are not aerobatic.
But I always had a goofy smile on my face when I came back from a flight.
And they do look pretty cool.
 
Hi Todd. I remember you were looking for a Sundowner and am glad you came back to tell us about the result. You didn't say why you decided it wasn't the plane for you. If you could give us a little more info, it would be helpful for us to give you additional input.

I have never owned an Ercoupe, but my brother had one for several years. He really liked it. It was tight in the cockpit as other have said. His had old type brakes, so you had to be on top of things on a short runway. Also, there are no flaps and you can't slip them, so if you are coming in high, he said you just have to pull the power back. It will then sink like a rock. You have to be sure to add power and regain a little speed to have enough energy to flare. Thus, getting the hang of landings takes a little practice. You steer with the yoke just like in a car. My brother really liked his Ercoupe and still regrets selling it when the engine swarmed. It was a little faster than a C-150. The heater wasn't as good as a C-150, though, so in the winter it could be a little uncomfortable.

As far as a C-150, I have owned one for over 10 years. Ours is a C-150H (1968) with IFR instrumentation, although the instruments are the legacy type rather than GPS. Our useful load with full fuel is 386.4 lbs, so I don't know where you got the information that two FAA adults were too much with full fuel. A lot of folks here have recommended a C-172 or Cherokee over a two seater. They do fly faster (about 20 kts or so) have quite a bit more room and are only a bit heavier on the controls (translates to not quite as much fun to fly). But, it will cost a little more to buy one of those models and they burn more fuel. We had a C-172 (1966 C-172G) for over three years before the C-150. With the C-150, we burn less than 6 gph on average, but our C-172 averaged close to 9 gph. Other than the initial cost and the extra fuel (about $12 an hour or so at our airport's price), the maintenance cost and other cost for the C-172 were about the same. If you peruse Flight Aware, you will consistently see maybe a couple of C-150/152's on IFR flight plans while at the same time have 20 or 30 (or more) C-172's flying IFR. This alone is a testimony to the usefulness and practicality of a C-172 for travelling if you have that in mind.

I hope this information is helpful as you decide which airplane is for you. Good luck, and keep us posted!
 
Ercoupes are, um, weird. And I mean that in the most affectionate way. ;)

They're not stall or spin "proof", but you have to work pretty hard to get it to happen. Especially if they don't have rudder pedals.

Especially without rudder pedals, they climb uncoordinated...you can't add right rudder (or left rudder in the descent). And you land sideways in crosswinds.:eek:

Keep in mind, I have vast Ercoupe experience...maybe 3 hours over 25 years. :rolleyes:
 
This is a good point, not for me so much as for the wife who has back problems. Thanks!

Lance F said:
As with most planes, fly before you buy. I have flown a couple of Ercoupes, and they are kind of fun. I don't mind the tight cockpit either, at least for short sightseeing type flights. However, the stock seats have absolutely no lower back support. There is some kind of bungee cord or webbing behind the seat cushion and that's it. I would be a cripple quickly if I spent any time in it. Perhaps there is some aftermarket something that could be put in to rectify this. If not, be sure the situation is something you could live with. I could not.
Click to expand...
 
As for the Sundowner there were some problems found (radio would flake out intermittently, gear issues) that we just couldn't come to an agreement on price taking that stuff into account. After all that I thought 180hp 4 place was probably overkill for basically a monthly 200nm trip to see the family and some hamburger runs / bug smashing rides.
 
I'm a pretty wide in the shoulders kind of guy. I sat in an Ercorpe, because my buddy purchased one and I was amazingly surprised how comfortable it was. Going in from the top compared to a single door really makes a difference.

20170311_080312.jpg
 
They are cute little airplanes, but if you've ever watched one climb, they make Cessna 152s look like hot rods. Make sure that's really what you want....
 
172s tend to be pricier than Piper, or Grummans. Flew Tomahawks a bit in the last century, but they all had the leading edge strips applied by then, so there wasn't any drama in the stall. Roomy, and with decent vis, unlike 150/152s, and really, most Cessnas.
 
Todd82 said:
..Tomahawks have the bad rep...
Click to expand...
It's that "bad rep" that keeps their prices lower. As mentioned above, by now the tomahawk problems have been ironed out. My first plane was a tomahawk and if I could get by on a two place I'd own one again in a heartbeat. And, it's waaaaay roomier than a 'coupe.
 
One of the nicest fellows I've ever met on this earth got his PPL about the same time as I did. He is an older retired gentleman, and as soon as he got his ticket, he went out an bought a Beech Musketeer. It wasn't the prettiest, or the fastest airplane around, and a lot of people had negative things to say about Musketeers, but I don't think I've ever seen a person enjoy his plane, and flying in general, as much as Pablo. I'll bet you he flew that little Musketeer at least 3-4 days a week for a long time, and always had a big smile on his face. Once he got a little time in it, then his wife started going with him. Those two sweet people just cruised around southern Oklahoma in that little Beechcraft over and over and over again with smiles on their faces all the time. They were actually rather inspiring to me, both as a pilot, and as a husband. It was beyond evident that they thoroughly and genuinely enjoyed each other and their airplane. Sorry to get all mushy. I was just reminiscing.

Honestly, all of the Ercoupe owners I know are kind of like this. I can't explain why because I personally do see a ton of redeeming qualities in the machine, other than a look that is just weird enough to be kinda cool, but their owners seem to love them and seem to have a laid back joy about it. Hard to explain, but I respect the little Ercoupe because of them.

I'd try one myself, but I'd have to find a miniature flight instructor to get in with me. They sure didn't make em' for big boys.

Good luck with your first plane. Whatever it may end up being, I hope you thoroughly enjoy it.
 
Ercoupes are cool, I'd never own one myself because I like tailwheels and rudder pedals, but they're still cool. Yankees are cool too, the summer before I started flying lessons (I was 16) I did a bunch of flying in an AA-1A "Trainer" with a member of our R/C club. He was a new pilot and wanting to build up hours before selling the plane. That plus the R/C background gave me a huge head start.

But don't rule out an RV. Lots of them have been owned by low time pilots with no problems, and being experimental you can save a huge pile of money on maintenance.
 
Dana said:
Ercoupes are cool, I'd never own one myself because I like tailwheels and rudder pedals, but they're still cool. Yankees are cool too, the summer before I started flying lessons (I was 16) I did a bunch of flying in an AA-1A "Trainer" with a member of our R/C club. He was a new pilot and wanting to build up hours before selling the plane. That plus the R/C background gave me a huge head start.

But don't rule out an RV. Lots of them have been owned by low time pilots with no problems, and being experimental you can save a huge pile of money on maintenance.
Click to expand...

How do you save a ton of money on maintenance if you're not the one who built it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Todd82 said:
For the Vans... As I said I'm only a 100hr pilot. Those are sweet planes but I think I'd be over my head right now in that.
Click to expand...

RV's are not difficult to fly at all. More responsive, yes, but not like being a handful. I've gotten flamed here about how easy my 6A is to fly, so I won't go there, but rest assured, a 100hr Pilot can handle it. Getting one in the $30,000 range, that's another story tho.
 
Getting my wife to actually ride in a plane with an "Experimental" sticker on the side might be an impossibility as well.
 
Todd82 said:
Getting my wife to actually ride in a plane with an "Experimental" sticker on the side might be an impossibility as well.
Click to expand...

Tell her not to worry about that, like 95% of all crashes are pilot error anyways ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top