Wonder why nobody has...

DFH65

DFH65

En-Route
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
2,609
Display Name
Display name:
DFH65
developed a kit plane around the Ercoupe 415C?

Seems like it would fit in the E-LSA market space fairly well.

Anyone have a few million so I can put a company together? :D
 
That does sound like a good idea. Probably could lighten it up a bit and even make a conventional gear version as well...

Ryan
 
Story of my life a day late and a dollar short. I would definitely widen the cockpit by a few inches and increase the useful load if at all possible (as they did).
 
DFH65 said:
Story of my life a day late and a dollar short. I would definitely widen the cockpit by a few inches and increase the useful load if at all possible (as they did).
Click to expand...

Never been in one; just glanced in. But I've read that the cockpit needs more leg room than width, and that the climb rate needed improving. Also, it isn't clear that the person(s) proposing the "Coupe Cruiser" have progressed beyond a proposal.
 
I think four different companies have had a go at the various Ercoupe versions over the years. How to make a big pile of money? Start with a ginormous amount of money, then start a light aircraft company that makes Ercoupes, soon you have a big pile of money. Continue on in this method until you have a small pile, and eventually you'll have none.

The Legend Cub S-LSA starts bone simple at $130k. I guess you could get into a Ercoupe building frenzy and get the cost 'down' to around $100k depending on tooling and labor. For $100k, there's a few other planes I would go for before a Ercoupe.
 
Oh I realize there is no money to be made that is why I was soliciting OPM (other people's money).:D

I was thinking a kit but I suppose for the same money you could build an RV with much better performance.
 
DFH65 said:
I was thinking a kit but I suppose for the same money you could build an RV with much better performance.
Click to expand...

Very well and good if you have the medical to use it, and the RV12 just ain't nearly as cool as the old twin tail Ercoupe :D
 
Why not just buy an ercoupe and fly it light sport?
 
I imagine those with the stones to design airplane kits would rather design their own aircraft rather than use something from their father's time.
 
frfly172 said:
Why not just buy an ercoupe and fly it light sport?
Click to expand...

Would be nice if there were a few more around also would be nice if they had a little bit bigger cockpit and a bigger useful load but that is true of most of the classic aircraft that qualify LSA.
 
Skylane81E said:
Why not just buy a Cub?

Plenty of kit cubs out there
Click to expand...

I was just thinking some about the target market with the Sport Pilot and how the Ercoupe might fit in.

2 seats, tricycle gear, low cost to fly and maintain, simple to fly...
 
Isn't that the problem? They built a safer easier to fly airplane and nobody wanted one. Gotta love humans.
 
DFH65 said:
I was just thinking some about the target market with the Sport Pilot and how the Ercoupe might fit in.

2 seats, tricycle gear, low cost to fly and maintain, simple to fly...
Click to expand...

The biggest differentiators of the Ercoupe are no rudders and spin/stall resistant.

One can use the same basic approach the Fred Weick did or do a clean-sheet approach. I think the latter is the best route. I don't think the world needs yet-another-airplane design.

One possible set of simple-to-fly requirements that no airplane can handle:

  • Engine control should be limited to start/stop button and optional(!) throttle control. No mixture control. No carb heat. No prop control.
  • A single control, which when moved from neutral, controls the speed of the aircraft in that direction directly proportional to the distance the control is moved from the neutral position. Feedback system limits the range (possibly even pushing back toward neutral) of movement proportional to what is physically possible at any given time in that direction.
  • Is VTOL capable. A whole host of advantages follow (like the whole issue of stall and where you've installed the wheels, and on and on.)
  • Is (or at least acts) inherently stable at all available control positions.
One technology that could handle the above is electronically controlled quadcopters and other multicopters. For the techno-squeamish who don't trust electronics enough or who don't trust auto-rotation to work properly with that many rotors, the typical layout of multicopters should allow installation of a ballistic parachute. Such parachutes appear to be difficult or impossible to add to standard helicopters.

Anyway - I realize this is an odd thread to mention the above since it has nothing to do (directly) with the Ercoupe, but yet-another-airplane design, no matter how intriguing or deserving of revisiting or resurrecting, just doesn't seem to me to move aviation forward any.
 
DFH65 said:
2 seats, tricycle gear, low cost to fly and maintain, simple to fly...
Click to expand...

Sounds *exactly* like an RV-12 :thumbsup:

IIRC, Univair is the current owner of the type certificate for the Ercoupe lineup. If they were interested in selling plans and parts kits so that folks could build new E-LSA or E-AB 415Cs, they probably would've already done so by now.
 
Jim Logajan said:
[*]Engine control should be limited to start/stop button and optional(!) throttle control. No mixture control. No carb heat. No prop control.
[*]A single control, which when moved from neutral, controls the speed of the aircraft in that direction directly proportional to the distance the control is moved from the neutral position. Feedback system limits the range (possibly even pushing back toward neutral) of movement proportional to what is physically possible at any given time in that direction.
[*]Is VTOL capable. A whole host of advantages follow (like the whole issue of stall and where you've installed the wheels, and on and on.)
[*]Is (or at least acts) inherently stable at all available control positions.
[/LIST]
One technology that could handle the above is electronically controlled quadcopters and other multicopters. For the techno-squeamish who don't trust electronics enough or who don't trust auto-rotation to work properly with that many rotors, the typical layout of multicopters should allow installation of a ballistic parachute. Such parachutes appear to be difficult or impossible to add to standard helicopters.

Anyway - I realize this is an odd thread to mention the above since it has nothing to do (directly) with the Ercoupe, but yet-another-airplane design, no matter how intriguing or deserving of revisiting or resurrecting, just doesn't seem to me to move aviation forward any.
Click to expand...

Having built a quadcopter from a collage of off the shelf parts -

Its easy and cheap. The unit that stabilizes the quadcopter through accelerometers, gyros and a barometric altitude sensor is $40. The rest is just wires, speed controllers, motors and propellers.

For anyone to ride on one, some creative and expensive safety features would have to be built in. For example, if one motor fails, the thing will flip over instantly, and crash to the ground while flipping violently out of control. A BRS chute deployment or attempted bail out would be cut up by the rotors.

If you had a system that would detect an engine or wiring failure and shut down all of the motors before it lawn darts, there needs to be a mechanical (or completely separate computer controlled) way to keep the aircraft in controlled autorotating flight. I can't think of a way to do it mechanically, but I am not a helicopter designer.
 
You need variable pitch rotors to auto rotate something most quad copters lack. Have seen video of explosive jettisoned rotor blades to clear the path for ejection.
 
Neal Howard said:
Sounds *exactly* like an RV-12 :thumbsup:

IIRC, Univair is the current owner of the type certificate for the Ercoupe lineup. If they were interested in selling plans and parts kits so that folks could build new E-LSA or E-AB 415Cs, they probably would've already done so by now.
Click to expand...

If you look at their parts catalog, you could almost build a new Ercoupe from scratch right now.

We added quite a few things to ours, from an oil access door to cloth covered wings.
 
Jay Honeck said:
If you look at their parts catalog, you could almost build a new Ercoupe from scratch right now.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to calculate what that would cost. I imagine it would be astronomical. Imagine walking into NAPA and trying to build a car.:D
 
Last edited:
Jim Logajan said:
The biggest differentiators of the Ercoupe are no rudders and spin/stall resistant.
Click to expand...
No rudder pedals in most models, but all of them have rudders (just interconnected to the ailerons).

Hell, I'd rather have a Waterman Aerobile. One of my favorites from the Smithsonian collection. I saw the thing stuck in an upper corner of one of the buildings out at Garber years ago, and fortunately now it is on display at Hazy.

As for human quad copter variants, isn't that what Moller has been claiming to do for decades (well really an octocopter).
 
Last edited:
ClimbnSink said:
You need variable pitch rotors to auto rotate something most quad copters lack. Have seen video of explosive jettisoned rotor blades to clear the path for ejection.
Click to expand...

Right, but it would not be too hard to add. Variable pitch would likely increase the efficiency of the thing as well. Probably the best option... a dedicated system that will sense a failure and put it into a computer controlled autorotate mode.

Interesting note on the ejection of rotor blades. Never thought of that. The issue I see, is that a failure in takeoff or landing or low altitude cruise would not have ample altitude for a BRS deployment. Think about that, you are going 20kts at 50 AGL about to clear some trees and all of a sudden your copter jettisons all of its blades and pops a chute!

I'm sure you could add a rocket powered seat or module, but that opens up a whole new world of complexity and expense.
 
flyingron said:
As for human quad copter variants, isn't that what Moller has been claiming to do for decades (well really an octocopter).
Click to expand...

Moller has 4 nacelles each containing two engines. They claim if you lose any one engine during vertical takeoff or landing, the thing can make a safe landing.

The problem is that if one fails catastrophically in the nacelle it is likely to take out the other one. It uses ducted fan blades with a really high RPM. In that case, you would be hosed.
 
Last edited:
That is how it worked blades go then rockets pulled the pilots out. I guess ejection seats are too heavy for helicopters. No surprise it didn't go operational
 
Just let a computer monitor the commanded propeller RPM and actual RPM. Over a certain differential all throttles are cut and BRS deployed. I wouldn't bother trying to dump the blades.
 
Quick back of the envelope calculations show ~30HP/25kw would be needed for a part 103 legal weight quadcopter, that's rather power hungry to feed with a battery and mechanically difficult with engines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top