Ercoupe

"Blueskies" wrote in message ...

"Dan" wrote in message ...
Perhaps someone will know...

Why hasn't the Ercoupe design been repackaged as a kit or LSA? It
seems to be the ideal design for the casual weekend flier (with or
without rudder pedals).

Side by side, sips fuel, low gross weight, proven design, etc.

I'm not interested in buying one (see "slow") but the few people I
know who own or have flown them have nothing but praise for the design
given its mission.



Dan




fast bird for the power. the oddest thing is you just keep the wings level and maintain the crap all the way to the
ground. flaring out sideways is just plain strange. must be what the b-52 drivers experience. i kept jabbing teh
floorboards trying to kick rudder. hard over aileron right then left then right again and the ball was always
centered...


should be craB...

On Mar 9, 5:45 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:f8f73e95-7aa0-4be3-9ae5-
:



The A36 Bonanza has aileron-rudder interconnects to minimize the pedal
coordination required.

Yeah, a lot of airplanes did. The Tripacer had it as well. So did the
A300 I used to fly.



It took a while to get used to this "feature."

All it does is make x-wind landings a bit more challenging than they
should be as the pilot is fighting bungee pressure while applying
rudder for slips. You lose the feel and have to depend on visual cues.

In no way insurmountable, but just doesn't help all that much.

Yeah, if I bought something that had it I'd probably rip it out if I
could. One of my students bought a Tripacer converted to a Pacer and the
coupling had been left in. We had to remove it to make the airplane safe
to fly.

Bertie

STC...?

Or should I not ask...?

Dan

Dan wrote in news:0191e192-a2ea-480a-aa02-
:

On Mar 9, 5:45 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:f8f73e95-7aa0-4be3-9ae5-
:



The A36 Bonanza has aileron-rudder interconnects to minimize the
pedal
coordination required.

Yeah, a lot of airplanes did. The Tripacer had it as well. So did the
A300 I used to fly.



It took a while to get used to this "feature."

All it does is make x-wind landings a bit more challenging than
they
should be as the pilot is fighting bungee pressure while applying
rudder for slips. You lose the feel and have to depend on visual
cues.

In no way insurmountable, but just doesn't help all that much.

Yeah, if I bought something that had it I'd probably rip it out if I
could. One of my students bought a Tripacer converted to a Pacer and
the
coupling had been left in. We had to remove it to make the airplane
safe
to fly.

Bertie

STC...?

Or should I not ask...?

Dan


It's part of the STC to remove it when it's converted to a Pacer, but it
hadn't been done for some reason.

Bertie

On Mar 9, 7:07 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

It's part of the STC to remove it when it's converted to a Pacer, but it
hadn't been done for some reason.

Bertie

Thought so.

I just wonder who came up with that Tri Pacer gear...

whoa...

Dan wrote in news:42b5622c-9f2a-4376-814a-
:

On Mar 9, 7:07 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

It's part of the STC to remove it when it's converted to a Pacer, but
it
hadn't been done for some reason.

Bertie

Thought so.

I just wonder who came up with that Tri Pacer gear...
=

Who came up with it? Probably Pug Piper. It was just to meet the demand
for more milk stools in the fifties. A number of airplanes were modified
by the factories to trike configuration. the C 170 the 180 and 140, for
instance and the particularly unfortunate WACO N.


Bertie




Bertie

On Mar 9, 7:20 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:42b5622c-9f2a-4376-814a-
:



On Mar 9, 7:07 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

It's part of the STC to remove it when it's converted to a Pacer, but
it
hadn't been done for some reason.

Bertie

Thought so.

I just wonder who came up with that Tri Pacer gear...
=

Who came up with it? Probably Pug Piper. It was just to meet the demand
for more milk stools in the fifties. A number of airplanes were modified
by the factories to trike configuration. the C 170 the 180 and 140, for
instance and the particularly unfortunate WACO N.

Bertie

Bertie

Yikes.. that was a selling point? It looks like it's about to tip over
if the Line boy sneezes...

Dan wrote in news:aa1217cc-4781-4e11-8777-
:

On Mar 9, 7:20 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:42b5622c-9f2a-4376-814a-
:



On Mar 9, 7:07 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

It's part of the STC to remove it when it's converted to a Pacer,
but
it
hadn't been done for some reason.

Bertie

Thought so.

I just wonder who came up with that Tri Pacer gear...
=

Who came up with it? Probably Pug Piper. It was just to meet the
demand
for more milk stools in the fifties. A number of airplanes were
modified
by the factories to trike configuration. the C 170 the 180 and 140,
for
instance and the particularly unfortunate WACO N.

Bertie

Bertie

Yikes.. that was a selling point? It looks like it's about to tip over
if the Line boy sneezes...

What, the Tripacer? They're not too bad, but they go better without the
nosewheel.
Manufacturers were trying to increase sales and make flying more
accesible. Many were put off by the requirement of older airplanes to
actually be flown so nosewheels were added and various other mutilations
were carried out. The Cessna 170 is a much nicer flying airpane than a
172, for instance.


Bertie

Dan wrote:
On Mar 9, 7:20 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:42b5622c-9f2a-4376-814a-
:



On Mar 9, 7:07 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
It's part of the STC to remove it when it's converted to a Pacer, but
it
hadn't been done for some reason.
Bertie
Thought so.
I just wonder who came up with that Tri Pacer gear...
=
Who came up with it? Probably Pug Piper. It was just to meet the demand
for more milk stools in the fifties. A number of airplanes were modified
by the factories to trike configuration. the C 170 the 180 and 140, for
instance and the particularly unfortunate WACO N.

Bertie

Bertie

Yikes.. that was a selling point? It looks like it's about to tip over
if the Line boy sneezes...
I've flown the Ercoupe. Not much to it really. It was fun running the
side windows down and flying along with my arm out on the edge of the
cockpit sort of like in a car.
The landings were a bit different if you had any crosswind at all, but
easily doable in the crab. Take off was the same. As soon as you broke
ground, it weather vaned into the wind with aileron. Sort of a "spooky"
little airplane but it flew quite well and was quite fast for its day.

The one I flew didn't have the later rudder capability. Never flew the Alon.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Mar 9, 8:23 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

I've flown the Ercoupe. Not much to it really. It was fun running the
side windows down and flying along with my arm out on the edge of the
cockpit sort of like in a car.
The landings were a bit different if you had any crosswind at all, but
easily doable in the crab. Take off was the same. As soon as you broke
ground, it weather vaned into the wind with aileron. Sort of a "spooky"
little airplane but it flew quite well and was quite fast for its day.

The one I flew didn't have the later rudder capability. Never flew the Alon.

--
Dudley Henriques

Are you supposed to kick out the crab or land crabbed?

Aside: Maybe the Lufthansa FO learned in an Ercoupe?

Dan

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 9, 8:23 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

I've flown the Ercoupe. Not much to it really. It was fun running the
side windows down and flying along with my arm out on the edge of the
cockpit sort of like in a car.
The landings were a bit different if you had any crosswind at all,
but easily doable in the crab. Take off was the same. As soon as you
broke ground, it weather vaned into the wind with aileron. Sort of a
"spooky" little airplane but it flew quite well and was quite fast
for its day.

The one I flew didn't have the later rudder capability. Never flew
the Alon.

--
Dudley Henriques

Are you supposed to kick out the crab or land crabbed?

There's nothing to kick. It has a Brake pedal out of a 39 nash on the
floor and that's it.


Bertie