A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stick and Rudder's 'Safety plane'



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 8th 03, 06:49 PM
Bob Martin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In addition, it comes in REAL handy during crosswind landings when you
cross control to hold the airplane straight while holding a wing down
into the crosswind.


I still have yet to learn how to do that. When I was training for my
license, my instructor told me I could either approach wing-low or crab
(with a kick of rudder just before touchdown to straighten out). I chose
the second option.

Now, of course, I need to learn wing-low to land our RV-6...


Ads
  #12  
Old July 8th 03, 07:26 PM
Richard Isakson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ernest Christley" wrote ...
So, I should just read it as I would read the diatribe of any
revolutionary thinker. Revelutionaries see problems with the status
quo, and see that the truth lies in a different direction. The problem
lies in their depth perception, so they tend to overshoot the mark. The
truth tends to lie somewhere between here and where they think it should

be.

Revolutionaries are rarely right. In politics, they see an opportunity to
grab power in the name of "The People" and usually end up as an even greater
evil than the old regime. In engineering, they are people with half formed
ideas of how things work and they shout about it from the hill tops. Mr.
Langewiesche was reflecting the thinking of his time not pronouncing a "New
Truth".

Mechanical design is always evolutionary never revolutionary.

Rich



  #13  
Old July 8th 03, 09:06 PM
Morgans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Complete misfire....?

Yoo Hoo, Ernest...
You are the one who is "misfiring" on every count. ;o)

You have precisely described the ubiquitous ERCOUPE.
http://ercoupe.com/couphist.htm


Barnyard BOb - RV3 driver and Ercoupe aficionado


Yea, how well did that catch on? Real good.

Not! ;-)
--
Jim in NC


  #14  
Old July 8th 03, 10:21 PM
Barnyard BOb --
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:47:23 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"Barnyard BOb --" wrote in message
.. .
|
| P.S.
| You and I traveled the Ercoupe road last December.
| Others can look it all up in google, if interested.

I tried looking that thread up myself, but I couldn't find it.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The thread was "Luscombe Spin Characteristics"
Here's a sample without me in it.....


On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 00:42:34 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...
Kevin Horton writes:


Ha, ha, ha. Only someone with NO knowledge of Coupe design could
write this. Actually, Coupes can handle considerably greater
crosswind landings than most other planes.
--------------------------------------------------------
True, but only because the Ercoupe is designed to be landed almost sideways.

I like the Ercoupe, even though it did not quite live up to its promise of
being stall/spin proof -- the only thing it proved was the ingenuity of
pilots in figuring out ways to stall/spin a spin-proof airplane.

Amazingly, the Ercoupe will even ground loop -- historically about three
times as often as a Cessna 150. What kind of bonehead would ground loop an
Ercoupe? It has to be right after the pilot says "Hey, you can land these
things in any crosswind. Watch this!"

  #15  
Old July 8th 03, 11:04 PM
Barnyard BOb --
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Complete misfire....?

Yoo Hoo, Ernest...
You are the one who is "misfiring" on every count. ;o)

You have precisely described the ubiquitous ERCOUPE.
http://ercoupe.com/couphist.htm


Barnyard BOb - RV3 driver and Ercoupe aficionado


So these concepts are so important that the author goes on and on about
them, and there is exactly one plane that implements the concepts. I
would call that a misfire.


You are so far down the learning curve it is utterly laughable that
you should even have an opinion at this point. Call it a 'BACKFIRE'
if you wish. Makes no difference to me.

Never flown an Ercoupe, though I have seen one. The author even
mentions it in the book later on (past what I have read so far). But if
the ideas are so great, why aren't they used in every new design?


You ask a very simple question with no simple answer.
Why is anything where it is in the fickle marketplace?
Take the canard for example. The Wright Bros started an
industry with it and yet it is considered at least as much of
an 'oddball' as the Ercoupe in its own way.

FWIW....
There are thousands of 'better ideas' that the public resists
for one illogical reason or another. Contrary to popular belief,
building a better mousetrap is no guarantee that anyone will
ever beat a path to your door.

Since the Ercoupe originally had only a luke warm public acceptance
and currently has very low resale as a used aircraft due to supply and
demand.... why would any responsible manufacturer produce anything
akin to it brand new today unless they have a sincere desire for
bankruptcy?


Barnyard BOb -- nothing quite like an Ercoupe



  #16  
Old July 8th 03, 11:53 PM
Barnyard BOb --
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"Morgans" wrote:


You have precisely described the ubiquitous ERCOUPE.
http://ercoupe.com/couphist.htm


Barnyard BOb - RV3 driver and Ercoupe aficionado


Yea, how well did that catch on? Real good.

Not! ;-)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

5600 Ercoupes is not a shameful number,
if you care to think about other notables
of the era that did not fare nearly as well.

With almost 9000 hours, CSMEL, Instrument
ticket, CFI and 50 years of experience in many
different aircraft what am I missing about a neat
aircraft that was ahead of its time over 60 years ago?

P.S.
Why all the ****ing negativity, anyway?
The Coupe's a fine fun flying aircraft with
no bad habits and a bargain at today's prices.

Barnyard BOb --








  #17  
Old July 9th 03, 12:55 AM
Kevin McCue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The General G-1 Skyfarer took it all a step further and eliminated the
rudders entirely. Vertical stabs only. "Stall & Spin proof". Looks like a
wreck between an Ercoupe and Tripacer.

--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
  #18  
Old July 9th 03, 01:50 AM
Blueskies
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Does B-2 ring a bell?

--
Dan D.



..
"Ernest Christley" wrote in message
. com...
I'm about halfway through this book. It is quite an eye opener. The
author's explanations seem so insightful, cogent and complete. However,
there's this one blemish. Printed in 1944, the author makes the claim
that the rudder will disappear in just a few years, as it is only there
to cover the designer's mistakes. He also goes into detail about
designing an airplane that won't stall by using mechanical stops to
limit the angle of attack, and one that eliminates the need for rudder
pedals by tying the rudder to the stick so that the turn to bank
automatically produces the correct rudder action.

I began reading this book specifically because it got so much praise in
so many post in this group. Obviously, there are a lot of others here
who believe the author has a lot of flying wisdom to share. Yet, all
the airplanes I've seen have rudders and rudder pedals. Furthermore,
they all allow you to pull the airplane back into a stall.

Why?

If the ideas expressed in the book are so simple and effective, why
aren't they used? Why hasn't the FAA, ever willing to step up and
protect us from ourselves, required Frise ailerons and a rudderless
airplane? Why would Cessna set itself up for liability lawsuits by not
using simple ideas that were expressed 60 years ago? Why would the
entire aeronautical engineering community leave the door open for Brian
Gunn to come up with an idea like 'liability stealth'?

I asked this because all of the author's other explanations seem so
insightful, cogent and complete. I feel I now have a deeper
understanding of several phases of flight. But his complete misfire on
this rudder thing has me stumped.

--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------



  #19  
Old July 9th 03, 05:58 AM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Paul" wrote in message
...
| Hi Mr. C.J. Campbell:
|
| Come by row 16 at Arlington. I'll give you all the straight scoop
| on Ercoupes.
|

Looking forward to it.


  #20  
Old July 9th 03, 02:47 PM
Sydney Hoeltzli
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
So these concepts are so important that the author goes on and on about
them, and there is exactly one plane that implements the concepts. I
would call that a misfire.


You are so far down the learning curve it is utterly laughable that
you should even have an opinion at this point. Call it a 'BACKFIRE'
if you wish. Makes no difference to me.


Hey, Unk! You sound like a man who is altitude-deprived. How's
the "stick" for your "horse"?

Langewische does go on as though the rudder will be obsolete on
the new "safety airplanes" which will take over the fleet.

It's not unreasonable to call that a "misfire" or a "backfire"
or at least a faulty prediction.

You ask a very simple question with no simple answer.
Why is anything where it is in the fickle marketplace?

..
There are thousands of 'better ideas' that the public resists
for one illogical reason or another. Contrary to popular belief,
building a better mousetrap is no guarantee that anyone will
ever beat a path to your door.


Too true! I think it's called "marketing". It's not sufficient
to build a better mousetrap, you have to persuade everyone that
it really *is* a better mousetrap and capture the market share
fast before someone else gains sufficient of same to become the
standard.

Sydney (VHS over Beta, Windoze over Mac etc etc)

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.