Looking at an old Ercoupe today...

On Sat, 17 May 2008 13:45:14 GMT, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

3.8 gallons per hour, baby. That's what I'm talkin' about. (Atlas burns 25
gph at full throttle...) Hell, flying it will actually SAVE me money!
(Heh, heh, heh.)

Jay, as someone else mentioned, many Ercoupe 415Cs have had the STC to raise the
gross weight and are thus no longer Sport Pilot eligible. Have you verified
that this isn't one of them?

http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/...q.asp?faqid=11

Ron Wanttaja

wrote in news:90a7865a-7ada-4812-ac6b-221e1bba3ad8
@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

Jay,

Why don't you just build a Kitfox? They burn 5gph and can go 110mph.
They are a lot better looking than an old Ercoupe, and the visibility
with plexiglass doors and turtledeck is awesome...

My friend has a Kitfox 7A that we flew to Oshkosh last year. It was
a long flight, but was fun nonetheless. For local flying or short
trips it is a great little plane.

Dean


It's a taildragger. Until they start installing rollout stabilising
gyros in them , jay couldn't be interested.



Bertie

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
newskYWj.110933$TT4.34154@attbi_s22:

So three (of our original six) members are continuing down the road to
finding an old, LSA-compliant airplane. The other three dropped out
because they didn't like the notion of a "family membership" that
would allow multiple pilots on a single club membership. (Not
surprisingly, those were the three single or single-pilot family
folks!)

The three remaining partners already own larger aircraft, and have
similar goals:

1. We want something cheap(er) and more fun to fly
2. We want something our kids/spouses can afford to fly
3. We want an LSA in case we lose our medicals.
4. We like grass-roots aviation. No glass panels or IFR -- just low,
slow, and fun.

One of our original members was an Ercoupe fanatic, which got us
looking in that direction. After exploring those old birds, we all
found them to be...cool. Compared to many "legacy LSAs" (I.E.:
Taylorcraft, Champs, etc.) the Ercoupe is more modern, with tricycle
gear and metal construction -- while at the same time (when compared
to modern aircraft) it is quaint and refreshingly simple.

So, we're bringing one into the shop today, to have a closer look-see.
(One of the partners is my A&P, a guy with 45 years of wrenching
experience.) Anyone care to weigh in on the Ercoupe? Here are the
particulars:

- 1946 Model 416-C
- 85 HP
- 400 SMOH
- Out of annual for 1 year (the owner has another plane, and a very
busy work schedule; he's sort of lost interest in the plane)
- Flown 30 hours since 2000
- Sat for 15 years prior to 2000 (owned by current owner's uncle)
- All-metal wings (all ADs complied with)
- New upholstery/interior
- Luggage compartment enlargement STC
- New yokes
- New shock donuts
- New tires
- Many new instruments/new panel
- Garmin 295 comes with plane

The radios are...junk. For all intents and purposes, we're
considering the radios to be non-existent. There is a good, newly
installed intercom.

Current owner says he's got $28K invested. He's talking $21K. We're
thinking (pending inspection) maybe it's worth $18K.

Any Ercoupe experts out there? Whuddya think?

Another antique is going to be rendered environmentally friendly.


Bertie

On May 15, 11:07*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
- 400 SMOH
- Out of annual for 1 year (the owner has another plane, and a very busy
work schedule; he's sort of lost interest in the plane)
- Flown 30 hours since 2000
- Sat for 15 years prior to 2000 (owned by current owner's uncle)

The red flag for me is the age of the engine. It sat for 15 years
then was flown for only 30 hrs in 8 years. It had 400 hrs SMOH with
only 30hrs in the last 23 years so this MOH was done probably over 300
moons ago. Of course I am not an A&P but having to overhaul the engine
of our Cardinal after finding 3 cracked cylinders in the first annual
(after about 100hrs), I am now quite leery of old engines. Even if
the compression checks are good, I'd add the cost of the new engine to
the offered price.

Hai Longworth

The red flag for me is the age of the engine. It sat for 15 years
then was flown for only 30 hrs in 8 years. It had 400 hrs SMOH

Me, too. One thing I forgot to mention is that it had a top end overhaul in
2002, when it was brought out of its 15-year sleep.

Even so, we have adjusted our offer to reflect a mid-time engine rather than
a 400 hour engine. We also understand that the camshaft could be a rusted
POS that trashes the engine in the next 40 hours.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:el6Yj.170137$yE1.10000@attbi_s21:


We also understand that the pilot
could be a rusted POS that trashes the engine in the next 40 hours.



There. i fixored it.


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:el6Yj.170137$yE1.10000@attbi_s21:


We also understand that the pilot
could be a rusted POS that trashes the engine in the next 40 hours.



There. i fixored it.


Bertie

There, another lame forgery.

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:AieYj.232$UE2.38
@newsfe24.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:el6Yj.170137$yE1.10000@attbi_s21:


We also understand that the pilot
could be a rusted POS that trashes the engine in the next 40 hours.



There. i fixored it.


Bertie

There, another lame forgery.




There another clueless fjukktard who doesn't know his ass from his
elbow.



Bertie