Re: Stick and Rudder's 'Safety plane'

[Barnyard BOb --]

Ernest Christley misfired the following:

>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?
>
>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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

[C J Campbell]

The Ercoupe was the only airplane where all of the ideas in "Stick and
Rudder" were implemented. The rudderless Ercoupe was not a complete success;
many of them have since been modified by adding rudders. The ideas in "Stick
and Rudder" also influenced the development of several other aircraft,
including the Cessna 172. Fortunately, the Cessna Aircraft Company had some
genuine engineers working for it; they managed to keep the wierd stuff out
of it. I regard the Cessna tricycle gear line as the best implementation of
Langewiesche's ideas, if not the most complete. More modern attempts to
create stall-resistant aircraft include the Cirrus and Lancair.

Fans of the Ercoupe claim it will not stall. This is only a half-truth at
best. The Ercoupe can be maneuvered into a stall. It can also develop a
remarkably high sink rate that is a pretty darned good substitute for a
stall. The Cirrus and Lancair will stall as well, as has been demonstrated a
few times. The Cirrus will not recover from a spin, but it can be forced to
enter one.

"Stick and Rudder" is not the revealed word of God on the subject of
aviation. There are mistakes in it, as well as some rather odd theories. The
bit about the rudder is just one of them. In fact, the aerodynamics
throughout the book are more than a little suspect. Neverhtheless,
Langewiesche makes some good points. He was often right in what should be
done, but just as often wrong in how. It is obvious that Langewiesche
understood almost nothing about how air flows around an airfoil. He knew
that airplanes stall when they rich a critical angle of attack, but I see
little evidence that he understood why that is so.

There are better books about flying. "Stick and Rudder" is valuable for its
historical insights into the development of modern aircraft, but little
else.

[Barnyard BOb --]

"C J Campbell" wrote:

>The Ercoupe was the only airplane where all of the ideas in "Stick and
>Rudder" were implemented. The rudderless Ercoupe was not a complete success;
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And your point is what....
You like Cezznas?

Me too.
The Citations are lovely this time of year.

P.S.
You and I traveled the Ercoupe road last December.
Others can look it all up in google, if interested.


Barnyard BOb -- there are no COMPLETE successes

[Ron Natalie]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message ...
> The Cirrus will not recover from a spin,

Sure it will, just pull the red handle :-)

[C J Campbell]

"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.

I wonder what the Ercoupe would be like today if development had continued?
I never bought the argument that the Ercoupe was "too easy to fly," there
being no such thing.

Alon also made a float-equipped Ercoupe, but I don't know if any of these
planes still exist, nor do I know how the floats affected their useful load,
how they taxied, etc. I would love to see one.

[Ernest Christley]

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
> Ernest Christley misfired the following:

>>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.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> 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.

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

[Ernest Christley]

Jim Harper wrote:
> Much excellent commentary snipped...
>
>
>>"Stick and Rudder" is not the revealed word of God on the subject of
>>aviation. There are mistakes in it, as well as some rather odd theories. The
>>bit about the rudder is just one of them. In fact, the aerodynamics
>>throughout the book are more than a little suspect. Neverhtheless,
>>Langewiesche makes some good points. He was often right in what should be
>>done, but just as often wrong in how. It is obvious that Langewiesche
>>understood almost nothing about how air flows around an airfoil. He knew
>>that airplanes stall when they rich a critical angle of attack, but I see
>>little evidence that he understood why that is so.
>>
>>There are better books about flying. "Stick and Rudder" is valuable for its
>>historical insights into the development of modern aircraft, but little
>>else.
>
>
> There are, no doubt, many other folks on this newsgroup who can better
> address these issues, but I feel as if I should comment:
>
> Re: elevator limitation to prevent stalls. Nope, won't work. Well, not

<snip>

> drop the nose. Another way of looking at it: Limiting elevator
> authority to prevent stalls is similar to limiting steering in cars to
> avoid roll-over. We cause a bigger problem than we are correcting.
>
> Re: aileron/rudder interconnect. Sure, you can do it. You can even

<snip>

> Jim

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.

One of the problems, I think, is that "Stick and Rudder" was written in
1944. From the responses I've read, things HAVE moved toward
Langewiesche's ideas, even though they've not been taken at face value.

I still like the book. It explains much that I've experienced while
flying and found the instructors explanations lacking. But if there are
other ideas that are a little, shall we say 'overbaked', then I'd
appreciate a heads up.


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

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 03:24:49 GMT, Ernest Christley
> wrote:

>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.

The rudder has other uses besides correcting for yaw when the airplane
is banked. It also corrects for P-factor during takeoff and climb and
is needed to hold the airplane straight when power is reduced for
descent.

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.

Corky Scott

[Paul]

Hi Mr. C.J. Campbell:

Come by row 16 at Arlington. I'll give you all the straight scoop
on Ercoupes.

The one float equipped Ercoupe lost an aileron due to flutter during spin
testing.
The pilot bailed out and thus ended the float equipped Ercoupe.

Yes indeed you can stall an Ercoupe, yes indeed you can develop a dangerous
sink rate. Yes indeed they come over the fence quite a bit faster than other
planes of similar gross weight.

Yes indeed they can handle a cross wind component that leaves many other
planes on the ground,
Yes indeed they can cruise at 105-115 mph for 4 hours. Yes indeed they are a
fun responsive airplane
to fly. Yes indeed there are a lot of Ercoupe nuts around. <G>

There are some disadvantages to Ercoupes, however this is true of any of the
comparable planes
of the era.

By the way, there are 3 flavors of Ercoupe. The 2 control version where the
rudders are connected
to a mixer along with the ailerons and no pedals are installed. Next is one
with rudder pedals. The nose
wheel however is still connected to the control wheel. Last is a
conventional 3 control airplane. I'm sure
we'll have an example of all 3 versions at AWO again this year.

I feel that the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. The plum is it's
x-wind characteristics.
I hardly ever worry about the wind sock. I just crab and land--a piece of
cake.

I sure would have to change my technique if I went back to my old Champ. <G>

I'm the region 3 director of the Ercoupe Owners Club and WX allowing will be
at Arlington row 16 Wednesday and will camp all week.

Please stop by and we'll bore you to tears with Ercoupe facts and factoids.

Cheers:

Paul Anton
NC2273H---- yellow wing, blue fuselage 0-200 equipped 415D

[Darrel Toepfer]

"Paul" > wrote...
<snip>
> Please stop by and we'll bore you to tears with Ercoupe facts and
factoids.

But they don't come with bigger cockpits and engines...

[Bob Martin]

> 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...

[Richard Isakson]

"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

[Morgans]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> 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

[Barnyard BOb --]

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!"

[Barnyard BOb --]

>> 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

[Barnyard BOb --]

"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 --

[Kevin McCue]

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! =-----

[Blueskies]

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/
> ------------------------
>

[C J Campbell]

"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.

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

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)

[Darrel Toepfer]

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote...
> Darrel Toepfer wrote:
> >"Paul" > wrote...
> ><snip>
> >> Please stop by and we'll bore you to tears with Ercoupe facts and
> >factoids.
> >
> >But they don't come with bigger cockpits and engines...
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Cripes!!!
> Some folks would bitch if hung with a new rope.
>
> There is nothing bigger about Luscomes, Champs,
> Cubs, T-crafts, Funks or Cessna 140's of the era....
> or more advanced. Tri-gear, 85 hp and electrical
> systems were damn rare in the heyday of the Coupe.
>
> BTW...
> You want something the size of a Stinson Reliant....
> go for it, but it's in a far different category if you have
> any sense of fairness.

But, but, Ercoupes are priced more affordably... <g>

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 13:49:10 -0400, "Bob Martin"
> wrote:

>> 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...
>
>
The concept is pretty basic: A crosswind wants to blow you off the
runway, you have to counter that affect and you can do it either way,
crab to just above the runway or drop a wing into the wind.

If you choose to drop a wing, the airplane thinks you want to turn in
that direction. You don't, you just want to stop from being blown off
course. To prevent the airplane from turning into the wind, you apply
opposite rudder. The stronger the wind, the more rudder you must
apply. When you reach the rudder stop and are still being blown off
the runway you have discovered the maximum crosswind the airplane can
handle, and beyond. Then it's time to find another runway.

You can and do touch down with the wing still down into the wind.
First the upwind wheel touches down, then the downwind wheel.

The only problem with the crabbing into the wind landing is that once
you kick it straight, you have to get down on the runway right away,
or you'll be blown sideways again.

With the wing down method, you can fly a stabilized approach right to
touchdown without worrying about being blown sideways.

Gusting crosswinds of course make things more complicated.

Corky Scott

[Barnyard BOb --]

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:47:01 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli
> wrote:

>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"?

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

Me altitude deprived?
Nah.
Oxygen deprived is more like it, because....
Just got down from 30,000 feet returning from Sun n Fun.
Yeah, the Fly-In was back in April, but nobody told me!! <g>
However, the trip was not a total loss....

http://www.wac2003.org/
The 2003 WAC, World Aerobatic Championships, were most
enjoyable although the Russians ate our lunch at most every
turn - literally. Spent time at Kermit Weeks' Fantasy of Flight, too.
http://www.fantasyofflight.com/

Serendipity now sports a new metal Sensenich 70CM. No more
slowing down in the rain. Delivery from the Pennsylvania factory
was most excellent. Best price came by way of Stan Shannon
of Rondure Company of Fredericksburg, TX 830-997-8802.
Not only beat Van's price, but gave quick personal service.
The recommended pitch for the RV-3 was dead on, so....
all Serendipity needs is a first rate spinner to match the prop.
Anybody got a 12" spinner that would work and want to sell?

Barnyard BOb --

[Qaz]

Forget the 'Coupe get a Flying Flea. Minot (that French dude) couldn't get
the hang of coordinated flight, so he got rid of those stinking ailerons.
I'm sure it makes building the wing easier.

Cheers

Jeff
"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...
>
> >In many respects, the 'coup was waaay ahead of it's time.
> >--
> >Jim in NC
> >
> >P.S. It is really all to easy to push your buttons. <g>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> The corrected phrase should read....
> "It is really all_TOO_easy to push your buttons". ;o)
>
> FWI_REALLY_W....
> Most times, my responses are nothing more than an
> act staged for pure entertainment. Other times not.
>
> In the case of the 'Coupe....
> I do grow weary of ignorant ****s gang banging a fine airplane
> they know nothing about, but feel they must malign it because it
> gives them stature and popularity in their idiot circle of cronies.
> This is hardly a minor issue when it becomes so commonplace
> that it hurts the value and reputation of the aircraft and those that
> would otherwise look up to it rather than down on it with mindless
> contempt. Suffering such fools endlessly online and in real life at
> times is a definite challenge.
>
> The only sin that the Ercoupe has commited is.... it's different.
>
> A pox upon all those that claim to love aviation, but would 'tar and
> feather' the reputation of a perfectly competent little aircraft in a
> heartbeat by rumor, falsehood and half truths with no more concern
> than stepping on an ant.
>
> YMMV.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- ardent defender of the Ercoupe
>
>

[Peter Dohm]

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>
> >In many respects, the 'coup was waaay ahead of it's time.
> >--
> >Jim in NC
> >
> >P.S. It is really all to easy to push your buttons. <g>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> The corrected phrase should read....
> "It is really all_TOO_easy to push your buttons". ;o)
>
> FWI_REALLY_W....
> Most times, my responses are nothing more than an
> act staged for pure entertainment. Other times not.
>
> In the case of the 'Coupe....
> I do grow weary of ignorant ****s gang banging a fine airplane
> they know nothing about, but feel they must malign it because it
> gives them stature and popularity in their idiot circle of cronies.
> This is hardly a minor issue when it becomes so commonplace
> that it hurts the value and reputation of the aircraft and those that
> would otherwise look up to it rather than down on it with mindless
> contempt. Suffering such fools endlessly online and in real life at
> times is a definite challenge.
>
> The only sin that the Ercoupe has commited is.... it's different.
>
> A pox upon all those that claim to love aviation, but would 'tar and
> feather' the reputation of a perfectly competent little aircraft in a
> heartbeat by rumor, falsehood and half truths with no more concern
> than stepping on an ant.
>
> YMMV.
>
> Barnyard BOb -- ardent defender of the Ercoupe

The Ercoupe has one worse sin from my point of view -- the cabin in small!
At 6'1" I could ride in one, but really don't see why I should do so.
If it was 4" wider and 4" higher inside, it would be as comfortable as a
Tomahawk. ;-)

Peter

[Wright1902Glider]

How 'bout '02? Lets see, in my ship I've got a canard (which will stall like
an SOB), AND linked roll & yaw control. Them Wright boys tried buildin' a
plane without a rudder, but they kept spinnin' inta the sand... hence the term
"well digging." Suprisingly enough, when they ADDED a rudder, and linked it to
the wing-warping system, they quit spinning and started turning. That was Oct.
8, 1902.

Funny how well those goofy odd ideas work.

Harry

[Barnyard BOb --]

Peter Dohm > wrote:

>The Ercoupe has one worse sin from my point of view -- the cabin in small!
>At 6'1" I could ride in one, but really don't see why I should do so.
>If it was 4" wider and 4" higher inside, it would be as comfortable as a
>Tomahawk. ;-)
>
>Peter
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nonsense...
SMALL is relative and in the eye of the beholder.

Try a Mooney Mite, Luscombe 8A, Cessna 140 or Smith
Mini-Plane on for size, as just a few samples that are not 4 U.
If you can't fit, it sez more about you than it says about any plane.
With all that floorboard room and no rudder pedals getting in
one's way, I can stretch out more comfortably in a Coupe than
any other 65/85 horsepower airplane in its ancient GA class.

BTW....
The Tomahawk is better known as the Tramahawk
and has NO ardent supporters among the professional
pilots and flight instructors I get to talk to that fly 'em a lot.

Market prices for Tomahwaks are as much depressed
as the Ercoupe, so it's hardly a good example of what
the general flying public wants to put in their hangars.

P.S.
I'll leave any airplane that doesn't fit your frame up to
you cuss and fuss, while guys like me are happier
than a dead pig in the sunshine flying most anything
out there with wings.


Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight

[Mike Borgelt]

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:59:15 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:


>"Stick and Rudder" is not the revealed word of God on the subject of
>aviation.

Nor does it claim to be. The subtitle says "an explanation of the art
of flying"
I don't see any claim about science or maths of flying. It is an
excellent non mathematical treatment of what pilots should know about
how aircraft behave and why. The non mathematical treatment means it
is a little long winded is all.



> There are mistakes in it, as well as some rather odd theories.


Please tell us more.


> The
>bit about the rudder is just one of them. In fact, the aerodynamics
>throughout the book are more than a little suspect.

Really???


> Neverhtheless,
>Langewiesche makes some good points. He was often right in what should be
>done, but just as often wrong in how. It is obvious that Langewiesche
>understood almost nothing about how air flows around an airfoil. He knew
>that airplanes stall when they rich a critical angle of attack, but I see
>little evidence that he understood why that is so.

Do you know? Do you need to know to successfully fly an airplane?


>
>There are better books about flying. "Stick and Rudder" is valuable for its
>historical insights into the development of modern aircraft, but little
>else.
>

I guess that's why it's still in print. And so often referred to.

And yes I do know the maths and science behind flight. On first
reading parts of the book I thought maybe some things were wrong or
odd but reading it properly I realised he had things right even if the
language was a little old fashioned.

Mike Borgelt

[Barnyard BOb --]

"C J Campbell" wrote:
>

>>There are better books about flying. "Stick and Rudder" is valuable for its
>>historical insights into the development of modern aircraft, but little
>>else.
>>
>
>I guess that's why it's still in print. And so often referred to.
>
>And yes I do know the maths and science behind flight. On first
>reading parts of the book I thought maybe some things were wrong or
>odd but reading it properly I realised he had things right even if the
>language was a little old fashioned.
>
>Mike Borgelt
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Right on, Mike.
A measure of proper perspective aids one in appreciating
this book and many other things aviation.....
like the sometimes maligned Ercoupe. ;o)

Here on RAH, it seems there is a movement afoot to
discredit the very foundations of aviation's past while
embracing anything that moves, as long as it's not
approved for use by stodgy old certified aircraft or
those that worship at the 'altar of longevity'.

Revolution, not evolution appears to be the
mindset of many wannabees that I note here
jumping on that sort of bandwagon. Fortunately,
mostly all they do is talk. Those that go past
that point and have not survived have left me
and others more cautious behind to address
folly as we see it.

Barnyard BOb --


Barnyard BOb - 50 years of flight.

[Richard Lamb]

"The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new
respectibility to uninformed opinion."
John Lawton


Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>
> "C J Campbell" wrote:
> >
>
> >>There are better books about flying. "Stick and Rudder" is valuable for its
> >>historical insights into the development of modern aircraft, but little
> >>else.
> >>
> >
> >I guess that's why it's still in print. And so often referred to.
> >
> >And yes I do know the maths and science behind flight. On first
> >reading parts of the book I thought maybe some things were wrong or
> >odd but reading it properly I realised he had things right even if the
> >language was a little old fashioned.
> >
> >Mike Borgelt
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Right on, Mike.
> A measure of proper perspective aids one in appreciating
> this book and many other things aviation.....
> like the sometimes maligned Ercoupe. ;o)
>
> Here on RAH, it seems there is a movement afoot to
> discredit the very foundations of aviation's past while
> embracing anything that moves, as long as it's not
> approved for use by stodgy old certified aircraft or
> those that worship at the 'altar of longevity'.
>
> Revolution, not evolution appears to be the
> mindset of many wannabees that I note here
> jumping on that sort of bandwagon. Fortunately,
> mostly all they do is talk. Those that go past
> that point and have not survived have left me
> and others more cautious behind to address
> folly as we see it.
>
> Barnyard BOb --
>
> Barnyard BOb - 50 years of flight.

[Blueskies]

You use flippers to do flick rolls...


--
Dan D.



..
"Ernest Christley" > wrote in message
. com...
> Ace Pilot wrote:
> > Mike Borgelt wrote:
> >
> >>I guess that's why it's still in print. And so often referred to.
> >>
> >>And yes I do know the maths and science behind flight. On first
> >>reading parts of the book I thought maybe some things were wrong or
> >>odd but reading it properly I realised he had things right even if the
> >>language was a little old fashioned.
> >>
> >>Mike Borgelt
> >
> >
> > Is the term "flippers" for control surfaces part of that
> > "old-fashioned language" thing? Was this a common phraseology back
> > then, or is it unique to Stick and Rudder? Or is it just my copy of
> > the book? ;)
> >
> > Ace
>
> I believe that he explains that he is using that term to avoid using the
> term 'elevator'. The elevator really doesn't elevate the airplane, so
> Langweishe chose a different name.
>
> --
> ----Because I can----
> http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
> ------------------------
>

[Ace Pilot]

Ernest Christley > wrote in message >...
> Ace Pilot wrote:
> > Mike Borgelt wrote:
> >
> >>I guess that's why it's still in print. And so often referred to.
> >>
> >>And yes I do know the maths and science behind flight. On first
> >>reading parts of the book I thought maybe some things were wrong or
> >>odd but reading it properly I realised he had things right even if the
> >>language was a little old fashioned.
> >>
> >>Mike Borgelt
> >
> >
> > Is the term "flippers" for control surfaces part of that
> > "old-fashioned language" thing? Was this a common phraseology back
> > then, or is it unique to Stick and Rudder? Or is it just my copy of
> > the book? ;)
> >
> > Ace
>
> I believe that he explains that he is using that term to avoid using the
> term 'elevator'. The elevator really doesn't elevate the airplane, so
> Langweishe chose a different name.

Thanks. It seems to me, though, that while the elevator doesn't
elevate the airplane, it doesn't flip it, either. He obviously wasn't
part of the modern military - otherwise he would label it: control
surface, horizontal, pitch axis modulator, one each.

Still an interesting read.