Ercoupe

[Dan[_10_]]

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:de3dd05a-a0eb-4337-9a8f-
:

> 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.


I've flown them, they're awful.



Mooney warmed it up in the sixties with a single Mooney style fin. these
were even spinnable. It was called the Cadet. Very few were sold.



Find whoever owns the rights and knock yourself out. I'd suspect it's
still Mooney, though there might be an associaiton or club who owns the
STC.
If it isn't one of those, it's some old fjukkwit who lives in a trailer
and sells second hand tires. He thinks he's sitting on a goldmine with
the Urp-cup drawings stuffed in his mattress.


Bertie

Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 9, 3:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> I've flown them, they're awful.
>
> Mooney warmed it up in the sixties with a single Mooney style fin. these
> were even spinnable. It was called the Cadet. Very few were sold.

Heard of it, never saw one.

>
> Bertie

Awful because?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:232d9062-0ff2-468a-82cd-
:

> On Mar 9, 3:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> I've flown them, they're awful.
>>
>> Mooney warmed it up in the sixties with a single Mooney style fin.
these
>> were even spinnable. It was called the Cadet. Very few were sold.
>
> Heard of it, never saw one.

Seen a few. There was one for sale on Barnstormers recently.
>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Awful because?
>

No rudders. Even the ones built by Alon, which had pedals, didn't have
decent yaw control.

The big problem with them is, they;re 'idiot proof'. When you make
something idiot proof, all you do is breed a better class of idiot.
Idiots are like antibiotic resistant staff infections like that.

Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 9, 3:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > Heard of it, never saw one.
>
> Seen a few. There was one for sale on Barnstormers recently.

> >> Bertie
>
> > Awful because?
>
> No rudders. Even the ones built by Alon, which had pedals, didn't have
> decent yaw control.
>
> The big problem with them is, they;re 'idiot proof'. When you make
> something idiot proof, all you do is breed a better class of idiot.
> Idiots are like antibiotic resistant staff infections like that.
>
> Bertie

Hmmm..

Good point. The "spin proof" claim would indicate less than full
control authority, which comes in handy from time to time.

I wonder if there's a way to correlate "improved safety features" with
"increased accident rate."

Kinda like riding a bike -- the sense of protection a helmet provides
may encourage risky behavior.

Hmmmm...

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:d03993c1-7e24-4102-9767-
:


>
> Good point. The "spin proof" claim would indicate less than full
> control authority, which comes in handy from time to time.
>
> I wonder if there's a way to correlate "improved safety features" with
> "increased accident rate."
>
> Kinda like riding a bike -- the sense of protection a helmet provides
> may encourage risky behavior.


People who buy Ercoupes aren;t really inclined towards risky behaviour.
Well, for the most part they aren't. I knew a guy who buzzed his buddies
house with one and managed to pich up his neighbor's clothesline while
he was at. It was covered in laundry as well.

It's accident rate, when it used to be included in such statistics, was
reasonably low.

There was a kind of mania to build an everyman's airplane in the
thirties. There were three certified that I can think of off the top of
my head. The Ercoupe, whick is th eonly one to make it into any kind of
serious production, the General Skyfarer, which also had twon fins and
no rudder pedals, and the Gwinn Aircar, which was an incredibly strangel
little cabin Bipe. Frank Hawks, the famous racing pilot of the thirties,
died demonstrating one, which was the end of that type. I think a few
Skyfarers were bilt, though. Loked kinda like a Piper Colt with a long
atail and twin fins that could have been lifted straight off the
Ercoupe.
Fred Weick, who was a genius if a bit of a design pervert, designed the
Ercoupe all by himself, and later, he helped design that other breeder
of the pedally challenged, the Cherokee, which is the only other
airplane I know of that can be flown by paraplegics with almost no mods.


Bertie

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

> On Mar 9, 3:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>> Heard of it, never saw one.
>>
>> Seen a few. There was one for sale on Barnstormers recently.
>
>>>> Bertie
>>
>>> Awful because?
>>
>> No rudders. Even the ones built by Alon, which had pedals, didn't have
>> decent yaw control.
>>
>> The big problem with them is, they;re 'idiot proof'. When you make
>> something idiot proof, all you do is breed a better class of idiot.
>> Idiots are like antibiotic resistant staff infections like that.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Hmmm..
>
> Good point. The "spin proof" claim would indicate less than full
> control authority, which comes in handy from time to time.
>
> I wonder if there's a way to correlate "improved safety features" with
> "increased accident rate."
>
> Kinda like riding a bike -- the sense of protection a helmet provides
> may encourage risky behavior.
>
> Hmmmm...
>
> Dan

Dan, lot of info here.

http://www.airventure.org/2007/7sat28/lsa_ercoupe.html
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 9, 4:23 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:d03993c1-7e24-4102-9767-
> :
>
>
>
> > Good point. The "spin proof" claim would indicate less than full
> > control authority, which comes in handy from time to time.
>
> > I wonder if there's a way to correlate "improved safety features" with
> > "increased accident rate."
>
> > Kinda like riding a bike -- the sense of protection a helmet provides
> > may encourage risky behavior.
>
> People who buy Ercoupes aren;t really inclined towards risky behaviour.
> Well, for the most part they aren't. I knew a guy who buzzed his buddies
> house with one and managed to pich up his neighbor's clothesline while
> he was at. It was covered in laundry as well.
>
> It's accident rate, when it used to be included in such statistics, was
> reasonably low.
>
> There was a kind of mania to build an everyman's airplane in the
> thirties. There were three certified that I can think of off the top of
> my head. The Ercoupe, whick is th eonly one to make it into any kind of
> serious production, the General Skyfarer, which also had twon fins and
> no rudder pedals, and the Gwinn Aircar, which was an incredibly strangel
> little cabin Bipe. Frank Hawks, the famous racing pilot of the thirties,
> died demonstrating one, which was the end of that type. I think a few
> Skyfarers were bilt, though. Loked kinda like a Piper Colt with a long
> atail and twin fins that could have been lifted straight off the
> Ercoupe.
> Fred Weick, who was a genius if a bit of a design pervert, designed the
> Ercoupe all by himself, and later, he helped design that other breeder
> of the pedally challenged, the Cherokee, which is the only other
> airplane I know of that can be flown by paraplegics with almost no mods.
>
> Bertie

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

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.


Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

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

[Blueskies]

"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...

[Blueskies]

"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...

[Dan[_10_]]

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

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

[Dan[_10_]]

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...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

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

[Dan[_10_]]

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...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

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
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

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

[Dan[_10_]]

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

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

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 9, 8:38 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote :
>
>
>
> > 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

holy cow...

so you expect to side load?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 9, 8:38 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote
>> innews:ad528b4b-42ec-4e5d-a1f9-

>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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
>
> holy cow...
>
> so you expect to side load?

Yep, the gear was well able for it. A lot of people land everything like
this.


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 9, 8:46 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > so you expect to side load?
>
> Yep, the gear was well able for it. A lot of people land everything like
> this.
>
> Bertie

Very true...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:a4415af9-1a64-432d-9961-7ac8559a56a4
@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 9, 8:46 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > so you expect to side load?
>>
>> Yep, the gear was well able for it. A lot of people land everything like
>> this.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Very true...
>

I even saw an ex-super cub to be landed in a farily stif crosswind like
this. One can only wonder.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> 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
>
Bertie called it right in his answer to this. It was the weirdest
feeling trust me. You eventually got used to it, but there really was
nothing under the panel on the floor except that stupid little brake
pedal. Some say they got some comfort out of pressing down on that brake
pedal during the last few feet in the flare. You crabbed it into the
wind and flew it onto the ground sometimes looking at the side of the
runway :-)) It kicked itself out ok. The gear was good and tough.

You land the F16 the same way BTW. You can't put a wing down in the
Viper and landing it in the crab is regular procedure. I never got used
to crab landings in the high performance airplanes that I flew. I always
had a tendency to want to lower that windward wing, usually doing that
just a bit anyway to ease the touchdown as much as possible.
Of course aircraft like the Viper have a rudder to help a bit with that.
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 9, 9:04 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > 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
>
> Bertie called it right in his answer to this. It was the weirdest
> feeling trust me. You eventually got used to it, but there really was
> nothing under the panel on the floor except that stupid little brake
> pedal. Some say they got some comfort out of pressing down on that brake
> pedal during the last few feet in the flare. You crabbed it into the
> wind and flew it onto the ground sometimes looking at the side of the
> runway :-)) It kicked itself out ok. The gear was good and tough.
>
> You land the F16 the same way BTW. You can't put a wing down in the
> Viper and landing it in the crab is regular procedure. I never got used
> to crab landings in the high performance airplanes that I flew. I always
> had a tendency to want to lower that windward wing, usually doing that
> just a bit anyway to ease the touchdown as much as possible.
> Of course aircraft like the Viper have a rudder to help a bit with that.
> :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques


I'd imagine it was a sudden twist once the mains hit!

I remember watching B-52s land -- there was no way to do a wing low in
a Buff -- the wings were already hanging down even with the belly!

Looking back on the weather they used to fly in, they had brass ones,
those guys...

Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 9, 9:04 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> 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
>> Bertie called it right in his answer to this. It was the weirdest
>> feeling trust me. You eventually got used to it, but there really was
>> nothing under the panel on the floor except that stupid little brake
>> pedal. Some say they got some comfort out of pressing down on that brake
>> pedal during the last few feet in the flare. You crabbed it into the
>> wind and flew it onto the ground sometimes looking at the side of the
>> runway :-)) It kicked itself out ok. The gear was good and tough.
>>
>> You land the F16 the same way BTW. You can't put a wing down in the
>> Viper and landing it in the crab is regular procedure. I never got used
>> to crab landings in the high performance airplanes that I flew. I always
>> had a tendency to want to lower that windward wing, usually doing that
>> just a bit anyway to ease the touchdown as much as possible.
>> Of course aircraft like the Viper have a rudder to help a bit with that.
>> :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> I'd imagine it was a sudden twist once the mains hit!
>
> I remember watching B-52s land -- there was no way to do a wing low in
> a Buff -- the wings were already hanging down even with the belly!
>
> Looking back on the weather they used to fly in, they had brass ones,
> those guys...
>
> Dan
The Buff has an ace in the hole. It has a crosswind gear that can be set
to align with the runway while the fuselage stays canted into the wind.
Watching one of those beasts land is a hoot :-)


--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt Whiting]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 9, 9:04 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> 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
>> Bertie called it right in his answer to this. It was the weirdest
>> feeling trust me. You eventually got used to it, but there really was
>> nothing under the panel on the floor except that stupid little brake
>> pedal. Some say they got some comfort out of pressing down on that brake
>> pedal during the last few feet in the flare. You crabbed it into the
>> wind and flew it onto the ground sometimes looking at the side of the
>> runway :-)) It kicked itself out ok. The gear was good and tough.
>>
>> You land the F16 the same way BTW. You can't put a wing down in the
>> Viper and landing it in the crab is regular procedure. I never got used
>> to crab landings in the high performance airplanes that I flew. I always
>> had a tendency to want to lower that windward wing, usually doing that
>> just a bit anyway to ease the touchdown as much as possible.
>> Of course aircraft like the Viper have a rudder to help a bit with that.
>> :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> I'd imagine it was a sudden twist once the mains hit!
>
> I remember watching B-52s land -- there was no way to do a wing low in
> a Buff -- the wings were already hanging down even with the belly!
>
> Looking back on the weather they used to fly in, they had brass ones,
> those guys...

And gear that could be turned to align with the direction of travel...

Matt

[Peter Dohm]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> 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

One of my chapter members has been flying one forever, and looking in at
that little square mushroom sticking in the middle of the left half of the
floor is just a little unsettling. OTOH, watching the prop as he taxies
past, with the strange angle at which the engine is mounted is at least as
weird.

It does handle uneven ground quite well though.

Peter

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dan > wrote in
>> news:ad528b4b-42ec-4e5d-a1f9-

>> :
>>
>>> 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
>
> One of my chapter members has been flying one forever, and looking in
> at that little square mushroom sticking in the middle of the left half
> of the floor is just a little unsettling. OTOH, watching the prop as
> he taxies past, with the strange angle at which the engine is mounted
> is at least as weird.
>
> It does handle uneven ground quite well though.
>

Yeah, those mains are really hefty. The nosewheel has an unusual and
clever feature. There's a fairing on the lower scissors that Streamlines
the mosewheel strut when it's extended.

Someone, i think it was Joe Ott, modeled the thing for free flight in
the late thirties. It's a large FF model an amazingly close to scale.
Dihedral gear arrangement and all are fairly close. Probably the
tailplane has been enlarged but that's about it. Nowadays guys build
those old FF designs but often add some simple radio to keep them from
flying away.It's called "radio assist" The full size is a bit like that
when you think about it..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns9A5D20AC0F8B7****upropeeh@
207.14.116.130:

> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>
> Someone, i think it was Joe Ott, modeled the thing for free flight in
> the late thirties. It's a large FF model an amazingly close to scale.
> Dihedral gear arrangement and all are fairly close. Probably the
> tailplane has been enlarged but that's about it.

It was Earl Stahl. If anyone wants to make one i got some drawings for it
somewhere.

Bertie

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "Dan" == Dan > writes:

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

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

At best an Alon Aircoupe (later model with a different canopy) will
cruise at 100 kts...far short of the 120 kts legally possible. For
whatever reason the J-3 Cub enjoys a large following, enough to have
two modern LSA versions manufactured even though the performance of
the new ones doesn't improve much over the original. The Coupes never
had that kind of following so I think improvements would have to be
made over the original. That would increase the expense and it would
not be easy to achieve 120 kts cruise.

Best thing might be Van's RV-12 kit which should be for sale Real Soon.

--
"You, Mr. Wilkes, will die either of the pox or on the gallows."
-The Earl of Sandwich

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 9, 9:42 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 9:04 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Dan wrote:
> >>> 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
> >> Bertie called it right in his answer to this. It was the weirdest
> >> feeling trust me. You eventually got used to it, but there really was
> >> nothing under the panel on the floor except that stupid little brake
> >> pedal. Some say they got some comfort out of pressing down on that brake
> >> pedal during the last few feet in the flare. You crabbed it into the
> >> wind and flew it onto the ground sometimes looking at the side of the
> >> runway :-)) It kicked itself out ok. The gear was good and tough.
>
> >> You land the F16 the same way BTW. You can't put a wing down in the
> >> Viper and landing it in the crab is regular procedure. I never got used
> >> to crab landings in the high performance airplanes that I flew. I always
> >> had a tendency to want to lower that windward wing, usually doing that
> >> just a bit anyway to ease the touchdown as much as possible.
> >> Of course aircraft like the Viper have a rudder to help a bit with that.
> >> :-))
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > I'd imagine it was a sudden twist once the mains hit!
>
> > I remember watching B-52s land -- there was no way to do a wing low in
> > a Buff -- the wings were already hanging down even with the belly!
>
> > Looking back on the weather they used to fly in, they had brass ones,
> > those guys...
>
> > Dan
>
> The Buff has an ace in the hole. It has a crosswind gear that can be set
> to align with the runway while the fuselage stays canted into the wind.
> Watching one of those beasts land is a hoot :-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Right! The nose would be pointed 20 degrees left, a/c tracking
straight. Creepy.

They also took off in what appeared to be a nose level attitude. The
big wings would go from drooping to not-so-droop and then the bird
would lift off.

I was in SAC, which meant every so often all the alert birds would do
a rolling runup as they started a takeoff roll.

If they took off, we knew we had about 8 minutes.

If they aborted, we knew it was an exercise.

Good for the adrenal system, that.

Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 9, 9:42 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On Mar 9, 9:04 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>> Bertie called it right in his answer to this. It was the weirdest
>>>> feeling trust me. You eventually got used to it, but there really was
>>>> nothing under the panel on the floor except that stupid little brake
>>>> pedal. Some say they got some comfort out of pressing down on that brake
>>>> pedal during the last few feet in the flare. You crabbed it into the
>>>> wind and flew it onto the ground sometimes looking at the side of the
>>>> runway :-)) It kicked itself out ok. The gear was good and tough.
>>>> You land the F16 the same way BTW. You can't put a wing down in the
>>>> Viper and landing it in the crab is regular procedure. I never got used
>>>> to crab landings in the high performance airplanes that I flew. I always
>>>> had a tendency to want to lower that windward wing, usually doing that
>>>> just a bit anyway to ease the touchdown as much as possible.
>>>> Of course aircraft like the Viper have a rudder to help a bit with that.
>>>> :-))
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> I'd imagine it was a sudden twist once the mains hit!
>>> I remember watching B-52s land -- there was no way to do a wing low in
>>> a Buff -- the wings were already hanging down even with the belly!
>>> Looking back on the weather they used to fly in, they had brass ones,
>>> those guys...
>>> Dan
>> The Buff has an ace in the hole. It has a crosswind gear that can be set
>> to align with the runway while the fuselage stays canted into the wind.
>> Watching one of those beasts land is a hoot :-)
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Right! The nose would be pointed 20 degrees left, a/c tracking
> straight. Creepy.
>
> They also took off in what appeared to be a nose level attitude. The
> big wings would go from drooping to not-so-droop and then the bird
> would lift off.
>
> I was in SAC, which meant every so often all the alert birds would do
> a rolling runup as they started a takeoff roll.
>
> If they took off, we knew we had about 8 minutes.
>
> If they aborted, we knew it was an exercise.
>
> Good for the adrenal system, that.
>
> Dan

The takeoff of the Buff is one of the strangest things I've ever watched
in aviation. You're right; it doesn't rotate, it just "leaves the earth"
:-)) Unbelievable airplane! I heard recently that SAC had a son in the
left seat flying the same Buff flown by his father years back. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 10, 10:35 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 9:42 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Dan wrote:
> >>> On Mar 9, 9:04 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>> Dan wrote:
> >>>>> 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
> >>>> Bertie called it right in his answer to this. It was the weirdest
> >>>> feeling trust me. You eventually got used to it, but there really was
> >>>> nothing under the panel on the floor except that stupid little brake
> >>>> pedal. Some say they got some comfort out of pressing down on that brake
> >>>> pedal during the last few feet in the flare. You crabbed it into the
> >>>> wind and flew it onto the ground sometimes looking at the side of the
> >>>> runway :-)) It kicked itself out ok. The gear was good and tough.
> >>>> You land the F16 the same way BTW. You can't put a wing down in the
> >>>> Viper and landing it in the crab is regular procedure. I never got used
> >>>> to crab landings in the high performance airplanes that I flew. I always
> >>>> had a tendency to want to lower that windward wing, usually doing that
> >>>> just a bit anyway to ease the touchdown as much as possible.
> >>>> Of course aircraft like the Viper have a rudder to help a bit with that.
> >>>> :-))
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>> I'd imagine it was a sudden twist once the mains hit!
> >>> I remember watching B-52s land -- there was no way to do a wing low in
> >>> a Buff -- the wings were already hanging down even with the belly!
> >>> Looking back on the weather they used to fly in, they had brass ones,
> >>> those guys...
> >>> Dan
> >> The Buff has an ace in the hole. It has a crosswind gear that can be set
> >> to align with the runway while the fuselage stays canted into the wind.
> >> Watching one of those beasts land is a hoot :-)
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > Right! The nose would be pointed 20 degrees left, a/c tracking
> > straight. Creepy.
>
> > They also took off in what appeared to be a nose level attitude. The
> > big wings would go from drooping to not-so-droop and then the bird
> > would lift off.
>
> > I was in SAC, which meant every so often all the alert birds would do
> > a rolling runup as they started a takeoff roll.
>
> > If they took off, we knew we had about 8 minutes.
>
> > If they aborted, we knew it was an exercise.
>
> > Good for the adrenal system, that.
>
> > Dan
>
> The takeoff of the Buff is one of the strangest things I've ever watched
> in aviation. You're right; it doesn't rotate, it just "leaves the earth"
> :-)) Unbelievable airplane! I heard recently that SAC had a son in the
> left seat flying the same Buff flown by his father years back. :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Wouldn't be SAC now. In '92 (IIRC) SAC was reorg'd.

SAC, TAC, and MAC were combined into Air Mobility Command & Air Combat
Command.

I wonder what they did to all the old signs?

"Peace Through Strength. Victory Through Devastation"
"Peace Is Our Profession. War Is Just a Hobby."

Another true story...

As a young NCO I was given the task of making the weapons maintenance
bay more productive (in other words, we had nothing to do and it was
make-work).

So I used my mural talents to paint a 20' Mushroom cloud on the wall
with a head-on silhouette of a BUFF. Beneath the Buff the slogan,
"It's Miller Time."

I was putting the finishing touches on it when word came a VIP was
inbound.

An hour later, "Sergeant, this is Senator Paul Tsongas."

We'd done all we could to stack stuff against the wall, but his only
comment --"Nice mural."


Dan

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> I heard recently that SAC had a son in the left seat flying the same Buff
> flown by his father years back. :-))
>

There's nothing new to that. I read recently of a Korean War era Corsair
being flown by the son of a pilot that flew it in WWII. I found that a bit
hard to believe but I let it pass. The BUFF has been in service long enough
to be flown by the grandchildren of earlier pilots, and could be in service
long enough to be flown by great-grandchildren.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 9, 6:23 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

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

I did. It had rudder pedals, but there was little rudder response.
The airplane was uncomfortable and noisy, but it flew easily, and
outperformed our 150s on ten less HP. Took off shorter, climbed half
again as well, and cruised faster. Much sleeker than the 150, but had
no baggage space to speak of.

Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Mar 9, 6:23 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> The one I flew didn't have the later rudder capability. Never flew the Alon.
>
> I did. It had rudder pedals, but there was little rudder response.
> The airplane was uncomfortable and noisy, but it flew easily, and
> outperformed our 150s on ten less HP. Took off shorter, climbed half
> again as well, and cruised faster. Much sleeker than the 150, but had
> no baggage space to speak of.
>
> Dan
I remember the performance was good, even for the earlier Ercoupes. I
guess it was a combination of it's looks and the mass production
capabilities of Cessna and Piper that kept it from becoming more popular
than it did.
There are still a few flying.
The real legacy for the Ercoupe I believe has to be that the airplane
opened up the world of aviation for the physically challenged. I
remember one fellow on our field who arrived almost every Sunday if VFR
to stick his crutches into his Ercoupe and fly off for some flyin or
hamburger joint somewhere. I can still see the smile on his face when he
crutched on into our flight office, sat down, and joined in the "war
stories" we always seemed to have going on in there.

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Mar 9, 2:31*pm, Dan > wrote:
> 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

If you can stand a single holer, there's this (with rudder peds):

http://www.theminicoupe.com/_wsn/page2.html

Not many flying I think. Looks fun though.

[xyzzy]

On Mar 9, 8:41 pm, Dan > wrote:
> On Mar 9, 8:38 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dan > wrote :
>
> > > 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
>
> holy cow...
>
> so you expect to side load?

It straightens itself out on landing.

[xyzzy]

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

I flew one once and one thing I remember is that taking off in a left
crosswind took some getting used to. Had to bank it farther right
than most people will be comfortable with that low, to keep it
straight. Because you couldn't correct for the weathervaning + left
turning tendency with the rudder. Yes, I know the left turning
tendency was supposedly designed out of it. Not. At takeoff power
it's still there. Of coruse the one I was flying was a 75 hp model
that had been modified with the c-90, so that might have something to
do with it :)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

xyzzy wrote:
> On Mar 9, 8:23 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> 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
>
> I flew one once and one thing I remember is that taking off in a left
> crosswind took some getting used to. Had to bank it farther right
> than most people will be comfortable with that low, to keep it
> straight. Because you couldn't correct for the weathervaning + left
> turning tendency with the rudder. Yes, I know the left turning
> tendency was supposedly designed out of it. Not. At takeoff power
> it's still there. Of coruse the one I was flying was a 75 hp model
> that had been modified with the c-90, so that might have something to
> do with it :)
>

Never had these problems. I'm sure you meant a left bank into a left
crosswind and not a right. :-))
The wethervaning was natural in the Ercoupe and left alone, the airplane
would usually make the crosswind correction by itself :-))

I never noticed any noticeable left turning tendencies in the Coupe.
PFactor was no issue as the basic attitude of the propeller was fairly
level with the relative wind on takeoff. Not enough vertical surface
back there for much spiraling slipstream effect. Of course there's
always a bit of gyroscopic precess as you rotate in pitch, but nothing
of note really in the Coupe. Torque correction is in roll anyway, and
you had ample aileron on the airplane.

It was different all right, but no big deal at all on these issues.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 10, 1:18 pm, wrote:
>
> If you can stand a single holer, there's this (with rudder peds):
>
> http://www.theminicoupe.com/_wsn/page2.html
>
> Not many flying I think. Looks fun though.

Now that's.. mini.

Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 10, 1:18 pm, wrote:
>> If you can stand a single holer, there's this (with rudder peds):
>>
>> http://www.theminicoupe.com/_wsn/page2.html
>>
>> Not many flying I think. Looks fun though.
>
> Now that's.. mini.
>
> Dan
Mooney made something way back when called the Mite. I flew it a couple
of times. That thing was small; little single seater; not a bad aileron
roll either :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 10, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 1:18 pm, wrote:
> >> If you can stand a single holer, there's this (with rudder peds):
>
> >>http://www.theminicoupe.com/_wsn/page2.html
>
> >> Not many flying I think. Looks fun though.
>
> > Now that's.. mini.
>
> > Dan
>
> Mooney made something way back when called the Mite. I flew it a couple
> of times. That thing was small; little single seater; not a bad aileron
> roll either :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

The mite! I think there's one at my home field (or so I'm told --
never saw it fly).

How about the Bede-5?

;-)

Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 10, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 1:18 pm, wrote:
>>>> If you can stand a single holer, there's this (with rudder peds):
>>>> http://www.theminicoupe.com/_wsn/page2.html
>>>> Not many flying I think. Looks fun though.
>>> Now that's.. mini.
>>> Dan
>> Mooney made something way back when called the Mite. I flew it a couple
>> of times. That thing was small; little single seater; not a bad aileron
>> roll either :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> The mite! I think there's one at my home field (or so I'm told --
> never saw it fly).
>
> How about the Bede-5?
>
> ;-)
>
> Dan
Never flew the BD5, but my friend started to build one. He got caught up
in the mess that was Jim Bede's engine woes. Never finished it.
Corkey Fornof is an old friend. Cork flew the BD5J through the hangar in
the James Bond movie "Occtopussy"

--
Dudley Henriques

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>It was Earl Stahl. If anyone wants to make one i got some drawings for it
>somewhere.
>
>Bertie

a goldmine under yer mattress

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 10, 6:08 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Dan wrote:
> >>> On Mar 10, 1:18 pm, wrote:
> >>>> If you can stand a single holer, there's this (with rudder peds):
> >>>>http://www.theminicoupe.com/_wsn/page2.html
> >>>> Not many flying I think. Looks fun though.
> >>> Now that's.. mini.
> >>> Dan
> >> Mooney made something way back when called the Mite. I flew it a couple
> >> of times. That thing was small; little single seater; not a bad aileron
> >> roll either :-))
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > The mite! I think there's one at my home field (or so I'm told --
> > never saw it fly).
>
> > How about the Bede-5?
>
> > ;-)
>
> > Dan
>
> Never flew the BD5, but my friend started to build one. He got caught up
> in the mess that was Jim Bede's engine woes. Never finished it.
> Corkey Fornof is an old friend. Cork flew the BD5J through the hangar in
> the James Bond movie "Occtopussy"
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Now that was an awesome scene...

When I was a kid there's was only one plane for me -- the BD-5J.

Thank God for maturity!

Dan

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Dan 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
>[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
>> --

>
>I wonder what they did to all the old signs?
>
>"Peace Through Strength. Victory Through Devastation"
>"Peace Is Our Profession. War Is Just a Hobby."
>

My favorite was on a door leading to ops at...ummm Castle? AFB...I think. Or
Ellsworth?

Anyway there was a relief carving of a BUFF on a piece of wood nailed to the
door,
said "To Fly and to FIGHT!" with a big smokin' 8-can carved above it.

Modified by the duty squad to read:

To Fly and to ...Eat donuts"

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 10, 6:08 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 10, 1:18 pm, wrote:
>>>>>> If you can stand a single holer, there's this (with rudder peds):
>>>>>> http://www.theminicoupe.com/_wsn/page2.html
>>>>>> Not many flying I think. Looks fun though.
>>>>> Now that's.. mini.
>>>>> Dan
>>>> Mooney made something way back when called the Mite. I flew it a couple
>>>> of times. That thing was small; little single seater; not a bad aileron
>>>> roll either :-))
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> The mite! I think there's one at my home field (or so I'm told --
>>> never saw it fly).
>>> How about the Bede-5?
>>> ;-)
>>> Dan
>> Never flew the BD5, but my friend started to build one. He got caught up
>> in the mess that was Jim Bede's engine woes. Never finished it.
>> Corkey Fornof is an old friend. Cork flew the BD5J through the hangar in
>> the James Bond movie "Occtopussy"
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Now that was an awesome scene...
>
> When I was a kid there's was only one plane for me -- the BD-5J.
>
> Thank God for maturity!
>
> Dan
Cork says the hardest thing about the scene was figuring the shock wave
bounce back off the interior hangar walls as he flew the airplane
through. His team brought in a physics whiz (not Tucker BTW :-) who ran
the numbers and came up with the exact amount they had to open the side
windows to keep the shock from bouncing back on the aircraft as he went
through. If that happened, he would have been killed.
You're right, it was a great stunt. Cork has done a lot of them in
different movies. He and his dad Bill Fornof were both charter members
of the IFPF which I founded. Great people the Fornofs.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 10, 6:36 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 6:08 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Dan wrote:
> >>> On Mar 10, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>> Dan wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 10, 1:18 pm, wrote:
> >>>>>> If you can stand a single holer, there's this (with rudder peds):
> >>>>>>http://www.theminicoupe.com/_wsn/page2.html
> >>>>>> Not many flying I think. Looks fun though.
> >>>>> Now that's.. mini.
> >>>>> Dan
> >>>> Mooney made something way back when called the Mite. I flew it a couple
> >>>> of times. That thing was small; little single seater; not a bad aileron
> >>>> roll either :-))
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>> The mite! I think there's one at my home field (or so I'm told --
> >>> never saw it fly).
> >>> How about the Bede-5?
> >>> ;-)
> >>> Dan
> >> Never flew the BD5, but my friend started to build one. He got caught up
> >> in the mess that was Jim Bede's engine woes. Never finished it.
> >> Corkey Fornof is an old friend. Cork flew the BD5J through the hangar in
> >> the James Bond movie "Occtopussy"
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > Now that was an awesome scene...
>
> > When I was a kid there's was only one plane for me -- the BD-5J.
>
> > Thank God for maturity!
>
> > Dan
>
> Cork says the hardest thing about the scene was figuring the shock wave
> bounce back off the interior hangar walls as he flew the airplane
> through. His team brought in a physics whiz (not Tucker BTW :-) who ran
> the numbers and came up with the exact amount they had to open the side
> windows to keep the shock from bouncing back on the aircraft as he went
> through. If that happened, he would have been killed.
> You're right, it was a great stunt. Cork has done a lot of them in
> different movies. He and his dad Bill Fornof were both charter members
> of the IFPF which I founded. Great people the Fornofs.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

IFPF -- do you know Buck Buchanan?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 10, 6:36 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 6:08 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 10, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 1:18 pm, wrote:
>>>>>>>> If you can stand a single holer, there's this (with rudder peds):
>>>>>>>> http://www.theminicoupe.com/_wsn/page2.html
>>>>>>>> Not many flying I think. Looks fun though.
>>>>>>> Now that's.. mini.
>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>> Mooney made something way back when called the Mite. I flew it a couple
>>>>>> of times. That thing was small; little single seater; not a bad aileron
>>>>>> roll either :-))
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>> The mite! I think there's one at my home field (or so I'm told --
>>>>> never saw it fly).
>>>>> How about the Bede-5?
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>> Dan
>>>> Never flew the BD5, but my friend started to build one. He got caught up
>>>> in the mess that was Jim Bede's engine woes. Never finished it.
>>>> Corkey Fornof is an old friend. Cork flew the BD5J through the hangar in
>>>> the James Bond movie "Occtopussy"
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> Now that was an awesome scene...
>>> When I was a kid there's was only one plane for me -- the BD-5J.
>>> Thank God for maturity!
>>> Dan
>> Cork says the hardest thing about the scene was figuring the shock wave
>> bounce back off the interior hangar walls as he flew the airplane
>> through. His team brought in a physics whiz (not Tucker BTW :-) who ran
>> the numbers and came up with the exact amount they had to open the side
>> windows to keep the shock from bouncing back on the aircraft as he went
>> through. If that happened, he would have been killed.
>> You're right, it was a great stunt. Cork has done a lot of them in
>> different movies. He and his dad Bill Fornof were both charter members
>> of the IFPF which I founded. Great people the Fornofs.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> IFPF -- do you know Buck Buchanan?
I don't think so. IFPF was the International Fighter Pilots Fellowship.
Google IFPF History for a skinny.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Phil J]

On Mar 10, 1:35*pm, xyzzy > wrote:
> On Mar 9, 8:41 pm, Dan > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 8:38 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > > Dan > wrote :
>
> > > > 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
>
> > holy cow...
>
> > so you expect to side load?
>
> It straightens itself out on landing

There's some video of an Ercoupe crosswind landing starting at 5:42 in
this clip...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ob7toBLP2I

[Phil J]

On Mar 9, 2:31*pm, Dan > wrote:
> 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

There was a group working on a modernized composite kit version.
Don't know if they are still at it or not. Here's a link...

http://www.homebuilt.org/aircraft/kaaircraft/kaaircraft.html


Phil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in
news:80f7750406622@uwe:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>It was Earl Stahl. If anyone wants to make one i got some drawings for
>>it somewhere.
>>
>>Bertie
>
> a goldmine under yer mattress
>

God if I had a nickel for every prospective project i had lying around..

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Phil J > wrote in news:62c21041-f380-491f-b928-
:

> On Mar 9, 2:31*pm, Dan > wrote:
>> 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
>
> There was a group working on a modernized composite kit version.
> Don't know if they are still at it or not. Here's a link...
>
> http://www.homebuilt.org/aircraft/kaaircraft/kaaircraft.html
>

the real question is; will they build it for me then let me put on the
decals so I can say I built it?


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 10, 8:00 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 6:36 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Dan wrote:
> >>> On Mar 10, 6:08 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>> Dan wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 10, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>>>> Dan wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mar 10, 1:18 pm, wrote:
> >>>>>>>> If you can stand a single holer, there's this (with rudder peds):
> >>>>>>>>http://www.theminicoupe.com/_wsn/page2.html
> >>>>>>>> Not many flying I think. Looks fun though.
> >>>>>>> Now that's.. mini.
> >>>>>>> Dan
> >>>>>> Mooney made something way back when called the Mite. I flew it a couple
> >>>>>> of times. That thing was small; little single seater; not a bad aileron
> >>>>>> roll either :-))
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>>>> The mite! I think there's one at my home field (or so I'm told --
> >>>>> never saw it fly).
> >>>>> How about the Bede-5?
> >>>>> ;-)
> >>>>> Dan
> >>>> Never flew the BD5, but my friend started to build one. He got caught up
> >>>> in the mess that was Jim Bede's engine woes. Never finished it.
> >>>> Corkey Fornof is an old friend. Cork flew the BD5J through the hangar in
> >>>> the James Bond movie "Occtopussy"
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>> Now that was an awesome scene...
> >>> When I was a kid there's was only one plane for me -- the BD-5J.
> >>> Thank God for maturity!
> >>> Dan
> >> Cork says the hardest thing about the scene was figuring the shock wave
> >> bounce back off the interior hangar walls as he flew the airplane
> >> through. His team brought in a physics whiz (not Tucker BTW :-) who ran
> >> the numbers and came up with the exact amount they had to open the side
> >> windows to keep the shock from bouncing back on the aircraft as he went
> >> through. If that happened, he would have been killed.
> >> You're right, it was a great stunt. Cork has done a lot of them in
> >> different movies. He and his dad Bill Fornof were both charter members
> >> of the IFPF which I founded. Great people the Fornofs.
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > IFPF -- do you know Buck Buchanan?
>
> I don't think so. IFPF was the International Fighter Pilots Fellowship.
> Google IFPF History for a skinny.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

oops..ok..wrong group...

Found the link. Quite an elite group!

Doug Bader?!?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 10, 8:00 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 6:36 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 10, 6:08 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 1:18 pm, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> If you can stand a single holer, there's this (with rudder peds):
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.theminicoupe.com/_wsn/page2.html
>>>>>>>>>> Not many flying I think. Looks fun though.
>>>>>>>>> Now that's.. mini.
>>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>> Mooney made something way back when called the Mite. I flew it a couple
>>>>>>>> of times. That thing was small; little single seater; not a bad aileron
>>>>>>>> roll either :-))
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>> The mite! I think there's one at my home field (or so I'm told --
>>>>>>> never saw it fly).
>>>>>>> How about the Bede-5?
>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>> Never flew the BD5, but my friend started to build one. He got caught up
>>>>>> in the mess that was Jim Bede's engine woes. Never finished it.
>>>>>> Corkey Fornof is an old friend. Cork flew the BD5J through the hangar in
>>>>>> the James Bond movie "Occtopussy"
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>> Now that was an awesome scene...
>>>>> When I was a kid there's was only one plane for me -- the BD-5J.
>>>>> Thank God for maturity!
>>>>> Dan
>>>> Cork says the hardest thing about the scene was figuring the shock wave
>>>> bounce back off the interior hangar walls as he flew the airplane
>>>> through. His team brought in a physics whiz (not Tucker BTW :-) who ran
>>>> the numbers and came up with the exact amount they had to open the side
>>>> windows to keep the shock from bouncing back on the aircraft as he went
>>>> through. If that happened, he would have been killed.
>>>> You're right, it was a great stunt. Cork has done a lot of them in
>>>> different movies. He and his dad Bill Fornof were both charter members
>>>> of the IFPF which I founded. Great people the Fornofs.
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> IFPF -- do you know Buck Buchanan?
>> I don't think so. IFPF was the International Fighter Pilots Fellowship.
>> Google IFPF History for a skinny.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> oops..ok..wrong group...
>
> Found the link. Quite an elite group!
>
> Doug Bader?!?

An old friend and charter member of the IFPF. Don't know if you are
asking who he was or not, but Douglas is well known as the legless ace
of the Battle of Britain.

To me, he was much more than that. One of the finest people I have ever
known, Douglas devoted his entire life to helping the physically
impaired, especially amputee children.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 10, 10:07 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 8:00 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Dan wrote:
> >>> On Mar 10, 6:36 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>> Dan wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 10, 6:08 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>>>> Dan wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mar 10, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Dan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 1:18 pm, wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> If you can stand a single holer, there's this (with rudder peds):
> >>>>>>>>>>http://www.theminicoupe.com/_wsn/page2.html
> >>>>>>>>>> Not many flying I think. Looks fun though.
> >>>>>>>>> Now that's.. mini.
> >>>>>>>>> Dan
> >>>>>>>> Mooney made something way back when called the Mite. I flew it a couple
> >>>>>>>> of times. That thing was small; little single seater; not a bad aileron
> >>>>>>>> roll either :-))
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>>>>>> The mite! I think there's one at my home field (or so I'm told --
> >>>>>>> never saw it fly).
> >>>>>>> How about the Bede-5?
> >>>>>>> ;-)
> >>>>>>> Dan
> >>>>>> Never flew the BD5, but my friend started to build one. He got caught up
> >>>>>> in the mess that was Jim Bede's engine woes. Never finished it.
> >>>>>> Corkey Fornof is an old friend. Cork flew the BD5J through the hangar in
> >>>>>> the James Bond movie "Occtopussy"
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>>>> Now that was an awesome scene...
> >>>>> When I was a kid there's was only one plane for me -- the BD-5J.
> >>>>> Thank God for maturity!
> >>>>> Dan
> >>>> Cork says the hardest thing about the scene was figuring the shock wave
> >>>> bounce back off the interior hangar walls as he flew the airplane
> >>>> through. His team brought in a physics whiz (not Tucker BTW :-) who ran
> >>>> the numbers and came up with the exact amount they had to open the side
> >>>> windows to keep the shock from bouncing back on the aircraft as he went
> >>>> through. If that happened, he would have been killed.
> >>>> You're right, it was a great stunt. Cork has done a lot of them in
> >>>> different movies. He and his dad Bill Fornof were both charter members
> >>>> of the IFPF which I founded. Great people the Fornofs.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>> IFPF -- do you know Buck Buchanan?
> >> I don't think so. IFPF was the International Fighter Pilots Fellowship.
> >> Google IFPF History for a skinny.
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > oops..ok..wrong group...
>
> > Found the link. Quite an elite group!
>
> > Doug Bader?!?
>
> An old friend and charter member of the IFPF. Don't know if you are
> asking who he was or not, but Douglas is well known as the legless ace
> of the Battle of Britain.
>
> To me, he was much more than that. One of the finest people I have ever
> known, Douglas devoted his entire life to helping the physically
> impaired, especially amputee children.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Yes.. I read his book when I was 12 or so..

That sort of man can only deserve a deep an abiding respect.

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Mar 10, 9:07*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 8:00 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Dan wrote:
> >>> On Mar 10, 6:36 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>> Dan wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 10, 6:08 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>>>> Dan wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mar 10, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Dan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 1:18 pm, wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> If you can stand a single holer, there's this (with rudder peds):
> >>>>>>>>>>http://www.theminicoupe.com/_wsn/page2.html
> >>>>>>>>>> Not many flying I think. Looks fun though.
> >>>>>>>>> Now that's.. mini.
> >>>>>>>>> Dan
> >>>>>>>> Mooney made something way back when called the Mite. I flew it a couple
> >>>>>>>> of times. That thing was small; little single seater; not a bad aileron
> >>>>>>>> roll either :-))
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>>>>>> The mite! I think there's one at my home field (or so I'm told --
> >>>>>>> never saw it fly).
> >>>>>>> How about the Bede-5?
> >>>>>>> ;-)
> >>>>>>> Dan
> >>>>>> Never flew the BD5, but my friend started to build one. He got caught up
> >>>>>> in the mess that was Jim Bede's engine woes. Never finished it.
> >>>>>> Corkey Fornof is an old friend. Cork flew the BD5J through the hangar in
> >>>>>> the James Bond movie "Occtopussy"
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>>>> Now that was an awesome scene...
> >>>>> When I was a kid there's was only one plane for me -- the BD-5J.
> >>>>> Thank God for maturity!
> >>>>> Dan
> >>>> Cork says the hardest thing about the scene was figuring the shock wave
> >>>> bounce back off the interior hangar walls as he flew the airplane
> >>>> through. His team brought in a physics whiz (not Tucker BTW :-) who ran
> >>>> the numbers and came up with the exact amount they had to open the side
> >>>> windows to keep the shock from bouncing back on the aircraft as he went
> >>>> through. If that happened, he would have been killed.
> >>>> You're right, it was a great stunt. Cork has done a lot of them in
> >>>> different movies. He and his dad Bill Fornof were both charter members
> >>>> of the IFPF which I founded. Great people the Fornofs.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>> IFPF -- do you know Buck Buchanan?
> >> I don't think so. IFPF was the International Fighter Pilots Fellowship.
> >> Google IFPF History for a skinny.
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > oops..ok..wrong group...
>
> > Found the link. Quite an elite group!
>
> > Doug Bader?!?
>
> An old friend and charter member of the IFPF. Don't know if you are
> asking who he was or not, but Douglas is well known as the legless ace
> of the Battle of Britain.
>
> To me, he was much more than that. One of the finest people I have ever
> known, Douglas devoted his entire life to helping the physically
> impaired, especially amputee children.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

WOW.

I just became familiar with Douglas Bader's contributions during the
Battle of Britain by fiinishing off Peter Townsend's "Duel of Eagles"
just last night (it was a months long effort.) I believe Bader was
later shot down and spent some time at least breifly in the custody of
Adolf Galland. Adolf writes about it in his book "The First and The
Last". IIRC there's a section in that book where the Germans asked the
English to send over a pair of prosthetic legs for Bader -- and they
gave a location. The English came over and bombed the crap out of the
SOBs. Then they dropped a canister with the legs in them after they
were done.

Bader also tried to convince Galland to let him try out flying an ME
109. Galland wasn't quite convinced. He reports thinking that Bader
would have definitely made a run for it.

I don't remember if Bader later escaped. Galland reported that he was
constantly conniving to do so. And furthermore had nothing but
contempt for the "gentlemanly" business of shooting at someone in the
air and then giving them the four star honor treatment once on the
ground. I dunno of course, I wasn't there. I wasn't born for another
twenty years!

Bader is definitely an inspirational figure.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Mar 10, 9:07 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 8:00 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 10, 6:36 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 6:08 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 1:18 pm, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can stand a single holer, there's this (with rudder peds):
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.theminicoupe.com/_wsn/page2.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not many flying I think. Looks fun though.
>>>>>>>>>>> Now that's.. mini.
>>>>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>>>> Mooney made something way back when called the Mite. I flew it a couple
>>>>>>>>>> of times. That thing was small; little single seater; not a bad aileron
>>>>>>>>>> roll either :-))
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>>> The mite! I think there's one at my home field (or so I'm told --
>>>>>>>>> never saw it fly).
>>>>>>>>> How about the Bede-5?
>>>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>> Never flew the BD5, but my friend started to build one. He got caught up
>>>>>>>> in the mess that was Jim Bede's engine woes. Never finished it.
>>>>>>>> Corkey Fornof is an old friend. Cork flew the BD5J through the hangar in
>>>>>>>> the James Bond movie "Occtopussy"
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>> Now that was an awesome scene...
>>>>>>> When I was a kid there's was only one plane for me -- the BD-5J.
>>>>>>> Thank God for maturity!
>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>> Cork says the hardest thing about the scene was figuring the shock wave
>>>>>> bounce back off the interior hangar walls as he flew the airplane
>>>>>> through. His team brought in a physics whiz (not Tucker BTW :-) who ran
>>>>>> the numbers and came up with the exact amount they had to open the side
>>>>>> windows to keep the shock from bouncing back on the aircraft as he went
>>>>>> through. If that happened, he would have been killed.
>>>>>> You're right, it was a great stunt. Cork has done a lot of them in
>>>>>> different movies. He and his dad Bill Fornof were both charter members
>>>>>> of the IFPF which I founded. Great people the Fornofs.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>> IFPF -- do you know Buck Buchanan?
>>>> I don't think so. IFPF was the International Fighter Pilots Fellowship.
>>>> Google IFPF History for a skinny.
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> oops..ok..wrong group...
>>> Found the link. Quite an elite group!
>>> Doug Bader?!?
>> An old friend and charter member of the IFPF. Don't know if you are
>> asking who he was or not, but Douglas is well known as the legless ace
>> of the Battle of Britain.
>>
>> To me, he was much more than that. One of the finest people I have ever
>> known, Douglas devoted his entire life to helping the physically
>> impaired, especially amputee children.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> WOW.
>
> I just became familiar with Douglas Bader's contributions during the
> Battle of Britain by fiinishing off Peter Townsend's "Duel of Eagles"
> just last night (it was a months long effort.) I believe Bader was
> later shot down and spent some time at least breifly in the custody of
> Adolf Galland. Adolf writes about it in his book "The First and The
> Last". IIRC there's a section in that book where the Germans asked the
> English to send over a pair of prosthetic legs for Bader -- and they
> gave a location. The English came over and bombed the crap out of the
> SOBs. Then they dropped a canister with the legs in them after they
> were done.
>
> Bader also tried to convince Galland to let him try out flying an ME
> 109. Galland wasn't quite convinced. He reports thinking that Bader
> would have definitely made a run for it.
>
> I don't remember if Bader later escaped. Galland reported that he was
> constantly conniving to do so. And furthermore had nothing but
> contempt for the "gentlemanly" business of shooting at someone in the
> air and then giving them the four star honor treatment once on the
> ground. I dunno of course, I wasn't there. I wasn't born for another
> twenty years!
>
> Bader is definitely an inspirational figure.

Douglas and Galland became quite good friends during the filming of the
"Battle of Britain" where both of them were serving as technical
advisers. Douglas visited with Galland at his home in Bonn and flew with
him in Galland's Bonanza.

The prison where doglas was confined was Colditz.


--
Dudley Henriques

[xyzzy]

On Mar 10, 3:32 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> xyzzy wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 8:23 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> 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
>
> > I flew one once and one thing I remember is that taking off in a left
> > crosswind took some getting used to. Had to bank it farther right
> > than most people will be comfortable with that low, to keep it
> > straight. Because you couldn't correct for the weathervaning + left
> > turning tendency with the rudder. Yes, I know the left turning
> > tendency was supposedly designed out of it. Not. At takeoff power
> > it's still there. Of coruse the one I was flying was a 75 hp model
> > that had been modified with the c-90, so that might have something to
> > do with it :)
>
> Never had these problems. I'm sure you meant a left bank into a left
> crosswind and not a right. :-))

No. weathervaning makes the plane want to go left. The left turning
tendency makes it want to go left. Since there are no rudder pedals,
the only way to correct it is to bank right. Not very comfortable
raising the upwind wing so low....

> I never noticed any noticeable left turning tendencies in the Coupe.
> PFactor was no issue as the basic attitude of the propeller was fairly
> level with the relative wind on takeoff. Not enough vertical surface
> back there for much spiraling slipstream effect. Of course there's
> always a bit of gyroscopic precess as you rotate in pitch, but nothing
> of note really in the Coupe. Torque correction is in roll anyway, and
> you had ample aileron on the airplane.

The propeller is canted 3 degrees from straight ahead which is
supposed to counteract left turning tendency, but at full power and
low speed it still has some, especially with the c-90.

> It was different all right, but no big deal at all on these issues.

Yeah, if I flew it more I might have gotten used to it. Only flew it
for about 1/2 hour in the pattern. It was fun, just had to get used
to its quirks.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 10, 8:04 pm, Phil J > wrote:

>
> There's some video of an Ercoupe crosswind landing starting at 5:42 in
> this clip...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ob7toBLP2I

Now that's some side load!

The V tail sure looked purdy...

I was practicing Touch and gos right seat yesterday with a 90 degree
gusty x-wind (8-15 knots) in a C172. I'm glad no one had a camera on
me!

:-)

Dan

[Phil J]

On Mar 9, 3:06*pm, Dan > wrote:
> On Mar 9, 3:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > > Heard of it, never saw one.
>
> > Seen a few. There was one for sale on Barnstormers recently.
> > >> Bertie
>
> > > Awful because?
>
> > No rudders. Even the ones built by Alon, which had pedals, didn't have
> > decent yaw control.
>
> > The big problem with them is, they;re 'idiot proof'. When you make
> > something idiot proof, all you do is breed a better class of idiot.
> > Idiots are like antibiotic resistant staff infections like that.
>
> > Bertie
>
> Hmmm..
>
> Good point. The "spin proof" claim would indicate less than full
> control authority, which comes in handy from time to time.
>
> I wonder if there's a way to correlate "improved safety features" with
> "increased accident rate."
>
> Kinda like riding a bike -- the sense of protection a helmet provides
> may encourage risky behavior.
>
> Hmmmm...
>
> Dan

From what I have read, the Ercoupe had a few problems. If you lost
the engine, it didn't glide worth a damn. And if you let it get too
slow on approach it would develope a huge sink rate. If you didn't
speed up, you couldn't flare enough to arrest the sink rate and you
would slam into the ground.

As the years went by and the main gear oleos got old, or when the nose
gear was replaced with a dual-fork strut, they tended to sit too nose-
high on the ground, and that made them more difficult to land,
especially in crosswinds, because the angle-of-attack stayed too high
at touchdown.

Phil

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

xyzzy wrote:
> On Mar 10, 3:32 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> xyzzy wrote:
>>> On Mar 9, 8:23 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> 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
>>> I flew one once and one thing I remember is that taking off in a left
>>> crosswind took some getting used to. Had to bank it farther right
>>> than most people will be comfortable with that low, to keep it
>>> straight. Because you couldn't correct for the weathervaning + left
>>> turning tendency with the rudder. Yes, I know the left turning
>>> tendency was supposedly designed out of it. Not. At takeoff power
>>> it's still there. Of coruse the one I was flying was a 75 hp model
>>> that had been modified with the c-90, so that might have something to
>>> do with it :)
>> Never had these problems. I'm sure you meant a left bank into a left
>> crosswind and not a right. :-))
>
> No. weathervaning makes the plane want to go left. The left turning
> tendency makes it want to go left. Since there are no rudder pedals,
> the only way to correct it is to bank right. Not very comfortable
> raising the upwind wing so low....
>
>> I never noticed any noticeable left turning tendencies in the Coupe.
>> PFactor was no issue as the basic attitude of the propeller was fairly
>> level with the relative wind on takeoff. Not enough vertical surface
>> back there for much spiraling slipstream effect. Of course there's
>> always a bit of gyroscopic precess as you rotate in pitch, but nothing
>> of note really in the Coupe. Torque correction is in roll anyway, and
>> you had ample aileron on the airplane.
>
> The propeller is canted 3 degrees from straight ahead which is
> supposed to counteract left turning tendency, but at full power and
> low speed it still has some, especially with the c-90.
>
>> It was different all right, but no big deal at all on these issues.
>
> Yeah, if I flew it more I might have gotten used to it. Only flew it
> for about 1/2 hour in the pattern. It was fun, just had to get used
> to its quirks.
>
>
>
This is inconsistant with my experience in the Ercoupe.


I experienced little to no left turning tendency in the 90 Ercoupe. In a
crosswind, on rotation, the airplane weathervanes into the wind as a
natural reaction. We flew it in varying wind conditions. I don't recall
any time when opposite aileron was used with the wind. The natural
response in this airplane is to allow the weathervane into the wind
finding the "sweet spot" where the airplane will track and leveling the
wings at that spot.
This is the accepted procedure for crosswind in the Ercoupe as I
remember it. It's almost exactly the same procedure used in aerobatics
when entering a slow roll by the pilot using the adverse yaw to aid in
keeping the nose up following that with top rudder.
Of course the Coupe has no rudder so you're in effect using the two
tools you have to establish crosswind track...the wind, and neutralizing
the wings with aileron.
I can envision no scenario in an Ercoupe where downwind aileron would be
used in a crosswind takeoff. You simply play the weathervane against the
wind then neutralize at the track point. It ain't pretty...but it works.
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Phil J wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2:31 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> 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
>
> There was a group working on a modernized composite kit version.
> Don't know if they are still at it or not. Here's a link...
>
> http://www.homebuilt.org/aircraft/kaaircraft/kaaircraft.html
>
>
> Phil
Hi Phil;

I didn't have a whole lot of time in the Coupe but I didn't experience
any specific problems with it. It flew well, handled well in the
pattern, and was stable on the approach. Crosswind was "interesting" but
no big deal really.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 10, 8:04 pm, Phil J > wrote:
>
>> There's some video of an Ercoupe crosswind landing starting at 5:42 in
>> this clip...
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ob7toBLP2I
>
> Now that's some side load!
>
> The V tail sure looked purdy...
>
> I was practicing Touch and gos right seat yesterday with a 90 degree
> gusty x-wind (8-15 knots) in a C172. I'm glad no one had a camera on
> me!
>
> :-)
>
> Dan
>
Typical landing for the Ercoupe :-)) The T34 got it right. Most of the
rest corrected out of the crab a bit high and committed a very basic
error. They came out of the windward aileron too far instead of leaving
it in the required slip angle for the wind correction catching the
runway heading with rudder.
This transition for a crosswind is one of the most difficult things to
teach new student pilots. It's a matter of "feeling" the wind as you
exit the crab. Come all the way out with that aileron and you start
sideways. It's fun to watch but can get a bit scary at times :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Phil J > wrote in news:875f835d-861f-4472-80b2-
:

> On Mar 9, 3:06*pm, Dan > wrote:
>> On Mar 9, 3:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > > Heard of it, never saw one.
>>
>> > Seen a few. There was one for sale on Barnstormers recently.
>> > >> Bertie
>>
>> > > Awful because?
>>
>> > No rudders. Even the ones built by Alon, which had pedals, didn't
have
>> > decent yaw control.
>>
>> > The big problem with them is, they;re 'idiot proof'. When you make
>> > something idiot proof, all you do is breed a better class of idiot.
>> > Idiots are like antibiotic resistant staff infections like that.
>>
>> > Bertie
>>
>> Hmmm..
>>
>> Good point. The "spin proof" claim would indicate less than full
>> control authority, which comes in handy from time to time.
>>
>> I wonder if there's a way to correlate "improved safety features"
with
>> "increased accident rate."
>>
>> Kinda like riding a bike -- the sense of protection a helmet provides
>> may encourage risky behavior.
>>
>> Hmmmm...
>>
>> Dan
>
> From what I have read, the Ercoupe had a few problems. If you lost
> the engine, it didn't glide worth a damn. And if you let it get too
> slow on approach it would develope a huge sink rate. If you didn't
> speed up, you couldn't flare enough to arrest the sink rate and you
> would slam into the ground.


Actually, the flight manual actually said that if you were to high and
needed to scrub off altitude, you should pull the stick back into your
gut and close the throttle. I did it and it does work and is pretty
controllable,but it is very undcomfortable.
>
> As the years went by and the main gear oleos got old, or when the nose
> gear was replaced with a dual-fork strut, they tended to sit too nose-
> high on the ground, and that made them more difficult to land,
> especially in crosswinds, because the angle-of-attack stayed too high
> at touchdown.

I think the mains use rubber donuts, but I'm not sure.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Phil J > wrote in news:875f835d-861f-4472-80b2-
> :
>
>> On Mar 9, 3:06 pm, Dan > wrote:
>>> On Mar 9, 3:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Heard of it, never saw one.
>>>> Seen a few. There was one for sale on Barnstormers recently.
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Awful because?
>>>> No rudders. Even the ones built by Alon, which had pedals, didn't
> have
>>>> decent yaw control.
>>>> The big problem with them is, they;re 'idiot proof'. When you make
>>>> something idiot proof, all you do is breed a better class of idiot.
>>>> Idiots are like antibiotic resistant staff infections like that.
>>>> Bertie
>>> Hmmm..
>>>
>>> Good point. The "spin proof" claim would indicate less than full
>>> control authority, which comes in handy from time to time.
>>>
>>> I wonder if there's a way to correlate "improved safety features"
> with
>>> "increased accident rate."
>>>
>>> Kinda like riding a bike -- the sense of protection a helmet provides
>>> may encourage risky behavior.
>>>
>>> Hmmmm...
>>>
>>> Dan
>> From what I have read, the Ercoupe had a few problems. If you lost
>> the engine, it didn't glide worth a damn. And if you let it get too
>> slow on approach it would develope a huge sink rate. If you didn't
>> speed up, you couldn't flare enough to arrest the sink rate and you
>> would slam into the ground.
>
>
> Actually, the flight manual actually said that if you were to high and
> needed to scrub off altitude, you should pull the stick back into your
> gut and close the throttle. I did it and it does work and is pretty
> controllable,but it is very undcomfortable.
>> As the years went by and the main gear oleos got old, or when the nose
>> gear was replaced with a dual-fork strut, they tended to sit too nose-
>> high on the ground, and that made them more difficult to land,
>> especially in crosswinds, because the angle-of-attack stayed too high
>> at touchdown.
>
> I think the mains use rubber donuts, but I'm not sure.
>
>
> Bertie
I ate a rubber donut this morning! :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:


> I ate a rubber donut this morning! :-)
>

I had a nice one!


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>
>> I ate a rubber donut this morning! :-)
>>
>
> I had a nice one!
>
>
> Bertie
Dunk'in Donuts.......my curse on earth! The car pulls into their lot and
I can't stop it :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>> I ate a rubber donut this morning! :-)
>>>
>>
>> I had a nice one!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> Dunk'in Donuts.......my curse on earth! The car pulls into their lot
and
> I can't stop it :-))
>

Heh heh. WWe got some homemade stuff at a charity case this AM.

Bertie

[xyzzy]

On Mar 11, 9:59 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> xyzzy wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 3:32 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> xyzzy wrote:
> >>> On Mar 9, 8:23 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>> 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
> >>> I flew one once and one thing I remember is that taking off in a left
> >>> crosswind took some getting used to. Had to bank it farther right
> >>> than most people will be comfortable with that low, to keep it
> >>> straight. Because you couldn't correct for the weathervaning + left
> >>> turning tendency with the rudder. Yes, I know the left turning
> >>> tendency was supposedly designed out of it. Not. At takeoff power
> >>> it's still there. Of coruse the one I was flying was a 75 hp model
> >>> that had been modified with the c-90, so that might have something to
> >>> do with it :)
> >> Never had these problems. I'm sure you meant a left bank into a left
> >> crosswind and not a right. :-))
>
> > No. weathervaning makes the plane want to go left. The left turning
> > tendency makes it want to go left. Since there are no rudder pedals,
> > the only way to correct it is to bank right. Not very comfortable
> > raising the upwind wing so low....
>
> >> I never noticed any noticeable left turning tendencies in the Coupe.
> >> PFactor was no issue as the basic attitude of the propeller was fairly
> >> level with the relative wind on takeoff. Not enough vertical surface
> >> back there for much spiraling slipstream effect. Of course there's
> >> always a bit of gyroscopic precess as you rotate in pitch, but nothing
> >> of note really in the Coupe. Torque correction is in roll anyway, and
> >> you had ample aileron on the airplane.
>
> > The propeller is canted 3 degrees from straight ahead which is
> > supposed to counteract left turning tendency, but at full power and
> > low speed it still has some, especially with the c-90.
>
> >> It was different all right, but no big deal at all on these issues.
>
> > Yeah, if I flew it more I might have gotten used to it. Only flew it
> > for about 1/2 hour in the pattern. It was fun, just had to get used
> > to its quirks.
>
> This is inconsistant with my experience in the Ercoupe.
>
> I experienced little to no left turning tendency in the 90 Ercoupe. In a
> crosswind, on rotation, the airplane weathervanes into the wind as a
> natural reaction. We flew it in varying wind conditions. I don't recall
> any time when opposite aileron was used with the wind. The natural
> response in this airplane is to allow the weathervane into the wind
> finding the "sweet spot" where the airplane will track and leveling the
> wings at that spot.
> This is the accepted procedure for crosswind in the Ercoupe as I
> remember it. It's almost exactly the same procedure used in aerobatics
> when entering a slow roll by the pilot using the adverse yaw to aid in
> keeping the nose up following that with top rudder.
> Of course the Coupe has no rudder so you're in effect using the two
> tools you have to establish crosswind track...the wind, and neutralizing
> the wings with aileron.
> I can envision no scenario in an Ercoupe where downwind aileron would be
> used in a crosswind takeoff. You simply play the weathervane against the
> wind then neutralize at the track point. It ain't pretty...but it works.
> :-))

<shrug> Tell it to the instructor who owned the plane and flew with
me :)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

xyzzy wrote:
> On Mar 11, 9:59 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> xyzzy wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 3:32 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> xyzzy wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 9, 8:23 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> I flew one once and one thing I remember is that taking off in a left
>>>>> crosswind took some getting used to. Had to bank it farther right
>>>>> than most people will be comfortable with that low, to keep it
>>>>> straight. Because you couldn't correct for the weathervaning + left
>>>>> turning tendency with the rudder. Yes, I know the left turning
>>>>> tendency was supposedly designed out of it. Not. At takeoff power
>>>>> it's still there. Of coruse the one I was flying was a 75 hp model
>>>>> that had been modified with the c-90, so that might have something to
>>>>> do with it :)
>>>> Never had these problems. I'm sure you meant a left bank into a left
>>>> crosswind and not a right. :-))
>>> No. weathervaning makes the plane want to go left. The left turning
>>> tendency makes it want to go left. Since there are no rudder pedals,
>>> the only way to correct it is to bank right. Not very comfortable
>>> raising the upwind wing so low....
>>>> I never noticed any noticeable left turning tendencies in the Coupe.
>>>> PFactor was no issue as the basic attitude of the propeller was fairly
>>>> level with the relative wind on takeoff. Not enough vertical surface
>>>> back there for much spiraling slipstream effect. Of course there's
>>>> always a bit of gyroscopic precess as you rotate in pitch, but nothing
>>>> of note really in the Coupe. Torque correction is in roll anyway, and
>>>> you had ample aileron on the airplane.
>>> The propeller is canted 3 degrees from straight ahead which is
>>> supposed to counteract left turning tendency, but at full power and
>>> low speed it still has some, especially with the c-90.
>>>> It was different all right, but no big deal at all on these issues.
>>> Yeah, if I flew it more I might have gotten used to it. Only flew it
>>> for about 1/2 hour in the pattern. It was fun, just had to get used
>>> to its quirks.
>> This is inconsistant with my experience in the Ercoupe.
>>
>> I experienced little to no left turning tendency in the 90 Ercoupe. In a
>> crosswind, on rotation, the airplane weathervanes into the wind as a
>> natural reaction. We flew it in varying wind conditions. I don't recall
>> any time when opposite aileron was used with the wind. The natural
>> response in this airplane is to allow the weathervane into the wind
>> finding the "sweet spot" where the airplane will track and leveling the
>> wings at that spot.
>> This is the accepted procedure for crosswind in the Ercoupe as I
>> remember it. It's almost exactly the same procedure used in aerobatics
>> when entering a slow roll by the pilot using the adverse yaw to aid in
>> keeping the nose up following that with top rudder.
>> Of course the Coupe has no rudder so you're in effect using the two
>> tools you have to establish crosswind track...the wind, and neutralizing
>> the wings with aileron.
>> I can envision no scenario in an Ercoupe where downwind aileron would be
>> used in a crosswind takeoff. You simply play the weathervane against the
>> wind then neutralize at the track point. It ain't pretty...but it works.
>> :-))
>
> <shrug> Tell it to the instructor who owned the plane and flew with
> me :)
Be glad to. Pass it on if you wish :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>> I ate a rubber donut this morning! :-)
>>>>
>>> I had a nice one!
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Dunk'in Donuts.......my curse on earth! The car pulls into their lot
> and
>> I can't stop it :-))
>>
>
> Heh heh. WWe got some homemade stuff at a charity case this AM.
>
> Bertie
>

Home made huh?? Don't tell my car!!!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Peter Dohm]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Phil J > wrote in news:875f835d-861f-4472-80b2-
> :
>
>> On Mar 9, 3:06 pm, Dan > wrote:
>>> On Mar 9, 3:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>> > > Heard of it, never saw one.
>>>
>>> > Seen a few. There was one for sale on Barnstormers recently.
>>> > >> Bertie
>>>
>>> > > Awful because?
>>>
>>> > No rudders. Even the ones built by Alon, which had pedals, didn't
> have
>>> > decent yaw control.
>>>
>>> > The big problem with them is, they;re 'idiot proof'. When you make
>>> > something idiot proof, all you do is breed a better class of idiot.
>>> > Idiots are like antibiotic resistant staff infections like that.
>>>
>>> > Bertie
>>>
>>> Hmmm..
>>>
>>> Good point. The "spin proof" claim would indicate less than full
>>> control authority, which comes in handy from time to time.
>>>
>>> I wonder if there's a way to correlate "improved safety features"
> with
>>> "increased accident rate."
>>>
>>> Kinda like riding a bike -- the sense of protection a helmet provides
>>> may encourage risky behavior.
>>>
>>> Hmmmm...
>>>
>>> Dan
>>
>> From what I have read, the Ercoupe had a few problems. If you lost
>> the engine, it didn't glide worth a damn. And if you let it get too
>> slow on approach it would develope a huge sink rate. If you didn't
>> speed up, you couldn't flare enough to arrest the sink rate and you
>> would slam into the ground.
>
>
> Actually, the flight manual actually said that if you were to high and
> needed to scrub off altitude, you should pull the stick back into your
> gut and close the throttle. I did it and it does work and is pretty
> controllable,but it is very undcomfortable.
>>
>> As the years went by and the main gear oleos got old, or when the nose
>> gear was replaced with a dual-fork strut, they tended to sit too nose-
>> high on the ground, and that made them more difficult to land,
>> especially in crosswinds, because the angle-of-attack stayed too high
>> at touchdown.
>
> I think the mains use rubber donuts, but I'm not sure.
>
>
> Bertie

I believe that I have seen at least two with "coil overs", but I don't know
for sure of any type of main undercariage that was not used at some time. I
tried without success to look up some info for what might have been typical.

Peter

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I ate a rubber donut this morning! :-)
>>>>>
>>>> I had a nice one!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Dunk'in Donuts.......my curse on earth! The car pulls into their lot
>> and
>>> I can't stop it :-))
>>>
>>
>> Heh heh. WWe got some homemade stuff at a charity case this AM.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Home made huh?? Don't tell my car!!!! :-))
>

Must be one hell of a car!

Bertie

[Phil J]

On Mar 11, 10:22*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Phil J > wrote in news:875f835d-861f-4472-80b2-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 3:06*pm, Dan > wrote:
> >> On Mar 9, 3:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> > > Heard of it, never saw one.
>
> >> > Seen a few. There was one for sale on Barnstormers recently.
> >> > >> Bertie
>
> >> > > Awful because?
>
> >> > No rudders. Even the ones built by Alon, which had pedals, didn't
> have
> >> > decent yaw control.
>
> >> > The big problem with them is, they;re 'idiot proof'. When you make
> >> > something idiot proof, all you do is breed a better class of idiot.
> >> > Idiots are like antibiotic resistant staff infections like that.
>
> >> > Bertie
>
> >> Hmmm..
>
> >> Good point. The "spin proof" claim would indicate less than full
> >> control authority, which comes in handy from time to time.
>
> >> I wonder if there's a way to correlate "improved safety features"
> with
> >> "increased accident rate."
>
> >> Kinda like riding a bike -- the sense of protection a helmet provides
> >> may encourage risky behavior.
>
> >> Hmmmm...
>
> >> Dan
>
> > From what I have read, the Ercoupe had a few problems. *If you lost
> > the engine, it didn't glide worth a damn. *And if you let it get too
> > slow on approach it would develope a huge sink rate. *If you didn't
> > speed up, you couldn't flare enough to arrest the sink rate and you
> > would slam into the ground.
>
> Actually, the flight manual actually said that if you were to high and
> needed to scrub off altitude, you should pull the stick back into your
> gut and close the throttle. I did it and it does work and is pretty
> controllable,but it is very undcomfortable.
>
>
>
> > As the years went by and the main gear oleos got old, or when the nose
> > gear was replaced with a dual-fork strut, they tended to sit too nose-
> > high on the ground, and that made them more difficult to land,
> > especially in crosswinds, because the angle-of-attack stayed too high
> > at touchdown.
>
> I think the mains use rubber donuts, but I'm not sure.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You're right, it was rubber doughnuts. I guess they just got stale as
the years went by.

Phil

[Phil J]

On Mar 11, 10:46*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
> >> I ate a rubber donut this morning! :-)
>
> > I had a nice one!
>
> > Bertie
>
> Dunk'in Donuts.......my curse on earth! The car pulls into their lot and
> I can't stop it :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I think I saw the same thing once on an episode of Knight Rider!

Phil

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Phil J wrote:
> On Mar 11, 10:46 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>> I ate a rubber donut this morning! :-)
>>> I had a nice one!
>>> Bertie
>> Dunk'in Donuts.......my curse on earth! The car pulls into their lot and
>> I can't stop it :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I think I saw the same thing once on an episode of Knight Rider!
>
> Phil
Liked that show.......until I found the ultimate in intellectual TV
entertainment........."Dukes of Hazzard!!! " :-)))))))))))))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Phil J > wrote in news:5d15f685-058a-44f2-a9b2-
:

> On Mar 11, 10:22*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Phil J > wrote in news:875f835d-861f-4472-80b2-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 9, 3:06*pm, Dan > wrote:
>> >> On Mar 9, 3:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Heard of it, never saw one.
>>
>> >> > Seen a few. There was one for sale on Barnstormers recently.
>> >> > >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > > Awful because?
>>
>> >> > No rudders. Even the ones built by Alon, which had pedals,
didn't
>> have
>> >> > decent yaw control.
>>
>> >> > The big problem with them is, they;re 'idiot proof'. When you
make
>> >> > something idiot proof, all you do is breed a better class of
idiot.
>> >> > Idiots are like antibiotic resistant staff infections like that.
>>
>> >> > Bertie
>>
>> >> Hmmm..
>>
>> >> Good point. The "spin proof" claim would indicate less than full
>> >> control authority, which comes in handy from time to time.
>>
>> >> I wonder if there's a way to correlate "improved safety features"
>> with
>> >> "increased accident rate."
>>
>> >> Kinda like riding a bike -- the sense of protection a helmet
provides
>> >> may encourage risky behavior.
>>
>> >> Hmmmm...
>>
>> >> Dan
>>
>> > From what I have read, the Ercoupe had a few problems. *If you lost
>> > the engine, it didn't glide worth a damn. *And if you let it get
too
>> > slow on approach it would develope a huge sink rate. *If you didn't
>> > speed up, you couldn't flare enough to arrest the sink rate and you
>> > would slam into the ground.
>>
>> Actually, the flight manual actually said that if you were to high
and
>> needed to scrub off altitude, you should pull the stick back into
your
>> gut and close the throttle. I did it and it does work and is pretty
>> controllable,but it is very undcomfortable.
>>
>>
>>
>> > As the years went by and the main gear oleos got old, or when the
nose
>> > gear was replaced with a dual-fork strut, they tended to sit too
nose-
>> > high on the ground, and that made them more difficult to land,
>> > especially in crosswinds, because the angle-of-attack stayed too
high
>> > at touchdown.
>>
>> I think the mains use rubber donuts, but I'm not sure.
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You're right, it was rubber doughnuts. I guess they just got stale as
> the years went by.
>
Good guess on my part then, cuz that's all it was. it was a popular
method of shock absorbption back when. Probably remained on th eairplane
through the Mooney variants at all. Why change what works?

[Peter Dohm]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Phil J > wrote in news:5d15f685-058a-44f2-a9b2-
> :
>
>> On Mar 11, 10:22 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> Phil J > wrote in news:875f835d-861f-4472-80b2-
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Mar 9, 3:06 pm, Dan > wrote:
>>> >> On Mar 9, 3:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > > Heard of it, never saw one.
>>>
>>> >> > Seen a few. There was one for sale on Barnstormers recently.
>>> >> > >> Bertie
>>>
>>> >> > > Awful because?
>>>
>>> >> > No rudders. Even the ones built by Alon, which had pedals,
> didn't
>>> have
>>> >> > decent yaw control.
>>>
>>> >> > The big problem with them is, they;re 'idiot proof'. When you
> make
>>> >> > something idiot proof, all you do is breed a better class of
> idiot.
>>> >> > Idiots are like antibiotic resistant staff infections like that.
>>>
>>> >> > Bertie
>>>
>>> >> Hmmm..
>>>
>>> >> Good point. The "spin proof" claim would indicate less than full
>>> >> control authority, which comes in handy from time to time.
>>>
>>> >> I wonder if there's a way to correlate "improved safety features"
>>> with
>>> >> "increased accident rate."
>>>
>>> >> Kinda like riding a bike -- the sense of protection a helmet
> provides
>>> >> may encourage risky behavior.
>>>
>>> >> Hmmmm...
>>>
>>> >> Dan
>>>
>>> > From what I have read, the Ercoupe had a few problems. If you lost
>>> > the engine, it didn't glide worth a damn. And if you let it get
> too
>>> > slow on approach it would develope a huge sink rate. If you didn't
>>> > speed up, you couldn't flare enough to arrest the sink rate and you
>>> > would slam into the ground.
>>>
>>> Actually, the flight manual actually said that if you were to high
> and
>>> needed to scrub off altitude, you should pull the stick back into
> your
>>> gut and close the throttle. I did it and it does work and is pretty
>>> controllable,but it is very undcomfortable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > As the years went by and the main gear oleos got old, or when the
> nose
>>> > gear was replaced with a dual-fork strut, they tended to sit too
> nose-
>>> > high on the ground, and that made them more difficult to land,
>>> > especially in crosswinds, because the angle-of-attack stayed too
> high
>>> > at touchdown.
>>>
>>> I think the mains use rubber donuts, but I'm not sure.
>>>
>>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> You're right, it was rubber doughnuts. I guess they just got stale as
>> the years went by.
>>
> Good guess on my part then, cuz that's all it was. it was a popular
> method of shock absorbption back when. Probably remained on th eairplane
> through the Mooney variants at all. Why change what works?
>
>
Very true, I called and asked the man who owns one--it's donuts.

Peter

[Blueskies]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message ...
>
> I didn't have a whole lot of time in the Coupe but I didn't experience
> any specific problems with it. It flew well, handled well in the
> pattern, and was stable on the approach. Crosswind was "interesting" but
> no big deal really.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

It was just plain hard to crab all the way in to the flare and landing...

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Blueskies wrote:
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I didn't have a whole lot of time in the Coupe but I didn't experience
>> any specific problems with it. It flew well, handled well in the
>> pattern, and was stable on the approach. Crosswind was "interesting"
>> but no big deal really.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> It was just plain hard to crab all the way in to the flare and landing...


It was "interesting" to say the least. I kept wanting to put a wing down
into the wind and press on the brake pedal :-))) In gusts it did
"wander" a bit but nothing critical.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Blueskies]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message ...
> Blueskies wrote:
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>> I didn't have a whole lot of time in the Coupe but I didn't experience any specific problems with it. It flew well,
>>> handled well in the pattern, and was stable on the approach. Crosswind was "interesting" but no big deal really.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> It was just plain hard to crab all the way in to the flare and landing...
>
>
> It was "interesting" to say the least. I kept wanting to put a wing down into the wind and press on the brake pedal
> :-))) In gusts it did "wander" a bit but nothing critical.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Straightens right out after touchdown, but then steering it with the wheel was real odd also. X-wind takeoffs are
'different' also. Sorta hold it on, then pop it off, climb a little letting it drift, then turn into the wind, kicking
that brake pedal all the way ;-)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Blueskies wrote:
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Blueskies wrote:
>>>
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I didn't have a whole lot of time in the Coupe but I didn't
>>>> experience any specific problems with it. It flew well, handled well
>>>> in the pattern, and was stable on the approach. Crosswind was
>>>> "interesting" but no big deal really.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>> It was just plain hard to crab all the way in to the flare and
>>> landing...
>>
>>
>> It was "interesting" to say the least. I kept wanting to put a wing
>> down into the wind and press on the brake pedal :-))) In gusts it did
>> "wander" a bit but nothing critical.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Straightens right out after touchdown, but then steering it with the
> wheel was real odd also. X-wind takeoffs are 'different' also. Sorta
> hold it on, then pop it off, climb a little letting it drift, then turn
> into the wind, kicking that brake pedal all the way ;-)
>
>
>
That was about it :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Peter Dohm]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Blueskies wrote:
>>>
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I didn't have a whole lot of time in the Coupe but I didn't experience
>>>> any specific problems with it. It flew well, handled well in the
>>>> pattern, and was stable on the approach. Crosswind was "interesting"
>>>> but no big deal really.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>> It was just plain hard to crab all the way in to the flare and
>>> landing...
>>
>>
>> It was "interesting" to say the least. I kept wanting to put a wing down
>> into the wind and press on the brake pedal :-))) In gusts it did "wander"
>> a bit but nothing critical.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Straightens right out after touchdown, but then steering it with the wheel
> was real odd also. X-wind takeoffs are 'different' also. Sorta hold it on,
> then pop it off, climb a little letting it drift, then turn into the wind,
> kicking that brake pedal all the way ;-)
>
>
>
I guess I really will have to finagle a ride in the darned thing. It just
isn't really comfortable for me since, if I sit up straight as is normal for
me, I can just about look over the top of the windshield--well, not at the
center, but in front of where I'm sitting.

Peter

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
> et...
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Blueskies wrote:
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> I didn't have a whole lot of time in the Coupe but I didn't experience
>>>>> any specific problems with it. It flew well, handled well in the
>>>>> pattern, and was stable on the approach. Crosswind was "interesting"
>>>>> but no big deal really.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>> It was just plain hard to crab all the way in to the flare and
>>>> landing...
>>>
>>> It was "interesting" to say the least. I kept wanting to put a wing down
>>> into the wind and press on the brake pedal :-))) In gusts it did "wander"
>>> a bit but nothing critical.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>> Straightens right out after touchdown, but then steering it with the wheel
>> was real odd also. X-wind takeoffs are 'different' also. Sorta hold it on,
>> then pop it off, climb a little letting it drift, then turn into the wind,
>> kicking that brake pedal all the way ;-)
>>
>>
>>
> I guess I really will have to finagle a ride in the darned thing. It just
> isn't really comfortable for me since, if I sit up straight as is normal for
> me, I can just about look over the top of the windshield--well, not at the
> center, but in front of where I'm sitting.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
There's nothing in the regulations banning seat cushions. I used one in
a lot of different airplanes. Tri-Pacers and Colts had high glare
shields. If I remember right, the Ercoupe could seat you a bit low as
well, especially if the seats had been used a lot.
Take an ordinary chair cushion with you and sit on it. That should raise
you up enough to be comfortable.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Peter Dohm]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
>> et...
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Blueskies wrote:
>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> I didn't have a whole lot of time in the Coupe but I didn't
>>>>>> experience any specific problems with it. It flew well, handled well
>>>>>> in the pattern, and was stable on the approach. Crosswind was
>>>>>> "interesting" but no big deal really.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>> It was just plain hard to crab all the way in to the flare and
>>>>> landing...
>>>>
>>>> It was "interesting" to say the least. I kept wanting to put a wing
>>>> down into the wind and press on the brake pedal :-))) In gusts it did
>>>> "wander" a bit but nothing critical.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> Straightens right out after touchdown, but then steering it with the
>>> wheel was real odd also. X-wind takeoffs are 'different' also. Sorta
>>> hold it on, then pop it off, climb a little letting it drift, then turn
>>> into the wind, kicking that brake pedal all the way ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I guess I really will have to finagle a ride in the darned thing. It
>> just isn't really comfortable for me since, if I sit up straight as is
>> normal for me, I can just about look over the top of the
>> windshield--well, not at the center, but in front of where I'm sitting.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
> There's nothing in the regulations banning seat cushions. I used one in a
> lot of different airplanes. Tri-Pacers and Colts had high glare shields.
> If I remember right, the Ercoupe could seat you a bit low as well,
> especially if the seats had been used a lot.
> Take an ordinary chair cushion with you and sit on it. That should raise
> you up enough to be comfortable.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I think that we may be talking about taking the cushion out, and possibly
substituting a thinner one, so that I would sit a little lower.

Peter :-)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Peter Dohm wrote:
>>> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
>>> et...
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Blueskies wrote:
>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> I didn't have a whole lot of time in the Coupe but I didn't
>>>>>>> experience any specific problems with it. It flew well, handled well
>>>>>>> in the pattern, and was stable on the approach. Crosswind was
>>>>>>> "interesting" but no big deal really.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>> It was just plain hard to crab all the way in to the flare and
>>>>>> landing...
>>>>> It was "interesting" to say the least. I kept wanting to put a wing
>>>>> down into the wind and press on the brake pedal :-))) In gusts it did
>>>>> "wander" a bit but nothing critical.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>> Straightens right out after touchdown, but then steering it with the
>>>> wheel was real odd also. X-wind takeoffs are 'different' also. Sorta
>>>> hold it on, then pop it off, climb a little letting it drift, then turn
>>>> into the wind, kicking that brake pedal all the way ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I guess I really will have to finagle a ride in the darned thing. It
>>> just isn't really comfortable for me since, if I sit up straight as is
>>> normal for me, I can just about look over the top of the
>>> windshield--well, not at the center, but in front of where I'm sitting.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> There's nothing in the regulations banning seat cushions. I used one in a
>> lot of different airplanes. Tri-Pacers and Colts had high glare shields.
>> If I remember right, the Ercoupe could seat you a bit low as well,
>> especially if the seats had been used a lot.
>> Take an ordinary chair cushion with you and sit on it. That should raise
>> you up enough to be comfortable.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I think that we may be talking about taking the cushion out, and possibly
> substituting a thinner one, so that I would sit a little lower.
>
> Peter :-)
>
>
>
Oh!! I misread the post. I was thinking you were too short. BIG is
another ball game altogether. :-)) A thinner cushion might just do the
trick :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Phil J]

On Mar 11, 10:48*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Peter Dohm wrote:
> >> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
> et...
> >>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> Blueskies wrote:
> >>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>> I didn't have a whole lot of time in the Coupe but I didn't
> >>>>>> experience any specific problems with it. It flew well, handled well
> >>>>>> in the pattern, and was stable on the approach. Crosswind was
> >>>>>> "interesting" but no big deal really.
>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>>>> It was just plain hard to crab all the way in to the flare and
> >>>>> landing...
>
> >>>> It was "interesting" to say the least. I kept wanting to put a wing
> >>>> down into the wind and press on the brake pedal :-))) In gusts it did
> >>>> "wander" a bit but nothing critical.
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>> Straightens right out after touchdown, but then steering it with the
> >>> wheel was real odd also. X-wind takeoffs are 'different' also. Sorta
> >>> hold it on, then pop it off, climb a little letting it drift, then turn
> >>> into the wind, kicking that brake pedal all the way * ;-)
>
> >> I guess I really will have to finagle a ride in the darned thing. *It
> >> just isn't really comfortable for me since, if I sit up straight as is
> >> normal for me, I can just about look over the top of the
> >> windshield--well, not at the center, but in front of where I'm sitting.
>
> >> Peter
>
> > There's nothing in the regulations banning seat cushions. I used one in a
> > lot of different airplanes. Tri-Pacers and Colts had high glare shields.
> > If I remember right, the Ercoupe could seat you a bit low as well,
> > especially if the seats had been used a lot.
> > Take an ordinary chair cushion with you and sit on it. That should raise
> > you up enough to be comfortable.
>
> > --
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> I think that we may be talking about taking the cushion out, and possibly
> substituting a thinner one, so that I would sit a little lower.
>
> Peter :-)-

Well, at least there are no pesky rudder pedals to get in your way
when you slouch down!

Phil

[Peter Dohm]

"Phil J" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 11, 10:48 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Peter Dohm wrote:
> >> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
> et...
> >>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> Blueskies wrote:
> >>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>> I didn't have a whole lot of time in the Coupe but I didn't
> >>>>>> experience any specific problems with it. It flew well, handled
> >>>>>> well
> >>>>>> in the pattern, and was stable on the approach. Crosswind was
> >>>>>> "interesting" but no big deal really.
>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>>>> It was just plain hard to crab all the way in to the flare and
> >>>>> landing...
>
> >>>> It was "interesting" to say the least. I kept wanting to put a wing
> >>>> down into the wind and press on the brake pedal :-))) In gusts it did
> >>>> "wander" a bit but nothing critical.
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>> Straightens right out after touchdown, but then steering it with the
> >>> wheel was real odd also. X-wind takeoffs are 'different' also. Sorta
> >>> hold it on, then pop it off, climb a little letting it drift, then
> >>> turn
> >>> into the wind, kicking that brake pedal all the way ;-)
>
> >> I guess I really will have to finagle a ride in the darned thing. It
> >> just isn't really comfortable for me since, if I sit up straight as is
> >> normal for me, I can just about look over the top of the
> >> windshield--well, not at the center, but in front of where I'm sitting.
>
> >> Peter
>
> > There's nothing in the regulations banning seat cushions. I used one in
> > a
> > lot of different airplanes. Tri-Pacers and Colts had high glare shields.
> > If I remember right, the Ercoupe could seat you a bit low as well,
> > especially if the seats had been used a lot.
> > Take an ordinary chair cushion with you and sit on it. That should raise
> > you up enough to be comfortable.
>
> > --
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> I think that we may be talking about taking the cushion out, and possibly
> substituting a thinner one, so that I would sit a little lower.
>
> Peter :-)-

Well, at least there are no pesky rudder pedals to get in your way
when you slouch down!

Phil

I was thinking that!

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

>> Well, at least there are no pesky rudder pedals to get in your way
> >when you slouch down!
>
>> Phil
>
> I was thinking that!
>
> Peter
>
>
>
Darn, I forgot the smiley. :-)

Peter

[Phil J]

On Mar 12, 10:40*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> >> Well, at least there are no pesky rudder pedals to get in your way
> > >when you slouch down!
>
> >> Phil
>
> > I was thinking that!
>
> > Peter
>
> Darn, I forgot the smiley. * :-)
>
> Peter

You could also get yourself some World War I Flying Ace goggles and a
silk scarf.

Phil

[Peter Dohm]

"Phil J" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 12, 10:40 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> >> Well, at least there are no pesky rudder pedals to get in your way
> > >when you slouch down!
>
> >> Phil
>
> > I was thinking that!
>
> > Peter
>
> Darn, I forgot the smiley. :-)
>
> Peter

You could also get yourself some World War I Flying Ace goggles and a
silk scarf.

Phil

That does suggest a funny picture--but it's the wrong airplane!

Peter :-)