Ercoupe from Lilliput

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

for anyone who is actually interested in that, it was sidney Struhl who
designed th eFF model.

There's an online free plan for it here..


http://www.theplanpage.com/Months/2802/Struhl%20Ercoupe_files/erocoupe.pdf

[[email protected]]

On Mar 9, 10:39*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> for anyone who is actually interested in that, it was sidney Struhl who
> designed th eFF model.
>
> There's an online free plan for it here..
>
> http://www.theplanpage.com/Months/2802/Struhl%20Ercoupe_files/erocoup...

Neat.

Have you ever seen the Minicoupe?

I think it's pretty cool little experimental based on the Ercoupe.
Just needs the rounded vertical stabilizers ... but it does have
rudder pedals (didn't some Ercoupe models have them?). Not many
around, that's for sure. I looked around on the 'Net but saw only one
builder currently doing one.

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:d491c485-9213-4da3-ab5b-
:

> On Mar 9, 10:39*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> for anyone who is actually interested in that, it was sidney Struhl
who
>> designed th eFF model.
>>
>> There's an online free plan for it here..
>>
>> http://www.theplanpage.com/Months/2802/Struhl%
20Ercoupe_files/erocoup...
>
> Neat.
>
> Have you ever seen the Minicoupe?
>
> I think it's pretty cool little experimental based on the Ercoupe.
> Just needs the rounded vertical stabilizers ... but it does have
> rudder pedals (didn't some Ercoupe models have them?). Not many
> around, that's for sure. I looked around on the 'Net but saw only one
> builder currently doing one.
>
> http://www.theminicoupe.com/_wsn/page2.html
>
>
>
>
>



I saw one on ebay that had been sitting in someone's yard alright. I
remember them when they were new and probably saw one or two floating
around various fly-ins back then, but i don't think it had much to
recommend it except it was probably pretty easy to build. I think it had
conventional controls. If I were going to build a little single seat
putt putt it'd come pretty low on my list, though. I think a Pixie or
baby ace would be a better deal by far. Or even a Volksplane or Hummel
bird.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

> I think a Pixie or
> baby ace would be a better deal by far. Or even a Volksplane or Hummel
> bird.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

For a while I was looking at the Volksplane, but I thought metal would
be preferable.

The Hummelbird is neat. Bet you could fly one with a rotax 503 / 582
pretty nice.

Baby ace is neat but for now I'm going with a simpler design. I did
order Poberezny's book on the Acrosport. Soon as I do some aerobatics
I'll decide if long term I want an aerobatic plane like Paul's.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:77d15da9-4a1c-4411-be3f-
:

>> I think a Pixie or
>> baby ace would be a better deal by far. Or even a Volksplane or
Hummel
>> bird.
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> For a while I was looking at the Volksplane, but I thought metal would
> be preferable.
>
> The Hummelbird is neat. Bet you could fly one with a rotax 503 / 582
> pretty nice.

First build? put the engine on the designer intended.
>
> Baby ace is neat but for now I'm going with a simpler design. I did
> order Poberezny's book on the Acrosport. Soon as I do some aerobatics
> I'll decide if long term I want an aerobatic plane like Paul's.


They don't come any simpler or easier to build than the Volksplane. Good
safe design. A determined builder can knock one up in six months. The
Pietenpol wouldn't be too much harder, but would take a good bit more
time to build. I've always fancied one of those with a model A engine on
it.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Mar 10, 9:29*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:77d15da9-4a1c-4411-be3f-
> :
>
>
>
> >> I think a Pixie or
> >> baby ace would be a better deal by far. Or even a Volksplane or
> Hummel
> >> bird.
>
> >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > For a while I was looking at the Volksplane, but I thought metal would
> > be preferable.
>
> > The Hummelbird is neat. Bet you could fly one with a rotax 503 / 582
> > pretty nice.
>
> First build? put the engine on the designer intended.

I think that's a safe way to go. However I like to think about weight
vs. HP and power loading and all of that. Even if you don't do an
alternative its a worthy mental exercise.

> They don't come any simpler or easier to build than the Volksplane. Good
> safe design. A determined builder can knock one up in six months. The
> Pietenpol wouldn't be too much harder, but would take a good bit more
> time to build. I've always fancied one of those with a model A engine on
> it.
>
> Bertie

I've been putting together the list of parts for the Texas Parasol. A
guy up in Canada has put one together. He told me he estimated that if
he'd had a whole month of free time he could have gotten it to the
point it is now (which is airframe complete sans fabric). He hasn't
done his engine and so probably has a number of such "full time
months" to go. I think their have been reasonable solutions provided
for those who object to its design as drawn.

The plane is fun looking and does enough for a first project. They've
only had one fatality -- poor guy was struggling with his engine all
day, finally got it to start, took it out for a "taxi test". Except he
took off. He wasn't a pilot and had no training whatsoever. He got to
200 feet and ran out of gas with a bad end.

On the other hand one guy has done some basic aerobatics in one
(slightly beefed up version).

They've been flying 'em since the 80s I think. Uses 503, VW, Geo and/
or Suburu as well.

I haven't seen many designs that are this simple. It can be built as
an ultralight, or could, but I won't go for that.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:717e4608-d7d7-437e-859e-
:


> I've been putting together the list of parts for the Texas Parasol. A
> guy up in Canada has put one together. He told me he estimated that if
> he'd had a whole month of free time he could have gotten it to the
> point it is now (which is airframe complete sans fabric). He hasn't
> done his engine and so probably has a number of such "full time
> months" to go. I think their have been reasonable solutions provided
> for those who object to its design as drawn.
>

Yeah, 90% done and 90% to go!

> The plane is fun looking and does enough for a first project. They've
> only had one fatality -- poor guy was struggling with his engine all
> day, finally got it to start, took it out for a "taxi test". Except he
> took off. He wasn't a pilot and had no training whatsoever. He got to
> 200 feet and ran out of gas with a bad end.
>
>

Yipes! I saw that happen at a fly in with a minimax. Actualy i think the
guy "flying" and I use the term loosely, was an inexperienced pilot and
that th eairplane had some issues. He was doing some fast taxi testing
on the runway and it started to bounce. his corrections were only making
things worse, so he eventually opened the taps and took it on it's first
flight. The pitch oscillations airborne were insane. He disappeared from
view for most of the flight various screaming engine noises coming from
behind the trees. he actually managed to get it all the way round the
pattern and put it on the runway where he well and truly ground looped
it. I was asked by the safety officer for the fly-in to go and have a
word in his ear to discourage him from further experimentation, but when
I got over to his camp I could see that this was wholly unnecessary...





On the other hand one guy has done some basic aerobatics in one
> (slightly beefed up version).

Well, unless you're fairly proficient. You'd also want a decent stress
analysis to see if there are reasonable margins. He might just be
"getting away with it"
>
> They've been flying 'em since the 80s I think. Uses 503, VW, Geo and/
> or Suburu as well.

OK, I thought it was an A-65 powered machine.. No?
>
> I haven't seen many designs that are this simple. It can be built as
> an ultralight, or could, but I won't go for that.

I don't see much advantage to ultralights vs homebuilts aside from
sidestepping paperwork.
The Volksplane is probably easier to build, and the Pober Pixie would
probabl be a better airplane at the end of the day., but that looks to
be a nice little airplane too. I did look at the hummelbirds. Excellent
performance on very little HP and I think they're relatively simple to
build.





bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 11, 10:11 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> I don't see much advantage to ultralights vs homebuilts aside from
> sidestepping paperwork.
> The Volksplane is probably easier to build, and the Pober Pixie would
> probabl be a better airplane at the end of the day., but that looks to
> be a nice little airplane too. I did look at the hummelbirds. Excellent
> performance on very little HP and I think they're relatively simple to
> build.
>
> bertie

My father has a friend who has a Challenger 2 -- he built the hangar,
the grass field, the works.

Problem is he doesn't know how to fly.

So 2-3 times a month in summer out it comes the taxi around on the
grass.

My dad thinks it is the plane for him -- and the promotional website
would support his enthusiasm. I have no experience with, on, in, or
near them so I haven't said much except "well...."


Dan

[[email protected]]

> Problem is he doesn't know how to fly.
>
> So 2-3 times a month in summer out it comes the taxi around on the
> grass.

That's pretty funny, but long as he's satisfied with it, why not! ;)

I'd do the same if I didn't know how to fly. Well, maybe I'd put an
engine on that I KNEW would never let it take off. ;)

[[email protected]]

About the aerobatics: You won't see ME trying in a TP, though I'd be
willing to watch someone else do a barrel roll or loop ... ;)

I'm not enough of a risk taker: I couldn't adequately calculate out
the strength of everything to be comfortable with the idea. For me it
would be a rank bet no different than betting on poker games.


> > They've been flying 'em since the 80s I think. Uses 503, VW, Geo and/
> > or Suburu as well.
>
> OK, I thought it was an A-65 powered machine.. No?

The mini-coupe yeah. It's been awhile since I looked close at the mini
and I don't remember for sure if somebody tried the mini-coupe with a
VW.

I don't know all the engine variations on the TP, but I don't
specifically recall mention of an A-65 in my reading about it.

> I don't see much advantage to ultralights vs homebuilts aside from
> sidestepping paperwork.
> The Volksplane is probably easier to build, and the Pober Pixie would
> probabl be a better airplane at the end of the day., but that looks to
> be a nice little airplane too. I did look at the hummelbirds. Excellent
> performance on very little HP and I think they're relatively simple to
> build.
>
> bertie

I think the Hummelbird is pretty cool -- seems like I've seen it with
the 1/2 VW? I'd like to see one sometime in person.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:c60f860e-b9e3-40a6-8427-
:

> About the aerobatics: You won't see ME trying in a TP, though I'd be
> willing to watch someone else do a barrel roll or loop ... ;)

OK. I'm sure it's probably able, but it;'s better to be sure. There was
a relatively recent accident in a relative of the airplane I'm building
where mild aerobatics led to the deaths of the two occupants. AN
analysis was done of the design and it was found to be wanting in some
areas, though the accident was put down to an inadequate glue joint. My
own airpalne, the Hatz, was found to be fine by the same analyst
>
> I'm not enough of a risk taker: I couldn't adequately calculate out
> the strength of everything to be comfortable with the idea. For me it
> would be a rank bet no different than betting on poker games.

There are guys who could look at it and focus on weaknesses. I could see
a glaring one, I think.
>
>
>> > They've been flying 'em since the 80s I think. Uses 503, VW, Geo
and/
>> > or Suburu as well.
>>
>> OK, I thought it was an A-65 powered machine.. No?
>
> The mini-coupe yeah. It's been awhile since I looked close at the mini
> and I don't remember for sure if somebody tried the mini-coupe with a
> VW.


Probably not man enough for the job if it was designed around an a-65.
The VW is a good bit lighter as well.
>
> I don't know all the engine variations on the TP, but I don't
> specifically recall mention of an A-65 in my reading about it.

OK, I've seen pics of them, but never one n the flesh. If he designed it
for a VW then that's probably the best way to go. I know a lot of guys
use EA81s as direct replacements for them though.
>
>> I don't see much advantage to ultralights vs homebuilts aside from
>> sidestepping paperwork.
>> The Volksplane is probably easier to build, and the Pober Pixie would
>> probabl be a better airplane at the end of the day., but that looks
to
>> be a nice little airplane too. I did look at the hummelbirds.
Excellent
>> performance on very little HP and I think they're relatively simple
to
>> build.
>>
>> bertie
>
> I think the Hummelbird is pretty cool -- seems like I've seen it with
> the 1/2 VW? I'd like to see one sometime in person.

I've never seen one in the flesh. i think there;s a "hefty guy" version
with a full VW that looks like a real good airplane as well. I also like
the Sorrel Guppy. I have a set of drawings for one and it's a very
clever little airplane. Th e1/2 VW is perfect for it. Do you have any of
the old Flying and Glider Manuals? You'd love them. There are so many
really nifty airplanes in them they'll keep you entertained for hours.


Bertie