----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any
advice in this forum.]----

It is a relatively unsafe bird. Even the insurance company knows it.  It
also costs too much to fix.  Insurance companies seem to not make mistakes
when judging the risks.  Funny, I am not the only one who has said bad
things about it.  The plane has an awful limit on the elevator and that
has
given it a bad record, as has two-axis control, whether you zealots like
it
or not, the numbers don't lie.  It is a fact that it can be run off the
runway by good pilots.  It has happened at least twice in the past month.
They also have hard landings and they  continue to believe Erco hype 50
years later which leads them to fly in winds no 800 pound airplane should
be
in.  Larry, I will forgive you for implying that I am a bad pilot since I
have know since the day you joined the list that you were a moron, what
with
those Polish jokes you posted and all.  Somebody will pop us and tell us
what an advancement it was back in 1937, but all "new" ideas on it were
documented many times before, though apparently  people interested in
aviation history who should know better don't recognize that.  GW

>This sounds like a typical case of trying to pass the buck.  Put the
blame
where it belongs Glen.  Don't
>try to make the Coupe out to be an unsafe bird.
>
>Lar__________________________________________________
>> To unsubscribe from this list please send
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>


__________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from this list please send
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aVxiLm.aVzvvT
Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A  -- Learn More. Surf Less.
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
==^================================================================

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>

Reply via email to