----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
Wait a sec, folks.... CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT
I was really upset reading the post in regards to Collin's column. I
thought he had gone too far, also. I love my coupe and understand
about keeping up speed on final and all. I think all of us here are
aware of that.
But... You need to read the entire article for the gist of what Collin's
is saying. It appears to to be a well researched piece on the effects
of gradient wind - and it's effects on aircraft. He uses the Ercoupe to
show how a plane that was specifically designed for safety (actually
when you consider all the aircraft he could have chosen, it's high
praise for the coupe) can be affected by gradient wind -- or it's modern
translation "wind shear."
Collin's addresses Fred Wieck's research in this area and what he
found on the predecessor - the W-1. He is specifically talking of
decreasing Headwind on final - and sets it up for the next point of how
this decrease affects flight. Like the L-1011 that had the headwind
change to a tailwind.
His point is - that a plane - ANY plane - will be affected by the
movement and eddies of air. And that it will affect your airspeed!
And we all have agreed on the importance of keeping airspeed on final.
Have we not. And this is the gist of his article. He never was
addressing landings with the coupes. He stated: "It would pitch nose
down when flying into a "decreasing headwind" and IF that happened close
to the ground, it would hit nose down with disastrous effects." I think
if you were on final and your 20 kt headwind reversed to a 20 kt
tailwind, you are too far behind the power curve to stop your sink rate.
AND - it's not just a 40kt airspeed drop that he is addressing, but the
effect of having the "fluid" we are moving thru just kind of bottom out.
Now, he was using the ercoupe, as I read it, as the standard of how a
safe, efficient plane can be affected. As far as his comments about the
safety record being one of the worst, well that seems borne out by the
NTSB (or it's predecessor) records of that day. Note that I said of
THAT day. Let's face it, the plane was marketed to the average Joe and
touted as one that Anybody can fly. Well, a lot of people who CANT fly
bought into that and so it suffered a large amount of
accidents/incidents due to it's "training/low time pilot" clientele.
The Aviation Consumer Used Aircraft Guide states, "Oddly the NTSB
accident files show a substantial number of Ercoupe crashes in the
"stall" or "stall/spin" categories. (In fact one study shows the
Ercoupe has a "stall/spin" accident rate twice that of the cessna
Skylane.) this might be due to semantics, when an Ercoupe hits the
ground at very slow speeds, the NTBS investigator has to check something
on his accident form. Since there is no category for "High sink rate
with wheel full back but aerodynamically unstalled" one might understand
how he simply checks the box marked "stall." Perhaps "Deep Mush" might
be a better phrase to describe the Ercoupe stall/spin accident."
I would hate to try and land mine at the recommended 65 MPH of the book.
Collins acknowledges that the ERCOUPE was not at fault in the safety
record. He states: "This (poor safety record) was likely BECAUSE
pilots would fly it too slowly, unafraid because the the airplane
wouldn't stall and it wouldn't spin." He concedes that it was pilot
error. Thankfully, having some fifty-five years of experience to draw
upon, ercoupe pilots of today are less apt to have these errors.
Anyways, I just wanted to point out that the context of the article was
on how wind effects airplanes, I did not take it as an attack on "our"
bird, but rather as an example of good engineering - in which he praises
Weick's research. He did not claim that this "nose down" phenomena of
wind gradient caused ANY accidents - only that Weick's research showed
it could.
Collins sums up his piece, "Remember, the Wrights could outfly Curtiss
because they knew more about air currents. the rest of us need to
consider this every time we fly. Look at it this way: acknowledging the
effect of changing wind can't hurt anything; failure to acknowledge it
can kill you."
Regards,
Rick Green
N93686 SW MI
Bob Saville wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> I didn't read 'windshear' into his comments but I suppose you could
be
> right and he just
> worded it poorly. Still, the rest of his comments were so far off-base
> that I don't really
> think that he meant windshear or he would have said so. And that would
> not pertain 'only'
> to Ercoupes. If anything, the coupes should do better in a windshear (on
> final) as they are
> moving faster 'down the chute' than the other light planes that he's
> comparing us with.
> Let's face it, with each comment/reply he's just getting in deeper
and
> deeper.
>
> Bob Saville
>
> pmanton wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >about an increasing headwind or decreasing tailwind? The
airplane does
> > > > > >not 'feel' any wind so what the hell Collins was talking about
I would
> > > > > >like to know!
> >
> > >
> > > ***** Hey, that makes about as much sense as the rest of the
'bildge' in
> > > his comments.
> >
> > If I'm not mistaken he was speaking about "wind shear" when the wind
> > changes so fast that the aircraft does not have time to respond.
> >
> > I have seen a -10 mph gust on occasion at TIW and as much as -15
> > on rare occasions. Gusts of + and - 5 to 7 are very common.
> >
> > You spot this when your pitch and power are constant and you see
> > fluctuations on your ASI during gusty conditions.
> >
> > The air mass is changing directions faster than the Coupe can respond.
> >
> > If he is NOT discussing a wind shear condition, then I don't know
> > what he means.
> >
> > Cheers:
> >
> > Paul
> > N2273H
>
N93686
South Haven, MI
==^================================================================
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 -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
