----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
At 03:52 AM 11/15/01 +0000, Vishni Arde wrote:
>. The
>superior control we have in our Ercoupes more than makes up for the
>somewhat higher landing speeds. It is far easier to land these planes
>than most any other, even ones much slower.
I think that really depends. The down side is that
a) If you're a low-time pilot time has not let 'elongated' for you. That
is,
at the approach speed of a 150 or 172, things still seem to happen
fast. If that is the case, then the Ercoupe's Bonanza/Mooney/Comanche
like approach is going to force you to take the next step, especially
since you can't cheat with flaps or slips.
b) If you do screw up, you're going to get a lot more hurt than you will
with a plane which touches down at less than 50MPH. Physics, you
know.
c) It seems to be a little harder to put the airplane right where you want
it
along the length of the runway
The good news is that:
a) Higher approach speeds mean that a cross-wind has less effect on
you
b) Somewhat the same with wind shear
c) You don't drive the Aerostar behind you crazy
d) You don't get bored and muff a good approach for lack of interest :-)
e) Once it starts to seem like you have 'plenty of time' on an 80 or 90MPH
approach, it IS easier to track the plane down the centerline of the
runway
Overall, the statistics suggest that the average PP-ASEL is better off
with
a kite
like the 172. Personally, I find it easier to land an Ercoupe consistently
even
though I'm going along 10MPH faster.
Greg
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aVxiLm.aVzvvT
Or send an email 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>>
