----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]---- I agree the coupe is a pretty good x-wind airplane but a 30kt x-wind at a touch down speed of 70 you would have 25 deg crab angle! In a 45kt wind I think you would have a pile of alum scrap. I think a 45kt x-wind is prob. beyond the limit of a 737. Again the coupe is good for x-wind IF the tail is 75 inches. Craig 2623H Ed Burkhead wrote: > > > Glen Ward wrote: > > If it was so great in a crosswind, then maybe it would not have a proven > > bad record of running off the side of the runway! I am so sick and > > tired of hearing what a great crosswind plane that thing is. Turning on > > the ground is yawing, and it should be hooked to a seperate rudder > > control. Fred Weick was no genius on this one. This was not his big > > invention - in fact it was a fad in the 30's among airplane designers > > wanting to make flying cars. It is not even a sensible idea because we > > are talking about two different axes here. It works fine most of the > > time until it catches you wrong one day, and then it will scare you > > good. > > Gotta disagree with you, Glen, on almost everything you wrote. Fred was > a genius on this. In the air, there's no need for separate pedals in a > properly designed airplane. > > In the dark ages before we figured out about tail droop being such a > problem, a LOT of Coupes had drooping tails. When I first got my Coupe, > 21 years ago, almost all the coupes at the fly-ins had that tail-dragger > ready-to-take-off attitude when sitting on the ramp. > > At the moment of touchdown, if the landing gear is poorly maintained and > the tail droops, the up-wind wing can lift. When the up-wind wing > lifted, people tried turning the yoke to bring it down and that resulted > in a sharp turn off the runway. > > Now, no problem. Just do the normal maintenance and, if necessary, get > the shims so the tail is 75" high. Then Coupes behave VERY well in > crosswinds. I agree with the majority on this one -- I'll take a Coupe > in a strong crosswind on a VERY narrow runway before any other general > aviation airplane. > > > > Somebody will tell us the story of how God/Fred just happened to > > notice how driving with the wheel comes naturally to people, blah blah > > blah. > > That true story accounts for why, in the ERCO pedal kit, the nose wheel > stays linked to the yoke -- so you can steer VERY accurately on the > ground and, when it hits the fan and you get flustered, you STILL steer > correctly. And it works. > > But, in any other plane, if you come down in a slip and HOLD your foot > down on one rudder pedal, not letting up so the nosewheel can caster to > align with direction of motion, you will leave the runway or tip over. > You just gotta lighten up on the pedal/wheel that controls direction on > the ground -- just for the moment the nosewheel needs for that alignment > turn -- in ANY plane. > > > > Somebdoy else will tell the 45 knot crosswind story. Rudder > > pedals are fine for steering on the ground, unless of course they are > > Ercoupe pedals. > > Having or not having pedals doesn't greatly affect Coupe crosswind > performance. True, the Alon pedal kit lets you rotate the ailerons to > kill the residual up-wind wing lift. But with the normal on-the-ground > tail-high/low-angle-of-attack attitude, it just isn't a problem. > > I do have an Alon kit and, though I've never tried it, I'd bet my life > on a successful outcome with a 45 kt crosswind -- if I had to. But in > those conditions, I'd a lot rather divert to an airport where the > crosswind component is a comfortable 30-35 kts, thank you. (By the way, > when the crosswind component gets over 15 mph, I level the wings and > land crabbed like any other Coupe.) > > > Also the plane does land too darn fast. > > The normal touch-down speeds of 45-60 mph are higher than some > competitors and we are at a disadvantage there. I flew for years out of > an airport with 1800' of usable grass (with no obstructions) with no > problem. More challenging was the airport with 2400' of asphalt (and > obstructions at both ends) with enough of a slope that landing on 31 > took more brakes than I liked. > > > It comes down > > at a ferocious rate if you let it get slow. > > Yep, sort of. At 70-80 mph indicated, I get my best glide ratio and it's > comparable to other planes. > At 65, it's like adding 10 degrees of flaps to the 172 I trained in. > At 60, it's like adding 20 degrees of flaps to the 172 I trained in. > At 55, it's like adding 30 degrees of flaps to the 172 I trained in. > At 50, it's like adding 40 degrees of flaps to the 172 I trained in. > > Cessna later took away the 40 degree flap option -- too steep for some > pilots and those pilots didn't handle it well. > > I know the speed/sink-rate performance of my Coupe and use it > deliberately. I know that, if I'm low, pulling up on the nose won't > stretch my glide, it'll worsen it. Instead, I drop the nose a bit and > get a better glide ratio at the higher speed. If it's not a zero-power > emergency, I'll add a bit of power sometimes -- but it's a fun challenge > to do it right every time, without needing to add power. "Takes guts"? > No. (Does take some brains.) > > > > I think it is a great > > plane, but I hate to hear the same dubious "advantages" recited over and > > over by enthusiasts. You can't fly an Ercoupe like most old planes, > > that is all I was saying. > > True, you can't fly a Coupe like most planes. You shouldn't be flying > ANY plane like "most planes." You should be flying it as IT was designed > to fly. > > > > It won't slow down worth a heck and that > > makes your manuevers wider. Glen Ward > > Huh? Yeah, it's a lower-drag airframe than a Tri-Pacer or some > others. That's why we go the same speed on 15-30 hp less than some other > planes. Being high and fast on final will mean a go-around or you'll > have to use one of the Coupe techniques in the Ercoupe Maneuvers book. > Sure isn't any big deal, though. > > > ----- > > Here are some comments on your other questions, Patrick. > > Someone told you it's not good for sight-seeing because of the low wing? > > Looking down at a particular object on the ground on my side of the > plane isn't as good because of the wing -- it's true. When I took the TV > news cameraman up to shoot the natural-gas storage fire, he was > favorably impressed -- as we banked around the 400' flame I adjusted the > bank angle so he never had the wing in the picture and there was no > strut to get in the way. > > But when I get into those high wing planes, I get claustrophobia. Yeah, > on MY side I can see something close below me but I can't see over the > OTHER side any better than in a Coupe. And I can't see up and around > hardly at all in those planes (high OR low wing). > > There are some new designs coming out with visibility as good as a > Coupe's and when I can afford the $100,000 I might consider getting > one. But can THEY fly open cockpit? > > > > "Climb with 2 people is scary on a hot day." > > If you have a low-powered engine and a cruise prop, that can be true. > Because of my personal weight, I fly my Coupe with a 7146 prop that > gives me very good take-off and better-than-Coupe-average climb. It > limits my cruise to about 100-102 mph, though. A good choice for me. > > I've never needed more than half the runway to take-off except once. > Normally mid-field is my go/no-go decision point -- I SHOULD be off by > then so if I'm not then I want to stop and find out why. The one > exception was on a day when it was 95 degrees and the grass was too > long, there was zero wind, the field was short and my passenger and I > made it right at 1400 lb gross weight. I got off the ground as soon as > possible and stayed in ground effect till I got to my chosen > climb-speed. And we WERE off the ground before my chosen decision point > at about 65% of the runway. > > If you live in a high altitude area, getting an O-200 engine may be > worthwhile -- the 15 extra horsepower mostly goes into climb. > > It's true that a 100-108-114 mph plane (depends on model, etc.) is slow > for cross country. But I've had mine to the Atlantic ocean, the Pacific, > Florida, southern states, and much of the Canadian border. (Having > pedals cramps my knees up after a while.) > > If I can ever afford a BETTER plane, I'll get one. But for the last 21 > years, I don't get spring new-plane-fever because there aren't any > better planes, for me, at less than four times the price. > > You might read the "Why Buy a Coupe" and the "Frequently Asked > Questions" on http://www.ercoupe.org which have, I humbly submit, some > decent and more detailed discussions of these issues. > > Ed Burkhead
__________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from this list please send mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
