William, I think your analysis is very thorough and spot-on. I also think Coupe bashing is as stupid as any bashing, as it is always so easy to put simple labels on facts, situations or people. But reality is always more complex. As to the (bad?) accident record of the Coupe, I have a similar theory as you, and it is headlined "pilot complacency" (I think you meant the same thing quoting bad airmanship). With the Coupe, Fred Weick wanted to design the safest single engine fixed wing aircraft in the world (of its time), and I think he did a pretty good job at that. The big problem starts when such an aircraft is then actually advertised to be practically incapable of stalling or spinning and to practically handle like a car in taxiing and flying. Flying or even just moving in ANY aircraft has its inherent dangers. Last year I have personally seen someone nose over a Cessna Skylane while taxiing to the hangar. Is it really possible to nose a Cessna over during taxi? How likely is it? The pilot was just stupid enough to veer off the taxiway in order to pass another aircraft standing in his way. Unfortunately he did not see the big ditch ahead of him... How likely is a Coupe to stall? As a matter of phyics, ANY fixed wing aircraft can stall. But when a pilot gets into an aircraft and takes off in it with a mindset that this is like driving a car to the neighborhood store to get groceries, chances are that person will find himself/herself in the graveyard instead of the grocery store. Just my 2 cents... Cheers Juergen
--- William R. Bayne <[email protected]> schrieb am Fr, 8.5.2009: Von: William R. Bayne <[email protected]> Betreff: Re: [ercoupe-flyin] Coupe Bashing An: "ercoupe Ercoupe Flying" <[email protected]> Datum: Freitag, 8. Mai 2009, 9:40 Hi Beach, The "Comparitive Accident Records" was based on a 33-aircraft FAA study, but we don't know what those aircraft were. Since it was done in 1979, most were much newer than the great majority of Ercoupes. Most cost a lot more to buy, operate and fly; and, their owners likely having more training and experience. It serves no purpose to compare apples with oranges. Let's instead look at the six aircraft for which actual accidents (adjusted to represent per 100,000 hrs.) are shown. Note that there are four taildraggers and two tricycle gear ships. The Cessna 150 would typically be newer. In 1979, these were primarily used for flight training, and so they would receive regular, competent maintenance; and an unusually high number of hours aloft would be under the direct supervision of a flight instructor or examiner. No wonder, then that the 150 had the best overall accident rate, fewest ground loops, fatalities, engine failures, in-flight structural failures, undershoots, and stalls (the latter except for the Ercoupe). Now compare the Ercoupe to the remaining taildraggers. The Ercoupe had the 7th worst overall accident rate. Let's look at how that was "earned". It was 3rd worst for hard landings. With a full foot of oleo action capable of absorbing a 500 FPM descent onto the runway without damage, and proven crosswind capability well beyond any taildragger, it is clear that this could only result from poor maintenance (a lot of them in that period were owned by people who wouldn't spend a dime on them because they were the cheapest thing flyable) and poor airmanship (those people didn't read and follow the instructions). Does that in any way relate to a problem with Ercoupe design? I think not. It was in the middle of the pack for ground loops. How do you ground loop an Ercoupe? You have to have something break on the nose gear (pretty rare) or you try flying it without reading the instructions, or you take on crosswinds with "low tail" beyond your capability. Does that in any way relate to a problem with Ercoupe design? I think not. The fatal accident rate of 9th of 33 equates to a "score" of 73 on a scale of 100. That is a passing grade anywhere, and exceptional given the fact that they were only rarely well maintained, no dealers remaining, and few qualified coupe-familiar mechanics. Overshoot is essentially meaningless, since the range shown of .34 to .71 per 100,000 hours is statistically insignificant. The Ercoupe is many things, but a "floater" it isn't. Airmanship is the primary variable in such a narrow range of obviously rare occurrence. Engine failure goes hand-in hand with poor maintenance and airmanship. If the tanks aren't kept full, the plane is outside, the tanks are not properly drained before flight, and perhaps auto fuel is being used of questionable quality...then yeah, I can see the gascolator filling up with water soon after takeoff rotation. With no tank valves to manage from full to empty, it takes a special kind of stupidity to not notice the header tank gauge thumping bottom a half hour or so before the engine quits. Do any of these causes in any way relate to a problem with Ercoupe design? I think not. In-flight airframe failure, like Overshoot is similarly statistically insignificant. We tend to look hard at it because it is usually fatal, but the difference between 3rd and 27th is .95 per 100,000 hrs., and even that highly rare occurrence is likely associated with some unqualified bozo attempting aerobatic or instrument skills. Incompetence can result in stresses in excess of design loads in a number of possible scenarios on even a new airframe. Does that in any way relate to a problem with Ercoupe design? I think not. Undershoot in any aircraft is, like Overshoot, primarily the result of poor airmanship. The fact that the Ercoupe was the absolute worst in this category obscures the fact that the problem was relatively rare and likely associated with a bit poorer proficiency on the part of Ercoupe pilots in 1979. Does that in any way relate to a problem with Ercoupe design? I think not. Do the Ercoupe pilots of today have a less marginal level of proficiency? I certainly hope so! Stall is fascinating, because the Ercoupe does not stall in normal flight. Apparently someone managed a whip-stall while landing resulting in an accident, yet even so the Ercoupe edged out the 150 in this category. There are verified incidents where children took an Ercoupe up for a joy ride having only read about flying from comic books (and lived to tell the tale). A hand propping incident led to a Mrs. Freed opening the throttle when her husband told her to close it, and becoming airborne. She had had no previous instruction, but managed to bring the plane back with relatively minor damage. Given this background, the statement that "The aircraft has a rather poor accident rate in several categories" is clearly more indicative of owner/operator proficiency problems than of any reasonably identifiable design deficiency as to ease of operation. Accordingly, my "regard" for the wisdom and objectivity of the author of this Aviation Consumer information is approximately zero on a scale of 1 to 10. In their issue of February 15, 1978, they featured the Ercoupe in their "Used Airplane Guide". I'm always leery of articles without an author's name, but that one was generally complimentary to the Ercoupe. They described it's record of stall/spin accidents was "anywhere from two to ten times better than any other aircraft in this class". They quoted Ed Slattery (then of the NTSB) as stating that "The Ercoupe is an amazing aircraft in terms of safety design and engineering. The I-beam under the seat is twice as rugged as the one in a Bonanza." At that time less than a quarter of all Ercoupe Stall/spin accidents were fatal–a lower percentage than any other aircraft listed in the stall/spin study. It's hard to keep in mind that the same plane is discussed only a few years apart. Regards, William R. Bayne .____|-(o)-|____. (Copyright 2009) -- On May 7, 2009, at 11:33, James B. Brennan wrote: > In my 1985 copy of The Aviation Consumer Used Aircraft Guide there is a > chapter, "Airknocker Roundup" where they discuss the J-3 Cub, Cessna 120/140, > Aeronca, Ercoupe, Taylorcraft and Cessna 150, They cite Comparative Accident > Records (According to the FAA's 1979 study of 33 aircraft, rates based on > each 100,000 flying hours.) > > The Overall Accident rate (and rank among the 33) finds Ercoupe 28.51 (7th > worst). I'll attach a PDF. Not a really pretty picture. I think most of us > have a decent regard for The Aviation Consumer (or did that just fall by the > wayside?). > > Regards, > > Jim Brennan (who will fly one again, anyway, despite having an accident with > one) >
