Jim discussed the worry about engine failure, even though he knows it is rare.
> . . . in the back of my mind, after reading all the negative > reports, I always have that " wonder what if " thinking. Of > course we should always have that in our minds as we look > for that emergency field . Jim, Agreed. It is a matter of caution. We've achieved the state where most pilots can go through their flying career without a single forced landing due to engine failure. I'm rare in that I did have a forced landing <http://edburkhead.com/Ercoupe/Coupe_glider_club.htm> . It was my good luck that this happened on the second flight after my PP check ride. I was trained and practiced in emergency procedure even though I didn't have the depth of experience that hundreds of hours brings. So, I'm a firm advocate of *practicing* power loss approaches and landings. Doing this with power at idle may not perfectly simulate the drag of a windmilling propeller, but it's enormously better than no practice. I think that any pilot should have and practice the skills to land the plane darn close to any chosen spot on zero power. And, as a bonus, practicing this is a heck of a challenge and a lot of fun. (Have you noticed a recurring theme? I think that a fun way to spend time in the air is to practice mastering flying skills, acting as a test pilot to find the safe limits of your plane (within the published limits) and testing to optimize performance and safety.) Jim, I've read that most "engine failures" are not due to the engine failing. Sorry I can't give actual statistics. But several articles have asserted that fuel mismanagement, fuel system problems and, occasionally, air filter problems are the majority cause of "engine failure." At least the Coupe's fuel system eliminates the idiocy of fuel tank switching errors causing crashes. It takes exceptional disability (or an actual fuel system problem) to have a fuel starvation accident in a Coupe. My personal opinion is that *no pilot* should *ever* allow the engine to fail due to fuel starvation (other than mechanical problems). Running out of fuel should *never* happen. And, above all, running out of fuel, or any engine failure, should *never, never, ever* result in loss of control of the aircraft leading to stall, spin and death. That would be, just, you know, embarrassing! Ed Burkhead http://edburkhead.com/Ercoupe/index.htm ed -at- edbur???khead.yyy change -at- to @, remove the ??? and change yyy to com _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Truxel Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 7:04 AM To: ercoupe Ercoupe Flying; William R. Bayne Subject: Re: [ercoupe-flyin] Coupe Bashing I have been flying an Ercoupe for about 4 years and enjoy it more than any other aircrft in my 58 years of flying. But in reading the various articles on Ercoupes the one area that seems to stick in my head is the engine failure posting. The other areas, such as overshooting, undershooting, hard landings, groundloops, etc all are directlty related to poor pilot technique. Landing an Ercoupe is like landing a Tri-Pacer. But the engine failure stats are my concern in that most of the other listings are pilot related. You addressed the lack of proper preflight, fuel management, etc but how many engine failures are directly the result of an actual engine breakdown, such as crankshaft, valve/piston , mags, etc ? When I take my Grandkids up in ours, they really enjoy it . But in the back of my mind, after reading all the negative reports, I always have that " wonder what if " thinking. Of course we should always have that in our minds as we look for that emergency field . The Ercoupe has extended my flying life for many years to come as I reverted to Sport Pilot after years of commercial flying and also being a retired FAA air traffic controller, aviation has been my life. We have 200 hours on a majored C-85 and it is just purring along. Change the oil as required, and if there is the smallest indication of oil drops or other such items, we are on it like bees on honey. Just wondering about the actual engine failure stats. My first email reading in the morning as I have my coffee are the Ercoupe blogs, then Civil Air Patrol, then others. Thanks, Jim N3439H 415C with rudder pedals FDK ----- Original Message ----- From: William <mailto:[email protected]> R. Bayne To: ercoupe Ercoupe Flying <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 3:40 AM Subject: Re: [ercoupe-flyin] Coupe Bashing 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)
