I have no idea of the figures but a large proportion of the retired¹ Ercoupes in the UK suffered crash damage, I think mainly on landing. Most of these were Forneys used by flying schools back in the 1960¹s. I know of at least one Ercoupe that crashed on its test flight after restoration, flown by a competent pilot of course.
I have to say that the behaviour of my Alon on landing took quite a bit of getting used to. I came from training on Cessna 152s, and the high rate of sink when you get slow, inability to get the speed up at all by lowering the nose on short finals, and the lack of flaps made the handling and technique required during landing very different to what I previously knew and had experienced. Yes the Ercoupe might be easy to fly and learn on. But it¹s characteristics during this crucial phase of flight are different to the norm¹. Underestimating that, or forgetting about it, is obviously pilot error. It took me probably 20 hours and 40 landings before I felt comfortable about my landing technique. I¹d probably be quite dangerous flying a Cessna again now! So I would say the Ercoupe is definitely a safe aircraft, the problem is promoting it as an easy to fly aircraft, which implies you don¹t need to learn much to jump out of one type and into an Ercoupe. Safe flying, Mike On 8/5/09 14:51, "Ed Burkhead" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill, > > Very good analysis. > > Here are a few comments, mostly to emphasize some of your points: > >> > It was in the middle of the pack for ground loops. > I think that the tail-low, crosswind landing, wing lift loss of directional > control accounts for 90% plus of these ³ground loop² accidents. The FAA > really didn¹t have a proper category to count this kind of accident so they > tossed them into this bin. > > Now, with the tails up to specs and with proper attention to the issue, I¹ve > simply stopped hearing about accidents where there was loss of control during > crosswind landings resulting in damage. > > This is a far cry from 1991 when the issue was first being widely disseminated > along with Bill Coons¹s spacer form 337. > >> > 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. > > The FAA did, I¹ve heard, lump some low airspeed, mushing accidents into the > stall bin and some into hard landings. Those lumped in ³stalls² were > certainly mislabeled. > > And, as Bill says, this is a training issue. > > The Ercoupe¹s record in many of the categories does, I agree, reflect low > competence of some of the Coupe pilots and inadequate training. That is > largely due to its advertising/marketing which claimed that less competence is > needed. In an interview, Fred Weick told me he had misjudged the relative > importance to safety of pilot judgment versus aircraft design. > > In addition, due to the low population density of Coupes and the fact that our > flying technique differences are unique means there are few CFIs who are > really competent to teach those differences. > > My own flight instructor refused to give me any instruction in the Coupe I > bought right at the end of my private pilot lessons. He told me, ³Just go > fly, you¹ll do fine.² And, he was mostly right. > > But, if I hadn¹t gone to the library and photocopied every Coupe article about > Ercoupes ever written and read them over and over, I would have missed a > number of very important Coupe flying techniques. > > I¹m inclined to urge new Coupe pilots and CFIs who are going to teach in > Coupes to go find a good Coupe pilot and learn about the Coupe¹s special > differences. And, they should read about those differences, too. Finally, > we¹ve distilled some of that information into articles on my Coupe web page, > http://edburkhead.com/Ercoupe/ and the Ercoupe Owners Club¹s website, > http://ercoupe.org <http://ercoupe.org/> > > Are the Coupes more dangerous as aircraft than other light aircraft? I¹m sure > they are not. > > Is our training for Coupe pilots inadequate? Yes, but it¹s gotten > significantly better over the last 30 years. > > Are we still drawing an overly large percentage of yahoos, idiots and others > with poor judgment and skills? Yes, but much less than 30, 40 or 50 years > ago. > > If we, as pilots, train properly and fly with good judgment, I think the > Coupes are in the safest 10%-20% of light aircraft for flying safety. > > Ed > > ________________ Alon A2 A-188 G-HARY www.ercoupe.co.uk
