A well written response, Linda. Good work! I wanted to write a rebuttal to the author of the Ercoupe hatchet job, but after reading his blog which continues to mock Ercoupe owners (he calls us PETA) I am not sure I want to try to have an rationale conversation with a back-slapping, good ol' boy from the "Tailhook Society" (or is that tail wheel society). Those folks over there at AAA are having a good yuk. I am not sure I want to get down in the mud with them. Since there is no way that we can make them more intelligent, it is probably best that we get out of their way and hope that their next ground loop or low altitude spin doesn't hurt any innocent by- standers.
Frank Nelson --- In [email protected], Linda Abrams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Attn: Letters to the Editor > > Dear Editor, > > I have just received a solicitation to subscribe to Aviation > Consumer...it came about 2 days after your article on Legacy LSA's > was forwarded to me. That article contained a hatchet job on > Ercoupes, full of false innuendo or outright false statements. Is > this typical of Aviation Consumer? If not, sir, where were your fact- > checkers?!?! > > Before I conclude that the author's irresponsible & biased writing > reflects your editorial policy, I would like to give you an > opportunity to show a potential new subscriber how fair-minded > Aviation Consumer can be. I understand something might occasionally > slip by an overworked editor -- we're all human and mistakes happen > -- but how they are dealt with afterward is the mark of professionalism. > > To fully refute a misrepresentation often takes more space than the > original took, and I understand that you have limited space... but to > set right the wrong that was done, please consider printing the full > refutations that you will doubtless be receiving from others. > > Herewith just a few corrections your fact-checkers should have told you: > > 1. The article mockingly doubted the spin-proof design. Fact: the > Ercoupe is *certificated* as "characteristically incapable of > spinning" -- and bears a panel placard stating so. (And by the way, > stalls in an Ercoupe are non-events: it was designed so that even > when the wing root stalls, the rest of the wing keeps flying.) > Considering that the writer cites "stall/spin incidents" as one of > two "killer accident trends in legacy taildraggers," wouldn't you > think it significant that the Ercoupe does not have that vulnerability? > > 2. His statements that "Flight experience can best be described as > 'quirky,' especially in crosswinds," and "Crosswind landings are > faith-based flying," most clearly reveal the writer's ignorance of > Ercoupes. Fred Weick designed the 'Coupe to be simple, stable & > safe, and they are renowned for being able to land in crosswinds that > keep other planes hangared. For example, after just about an hour's > crosswind instruction, my CFI approved me landing my 415-C in up to > 20 kt crosswinds -- while he, with 30+ years flying & teaching > experience, limits his Cessna to 15 kt crosswinds. And if your writer > had done his research, he'd have seen this video of Dan Hall's 415- CD > landing at Flabob in a direct crosswind of 20 gusting 30: http:// > youtube.com/watch?v=4Ob7toBLP2I. Can the other Legacy-LSA's match > that? > > 3. Most importantly, the marketplace of aviation consumers has > already voted with their dollars in favor of Ercoupes, whose price > steadily rises impressively, adding "good investment" to its list of > virtues. (Your writer owns a Champ. Could investment jealousy be > behind his hatchet job?) > > His style -- not to mention his innuendos -- might be at home in a > throw-away rag's movie reviews, but it is not worthy of an objective > aviation consumer magazine. > > Respectfully submitted, > > Linda T. Abrams > Los Angeles >
