The presence or absence of a snubber cable is largely a matter of
personal preference to the experienced Ercoupe pilot. The FAA
may or may not see it that way ;<)
To the pilot lacking much Ercoupe experience, the "pros" and "cons"
of issues such as we discuss can make a huge difference in their
understanding, confidence and enjoyment of this truly inspired and
unique design. Airplane jargon is easily misused and misunderstood.
My first time through the Aircraft Spruce catalog as a new pilot yielded
maybe 10% comprehension. Each time through I learn something
new; yet it contains few, if any, competing concepts.
That is neither true nor desirable in TECH discussions. While all
opinions posted may appear of equal merit, such is incorrect. Our
unfiltered combination of opinion, experience, speculation and the
occasional fact can easily lead to confusion and frustration.
Some posts seek to validate something the previous owner, another
owner, his mechanic, another mechanic or FAA staff said. One's
belief may be based on individual experience. It may be based
on personal research of presumably authoritative documentation
and/or experience. Some are right, some wrong, and some unclear.
Credibility is the filter necessary for clarity on a scale from 0 to
100%.
Each TECH participant builds their own credibility day by day with
the positions they take and supporting facts. The "burden of proof"
is largely to explain historically who did what, to what, and when.
Authoritative information and some physical process or measurement
(both predictable and repeatable) qualify as facts. Opinions based on
verifiable fact are inherently credible. All else is speculation.
That is not to say that speculation cannot be logical and credible, but
only that it should be made clear, insofar as possible, when the supply
of facts is exhausted and speculation begins. The value of speculation
varies with the experience and credibility of the individual
speculating,
and whether it is objective (likely typical and measurable) or
subjective
(personal perception of an experience which may be unique).
We should encourage a process wherein the "best" information comes
to the top of all that is tossed in the pot, and is clearly evident as
such.
In this context I would offer the comments interspersed below hoping to
"stir the pot" without offense to any individual - WRB
≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈
On Feb 7, 2009, at 10:08, nm0l wrote:
I believe the snubber cable was attempt to make the nose gear the
same length as the original gear with the single fork and small tire.
Such logic would have required Erco (Sanders) to have produced and
installed the snubber on the 415-E model, first Ercoupe to incorporate
the
5" nose wheel/tire. I'd like to see any evidence that Erco/Sanders did
so.
If the dual fork and larger tire were installed this make the gear too
long.
If "too long" means "even longer", this would be true. "Too long" for
what?
The cable held it up to the original length.
Does "it" refer to such length as the distance from the bottom of the
cowling
to the bottom of an original 4" tire with no weight on a fully
extended nose
strut as compared to the bottom of the 5" tire mounted in a Forney
double-
fork wheel support? Do you know what the fabricated length of such a
snubber would be? Is this the cable length specified for Mooney's M10?
I do know from personal observation that snubber cables field-installed
on
Ercoupes, etc. vary so greatly in length that any such original
specific design
intent is routinely ignored. Some lengths seem to suggest a belief
that if some
restriction is good, more must be "better".
I found that the handling was much better on take off and landing with
the
cable installed.
Any effect on handling would vary with the length of the snubber
installed on a
given airframe. One pilot's perception of "better" handling on one
airframe might
be different on another. Variations in static tail height, snubber
length, and whether
a 4" or 5" nose wheel was fitted could easily tip individual perception
either way.
It's not a "one size fits all" issue to be considered independently of
other factors.
The tire is not behind the prop with the cable.
It does not have to be in order to increase drag.
It's about where the nose tire is on the modern LSA, Cirrus and other
tri-gear aircraft.
In my opinion the likely variations in how far behind and below the low
point of the
individual prop arc and the centerline of each possible wheel/tire
combination was
in cruise flight make this conclusion all but impossible to
substantiate. WRB
≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈
On Feb 7, 2009, at 19:05, [email protected] wrote:
Hi Ed,
Do you have info that proves that Alon didn't install the cable before
Mooney did?
Hi Wayne,
The "burden of proof" must be that Alon DID install production
snubbers.
The Alon's that I have seen all have the cable installed.
You are looking at Alons today. At "issue" is whether Alons had
"factory"
snubbers off the Alon production line. We can't see back then from
today.
As far as I know mine has always had the cable installed.
You qualified your personal knowledge as incomplete in terms of "as
produced".
If it was added later, there are no logbook entries to that effect.
There are few, if any, of our birds that have proper documentation of
all mods.
Alon brochures that show the plane in flight show the nose strut not
fully extended, as it would
be if there were no cable installed .
I have a six-page colored Alon brochure that features Alon N5475E
(Serial A-9).
The in-flight pictures are as you describe, and I believe in two of the
pictures (on
the ground) a snubber cable is shown. Knowing Alon experimented with
snubbers
on several early company-owned ships doesn't confirm snubbers as
"production".
I have a two-sided single page brochure showing N5629F (A-229) in
flight and
the scissors assembly is so near vertical behind the nose strut as to
make the
purpose of the scissors-mounted rubber bumper obvious. This same photo
was
used in a magazine ad featuring three pilot testimonials from
mid-February '67.
The February 1965 Flying Magazine has an article "Alon's New
Aircoupe". Photos of The
subject airplane, N5468F clearly show the cable installed on this
"new" Alon Aircoupe.
N5468F was an A-2A, Serial B-268. N5468E was the first production A-2
airframe. It likely differed a bit from later production Alon
airframes). I know
Forney played around a lot with their first F-1 as the factory's
"experimental".
I'm pretty sure that the cable was original equipment on the Alon
Aircoupes from day one.
Find us a part number or production drawing (which HAD to exist for
"original
equipment" and "pretty sure" will become fact ;<) WRB
Best Regards,
Wayne DelRossi
Alon Aircoupe N5618F
"Life begins at 50...... knots."
