What you mean is no one has found a valid reason in your opinion to have a cable. If you look through the log books or just look at the bottom of the firewall on most Ercoupes you will see that most of them have been replaced because the nose wheel had been whacked off. I have no proof but I suspect it was a combination of too long a nose wheel and people in the past that did not fly the Ercoupe properly. These days we have better informed owners so maybe these days there is not as good a reason to have the cable. I have been around these things 23 years and have been hearing this discussion the whole time. About 20 years ago I took mine off and didn't like it and put it back on. I will admit I am not one to flare with my nose really high. I don't have a problem with cross winds and last week was out in a 32K crosswind ( people came out of their hangars to watch the show) but I am willing to give it a go without the cable again. I will take it off next week and try unprotected aviation again.
Kevin1 --- In [email protected], William R. Bayne <ercog...@...> wrote: > > > In my opinion the purpose of this list is to help owners and potential > owners and/or > operators of the Ercoupe (et al) understand what the design is (and is > not) capable of, > and how to best achieve same. Everyone learns something here, sooner > or later. > > Not one of us was born knowing it all. Some pick it up from available > information (when > all else fails, read the Instructions). Some need help locating > "available information". > > The "average" Ercoupe changes hands every five years (some "never" and > some > much more often). It is, therefore, natural and desirable that around > 400 "new" owners, > more than one a day, may have a legitimate need to raise one or more > questions that > have been discussed before. There are few questions posed here that > are "new". > > Just because a person has "advanced" to the point on a given subject > that they believe > they have "heard it all" does not mean that someone else's query should > not post or run > to its logical "conclusion", however parallel that may be to an earlier > one on the same > subject. > > The people who have "trouble" with the Ercoupe are NOT those who learn > to fly in one > from a competent instructor thoroughly familiar with the design > characteristics. It is > forgiving enough that persons too unmotivated to understand the design > characteristics > can "manhandle" (treat it like other three-control aircraft) a coupe > the whole time they > own one without ever mastering its unique capabilities may "get away" > with it. It is > unfortunate that a newbie may be mislead by personal observations of > such persons. > > Quite frankly, during the six years I flew out of Corona in Southern > California, I came to > know that there were certain times of the year that one did not know if > they would face > challenging Santa Ana winds returning from a cross country flight. To > me, that meant > seeking out the "crosswind" runway at Riverside (a tower airport) for > practice to improve > and maintain my crosswind proficiency. Never, never had a problem; > even later in high > crosswinds encountered in Kansas, New Mexico and Arizona. > > Had I the slightest doubt in the superiority of the design in high > crosswind operations, I > would have flown something "better". Anyone know of a "better" design > that the Ercoupe > for crosswind operations? The pilots that continue to question the > Ercoupe's crosswind > capabilities on this list should instead look in the mirror and address > the real problem. > > It is unfortunate but true that, at first glance, the opinions of those > that have owned a coupe > more than, say, a year and STILL don't understand how to operate it > properly in ALL > common flight conditions SOUND just as credible in an email as those > that do. It is for that > very reason that SOME of us on the list go out of our way (again and > again) to make sure > information "most correct" (according to design history or other > authoritative or logical > source "concludes" a thread so that newbies, our most vulnerable and > impressionable > readers, can discern elements of "real truth" present in virtually all > responses and put it > all together in proper context without surviving contradiction or > inconsistency. > > The myth that retrofitting a snubber is a "good thing" is one that > obviously dies hard. The > owner of a coupe with one may come to feel in threads such as this that > their credibility is > "on the line". That's true, in actuality. Does anyone genuinely > believe all posts on this list > equally credible? Our credibility goes up or down day by day according > to the pertinent > accuracy of each position we take on a given subject. > > No one has ever identified one VALID advantage of fitting one. The > nose wheel can fall off? > NO! Needed with the 9º up elevator limitation? NO! Forney fitted > them? NO! Alon fitted > them? Inconclusive, and inapplicable to birds delivered with the nose > strut fairing. Speed > improvement? NO! Improves landings? NO! > > What does that leave? The defensive personal opinion of owners that > have never landed a > coupe without one. They find it comfortable, like a "teddy bear". I > have no objection to them > keeping their "teddy bear", but I want others to understand they don't > need a "teddy bear". > > A snubber takes away the obvious advantages of having full nose strut > oleo operation, > extended steering authority during takeoff and landing, and the 1+ > extra mph which results > from having the original nose strut fairing reduce drag. > > While no thread should end so long as legitimate questions are being > posed and answered, > anyone for PIZZA? > > Regards, > > WRB > > -- > > On Mar 15, 2009, at 11:56, James B. Brennan wrote: > > > It seems to come up semiannually. To snubber or not to snubber, that > > is the question; whether 'tis nobler in the plane to honor Ed's > > recollection of Fred's design or take arms against a sea of dissenting > > letters. I learned to fly (and, consequently, land) my Ercoupe with a > > cable on the nose gear, blithely ignorant of what a ponderous "issue" > > it has been taken to be (or not to be). I am not nuts about the > > possibility of landing nose wheel first with the strut fully extended, > > albeit that might indicate hideous procedure. I think this is a matter > > which has been flogged to death, and is on the floor bleeding. We all > > have read about ad nauseam and I don't understand the continued raving > > and ranting. To me, having been exposed to all sides of the arguments, > > it is a personal matter, and now makes for dreary reading, as this > > letter now surely is, sorry. But, this list is like a merry-go-round - > > I guess fuels are up next. More ad nauseam. > > > > Jim Beach Brennan >
