Dave wrote: > A bit of math.
> A 40 degree angle of climb is approximately what a U2 > accomplishes on take-off. So, at the end of a 5000 foot > runway, he is about 1 mile high. > For the Ercoupe to accomplish this at 60-70 mph would > require a climb rate of a bit under 5000 ft/minute. > Can't be done. Dave, Youre right. 40° nose up is pretty unlikely (except for a zoom climb). Now, lets test Mrs. Groomss teaching of trigonometry, 50 years ago: At 17°C (62°F) and solo, I bet he wouldnt be getting much better than 600 fpm at 60 mph. That would be about a 6½° climb. For discussion, lets say the Coupe wing stalls at a 23° angle of attack. So, 23° + 6.5° = about 30°. Im making a WAG (wild a** guess) that theres about a meter (39 inches) front-to-rear from the tank fuel outlet forward to the carburetor inlet. At that distance, a 30° nose up would put them level at anything less than about 58 cm (22-23 inches) vertical separation. I dont think there is that much vertical separation, d on Daniels diagram. A correctly rigged Coupe cant get to the stall angle of attack. The 13° elevator up travel limitation prevents this. Ditto the elevator up travel limits for the other models. But, even in a plane with only 9° elevator up travel, flying solo I managed to get the nose up so steep on a cold winter day that I got to the engine starved condition. It wasnt 40° but it was enough. Heres a proposed test. The wisdom of doing this test belongs to the pilot. On a cold day, flying solo, take off and do a moderate angle climb to altitude at least 3,000 above the airport (1,000m or more). Be near enough to the airport to guarantee you can glide there if you lose power and dont get it back. Then, very slowly pull up into a full power climb and see if you get the same temporary loss of power. (The moment the nose drops, the power should come back.) When doing tests like this, its very good to have a good place to land right under you and to be well practiced in getting there. JMHO Ed
