----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
At 12:31 PM 12/5/02 -0800, Hartmut wrote: >I tried several times to land the plane at 60 - 70 like the book wants it >- all that ended just in a >very fast decent and a hard bounce. No good. That's characteristic of a 415D. You can't make enough angle of attack with the elevator available to land at 60-70. >God knows what speed I was really flying. I had to hold 80 on final. to >fly a normal approach. Of >course these 80 MPH were just a fiction - something what the airspeed >meter was making up. Again, a pretty standard speed in a 415D. And even a lot of C-owners fly final at 80. >I think it is a very good idea to have the airspeed meter checked from >time to time especially since the coupe starts sinking when reaching lower >speeds . I have to admit that I rarely look at the airspeed any more in a familiar Ercoupe in the pattern. You pretty much know how fast you're going and the sink becomes obvious outside the windshield if you get slow. >By the way . I believe this tendency to sink is just the trade off needed >by design to keep the coupe in a controllable flying condition at low >speeds. The Cessnas might be better sail planes but they probably stall >then more abrupt, while Weick's planes are just gently lowering the noses >and just lose altitude. Well, yes and no. The 'sink' is a trade-off for a stall, but there are fundamental philosophical differences between a Coupe and a Cessna as well. Cessna breeds safety with a big, gentle, highly washed-out wing along with heavy controls. The Ercoupe's approach was to limit angle of attack on what is (in fact) a very fussy wing with a violent and deep stall characteristic. The under-cambered NACA 50000 series foil was probably somewhat of an aeronautical engineer's flight of fancy, and I wonder if Uncle Fred would have done it again. The side-effects of the Cessna approach are the characteristics we all know and love (or hate): handling far more like a Buick than a Porsche. The side effects of the Coupe approach are limited pitch authority (prior to the E-model). And this wing's tendency to develop some rather dramatic sink rates at lower speeds. >If you know what to expect - I think Weick's planes are easier to deal with. I think history has proved otherwise. I think Weick's planes are more FUN to deal with, but I think that Cessna's designs have stood the test of time as easier and safer...unless you are susceptible to dying of boredom. Slower things usually are. >So you might come down fast and land hard instead of stalling the plane on >final - make your own >judgment. >(oh yes, I know Cessnas have flaps and ercoupes don't , I see it more like >this: Cessnas need flaps and >Ercoupes don't) But Ercoupes need flaps. They just don't have them. So if we're high and hot and don't want to go around, we intentionally drop into the low lift/high drag airspeeds, and sink a ways. That will work in a Cessna, also. Alarms the hell out of the kid CFI doing your BFR though :-) I've never thought a 172 was a particularly 'floaty' plane near the ground. It has high wings, which makes up for a lot of that. Now a taper wing Cherokee will float into the next county.... Greg ========================================================================== ==== To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
