A modern Ercoupe?

[Posthumane]

The Ercoupe has come up in a number of articles that I've been reading recently which has got me thinking about this design a little. There's a guy in the local flying club who has one so I've seen it a number of times in person but I've never flown in it. Every author that I've read has agreed that it was a very pleasant airplane to fly, and certainly very user friendly. I know a lot of purists dislike the idea of linked ailerons and rudders but there are probably a number of people for whom this is a selling feature. One of the best things that the Erco company did, apart from the design, is they marketed the plane heavily to the general public.

Anyway, with Light Sport Aircraft becoming very popular in the US making flying more accessible, has anyone tried to revive the Ercoupe concept with more modern equipment? The biggest selling point for the plane was the safety aspects, with it being nearly impossible to spin. This is one of the big selling points of machines equipped with BRS systems so it's certainly a market consideration. The linked controls and more "car like" steering may appeal to people who want something that doesn't have overly high training requirements.

Do you think there is a market for the modern Ercoupe type aircraft? What would it look like? It would have to be relatively cheap (much cheaper than many LSAs on the market now) so probably simple construction techniques take precedence over all out performance, and would have to be equipped with features that make it easy to operate such as FADEC/EFI.

[all_ramped_up]

You would think that a modern Ercoupe reboot could be an interesting machine. Could probably be turned into a kit like the RV even.

Make it mainly composite, Rotax up front and a slick LCD instrument panel... If I had money to burn, I'd at least consider it.

[Old Dog Flying]

The original Ercoupe was a pussycat to fly but without separate aileron/rudders and no flaps, your approaches had to be very well planned. The positioning of the brake pedal was a problem which one ZBB instructor found out when he fired it up and made contact with the hangar. The a/c was rebuilt and an STC was incorporated using Cessna 150 steerable nose wheel and rudder pedals/brakes..

It was a very nice flying machine even with the Continental C-85. I flew it in both configurations out of Delta Air Park as did the next owner who made a lot of changes with STCs and he was an ultra-lite trained guy.

Barney

[Big Pistons Forever]

I have a little bit of time in a 2 control Ercoupe. Nice enough airplane but I found I really missed the rudder pedals. I think I put 2 little dints in the firewall from unconsciously pushing on the imaginary rudder pedals. , and taxing around by steering with the control wheel is just wrong

I was impressed with the crosswind landing though. Touch down with a whole bunch of crab thinking, "Man this is gonna hurt" and the airplane just strightens itself out with no muss or fuss.

[lownslow]

Modern Ercoupe? How about a less successful vintage Ercoupe competitor, the General Skyfarer? Forget coupled rudders, this thing has no rudders!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Skyfarer

Or, turn the clock back further to the Ercoupe's daddy: the Weick W1A:


Does anyone want to take a stab at why these 'easy' planes all have twin fins? The prototype Ercoupe had a single tail that was quickly changed so it's not just for style...

[Shiny Side Up]

Personally I don't see a market for a "new" Ercoupe, since there's enough old ones to fill the demand for the type of airplane it represents. In the kit build world, home built world it seems all about performance and one way or another and the Ercoupe is a creature of compromise. the same can be said of the more expensive factory LSA world. As such there seems to be limited demand for these fun machines. Of note, you don't see a lot of Ercoupes upgraded in any ways.

If one was to replicate the design, the most obvious changes would be to replace the wood spar, and probably "upgrade" the engine to the favored Rotax homebuilder's choice. There's a few sections that could be replaced by composite pieces as well to simplify. To reproduce, the toughest part would be the castings for the trailing link castoring gear. Not sure if it would be easier to machine replacements, or steal them from other similar models.

Does anyone want to take a stab at why these 'easy' planes all have twin fins?

As I recall, its to reduce the amount of slipstream effect to substantially reduce any adverse yaw. Its also to reduce the overall height for easier (and cheaper) storage.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Modern Ercoupe? How about a less successful vintage Ercoupe competitor, the General Skyfarer? Forget coupled rudders, this thing has no rudders!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Skyfarer

Or, turn the clock back further to the Ercoupe's daddy: the Weick W1A:


Does anyone want to take a stab at why these 'easy' planes all have twin fins? The prototype Ercoupe had a single tail that was quickly changed so it's not just for style...

Why are "safe" airplanes so ugly ?

[Posthumane]

I don't know BPF, I find the Ercoupe and the Skyfarer to be good looking aircraft, although I agree that the W1A is pretty ugly.

What I read about the twin V-stabs is as SSU said - a single V-stab is subject to slipstream effects. The first Ercoupe with the single tail was said to have "a definite left turning tendency in a high power low speed climb." I didn't think of the storage aspect with having a lower tail, but I suppose that's a valid consideration as well.

I wasn't referring to necessarily replicating the design of the Ercoupe, but rather creating an aircraft with that focuses on the same principles - ease of accessibility to people who are not current pilots with promises of low cost, increased safety, and (slightly) lower training requirements. Shiny, you are right that a lot of homebuilts and LSAs are performance oriented and compromises are not often welcome with this crowd, but I think there are many exceptions to this. After all, the Cub replicas are very popular mainly for reasons of nostalgia and image rather than performance. There are also plenty of Baby-Ace or Minimax type aircraft being built and flown which are definitely focused on the fun of flying rather than performance. I think people who are buying/building aircraft like the Zenair CH601 series or Sonex could possibly be in the market for an coupe-like design provided that it was cheap and accessible.

Not that I'm thinking of building one, but it's an interesting thought exercise. There was an interesting (and long) discussion on homebuiltairplanes.com about designing a very low cost kit-plane where the focus was mostly on low cost construction techniques such as moulded plastic airframe parts which could be very cheaply mass produced. I suppose anything that promotes GA to the general public could only help, right?

[SuperchargedRS]

I bet it would do well, simple to fly, really nice windows, cool design.

Just square it off and add some wannabe glass panel and a tribal swoosh paint job, to appease all the "it must be new" types, I betcha it would do rather well.

[Meatservo]

Is it the three control axes that make conventional aircraft "unsafe" and/or so difficult to fly that they are keeping prospective "drivers" away from aviation? I'm not sure. I have never felt that it was the rudder that was turning people away or making them crash.

[Posthumane]

Is it the three control axes that make conventional aircraft "unsafe" and/or so difficult to fly that they are keeping prospective "drivers" away from aviation? I'm not sure. I have never felt that it was the rudder that was turning people away or making them crash.

No, I don't think they do. Primarily it's a question of marketing though. Erco had something that set it aside from many of their contemporaries and allowed them to market the plane as being "safer" which helped them sell more aircraft to people who could otherwise have been on the fence about it. In reality, or course, the Ercoupe didn't actually have a better safety record than the rest of GA at the time. The same is true for Cirrus today despite their marketing hype, but for somewhat different reasons: it's marketed as a go anywhere, any time airplane for successful businessmen, but I think having the 'chute there probably helps their sales numbers.

The spirit of the ercoupe in my opinion is, in a word, simple. Simple fuel system, simple controls, forgiving aerodynamics, not too fast. Whether or not is has pedals is a minor detail.

[black hole]

Mooney tried to revive the Ercoupe I think in the early 80's with the Mooney M10
a conventional version.

BH

[AirFrame]

It was a very nice flying machine even with the Continental C-85. I flew it in both configurations out of Delta Air Park as did the next owner who made a lot of changes with STCs and he was an ultra-lite trained guy.

I think I flew the same one. Blue, now based at Langley? I think it had an O-200 but i'm not certain of that.

I found the STC'd rudder pedals weren't all that effective. The linked ailerons/rudders were still linked, but could be "overridden" with the pedals if you wanted. In reality it was more of a "gentle nudge" that suggested that you might, in some reasonable future time period, want to go in the direction of the pedal you were pushing. Certainly not enough authority for a slip.

I found it easier to go native, ignore the rudders, and fly it like the designer intended. Slightly disconcerting to be flying a 600' racetrack circuit with a 90 degree crosswind at touchdown, but it did teach you how to plan your approaches so they lined up nicely. It's a great airplane to fly, and lots of fun to lower the sliding windows and cruise around with the top down in summer.

If you wanted to bring them back, go back to the early models... fabric covered wings, no wheelpants (later wheelpant models were slower anyway), and a C85. Put a single 10" Skyview (or equivalent) in the panel, with flight, engine, radio, and transponder all on one screen. I wonder how an autopilot would deal with coupled controls? Hmm...

[Beefitarian]

1- It is the feature plane at AirVenture this year.

2- I doubt people need any encouragement to drive planes like a car.

3- I commend you brave people who actually got in one. Those crazy V tail things scare me enough. I like a nice functional rudder on an airplane. I guess I must have been reasonably proficient at cross wind landing as a new PPL or something to feel that way.

Ah, nostalgia just isn't what it used to be.

[AirFrame]

The rudder on the Ercoupe is functional enough... You just don't have independent control of it.

I found landing an Ercoupe in a crosswind harder than landing a conventional airplane... It requires more planning and precision further back in the approach, because the ability to make quick corrections last-minute is compromised. At least, that's what it felt like to me.

[Old Dog Flying]

Rob: I also found the 'Coupe to be interesting while operating out of the grass strip at AK3 but no real challenge in a Xwind with a little planning. I think that "Beef" is confusing you V tail (vertical tail) with the Bonanza V tail. Poor Beef.

Barney

[lownslow]

Why are "safe" airplanes so ugly ?

...And yet ugly airplanes aren't always safe. That's unfair.

...replace the wood spar...

Someone may correct me on this, but I'm pretty sure there's no structural wood anywhere on an Ercoupe. Doesn't mean they didn't think about it, though.


ERCO did all sorts of fun stuff with the Ercoupe. Like floats:


And they tried retracts:


And a freakin' rocket! Try complaining about the climb now.

Mooney tried to revive the Ercoupe...

Lots of folks did lots of things with it. Seems like the type certificate was a bit of a town bicycle and every couple years it looks like somebody else would be building them. ERCO, Sanders, Univair, Forney, Fornair, Air Products, Alon, Mooney, and Univair again (up to today) have all either built or supported the thing.

While somebody else was building Ercoupes, Aeronca decided to design a competitor for it: the Chum. Using the sincerest form of flattery, they actually started with a license built Ercoupe and modified it to suit their needs. Only one or two were built.


Alon built a prototype of their XA-4, a version with spring gear, one tail and four seats:


As mentioned, Mooney gave it a shot with the distinctively-tailed M-10:

They've since recycled the M-10 name for a modern composite, possibly Chinese-made machine.

Then there's my personal favourite: this sweet and somehow fully aerobatic airshow machine. It still exists too, it's just in rough shape now.


Looks like it's parked beside something equally weird. Must be a fun airport.

[Shiny Side Up]

Look closer at that wing diagram you posted. The main spar is wood. Though that might have changed on some of the production undder other manufacturers.

Edit: actually if I recall, most of the wing structure is wood aft of the spar.

[lownslow]

I posted that diagram to show that ERCO had looked into wooden construction, as I mentioned just before the picture. They built two all wood test articles but never pursued it further and destroyed both prototypes. That diagram shows how the wooden ones were built. Notice also the big external stiffeners to make up for the cockpit and wing holes in the fuselage, neither is present on a metal Ercoupe.

Here's Univair's exploded view of the wing's components. The metal spars and ribs are clearly shown and it's not a later addition or STC.


Aren't those zigzag ribs neat?

[Shiny Side Up]

Hmmm. All I can say then is that I remember looking at cracks in the wood spar of one that was in the shop once, when I happened to be hanging out. One of those "hey you got to check this out" things. Its possible it was some sort of franken-plane I suppose. I had only assumed that Ercoupes were that way. My bad.

[PilotDAR]

The main gear was impressive in its ability to "kick out" to accommodate a crosswind landing. I remember my first, in very challenging conditions, and the Ercoupe absorbed it with grace. BUT, I wonder how it would be on floats - which don't kick out!

I entertained myself for some time figuring how to anger it enough that it briefly entered an incipient spin. It sort of did, but you could not hold it in, so it came right out again. I liked it, but I had greater expectations.

I did see one at Langley last weekend, looking rather unattended...

[AirFrame]

And a freakin' rocket! Try complaining about the climb now.

This wasn't just any JATO test, it was the first ever JATO test in a manned aircraft, and marked the beginning of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Pretty impressive stuff for a little C85 with a wooden propellor!

If anyone is interested in more history of the JPL, I highly recommend reading up on John (Jack) Parsons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parso ... _engineer)

The books "Strange Angel" and "Sex and Rockets" are fascinating reads, both of them cover this time in history and mention the Ercoupe testing.

[complexintentions]

Ahhh...the Ercoupe. The inimitable late Jack K. from YYJ would let me take his out to putt around over the Gulf Islands back in the 90's. Nothing like strolling along over Saturna Island at 80mph (not knots), with the window down and arm over the edge, enjoying the sunshine and the breeze.

Thread brings back other memories too, a Metro with the JATO installation intact in the tail (but alas, never used).

Just don't be dissin' the MU2.

..And yet ugly airplanes aren't always safe. That's unfair.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Ahhh...the Ercoupe. The inimitable late Jack K. from YYJ would let me take his out to putt around over the Gulf Islands back in the 90's. Nothing like strolling along over Saturna Island at 80mph (not knots), with the window down and arm over the edge, enjoying the sunshine and the breeze.

Thread brings back other memories too, a Metro with the JATO installation intact in the tail (but alas, never used).

Just don't be dissin' the MU2.

..And yet ugly airplanes aren't always safe. That's unfair.

Never did understand why Beech put Garretts on a King Air.....

But the picture of the Ercoupe with the JATO rocket is awesome.

[Shiny Side Up]

Never did understand why Beech put Garretts on a King Air.....

I think there was an article in AOPA about that not long ago. Had something to do with demand from a particular customer and a shortage of engines available at the time. All business stuff, but interesting none the less.