Ercoupes, anyone?

I've sat in and taxied one, but never felt comfortable enough to take one up solo. I use rudder pedals, a lot. Not having them really messed with my head.

I still want to fly one someday.

Go for it.
 
I've owned an Alon Aircoupe (yes, spelled that way) since 2001. I think all models of Ercoupes are great and greatly under appreciated. My model is not LSA but the older 415 C and I think C/D models are. For a lot of enthusiastic information see https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ercoupe-tech/info

I am going to sell mine soon because I'm building an RV-9a and will need the hangar space...I finally wanted better performance.

Join the email list above, ask for a demo flight, someone will probably volunteer. If you're in Northern California I could give you a demo but I don't have the model you want for LSA.

THINGS TO WATCH FOR. Coupes, more than equally old aircraft, got no respect until they qualified for LSA and were often neglected. Nevertheless decent Coupes can be found, but take your time to find one.

Corrosion of the wing spar around the center is something to watch for but frankly by now not much of an issue...just make sure the ADs and SBs have been complied with and get a competent mechanic to inspect.

Otherwise they're like any other 60-70 year old vehicle, have a good pre-purchase inspection done and look at several before even thinking of choosing one.
 
My first plane was a 65hp coupe with no electrics. Have also restored a couple and converted one to an O-200.

My opinion:
1. Pass on anything with rudder pedals or remove them if you buy one. They are ineffective and you will still find yourself landing in a crab anyway. And they are confusing as heck on the ground sine the nosewheel steering remains with the wheel.

2. Pass on anything with metallized wings. Too many problems with undetected corrosion.

3. Get at least 85hp if you want to carry 2 people on a hot day.

4. Do not get too slow when landing. The airplane is "stall proof" only because its elevator travel is limited. Get too slow and you hit the ground nosewheel first. You see a lot of coupes with wrinkled skins just forward of the wing attachment, that's why.

Memorize your v speeds: 80 mph. Done. Climb, cruise, descent, landing.
 
Last edited:
Eagle I said:
Thanks. The Taylorcraft are all tailwheel, though, right? Not that I would rule out getting a tailwheel endorsement at some point. And I think the Ercoupe 415C is the only LSA compliant version. And even if I were to find one, I wonder where I would find a CFI who could instruct me in how to fly them.
Click to expand...
Mike can help you out with the tailwheel endorsement Kat
 
docmirror said:
I talked with the seller of the CL project. He's not a pilot, nor an A&P. He did the paint, and interior, and another shop did the engine swap. He doesn't know anything about the engine swap, and he doesn't know anything about the spar carry-through AD compliance.

He's going to research this and the wing metalization and call me back. Nice guy, but not real knowledgable on the type. I have a trailer it will fit on easily so I may grab it up. I don't need LSA, but the engine swap concerns me. I know a lot of them are done, but it can't be a 415C without an STC for the engine, or change the type to 415E or F with the higher weight, and no more LSA.
Click to expand...


Maybe I should get a commission on this purchase.:wink2: Your welcome.
 
Hey, if it was good enough for Sam Walton...

Musings-Why-pilots-make-great-CEOs-walton-plane.jpg
 
Thanks, everyone, for all the great information, beautiful photos and humorous stories. They make me want an Ercoupe even more!
 
If you don't mind, where are you renting the CTLS? Cheers.
 
IIRC, many years ago there was a marketing deal with one of the big retailers in NY and you could buy one off the floor, or order one from a catalog. I can't remember the retailer right now.
 
JHW said:
Memorize your v speeds: 80 mph. Done. Climb, cruise, descent, landing.
Click to expand...

Wow! You land an Ercoupe at 80mph?? I land my Mooney slower than that. I would have thought landing would be more around 50-60mph.:dunno:
 
Who can tell me more about this idea? Did anyone ever put one on amphibious floats? That open cockpit one really intrigues me.

ercoupe_onfloats.jpg

onFloats_600.jpg

Ercoupe-floats-03.jpg

Ercoupe-floats-02.jpg
 
I'll be glad to make some guesses. First, all four pics are the same plane. The top pic the rear turtledeck is obscured by the man's arm. You can see the center brace shadow in back.

Next, with an A65 and wooden prop it would perform like a dog.

Last, judging by the last two pics, it's not amphib, just float only.
 
docmirror said:
I'll be glad to make some guesses. First, all four pics are the same plane. The top pic the rear turtledeck is obscured by the man's arm. You can see the center brace shadow in back.

Next, with an A65 and wooden prop it would perform like a dog.

Last, judging by the last two pics, it's not amphib, just float only.
Click to expand...


Wooden props do not work on the a-65?
 
docmirror said:
Where did you see/hear that? Cuz - it isn't in my post -- that you directly quoted.
Click to expand...


You said would perform like a dog, so the wooden prop is not a good fit on the a-65?

Explain what you meant by this. I only ask because I had to swap props on a new to me a-65 and I replaced the metal prop with a wooden one. I hope this new to me airplane does ok with the wooden prop. Started and ran fine but we have not flown her yet.
 
Alrighty, lets see if we can find some areas of agreement, and move this along. Mark down any of the following you disagree with.

1 The A65 puts out 65HP.
2 A conforming metal prop is more aerodynamically efficient than a conforming wood prop of same dimension.
3 The float gear is heavier and presents more drag than the standard wheel gear on an Ercoupe.
4 The Ercoupe was a marginal performer with the A65 engine from the start.

Ergo - on a scale of gazelle to garden slug, I'm going with dog, and not of the greyhound variety, more like the Basset hound.
 
docmirror said:
Alrighty, lets see if we can find some areas of agreement, and move this along. Mark down any of the following you disagree with.

1 The A65 puts out 65HP.
2 A conforming metal prop is more aerodynamically efficient than a conforming wood prop of same dimension.
3 The float gear is heavier and presents more drag than the standard wheel gear on an Ercoupe.
4 The Ercoupe was a marginal performer with the A65 engine from the start.

Ergo - on a scale of gazelle to garden slug, I'm going with dog, and not of the greyhound variety, more like the Basset hound.
Click to expand...


LOL...got it.
 
Dav8or said:
Who can tell me more about this idea? Did anyone ever put one on amphibious floats? That open cockpit one really intrigues me.

ercoupe_onfloats.jpg

onFloats_600.jpg

Ercoupe-floats-03.jpg

Ercoupe-floats-02.jpg
Click to expand...

That would be a bit of weight and money.

Were there factory seaplane models?

Most factory seaplanes have a good amount of reinforcements and a intense amount of anti corrosion from the factory.

Does look like a fun, though lethargic, seaplane
 
James331 said:
Does look like a fun, though lethargic, seaplane
Click to expand...

What seaplane isn't lethargic? A little bird like this is nothing but a toy. IMO a pretty cool toy... in theory. Likely performance of the plane I posted pictures of was so bad they quit before somebody got killed, but who knows? This is exactly the type of thing I wish we could have an Experimental/Factory Built category for.

Take an Ercoupe, install either the Continental IOF-240-B with FADEC control that is in the Liberty XL-2, or the Lycoming IO-233 and then put amphibious floats on it. It would be a more practical toy perhaps.
 
Dav8or said:
What seaplane isn't lethargic? A little bird like this is nothing but a toy. IMO a pretty cool toy... in theory. Likely performance of the plane I posted pictures of was so bad they quit before somebody got killed, but who knows? This is exactly the type of thing I wish we could have an Experimental/Factory Built category for.

Take an Ercoupe, install either the Continental IOF-240-B with FADEC control that is in the Liberty XL-2, or the Lycoming IO-233 and then put amphibious floats on it. It would be a more practical toy perhaps.
Click to expand...

My 185F has some pep to it.
 
Eagle I said:
Thanks. The Taylorcraft are all tailwheel, though, right? Not that I would rule out getting a tailwheel endorsement at some point. And I think the Ercoupe 415C is the only LSA compliant version. And even if I were to find one, I wonder where I would find a CFI who could instruct me in how to fly them.
Click to expand...


Don't be afraid of tailwheel training. It's a blast. I know an IA at a nearby airport that recently sold his Dad's MINT Taylorcraft. Low time, great condition, always hangared. He was asking $17,000 for it. Someone got a bargain. I considered buying it for LSA instructing.

A Taylorcraft would be a great choice if you are insistent on staying LSA. Get your PPL along with a TW endorsement and there are some other great, economical choices.
 
Call up Urban Aviation Services at Sterling. Probably a closer drive than Northampton, and Ed is a great instructor. He has a J3 you can learn in and his rates are very reasonable. He also has a beautifully restored stearman for a super reasonable rate. Going up for a lesson in that is a great way to celebrate the TW signoff.

I don't have any affiliation with them. After all the bad/horrible instructors I've met, I just like to give props to great instructors with well maintained airplanes.
 
docmirror said:
IIRC, many years ago there was a marketing deal with one of the big retailers in NY and you could buy one off the floor, or order one from a catalog. I can't remember the retailer right now.
Click to expand...

It was Macy's. They marketed it, in part, to disabled vets coming back from WWII because of the absence of rudder pedals.
 
PilotRPI said:
Call up Urban Aviation Services at Sterling. Probably a closer drive than Northampton, and Ed is a great instructor. He has a J3 you can learn in and his rates are very reasonable. He also has a beautifully restored stearman for a super reasonable rate. Going up for a lesson in that is a great way to celebrate the TW signoff.

I don't have any affiliation with them. After all the bad/horrible instructors I've met, I just like to give props to great instructors with well maintained airplanes.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's a new destination to check out
 
A 65 hp airplane is a dog without floats much less on floats. I learned floats in a 65 hp taylorcraft. It was truly a dog. A metal prop is much more efficient than a wooden one which is why they are used unless the owner wants to look "original" . The airplane shown with a 65 hp engine is a real dull tune. It would need an 0200 to make it enjoyable. It sure isn't even close to a 185 on floats which is a dream airplane. I've also owned three Taylorcrafts which were all 65 hp. Not very exciting.( I had to go light sport) I also flew one with an 85 hp which makes it a lot.....a lot more fun.
 
Last edited:
I have to admit that is a really cool looking float plane though, and the windows would be fun.

ercoupe_onfloats.jpg
 
The windows are a really neat feature of the Ercoupe. They both are on tracks and can be pulled up to meet at the top or lowered into the fuselage. Or, one can be lowered, and the other brought overhead and part way around to give a gap on each side, so the pilot can fly along with one arm out the window as if driving a 57 Chevy.

Here's the one I fly. Click on the photo and look closely. I have the right window lowered some, and the left window pulled up and over to give a gap on my side.
 

Attachments

  • Ercoupe.jpg
    Ercoupe.jpg
    127.5 KB · Views: 42
Why is a metal prop much more efficient then a wooden prop?

Seems to me if they have the same pitch they would be the same efficiency. Weight?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Impossible to make a wooden prop that has an efficient airfoil and is strong enough.
 
mtuomi said:
Impossible to make a wooden prop that has an efficient airfoil and is strong enough.
Click to expand...

Meh - I'll post another thread about the various beech props... including the most efficient one ever for a Bonanza: the 88" wooden prop --- give me a few minutes...
 
tinerj said:
The windows are a really neat feature of the Ercoupe. They both are on tracks and can be pulled up to meet at the top or lowered into the fuselage. Or, one can be lowered, and the other brought overhead and part way around to give a gap on each side, so the pilot can fly along with one arm out the window as if driving a 57 Chevy.

Here's the one I fly. Click on the photo and look closely. I have the right window lowered some, and the left window pulled up and over to give a gap on my side.
Click to expand...
*sigh* Great memories of Sweetie, our little orange Ercoupe.

Flying along, low and slow over the corn fields, window down, arm out the window, on a sultry Iowa summer's eve...

My son flying our 'Coupe into OSH '08, at age 17, and camping in Vintage with a bunch of old guys who virtually adopted him all week...

Almost dying, flying out of a too-short grass strip in Keosauqua, Iowa...

Wait, that last one was a nightmare. lol

The Ercoupe is woefully underpowered, at 85 HP, and the elevator authority is deliberately limited to make it "stall proof". If you're a big guy, and you fly with another guy, you will either be flying over gross or out of gas. Either way, climb performance sucks. lol

Still, solo, on a paved runway, the Ercoupe is hard to beat for economical fun.
 
Yes, I fly solo, and for the takeoff run during summer I raise the windows to enclose the cabin. It does make a difference in getting the plane up to flying speed and helps climb out by a noticeable amount. Then its lower those windows and enjoy (nearly) open cockpit flying.
 
Jay Honeck said:
...and the elevator authority is deliberately limited to make it "stall proof"...
Click to expand...

Yup, the era when they were convinced that we'd all be "driving" airplanes through the sky just like we drive cars and were obsessed with making them look like cars. The old Stinson 108 "Station Wagon" is another good example of that mindset. In order to make it "stall proof" it just quits flying around 65 mph. Never does stall but doesn't fly either.

If you've ever read "Stick and Rudder" you know that's what Wolfgang kept harping about - making an airplane that was impossible to stall or spin. They really believed that they could do it but we have since learned that if you design something to be idiot proof the universe just designs a better idiot.
 
You're comparing a rudderless coupe to a Stinson 108 lol
 
You think an Ercoupe doesn't have a rudder? lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top