Ercoupes, anyone?

"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. "

Not only that, but the design compromises cut down or hamper performance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Silvaire said:
You think an Ercoupe doesn't have a rudder? lol
Click to expand...

Rudder pedal less

And if you think the coupe is anything like a Stinson you haven't flown the aircraft you are talking about.
 
James331 said:
... And if you think the coupe is anything like a Stinson you haven't flown the aircraft you are talking about.
Click to expand...

You probably should read my post, all I said was the Stinson was designed in the same 1930's era with a desired goal of making aircraft stall proof and as safe as automobiles. Which is kind of a funny notion in itself as 1930's automobiles wouldn't be considered particularly safe by today's standards. The course of the discussion was about control input limitations to avoid stall/spin incidents and in that regard the Stinson shares the same general design philosophy.

FWIW I've flown and wrenched on both of them.
 
Silvaire said:
You probably should read my post, all I said was the Stinson was designed in the same 1930's era with a desired goal of making aircraft stall proof and as safe as automobiles. Which is kind of a funny notion in itself as 1930's automobiles wouldn't be considered particularly safe by today's standards. The course of the discussion was about control input limitations to avoid stall/spin incidents and in that regard the Stinson shares the same general design philosophy.

FWIW I've flown and wrenched on both of them.
Click to expand...

The Stinson is a STOL/bush type aircraft.

The coupe is a "anyone can be a pilot" type plane.

My A185F has very docile stall characteristics, spose you would compare that to a coupe too?
 
James331 said:
The Stinson is a STOL/bush type aircraft...
Click to expand...

If you say so :rolleyes:

There are STC's to install a 180 hp Lycoming, 220 Franklin or even a 230 hp O-470 that will greatly improve performance but the stock 108 has a pretty lethargic climb rate of about 600 fpm and as I said earlier a full flap stall speed of 55 mph and flaps up stall speed of 65 mph so no, it is not and never was considered a STOL aircraft. Also about a third of all Stinson 108 accidents involved loss of control during landing which is often blamed on the large vertical stab. What the Stinson excels at is useful load and stable, comfortable long distance cruising. They were very well built and admired but they aren't considered to be a particularly great "bush plane"

Poncho Barnes owned one.

My comparison with the Ercoupe simply referred to design philosophy which was to make an aircraft that would be virtually impossible to spin. The Stinsons leading edge slats and small rudder were a part of that same mindset. If you haven't already I'd suggest reading "Stick and Rudder" by Wolfgang Langewiesche. He goes into great detail about that design philosophy which was prevalent in the 30's.

I never said that an Ercoupe and a Stinson were the same. I don't know where you picked that notion up :dunno:
 
I have flown the 75, 85, 90, & 100 HP versions. On the lower HP end, performance is worse than a C150. The 100-HP STC airplane is pretty awesome. The 100 HP version doesn't really go much faster, but it gets off the ground and climbs a heck of a lot better. It would be my top choice if I were buying a coupe. The catch 22 is that you now have a safer plane, but it falls out of sport pilot eligibility due to a gross weight increase.
 
My C-90 Alon's performance is virtually identical to my buddy's C172A in takeoff, climb, and cruise. We flew together frequently and had numerous opportunities to compare performance. Most noticeable differences was to steepen the Aircoupe approach you slow down, with flaps he just dropped the nose, also my Vx climb is slightly steeper.

The Alon's are less draggy than the 415's so they perform better but unfortunately none of them are SP eligible at 1450 gross.
 
skyflyer8 said:
The catch 22 is that you now have a safer plane, but it falls out of sport pilot eligibility due to a gross weight increase.
Click to expand...

The ultimate irony, brought to you by the folks who are entrusted with making aviation safer. :(
 
Silvaire said:
If you say so :rolleyes:

There are STC's to install a 180 hp Lycoming, 220 Franklin or even a 230 hp O-470 that will greatly improve performance but the stock 108 has a pretty lethargic climb rate of about 600 fpm and as I said earlier a full flap stall speed of 55 mph and flaps up stall speed of 65 mph so no, it is not and never was considered a STOL aircraft. Also about a third of all Stinson 108 accidents involved loss of control during landing which is often blamed on the large vertical stab. What the Stinson excels at is useful load and stable, comfortable long distance cruising. They were very well built and admired but they aren't considered to be a particularly great "bush plane"

Poncho Barnes owned one.

My comparison with the Ercoupe simply referred to design philosophy which was to make an aircraft that would be virtually impossible to spin. The Stinsons leading edge slats and small rudder were a part of that same mindset. If you haven't already I'd suggest reading "Stick and Rudder" by Wolfgang Langewiesche. He goes into great detail about that design philosophy which was prevalent in the 30's.

I never said that an Ercoupe and a Stinson were the same. I don't know where you picked that notion up :dunno:
Click to expand...

The 108s were first built in 46'

I never drank the kool aid on stick a rudder, its a OK book, there are plenty better books.

As for the Stinson, there are working stinsons in AK and Canada, plenty of videos of folks flying them on tundras, skis and floats, I've had mine on beaches, mountain strips, etc. my initial climb is better than 600 and that's with a 150.

The millitary also used a modified version of the 108.

As for pranging them in on landing, ain't because of the tail, more a result of poor directional control due to the pilot, not the tail.

I've had mine in greater a 30kt crosswind, handled it fine though taxing was a PIA.

As far as good stall charastics, that's found in most any backcountry plane.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
The 108s were first built in 46'...
Click to expand...

The design was a carryover from the pre-war Voyager.

Look, I'm not knocking them, I think they're great airplanes. I just said that there were design elements, including control surface limitations, that were put in them to make them virtually "spin proof" and that is the same sort of philosophy followed when the Ercoupe was conceived.
 
The stinson 108 is a great, smooth flying airplane. It was a typical taildragger of the late 30s hyped towards the " up and coming business man". Very stable, and roomy compared to some. Many pilots upgraded the original engine to a 180 lycoming, or over 200 hp either a Franklin , lycoming, or whatever, especially if it went to bush flying. It was not however, to the best of my knowledge ever thought of as primarily a bush plane. Even today, a nice one with a larger engine is a dream to fly which is why some pilots spend quite a bit to upgrade them and keep them in nice shape. There's a maroon one near me that is in brand new condition that is really sharp, 180 hp lycoming, rolled and pleated leather seats, etc.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
The stinson 108 is a great, smooth flying airplane. It was a typical taildragger of the late 30s hyped towards the " up and coming business man".
Click to expand...

Well I guess that says something about "business men" back then and now.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8GR7-t6tNAw
Rough farm

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NW1u78PAcLc
Deep snow

When I think of what the soft shoed, penny loafer types fly I think cirrus and Bo, only videos I've seen of those business men type planes landing in places like that Stinson, well the planes were under a parachute :D

I also didnt know ABW made wheels and tires for non STOL, non bush type planes. :dunno:

The 108s dont really need upgrading and it doesn't cost much to keep one in nice shape, average annual for me was a 500 buck deal.
 
Last edited:
As I said I think they are fine airplanes, very well built and strong.

Now, I know it's Wikipedia and I'm not vouching any credibility, heck I'm only posting this to mess with you but in the Wiki List of STOL aircraft The Stinson 108 is not present yet the Ercoupe is :rolleyes:

When we had the Maule we used to go to all the back country meets up in Idaho and Montana and everyone had "bush" wheels and vortex generators on their Cubs and Scouts and 180's but almost invariably some punk kid would show up in a clapped out Cessna 150 and let the air out of everyone's ego.

I've also noticed that if you have an event called "Gathering of Taildraggers" a couple of Ercoupes usually show up to crash the party. :D
 
Silvaire said:
When we had the Maule we used to go to all the back country meets up in Idaho and Montana and everyone had "bush" wheels and vortex generators on their Cubs and Scouts and 180's but almost invariably some punk kid would show up in a clapped out Cessna 150 and let the air out of everyone's ego.

I've also noticed that if you have an event called "Gathering of Taildraggers" a couple of Ercoupes usually show up to crash the party. :D
Click to expand...

And then of course there is the best back country plane of them all, the Mooney M20C! :D;) Check out PiperPainter's exploits-


I swear he flies this thing everywhere!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top