----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]---- Though I disagree with almost everything Glen wrote, there was (for a while) a reason to think Coupes were not good in crosswinds.
Coupes, as designed, handle strong crosswinds great. Better than anything else in which I've ridden. On cross-country trips, I don't hesitate to schedule a stop at an airport with 90 degree crosswinds of up to 30 kts. I've landed repeatedly on narrow runways with asphalt 16'-25' wide and never left the asphalt, no matter the crosswind. The problem that existed a few years ago was that the donuts in a lot of Coupes were getting well compressed with age and the tails were drooping. (In some it was the aging Bellville springs.) To acerbate the problem, it was stylish to replace the single fork nose gear with the slightly longer double fork gear and this lowers the on-the-ground geometry of the plane to be even more tail low. The plane was designed to be high-tailed and low wing angle-of-attack when on the ground. When the tail droops, the wings get too much lift --> when on the ground <--. The upwind wing can then lift giving a rollercoaster ride that isn't pleasant and can make control difficult. All credit to Bill Coons who first got the FAA to approve using landing-gear shims to raise the tail of plane back to its original design height. Between normal landing gear donut maintenance and the shims, there's no excuse for having a drooping tail Coupe. With the high tail and designed low wing angle of attack, when the wheels contact the ground and the nose comes down, the wings dump lift and it's IMMEDIATELY well controlled on the ground. I agree with Bob that anyone with touchdown control problems in a Coupe had better A.) get the tail raised to 75" or B.) get some dual instruction by a CFI who understands Coupes. (Note: option B isn't necessary to most people -- if A has been taken care of it's pretty easy to land Coupes in a strong crosswind.) Ed Burkhead Bob Saville wrote: > > ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]---- > I'd say the pilots who run off the runway better get some 'dual'. Let's blame the cause, not the plane. > > Paul Anton wrote: > > > ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]---- > > Proven bad record??? Show me-- > > > > State the facts-- post some NTSB accident records-- > > Comparisons with say Cessna 150--Cherokee-- > > how about against conventional gear aircraft. > > > > I will simply quote the original pilots pamphlet giving a 25 mph > > cross wind component as acceptable. Compare this to what > > the Cessna's POH give as acceptable and I stand on my opinion > > that it is a fine cross wind aircraft. > > > > Paul Anton > > N2273H > > > > __________________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe from this list please send mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ___________________________________________________________ > > T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 > > Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics > > __________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from this list please send mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ___________________________________________________________ > T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 > Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics __________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from this list please send mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
