[COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: Digest list: Ercoupe Hangar Flying

Russell Whetton Fri, 16 Jul 2004 20:29:29 -0700

----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----

does anyone have any information about a coupe losing it's wings in flight in Calfornia? Not suree of when this happened.

I just put the wings back on mine. (Hasn't flown since 1971) and I heard somewhere that all wing bolts should be replaced with new ones. I will be removing the old bolts and replacing them this coming Monday, as a precaution. Bought this airplane in June this year. Wings were recovered 12 years ago, but never put back on it.

Just curious about the wings seperation in my original question. Bolt fracture? turbulance? overstressing? etc.

Docruss

Ercoupe Hangar Flying <[email protected]> wrote:

----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----

Message list:

1. Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] CG Issue (Correction to 4:31pm-typo)
2. RE: [COUPERS-FLYIN] CG Issue (Correction to 4:31pm-typo)
3. Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] ownership costs
4. [COUPERS-FLYIN] model D up-travel limits
5. RE: [COUPERS-FLYIN] model D up-travel limits
6. [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: Digest list: Ercoupe Hangar Flying
7. Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Retarded pilot
8. Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Increased Comfort CG Issue
9. [COUPERS-FLYIN] One for Bill Coons
10. Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] model D up-travel limits

Messages:

From: "Dan Hall @ cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"stephen coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Dan Hall @ cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] CG Issue (Correction to 4:31pm-typo)

This will no doubt draw lots of commentary about relative intelligence,
judgment, etc.

Dumb question that I've been curious about for some time, if anyone happens
to have 'heard' about someone who was adventurous or knowledgeable enough
test this scenario;

Just for the sake of argument;
Assume a 415 D with the O-200 conversion, the up elevator travel at the
higher setting (no that's not technically legal), no rudder pedals, and CG
within limits. Has anyone attempted full power on stalls in that
configuration? If so what is the outcome?

If the back pressure was not released could the airplane drop into a spin?
If it did drop a wing or start to spin would it recover prior to a fully
developed spin? Would it be likely to be recoverable by releasing back
pressure alone or would the situation likely lead to a smoking hole in the
ground?

Bottom line, is it possible to spin a coupe in that configuration, and if
so, is it possible to recover?

I realize that there are many variables in this, and that any answer is not
likely to be absolute.

The Mooney Cadet is a different animal.

OK, I'm in my fox hole waiting for the incoming....

----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "stephen coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] CG Issue (Correction to 4:31pm-typo)

----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any
advice in this forum.]----

Hi Stephen,

You have the concept exactly right. For all aircraft the FAA requires that
the manufacture establish a leveling means for that kind of aircraft and it
is spelled out in the Type Certificate. In the case of the Coupe it is the
window side rails for both left and right level as well as from to back.

The second issue regarding level is if you have the right main wheel on a
scale that is several inches off the ground and the left main on the ground
more weight will be moved to the left main and nose wheel and you will not
get an accurate weight for the right main wheel. If you work your way
around the aircraft this way you will under weigh the aircraft by a
significant amount. Keep in mind that the FAA thinks 0.5% is significant
and on an 800 pound aircraft that is only about 4 pounds.

As others have correctly pointed out CG is very important on all aircraft,
but it is particularly important on Coupes because of the control system
and it lack of ability to spin if kept with in its legal limits.

Have a good day.

Best regards,
Vern

stephen coffey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mail.com> To
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
07/15/2004 09:31 [email protected]
AM cc

Subject
Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] CG Issue
(Correction to 4:31pm-typo)

Vern-
To your point, it does seem like in order to do it accurately there would
need to be required distances from reference points to the scale. Should
the tail be riding low (as I've read happens from the donuts in the gear
being worn) the apparent CG of the airplane would move to the rear, which
would not be the case in flight. There's probably some similar condition
that could affect the front gear as well (maybe not).

Therefore, it seems that we'd need to assume some acceptable range of
standing height between the spinner and the ground (or plane of the
scales),
and the tail and the same plane.

Right?

Stephen
Yellow '46 Ercoupe N3439H
Red '56 Tbird
Marietta, GA

>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: COUPERS-FLYIN
>Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] CG Issue (Correction to 4:31pm-typo)
>Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:10:29 +0300
>
>----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any
>advice in this forum.]----
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>OK we have the concept of how to turn the scale weights into the end
>product of a CG location to compare against the limits BUT I have not seen
>anyone mention one of the more important issue required to make this work.
>THE AIRCRAFT MUST BE LEVELED for the weight readings from the scales to be
>correct for this calculation. If you do not properly level the aircraft
the
>only useful data that you have is total weight of the aircraft as weighed.
>
>The other issue here is that we are talking about "Empty Weight CG" and
>that is done with and with out specific items in the aircraft such as all
>except unusable fuel must be removed.
>
>The short of it is unless you are prepared to do the process correctly
just
>running your coupe across a set of scales will not give you much useful
>data to work with.
>
>Have a good day.
>
>Best regards,
>Vern
>
>
>
> Hi again, all
>
> To give a bit more detail to Jans input:
>
> The correct arm for the main gear is +44, and the nose gear 16
>(source:
> Approved Airplane Flight Manual Model 415-D).
>
> A factory-weighed airplane, as manufactured (with a metal prop) had
> 36.1% of total weight on each main and 27.8% on the nose gear. For an
> 850 lb. Coupe, this puts 307 lbs. on each main and 236 on the nose
>gear.
> (get a scale for 320 lb. or so)
>
> Above manual does not give CG limits in inches from datum (firewall)
> under Weight and Balance Data, p. 12, but only as a % of Mean
> Aerodynamic Chord. It does give full information on p. 3 (A.
Aircraft
> Operating Limitations, #1):
>
> C.G. must be netween 17.^% M.A.C. (26.65) and 24.13% (30.38)
>
> I was unable to locate a value for M.A.C. in this manual, bu I did
find
> it on the ERCO Weight and Balance form included as part of Ercoupe
> Service Bulletin No. 23:
>
> M.A.C is 57.1 inches and L.E.M.A.C. is 16.6 inches (aft of datum)..
>
> To convert 17.6% M.A.C. to inches from datum, multiply .176 times
57..1
> (to get
> 1%) and then multiply that by 100 (to get 100%), or 10.0496. Add this
> to the 16.6
> (L.E.M.A.C.) and VOILA! You get 26.6496 from datum (aft of
>firewall)
> to compare with their 24.65.
>
>
>(above should have read "...their 26.65"." Sorry
>
> 24.13% becomes .2413 times 57.1 x 100 = 13.7782 + 16.6 = 30.3782 to
> compare with their 30.4.
>
> The latter exactly matches Type Certificate Data Sheet No. A-787 BUT
>our
> earlier
> forward calculated limit of 26.3641 (and 26. 65 figure in the manual)
> does NOT agree with A-787 purporting a forward C.G. limit of +26.8!
>Are
> we having fun yet?
>
> Since our Flight Manual figures are approved for pilot operational use
> (we know how they originate) the other figure on A-787 seems likely an
> error in an official document that undesirably reduces valid pilot
> operational descretion and unnecessarily increases existing safety
> factors.
>
> SO, lets calculate our C.G. again
>
> Nose gear is (16 times 236) = -3,776
> Main gear is (+44 times 307) = 13,508
> Other main gear is (the same) = 13,508
>
> Total Moment is : 23,240
>
> (23,240 divided by 850) = 27.34 empty weight C.G.
>
> This owner must compute criticall aft C.G. positions for each flight
> because above
> 27.34 empty C.G. exceeds the desired +27.2 (aft) C.G. safe range
>per
> A-787!
>
> Regards,
>
> William R. Bayne
> <____|(o)|____>
> (Copyright 2002)
>
> --
>
> On Jul 14, 2004, at 1:28 PM, Jan E Zanutto wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> 3 things are needed for CG: weight, arm and moment. Your coupe
will
> be
> weighed while sitting on it's landing gear. Each of those gear has
a
> position (in inches) from the datum (arm).
>(Embedded image moved to file: pic18467.jpg)
>
>
>===========================================================================
===

>To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
>Search the archives on http://escribe.com/aviation/coupers/
>
>
><< pic18467.jpg >>

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

============================================================================
==
To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
Search the archives on http://escribe.com/aviation/coupers/

----------------------------
From: "Kevin Gassert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Jan E Zanutto'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Kevin Gassert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [COUPERS-FLYIN] CG Issue (Correction to 4:31pm-typo)

Please don't get me mixed up in this. I already know how to do a weight and
balance.

Here is a bigggggggg smiley face.........

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan E Zanutto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 1:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] CG Issue (Correction to 4:31pm-typo)

----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any
advice in this forum.]----

Right Vern,

I dont think Kevin was looking for the exact procedure to perform the
whole thing, just the basics about how to do the math. Most places here
in CA will do it for about $125.00 for a coupe. Takes them about an hour
for a coupe. It takes a small crew of our Skywest guys half of a shift to
get one of our Canadair RJs into configuration for weighing- a lot goes
into it.

An interesting sidenote here- the trend nowadays is to fill the aircraft
completely full of fuel, then subtract the quantity in pounds from the
total weight to achieve empty weight. It is a lot faster, you dont have
to defuel the plane and you dont have to worry about how much unusable
fuel is actually left in the plane.

Jan Z
============================================================================
==
To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
Search the archives on http://escribe.com/aviation/coupers/

----------------------------
From: Greg Bullough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Georgia Trehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,[email protected]
Reply-To: Greg Bullough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] ownership costs

At 06:32 PM 7/14/2004, Georgia Trehey wrote:
>Maybe you should all buy Lancairs, Glasairs, and RVs
>and be done with it.

Whall, I had one fine RV ride last weekend (in the checker-tail
RV8 featured in this month's Sport Aviation's article on RV's
as expressions of personal art).

With a 200HP engine and constant-speed prop the performance
was phenomenal, the handling very sweet (if you like light forces,
and I do), and the comfort impeccable. I told Don that it was the
only airplane I'd ever been in where one might be in danger of
nodding off during aerobatics. Oregon Aero memory-foam seats.

Looking at the subjective and objective, I should of course be
a-building on an RV7A instead of typing this.

Greg

----------------------------
From: "Ed Burkhead" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Coupe-List"
Reply-To: "Ed Burkhead" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] model D up-travel limits

Dan hall asked:
> Just for the sake of argument;
> Assume a 415 D with the O-200 conversion, the up
> elevator travel at the higher setting (no that's not
> technically legal), no rudder pedals, and CG
> within limits. Has anyone attempted full power on
> stalls in that configuration? If so what is the outcome?

Dan,

Not only is it not a dumb question, it the question of geniuses. I
asked that same question once. I was blessed by being able to ask the
question of the person who knew the answer: Fred Weick. Fred knew the
answer because he had asked the question and the CAA had asked the
question.

During testing of the increase in gross weight, the CAA (and ERCO) did
quite a bit of flight-testing. They found that with 13° of up travel,
1400 lb. gross weight and full power, the stall behavior was
unacceptable.

The time and situation didnt allow Fred to develop that into details
for me. (Our talk was about 20 minutes across the tail of a Coupe at a
regional fly-in in Iowa.) Perhaps the details are in some of his or ERCO
s or the FAAs papers somewhere. Maybe some of our members can give
you personal testimony of their testing with 13°, full power
(particularly 85 hp), and 1400 lb. at rear CG limit (and beyond). If
anyone feels compelled to duplicate the CAAs extensive test program,
please remember that during stall/spin tests they either wear a
parachute or mount a chute on the tail that can be deployed, then
dropped. ;~)

I dont know if it was too sharp a stall break or spin-ish behavior
after the stall. Fred just told me the FAA didnt judge the full-power,
1400 lb., full up elevator behavior to be sufficiently safe till the
limit was lowered to 9°.

During the same conversation, I asked about the split elevator. Fred
said he had not developed that it had been developed after he left
ERCO (by Saunders, I think). Fred was very complimentary of the split
elevator. He seemed to think it was a very smart solution to the
problem of making a plane be well behaved at all times, from no power to
full power. Since the slipstream mostly goes through the split, its
push-down effect on the elevator is minimized.

The right answer for an optimum Coupe is to buy a split elevator (or
get yours converted) to get the slowest landing and the best flying
behavior in all modes.

Having said that, with my small of experience of around 10 hours flying
a split-elevator Coupe, I didnt find that it flew that much better than
my 9° up-travel D model not enough for me to put it at the top of my
ever-present need-money-for list.

Ed Burkhead
http://edburkhead.com/
ed -at- edburkheadQQQ.com (change -at- and remove the QQQ)

----------------------------
From: "stephen coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected]
Reply-To: "stephen coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [COUPERS-FLYIN] model D up-travel limits

Seems to the uneducated here that the main problem in those conditions
creating a bad stall/spin characteristic may be the absence of independent
rudder to use in the correction.

Just trying to learn as much as I can...

Stephen
Yellow '46 Ercoupe N3439H
Red '56 Tbird
Marietta, GA

>From: "Ed Burkhead" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: "Ed Burkhead" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Coupe-List"
>Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] model D up-travel limits
>Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:10:27 -0500
>
>----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any
>advice in this forum.]----
>
>
>Dan hall asked:
> > Just for the sake of argument;
> > Assume a 415 D with the O-200 conversion, the up
> > elevator travel at the higher setting (no that's not
> > technically legal), no rudder pedals, and CG
> > within limits. Has anyone attempted full power on
> > stalls in that configuration? If so what is the outcome?
>
>
>Dan,
>
>Not only is it not a dumb question, it the question of geniuses. I
>asked that same question once. I was blessed by being able to ask the
>question of the person who knew the answer: Fred Weick. Fred knew the
>answer because he had asked the question and the CAA had asked the
>question.
>
>During testing of the increase in gross weight, the CAA (and ERCO) did
>quite a bit of flight-testing. They found that with 13° of up travel,
>1400 lb. gross weight and full power, the stall behavior was
>unacceptable.
>
>The time and situation didnt allow Fred to develop that into details
>for me. (Our talk was about 20 minutes across the tail of a Coupe at a
>regional fly-in in Iowa.) Perhaps the details are in some of his or ERCO
>s or the FAAs papers somewhere. Maybe some of our members can give
>you personal testimony of their testing with 13°, full power
>(particularly 85 hp), and 1400 lb. at rear CG limit (and beyond). If
>anyone feels compelled to duplicate the CAAs extensive test program,
>please remember that during stall/spin tests they either wear a
>parachute or mount a chute on the tail that can be deployed, then
>dropped. ;~)
>
>I dont know if it was too sharp a stall break or spin-ish behavior
>after the stall. Fred just told me the FAA didnt judge the full-power,
>1400 lb., full up elevator behavior to be sufficiently safe till the
>limit was lowered to 9°.
>
>During the same conversation, I asked about the split elevator. Fred
>said he had not developed that it had been developed after he left
>ERCO (by Saunders, I think). Fred was very complimentary of the split
>elevator. He seemed to think it was a very smart solution to the
>problem of making a plane be well behaved at all times, from no power to
>full power. Since the slipstream mostly goes through the split, its
>push-down effect on the elevator is minimized.
>
>The right answer for an optimum Coupe is to buy a split elevator (or
>get yours converted) to get the slowest landing and the best flying
>behavior in all modes.
>
>Having said that, with my small of experience of around 10 hours flying
>a split-elevator Coupe, I didnt find that it flew that much better than
>my 9° up-travel D model not enough for me to put it at the top of my
>ever-present need-money-for list.
>
>
>Ed Burkhead
>http://edburkhead.com/
>ed -at- edburkheadQQQ.com (change -at- and remove the QQQ)
>
>
>
>
>==============================================================================
>To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
>Search the archives on http://escribe.com/aviation/coupers/
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get fast, reliable Internet access with MSN 9 Dial-up now 2 months FREE!
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/

----------------------------
From: "Ann Standing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ercoupe Hangar Flying"
Reply-To: "Ann Standing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: Digest list: Ercoupe Hangar Flying

Hello all
Just wanted to say how much I enjoyed being at Arlington over the weekend
and having a chance to visit with a few 'Coupers and seeing the lineup
(especially our old plane, now lovingly owned by Marty Duke)
Also very happy to be back (though mainly as a lurker) on this list
LOVED the couple of quotes re flying esp the one from L DaVinci SO TRUE
I long for the day that I will be back in the skys again (you never know,
Marty, some day I may show up at your doorstep in Renton and take you up on
the offer)
Ann Standing

----------------------------
From: "MAGIC VAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Kevin Gassert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"'Candy and Bruce'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "MAGIC VAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Retarded pilot

Kevin,

In an attempt to calm the waters, and sooth inflamed nerves, I'll say that I over reacted to your posts. But, I don't rent Cherokees, I owned one. And, it was a fine aircraft. I loved my Coupe. They're a great little plane, and being one who wanted things done right, I had the best A&E in Central Utah looking after her. The cost was high. I sold the Coupe after it became apparent that I wouldn't easily keep my medical cert. because of Diabetes. I am following the Sport Pilot thread to see where my flying goes in the future. My flying days started in the early 70's, when I purchased a Piper Colt. My longest X-country flight was from a small town in Central Utah, to Fargo, N.D. and return. I look forward to being able to fly again. Perhaps if we both watch what we post, this site will return to the harmonious place it is known to be.

=== message truncated ===

Dr. Russell Whetton
859 Washington Blvd.
Ogden, Utah 84404
801-393-8880
801-393-8881 fax

Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!

==============================================================================
To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
Search the archives on http://escribe.com/aviation/coupers/

[COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: Digest list: Ercoupe Hangar Flying

Reply via email to