I have been flying an Ercoupe for about 4 years and enjoy it more than any
other aircrft in my 58 years of flying. But in reading the various articles on
Ercoupes the one area that seems to stick in my head is the engine failure
posting. The other areas, such as overshooting, undershooting, hard landings,
groundloops, etc all are directlty related to poor pilot technique. Landing an
Ercoupe is like landing a Tri-Pacer.
But the engine failure stats are my concern in that most of the other listings
are pilot related. You addressed the lack of proper preflight, fuel management,
etc but how many engine failures are directly the result of an actual engine
breakdown, such as crankshaft, valve/piston , mags, etc ? When I take my
Grandkids up in ours, they really enjoy it . But in the back of my mind, after
reading all the negative reports, I always have that " wonder what if "
thinking. Of course we should always have that in our minds as we look for that
emergency field .
The Ercoupe has extended my flying life for many years to come as I reverted to
Sport Pilot after years of commercial flying and also being a retired FAA air
traffic controller, aviation has been my life.
We have 200 hours on a majored C-85 and it is just purring along. Change the
oil as required, and if there is the smallest indication of oil drops or other
such items, we are on it like bees on honey.
Just wondering about the actual engine failure stats. My first email reading in
the morning as I have my coffee are the Ercoupe blogs, then Civil Air Patrol,
then others.
Thanks,
Jim
N3439H 415C with rudder pedals
FDK
----- Original Message -----
From: William R. Bayne
To: ercoupe Ercoupe Flying
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 3:40 AM
Subject: Re: [ercoupe-flyin] Coupe Bashing
Hi Beach,
The "Comparitive Accident Records" was based on a 33-aircraft FAA study, but
we don't know what those aircraft were. Since it was done in 1979, most were
much newer than the great majority of Ercoupes. Most cost a lot more to buy,
operate and fly; and, their owners likely having more training and experience.
It serves no purpose to compare apples with oranges.
Let's instead look at the six aircraft for which actual accidents (adjusted
to represent per 100,000 hrs.) are shown. Note that there are four taildraggers
and two tricycle gear ships.
The Cessna 150 would typically be newer. In 1979, these were primarily used
for flight training, and so they would receive regular, competent maintenance;
and an unusually high number of hours aloft would be under the direct
supervision of a flight instructor or examiner. No wonder, then that the 150
had the best overall accident rate, fewest ground loops, fatalities, engine
failures, in-flight structural failures, undershoots, and stalls (the latter
except for the Ercoupe).
Now compare the Ercoupe to the remaining taildraggers. The Ercoupe had the
7th worst overall accident rate. Let's look at how that was "earned".
It was 3rd worst for hard landings. With a full foot of oleo action capable
of absorbing a 500 FPM descent onto the runway without damage, and proven
crosswind capability well beyond any taildragger, it is clear that this could
only result from poor maintenance (a lot of them in that period were owned by
people who wouldn't spend a dime on them because they were the cheapest thing
flyable) and poor airmanship (those people didn't read and follow the
instructions). Does that in any way relate to a problem with Ercoupe design? I
think not.
It was in the middle of the pack for ground loops. How do you ground loop an
Ercoupe? You have to have something break on the nose gear (pretty rare) or you
try flying it without reading the instructions, or you take on crosswinds with
"low tail" beyond your capability. Does that in any way relate to a problem
with Ercoupe design? I think not.
The fatal accident rate of 9th of 33 equates to a "score" of 73 on a scale of
100. That is a passing grade anywhere, and exceptional given the fact that they
were only rarely well maintained, no dealers remaining, and few qualified
coupe-familiar mechanics.
Overshoot is essentially meaningless, since the range shown of .34 to .71 per
100,000 hours is statistically insignificant. The Ercoupe is many things, but a
"floater" it isn't. Airmanship is the
primary variable in such a narrow range of obviously rare occurrence.
Engine failure goes hand-in hand with poor maintenance and airmanship. If the
tanks aren't kept full, the plane is outside, the tanks are not properly
drained before flight, and perhaps auto fuel is being used of questionable
quality...then yeah, I can see the gascolator filling up with water soon after
takeoff rotation. With no tank valves to manage from full to empty, it takes a
special kind of stupidity to not notice the header tank gauge thumping bottom a
half hour or so before the engine quits. Do any of these causes in any way
relate to a problem with Ercoupe design? I think not.
In-flight airframe failure, like Overshoot is similarly statistically
insignificant. We tend to look hard at it because it is usually fatal, but the
difference between 3rd and 27th is .95 per 100,000 hrs., and even that highly
rare occurrence is likely associated with some unqualified bozo attempting
aerobatic or instrument skills. Incompetence can result in stresses in excess
of design loads in a number of possible scenarios on even a new airframe. Does
that in any way relate to a problem with Ercoupe design? I think not.
Undershoot in any aircraft is, like Overshoot, primarily the result of poor
airmanship. The fact that the Ercoupe was the absolute worst in this category
obscures the fact that the problem was relatively rare and likely associated
with a bit poorer proficiency on the part of Ercoupe pilots in 1979. Does that
in any way relate to a problem with Ercoupe design? I think not. Do the Ercoupe
pilots of today have a less marginal level of proficiency? I certainly hope so!
Stall is fascinating, because the Ercoupe does not stall in normal flight.
Apparently someone managed a whip-stall while landing resulting in an accident,
yet even so the Ercoupe edged out the 150 in this category.
There are verified incidents where children took an Ercoupe up for a joy ride
having only read about flying from comic books (and lived to tell the tale). A
hand propping incident led to a Mrs. Freed opening the throttle when her
husband told her to close it, and becoming airborne. She had had no previous
instruction, but managed to bring the plane back with relatively minor damage.
Given this background, the statement that "The aircraft has a rather poor
accident rate in several categories" is clearly more indicative of
owner/operator proficiency problems than of any reasonably identifiable design
deficiency as to ease of operation.
Accordingly, my "regard" for the wisdom and objectivity of the author of this
Aviation Consumer information is approximately zero on a scale of 1 to 10.
In their issue of February 15, 1978, they featured the Ercoupe in their "Used
Airplane Guide". I'm always leery of articles without an author's name, but
that one was generally complimentary to the Ercoupe. They described it's record
of stall/spin accidents was "anywhere from two to ten times better than any
other aircraft in this class".
They quoted Ed Slattery (then of the NTSB) as stating that "The Ercoupe is an
amazing aircraft in terms of safety design and engineering. The I-beam under
the seat is twice as rugged as the one in a Bonanza." At that time less than a
quarter of all Ercoupe Stall/spin accidents were fatal–a lower percentage than
any other aircraft listed in the stall/spin study. It's hard to keep in mind
that the same plane is discussed only a few years apart.
Regards,
William R. Bayne
.____|-(o)-|____.
(Copyright 2009)
--
On May 7, 2009, at 11:33, James B. Brennan wrote:
In my 1985 copy of The Aviation Consumer Used Aircraft Guide there is a
chapter, "Airknocker Roundup" where they discuss the J-3 Cub, Cessna 120/140,
Aeronca, Ercoupe, Taylorcraft and Cessna 150, They cite Comparative Accident
Records (According to the FAA's 1979 study of 33 aircraft, rates based on each
100,000 flying hours.)
The Overall Accident rate (and rank among the 33) finds Ercoupe 28.51 (7th
worst). I'll attach a PDF. Not a really pretty picture. I think most of us have
a decent regard for The Aviation Consumer (or did that just fall by the
wayside?).
Regards,
Jim Brennan (who will fly one again, anyway, despite having an accident
with one)
