Is the Ercoupe a good backcountry airplane? Yes, actually it is. The basic low ground effect takeoff works well with the low and fairly high lift wing. A caution, however: the zoom up over any obstruction at the end of the takeoff area must start a bit earlier than other airplanes. That is because up elevator is limited. We still want to just overfly the obstruction, however. With 75 hp it is important to keep some airspeed in our pocket.

The apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach (mush down with power) can be like computerized. On short final just pull back on the yoke to the stop and control angle of descent to the very beginning of the LZ with throttle. This will achieve the steepest angle of descent possible. Caution about rate of descent. If not controlled with throttle to touchdown, a Navy catch will result. The gear is strong, but not that strong.

Where no obstructions exist and terrain is relatively smooth, hover taxi up to the beginning of the LZ is an option.. Either way, take care in gusty conditions, not to move the throttle too rapidly and flood the Stromberg carburetor. Same for 65 to 90 hp Continentals in other airplanes.

Adverse yaw is not a problem, but rudder turn in low ground effect or with the nose down on final is not possible. If rudder has been installed, it is just to meet the extra P factor with the 85 hp and larger engines. Really? The rudder is too small to do anything. Don't worry about it. It has almost no effect. This is the only airplane where I will not be yelling, "push that nose around." And so yes, a bit more horizontal space must be available. Coordinated turns are not always the most efficient, but that is all we have with the Ercoupe.

Like all the 65 to 90 hp two seaters, it is light. It came with only a canvass baggage compartment (RON kit holder) behind the seat for a reason.

The crosswind main gear and the most angled forward of any nose gear are rugged. We might want to carry extra push pull tubes for the nose gear, however. The ball joints are the weakest link in the gear.

Yes! As a young and boisterous kid I was embarrassed to be flying my $1,340 bank repossession Ercoupe. Did I take it to the backcountry and everywhere I took Cessnas? Yes, I did.

At least parts are cheap, all the Cub guys bought up all the C-85/90’s engines, parted out the airframes. Low wing with things like tall weeds, limbs and uneven terrain is not fun, plus you cant see as good. A roll over/ flip over strapped to that thing in the back country is almost certain death. I’d rather have a high wing for safety. IMO Stick to improved landing strips with those.

It's almost patriotic to hate them. But why are all those Ag planes low wing, after the Snow and Fred Weick's Pawnee were designed for safety? And they have proven the low wing safety advantage. Even after all these years, Cubs have killed more Ag pilots than any other.

Yes, the tumbleweed scrapes the bottom of the wing.

I'm not saying they are everybody's cup of tea. Like Tri-Pacer, they have always been a capable inexpensive airplane, compared to many expensive airplanes that don't really do a lot more.

contactflying wrote:But why are all those Ag planes low wing, after the Snow and Fred Weick's Pawnee were designed for safety? And they have proven the low wing safety advantage. Even after all these years, Cubs have killed more Ag pilots than any other.

Ag airplanes are basically flying roll cages, including the Cessna 188’s. (Low wing for better spray patterns).

The Ercoupe doesn’t have that.

Yes. they have saved my life more than once. But that wing to crash on is a demonstrated big part of that. In a high wing, the pilot crashes first. And that is often fatal. In Cubs the gear went away, the engine came back on the pilot, and the load came down on his back. And he couldn't see where he was going in the turn.

You are absolutely correct that high wing is the preferred backcountry airplane. The market has never supported low wing or the Ercoupe. I just look back and, after experience in almost every American manufactured small airplane in all conditions, find the little coup to have been much better than advertised. As far as the rest, they all worked amazingly well.

Why do we hate the Ercoupe? Airplanes are extremely easy to fly. That they are difficult to fly has always been an extremely coveted and supported myth. It is the right stuff stuff. Enter the Ercoupe which literally "flies" in the face of that myth. It truly is just like driving a car.

contactflying wrote:Why do we hate the Ercoupe? Airplanes are extremely easy to fly. That they are difficult to fly has always been an extremely coveted and supported myth. It is the right stuff stuff. Enter the Ercoupe which literally "flies" in the face of that myth. It truly is just like driving a car.

I don’t hate Ercoupes, in fact I think they are a pretty neat airplane, flying with the window back is nice, almost like a side by side fly baby. Cheap and economical, and a bit comical. I recommended it to a person who has paralyzed legs, he always wanted to fly but did not know about that airplane. I just don’t see them useful back country on sand bars dodging logs.

First built when airfield and field were synonyms, mine rarely touches asphalt and prolly hasn't been on concrete since I bought it. Painting it pink was for safety.

Welcome. Let us know about your flying adventures in the little plane that could. Wolfgang Langewiesche called it the "safety airplane" and assumed, in 1947, that it would become the norm. Men sacrifice safety for impressive. We need more women in aviation, and Ercoupes.