Backcountry Pilot • Ercoupe

Ercoupe

Technical and practical discussion about specific aircraft types such as Cessna 180, Maule M7, et al. Please read and search carefully before posting, as many popular topics have already been discussed.
48 postsPage 3 of 31, 2, 3

Re: Ercoupe

http://www.ercoupe.org/why_buy_a_coupe.htm

Ercoupes with the 85 hp engine get better take-off and climb performance, and will cruise a bit faster, and will use a little bit more fuel than 75 hp planes. But there's not a lot of difference. Cruising speeds with the 85 hp engine range from 104-112 mph.
. . .
The Forney Aircoupes have the C-90 engine with a well matched propeller. They always out climb my C-85 which has a climb propeller and they have to throttle back quite a bit for me to stay with them in cruise. Cruising speeds probably run from about 106-114 mph (again according to Paul). The Alon Aircoupes, with their sleek bubble windshield and 90 hp engine often claim cruising speeds up to 124 mph.


Realistically it's more like 115-120 mph. I was getting, oh, about a 95 in a 1976 150, although to be sure it had STOL wingtips and no pants.

Here's one humorous summary of Alon's improvements:

Exactly. It would outperform a Cessna 150 in every way possible except perhaps for useful load. Took off quicker, climbed much better, and cruised 10 or 15 kts faster, all on 10 less HP. Very easy to land. But I found the seats uncomfortable and the noise awesome. No mufflers. And those rudders were mostly for decoration. Might be a good airplane but you won't get much respect in the pilot lounge. Some clubs used to use Ercoupes to drive the pilots out to their real airplanes :-) There were a lot of nicknames: Burpcup, Airpoop, and so on.


Dan Thomas then repeated this assessement with some variations in various fora.

Biggest problem for me, however, is that all "cheap" 150s seem to have disappeared.
zaitcev offline
User avatar
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:31 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Ercoupe

Recently I've done 3 Ercoupe annuals , a Mooney cadet --a ercoupe front half and Mooney tail and Avion and standard 415-c . Know of 2 more locally one from less than a block away from my house and another at Boulder City. I wouldn't recommend Ercoupes for a Back country airplane 85 HP just isn't enough.
182 STOL driver offline
Posts: 1529
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Ercoupe

Alon may claim a cruising speed of 124 mph, I've flown an Alon and it certainly didn't fly at 124 mph [-X . Cruise on the one I flew was about 105 on a good day.
Dale Moul offline
User avatar
Posts: 523
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:37 pm
Location: Boise Idaho
Dale
Gravity Strikes Again.

Re: Ercoupe

A friend of mine has an Ercoupe, either a 75 or 85 can't remember which. It cruises about like my old stock C150: about 95 on a good day. It will not take off & land with a 150 though. If you do some math using horsepower, weight, and wing areas to calculate the wing loading & power loading, you can see why.
hotrod180 offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 10534
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:47 pm
Location: Port Townsend, WA
Cessna Skywagon -- accept no substitute!

Re: Ercoupe

I opted for another 150 and I'm glad I did. I always liked the looks of the Ercoupe but the stall speed is a lot higher and no luggage room. Not that a 150 is much of a workhorse but they are fun little planes and probably the easiest plane ever to find parts for.
Jaerl offline
User avatar
Posts: 1423
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:59 am
Location: Utah
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... Q0xkBgMvPi

Re: Ercoupe

hotrod150 wrote:If you do some math using horsepower, weight, and wing areas to calculate the wing loading & power loading, you can see why.


C150:
gross 1600 lbs, power 100 hp, wing area 159 ft^2
power load 16.0 lbs per hp, area load 10 lbs per ft^2

Alon Aircoupe:
gross 1450 lbs, power 90 hp, wing area 142.6 ft^2
power load 16.1 lbs per hp, area load 10.1 lbs per ft^2

Basically they are identical. Both can be flown undergross if circumstances require, thanks to Alon's large useful load than was the case on old 415s.

In any case I'm thinking about getting a Pacer now.
zaitcev offline
User avatar
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:31 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Ercoupe

Guess I shoulda done the math before I spoke up! I didn't think an Ercoupe had that much wing area. Math-wise it shoud perform just about with a C150, but I don't think they do. Maybe the difference in airfoils accounts for some of that?
hotrod180 offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 10534
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:47 pm
Location: Port Townsend, WA
Cessna Skywagon -- accept no substitute!

Re: Ercoupe

The difference in the two airfoils make a huge difference in energy management when flying the 150 v Ercoupe. Everyone has flown the 150, it floats on the wing but the Ercoupe does not, its more like a Maule or Tundra they both have a high sink rate and you manage that energy differently. I have referenced this link before but this is a good topic to repost it.

http://www.mail-archive.com/ercoupe-tec ... 18342.html


A little description of a BFR by an Ercoupe pilot.

http://www.takeoffsareoptional.com/
dirtstrip offline
Posts: 1455
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:39 pm
Location: Location: Location:
Lynn Sanderson (Dirtstrip) passed away from natural causes in May 2013. He was a great contributor and will be missed dearly.

DISPLAY OPTIONS

Previous
48 postsPage 3 of 31, 2, 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Latest Features

Latest Knowledge Base