Why Buy a Coupe?….part one

By Ed Burkhead                                                        Return to www.planesgalore.com

(copyrighted, used by permission)  Part one 

This article was originally prepared in response to letters from prospective Coupe buyers who wanted to know the safety history, problems to look for, model information and everything else in which a prospective buyer would be interested.  It does not try to be a complete source, though.

See Stanley Thomas’ excellent book The Ercoupe. See the Recommendations/Books tags at the left of the page for availability information.  You can also search for the Ercoupe on the used market from several sources.  In addition, the Univair book Specification, A.D. notes, S.T.C.s, (Univair product number ESS, $17.00) is a critical reference book that every Coupe owner or would-be owner should have.

Strong Recommendation

Over the years, I’ve seen several new Coupers buy planes with major problems.  A pre-purchase inspection would have prevented financial catastrophe for most of these people.  Several years ago, with good advisors, I made a pre-purchase inspection checklist to make a try at preventing these problems.  I’d personally urge buyers to take this list to your own mechanic and talk over what you want to do during your own pre-purchase inspection.  Personally, I wouldn’t buy any plane without it.  I’m donating this to the public section to assist all potential Coupers.  It was written as a service to the club, however, and I urge you to join and stay a member of the EOC – the EOC is our mutual assistance society and we need you.

Quick history

This plane is a member of the family of planes known as the Ercoupe or Aircoupe.  The Ercoupe was designed between 1936 and 1940, with the first flight of the prototype in 1937.  Before WW2, 112 were built and approximately 5,000 were made immediately after the war.   About 400 more were built between 1958 and 1969.  The original name was derived from the name of the company, ERCO, which stood for Engineering and Research Corporation.  When later companies manufactured the plane, it was called the Aircoupe.

Designed by Fred Weick and a small team, the Ercoupe was the first plane to incorporate much of the original research that Weick performed as the assistant chief of the NACA aerodynamics division.  These new features include the inability to be held in a spin, the tricycle landing gear to improve landing and take-off safety, the fully cowled engine, and a control system in which the rudders are linked to the ailerons to simplify controlling the airplane.  All these features were invented by Fred Weick and his team.

Basic flying characteristics are the same as modern aircraft with one exception.  In the Ercoupes with linked rudders/ailerons, in a cross-wind, the airplane is landed in a wing-level crab.  Though the main landing gear is sturdy, it is not abnormally strong and certainly doesn’t “swivel.” Yet, due to the natural geometry of a tricycle with a swiveling nose wheel, the airplane immediately lines up with the direction of travel after touchdown.  Two-control Ercoupes fly with a demonstrated cross-wind component of 25 mph.  Some Coupers regularly fly with even stronger cross-winds.

Engine comparison

The planes with 75 hp engines have pretty good performance.  They will generally fly between 98 and 106 miles an hour, depending on the pitch of the propeller.  This is a good benefit of the airplane’s designer being the time-period’s leading authority on propellers.

When comparing the following figures with your own plane (or the one you are about to buy) consider these factors:  The propeller pitch will greatly affect the cruise speed and climb performance.  For every inch of steeper pitch, there will be about two miles per hour gain in speed until you reach the point (very quickly) when the engine doesn’t have the horsepower to spin the prop up to speed.  As speed increases, horsepower required increases almost linearly until a certain speed is reached where much more power is required to effect each new increment in speed.  The speed at which this occurs depends on the shape of the object being pushed through the fluid, in this case, the airframe through the air.

At some point a steeper pitched prop will result in less thrust than would be obtained with a flatter pitched propeller.  Probably before this point is reached, the climb performance will be non-existent – climbing is done at slower speeds where the steeper pitched prop is even more inefficient!

Ercoupes with the 85 hp engines 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.

Most of the 85 hp engines in service in C and D models have been converted from 75 hp engines.  This was done (as allowed in type certificate A-787 note4) per Continental Service Bulletin M47-16 dated June 7, 1948.  Mostly, this requires changing the carburetor fuel jet to allow more fuel flow, remarking the oil dip-stick to show 4.5 quarts as full, adding a couple of engine baffles to take care of increased heat production, and changing the propeller so it conforms to the requirements of the new engine.  The details are in the Ercoupe’s Aircraft Specification A-787 and the other documents mentioned.

There is some performance gain – about 2-3 mph according to Paul Prentice’s book Fly-About-Adventures and the Ercoupe.

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.

With the 0-200 engine, climb improves again, but cruising speeds drop down because of the propeller that was STCed with the engine conversion.  In the absence of definitive data, estimate cruising speeds to be about 108 mph.  Someone who’d like to research alternate propeller lengths and pitches (and fight with the FAA for approval) may be able to trade some of that climb for somewhat better cruising performance.

Remember that, for each airframe, there is a natural “maximum” speed determined by the shape and drag.  To get to that speed, it doesn’t take much increase in power.  To go faster than that speed, it takes a lot more power.  So, putting a much bigger engine on a plane will make it climb much better and yet it may not fly much faster.

Thanks to Ed Burkhead for this informative article.    You can read more from Ed at http://edburkhead.com/ercoupe/index.htm

Watch for part two of Why Buy a Coupe?… coming soon.

Airport User Fees….Their Baaaaaack!

The Obama budget appears to be resurrecting the ghost of President Bush’s aviation user fees.  This spectre which appeared dead in ‘08 lives again in a footnote buried in the new 2010 budget calling for about $7 billion of taxes to be replaced by “direct user charges”.

This proposal may put at odds the business aviation and airline groups who have been working together to bring about a modernization of air traffic control and airport development.

This sort of user pays system has been proposed many times over the years without success.  But, in the current political climate user fees may be easier to increase than taxes.

On February 26, the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) issued the following statement. “Although we commend the Obama Administration for its commitment to modernizing the nation’s aviation system and expanding capacity, we are very troubled by the budget outline issued by the White House today, because it appears to leave the door open to consideration of user fees for funding the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).  We continue to believe that operational user fees have no place in a funding plan for the FAA, and we will remain unified with the rest of the general aviation community in opposing them in favor of building on the proven, efficient fuel tax for general aviation to help support modernization.  We remain committed to modernization, as demonstrated by the industry’s commitment last year, and we look forward to working with the Administration and Congress on effective proposals to expedite modernization.

Will President Obama prove to be a friend to general avaition?  Only time will tell.  As AOPA President Craig Fuller said, “It is often said the devil is in the details, but even with only a few details, there is much about which we are concerned.”

Save Money on Hangars – Buy an Airplane Cover

                                                                                       Return to www.planesgalore.com

In these challenging times many airplane owners are looking for ways to cut their operating costs while protecting their aircraft investment.  One option is to eliminate that big fixed cost – hangar rent.  While it’s true that hangared aircraft typically resell for more than their tie down cousins, it is possible to protect your airplane without spending the big bucks on a hangar.  Covers typically cost the equivalent of one month’s hangar rent.

Airplane covers are usually cloth covers fitted to your individual aircraft and designed to protect it from sunlight and weather damage.  The cover should be lined with microfiber wherever it comes into contact with glass to prevent scratching, and should be constructed of a “breathable” material so moisture and condensation won’t be trapped under the cover.  In addition, your cover should be a good close fit to your aircraft to prevent friction against the glass and finish when the wind kicks up.

Although the cover should be water repellent enough to prevent rain from leaking into your plane, you really don’t want something “waterproof” like a plastic tarp.  These can flap in the wind and damage your paint and glass and will trap moisture next to the finish possibly leading to mildew and corrosion.

Covers are constructed of many materials.  Two popular choices are acrylic-woven Sunbrella and a nylon based material called Silver Laminate.  The Silver Laminate, as you might expect, comes in a light silver color and is effective in both water repellancy and UV protection.  The Sunbrella is a little thicker, stiffer and heavier and comes in darker and brighter colors.  Some people find the darker colored fabric to be more protective, while others swear by the highly reflective Silver Laminate as keeping the aircraft cooler in the summer heat.

The cost of covers vary by type and size of aircraft,  manufacturer and fabric choice.   Prices start under $100 and go up from there.  Depending on your climate and the material, a cover should last from 3 to 5 years.  Most are hand washable with mild soap and water.

While it is possible to cover the entire aircraft, many manufacturers recommend covering only the most critical portions of the plane, starting with the cockpit, then the wing tops, the horizontal tail and the propeller blades. 

In my area, hangars are hard to come by.  Most local airports have waiting lists in excess of a year.  Besides the wait, they’re very expensive.  A T-hangar near my home (actually a two-hour drive from my home) is $250 per month and requires a very expensive liability policy which brings the total to nearly $500 per month.  Another small local airport has tie-downs readily available for less than $100 per month. 

Covering your airplane will save you thousands each year in hangar rent,  and even if you do have to paint more often than your hangared neighbor, you’ll probably come out ahead in the end.

Stimulus Package – What’s in it for Aviation?

                                                                                                         Return to www.planesgalore.com

You’d have to be in a coma to be unaware of the disastrous effect of the economic downturn on general aviation.  Planes just aren’t selling the way they used to.  CEOs are excoriated for replacing aging aircraft with newer, more efficient jets.  Pratt & Whitney is cutting 1,000 jobs and hiring is frozen.  Boeing laid off 27% of their Wichita, KS workforce in January, with Hawker Beechcraft and Cessna following up with 500 layoffs each, also in Wichita.  Cirrus sales are down and they are cutting 100 jobs, Northstar Aerospace laid off 15% of their workforce and Eclipse has laid off 650.  In Florida, Piper has laid off 300 workers.  Let’s see….who am I leaving out? 

No doubt about it, things are looking grim.  So what about this behemouth stimulus package?  Is there anything in there for aviation?

Actually, yes.  Congress originally set aside $3 billion for airport improvement.  The idea was to direct funds into so called “shovel ready” projects; those projects which could go to contract within 120 days of receiving FAA approvals.  The final bill shapes up a little differently.  $1.1 billion for airport capital investment nationwide.  $200 million for the FAA facilities and equipment, including $50 million for modernizing en-route traffic centers, $80 million to replace air traffic control towers and tracons, and $20 million to install airport lighting, navigation and landing equipment.  NASA gets $1.3 billion, $200 million of which is for research and testing of  environmentally responsible aircraft. 

Of course, out of all that stimulus money, funds going into science research, small business support, education, tax breaks and other areas will inevitably benefit aviation in one way or another.  And if President Obama and the Congress are right about the stimulus, as the economy recovers, so will aviation.

The Greening of Aviation?

                                                                                              Return to www.planesgalore.com

Was it only last fall that people were chanting “drill, baby, drill!”, and declaring everyone from the government to your grandmother must “go green!”?  Remember $8.00 a gallon 100LL and paying for pillows and blankets on US commercial flights? 

Given the furor over global warming and energy prices, how is it possible that an aviation bio-fuel revolution is quietly proceeding with so little fuss and fanfare?

Here’s a taste of what has been going on, pretty much under the radar of mainstream media in the aviation bio-fuel revolution.  January, 2009 a Japan Airlines (JAL) airliner completed a 1.5 hour demo flight from Tokyo’s Haneda Airport powered by a combination of camelina, jatrophe and algae.

In December, 2008 Air New Zealand flew two hours on a 50/50 mix of jatropha biodiesel and standard A1 jet fuel.

In November, 2008 a plane flew from Reno, Nevada to Leesburg Florida, flying the first 1776 miles on 100% bio-diesel and the remaining 710 miles on a 50/50 mix of bio-diesel and standard jet fuel.

In October, 2008 Aviation Magazine published a story on the Department of Defense and the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) claims of a 100% renewable jet fuel capable of replacing JP-8.

In August, 2008 an F-15 Strike Eagle flew out of Robins Air Force Base in Georgia on a 50/50 mixture of JP-8 and a natural gas based synthetic fuel.

Why the apparent disinterest by the media on this tangible progress toward effective bio-fuel for aviation? 

Some say the amount of land set aside for growing bio-fuel crops may be contributing to a world wide food shortage.  Others are concerned that bio-fuel production may actually increase global warming.  It could be as simple as short term memory loss. Finding alternative fuel sources which seemed critically important with gas at the pump at $4.00 a gallon, is all but forgotten now that prices have come down.

This crisis will pass, and fuel prices will go back up.  So those of us with a stake in the future of aviation need to pay attention and press forward.  Will bio-fuel be the ultimate answer?   No one really knows yet, but many are touting camelina,  jatropha, algae and celulosic ethanol.

Camelina, for instance, may combat rising emissions while adding to food production and crop yields.  It has actually been shown to be an excellent rotational crop, boosting the yield of subsequent crops such as wheat by up to 15%.  It can be grown on marginal land, needs very little water and is viable in cold regions such as Montana and Canada and Europe.  It is estimated bio-diesel made from camelina could be sold for around $2.00 per gallon, compared to $3.00 per gallon for soy or corn based ethanol.

According to a spokesman for JAL, who used a mixture of bio-fuel and jet fuel for their groundbreaking demonstration flight in January, “the bio-fuel was a combination of three second-generation bio-fuel feedstocks which do not compete with natural food or water sources and do not contribute to deforestation practices.”

Turning to personal craft, Pipistrel, a Slovenian aircraft company, is working on a two-passenger electric aircraft.  The Taurus Electro is said to be capable of climbing to 6,000 feet, traveling 1,000 miles in a day with a lithium-polymer battery which takes about as long to recharge as a cell phone.

With graduations of aerospace engineers down 57% in the US since 1990 the US may be taking a back seat to Europe and Asia in making air travel more sustainable in the coming years.  Never the less, the future of innovation in aviation is going strong and it’s looking pretty green from here.

How Safe are Small Airplanes?

                                                                                    Return to www.planesgalore.com

General aviation airplanes have one of the world’s best safely records among all forms of public transportation.  In fact, since 1950, the accident rate per 100,000 flying hours is down by more than 93%.

Some of us will always feel a little nervous about flying in small airplanes.  But here are a few facts about how safe they really are.  Nearly twice as many people are killed each year in recreational boating accidents than in accidents involving private planes.

A small plane that loses power at 10,500 ft altitude can glide for more than 15 miles.  This gives the pilot ample time to select an appropriate landing spot, over 700 square miles of available landing spots, in fact.

In 2006 out of 22.8 million hours of flight operations, general aviation had only 303 fatal accidents.  On the average, 80% of small plane accidents involve no loss of life.

According to the FAA approximatley 36% of all accidents occur during descent and landing.  Another 18% take place during taxi and takeoff.  Only about 15% of accidents are found to be due to mechanical failure of the aircraft.

Experience as well as equipment are often a factor in general aviation fatalities.  Statistically, pilots with fewer than 100 hours are the most likely to be involved in a fatal  crash.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Manufacturers of light aircraft continue to innovate with safety in mind.   Single lever controls, electronic displays with audible alarms, fuel injection to prevent carburetor icing, improved lighting, seats, belts and attachments, low fuel warning lights, internally lit instruments, more redundancy in instruments…all play a part in making light planes safer to fly.  When something does go wrong, the whole aircraft parachute is often there as a last resort.  This technology is credited with saving many lives.

Last year my husband’s flight instructor lost a wing in flight and crashed into a vineyard.  He was able to deploy the BRS chute on his Challenger light sport aircraft and walked away from the accident with only minor bruises.

Critics of general aviation say the accident and fatality rates are still too high and safety improvements lag behind those of commerical aviation.  So called general aviation accounted for 91% of all aviation fatalities between 2002 and 2005.

The highest fatality rate is among single engine, fixed gear airplanes.  These accounted for 118 fatalities in 2006, down significantly from prior years.  Collision with terrain, wires or trees was the most common cause (52.5%), followed by loss of control (42.5%).

So, while flying a small plane is still riskier than watching football, general aviation is safer than traveling by car.  There are one tenth as many accidents per vehicle mile and the accident rate has steadily gone down since 1980.  Pilot training is a lot tougher than what is required for a driver’s license.   Aircraft is closely regulated, aircraft mechanics are certified and the NTSB reviews and publishes details about every reported accident.

So, while is is true that commerical airlines have a significantly better safety record than general aviation, it is also the case that flying your own small aircraft coast to coast (if you are a licensed, experienced pilot) is considerably safer than the same trip by car.

General Aviation, A Medical Lifeline

They’re called “Compassion Flights”, or “Angel Flights”. The FAA calls them “aeromedical services”.  It’s a sector of general aviation that you may not think about everyday.  But in an emergency, perhaps a car accident, it’s a sector that can save your life.

I live in a fairly remote area of coastal California where medical evacuation flights are common.   Near my home is a large soccor field where critically injured and ill patients are loaded into helicopters and taken to nearby trauma centers and hospitals by highly trained teams of pilots, paramedic and flight nurses.  Without this service many survivable automobile accidents might prove fatal because of delays in treatment.

Cancer and burn patients often need highly specialized care, available only in major urban medical centers. In many parts of  the world general aviation pilots work through charitable organizations to volunteer their time, money and aircraft to fly patients and their families between their homes and remote medical care facilities.

One well known organization “Doctors without Borders” routinely fly medical personel to small towns and communities where they provide much needed medical exams, innoculations and training to local doctors and nurses.  Currently,  Doctors without Borders is supporting health workers in northeastern Congo.  This is an area where violent attacks on the local population are frequent and travel by car is too dangerous.   So medical teams travel by plane to provide supplies and assistance to Congolese health workers.  After attacks, medical teams fly in to the area to help in evacuating and treating the wounded.

Another rapidly developing area of medical air transport is that of moving transplant organs.  Recently AirNet, a transport company known formerly mostly for shipping cancelled checks and other banking material made it’s first transplant kidney delivery from a donor in San Diego to a hospital in Miami.   

These are just a few of the ways the general aviation community continues to make the world a better and safer place for all of us.

General Aviation – Not Just a Bunch of Rich Guys in Private Jets

These days with high gas prices, the economy in the tank and global warming, flying a small plane might seem unwise, extravigant, or even downright unpatriotic to some.  But not so.

Some of the traditionally most patriotic, hardworking and thrifty folks in America are using small planes in record numbers to keep the economy moving and food on our tables.  That’s right, the American farmer uses general aviation aircraft to support many of their most basic day-to-day operations on the farm and ranch.

It is estimated that without agricultural use of small planes, America’s crop yield would drop up to 50%.  Remember the rice shortage last summer? 

To compensate for lost yield, farmers would have to put millions of acres of grassland and forests into production.  Nothing “Green” about that.

So what are these guys doing in the air anyhow?  Well, they are replanting fields and forests from the air.  For example, rice and rye grass can be planted this way.

Of course, fertilizer can be applied from the air, allowing huge areas to be teated in response to changing soil and weather conditions.

We’re all familiar with the old fashioned “crop duster”,  sometimes dusting our cars as we drive down the highway, in addition to the roadside fields.  Today, farmers use satellite navigation with specialized “Ag Sprayers”  to place precisely measured amounts of pesticides literally within inches of intended start-stop points.  This minimizes over-spray and the amount of chemical needed to optimize crop production.

Speaking of land and water management, small aircraft are used to survey cropland to identify areas which may be over-watered and to spot the earliest signs of insect damage or erosion, even in the toughest terrain.

We’ve all heard of the lifesaving food drops for cattle stranded in frozen fields in the mid-west.  In addition, sick or injured animals can be located and even evacuated for comprehensive treatment if necessary.

The next time you visit the grocery store, remember the general aviation pilots who make the variety and abundance of food we sometimes take for granted, possible.

Palo Alto Airport Connection with Mission Aviation Fellowship

A special mission of mercy originated from Palo Alto Airport in August this year.  A modified Cessna Grand Caravan took off on a 40 hour 5,500 mile flight to Sentani, Papua in Indonesia.  This single-engine aircraft will be handed off to Mission Aviation Fellowship, an organization which flies missionaries, medevacs and material to some of the hardest to reach places on earth.  

Redwood City resident Bill Leahy has been modifying and transporting planes for Mission Aviation Fellowship for nearly 10 years.  To prepare the Grand Caravan for the trip, Leahy designed and installed a pair of 250 gallon fuel cells, which combined with the plane’s twin 160 gallon tanks will keep it in the air for 18 hours.  Palo Alto Airport serves as a primary staging point for supplying the organization new aircraft. 

The Grand Caravan is capable of carrying 3,000 pounds of cargo plus a pair of pilots and 11 passengers.  This is an improvement on capacity over the Cessna 206s the organization has relied on for years.  In addition, the new fleet runs on “Jet A” fuel, a type of kerosene that is more affordable and available than “avgas” required by the smaller planes.  A gallon of avgas in Indonesia was selling for about $15 in August, nearly four times the price of Jet A fuel.  This is up from $2 per gallon just five years ago.

Mission Aviation Fellowship is headquartered in Nampa, Idaho.  The new plane will ultimately operate out of Tarakan, Kalimantan, transporting locals and cargo in the Krayan and Apokayan areas.  The air fleet is a critical lifeline for locals in an area where roads are scarce and few rivers are navigable.  Several medevac flights will take place every week, providing many their only way to medical treatment if they get sick.  For some it will be the difference between life and death.

This is one more example of the general aviation community, contributing to make the world a better place.  Those who want to close down our regional airports need to know there is more is going on here than just weekend jaunts for $100 hamburgers.

Mission Aviation Fellowship is a Christian organization and is always looking for aviation professionals who want to help.  You can find out more at www.maf.org/nampa.

Palo Alto Airport Links Trio of Recent Fatal Crashes

According to the Federal Aviation Administration there was no common denominator between three recent fatal airplane crashes.  A 41 year old neurosurgeon and new pilot flew a rented Cessna 172 at night and crashed in the hazardous Lake Tahoe region.  An experienced 38 year old pilot with his own airline transport business flew his Piper Navajo Chieftain into the garage of a two story home in Las Vegas.  A retired programmer, 60 years old, crashed his 1977 Socata Rallye into the California Highway Patrol building on Highway 101 in Gilroy.

There is no common denominator in age of pilot, level of experience, type of plane or location of the accident.  There is an unusual connection, however.  All three were among those piloting the aproximately 500 small aircraft that take off and land at the Palo Alto Airport each day.  One pilot was headed to Palo Alto, one took off from there and one lived nearby.

This loose connection to the airport in Palo Alto serves to highlight what most pilots take for granted.  Accidents do happen;  pilots make mistakes and machines break down.  Although three fatalities in one month with a connection to a single airport is unusual, it happens.  For most pilots flying is still far safer than driving.  You wouldn’t give up driving because thousands die every year on America’s highways.  No one is likely to park their plane because of a run of fatal crashes.  The price of fuel?  Now that’s another story.