Jump to content

Talk:ERCO Ercoupe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Too Many Specs?

[edit]

I'm not sure that three different specifications are really needed in this article. Why not pick one model? Uses too much space, and the specs aren't *that* different, are they? Guapovia 09:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not horribly different, no. I'm still trying to figure out how to make the distinction between models as development continued. Maybe a separate page such as List of Ercoupe specifications to illustrate differences, or perhaps just listing what changed between models chronologically. It's definitely a work in progress. McNeight 18:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should leave the specs in. Some models of the Ercoupe qualify it for use under the new Light sport aircraft certificates, and the specifications are why. I'll put some data in shortly to this effect (unless someone else does it first), it might help frame the specs data better. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?

[edit]

I'd like to suggest renaming this to Ercoupe )which is currently a redirect to here) as ERCO was one of a few companies that built this, and the current name is artificially restrictive. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know. I originally picked ERCO Ercoupe when rewriting the article because I didn't think that the name Ercoupe all by itself was notable enough, especially considering the airplane was renamed the Aircoupe after switching hands a few times. ERCO was the first and most prolific producer of the Ercoupe, so the article name followed a convention that was in place at one time (i.e. General Dynamics F-16 instead of Lockheed F-16). Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any concrete examples of this (General Dynamics F-16 is now a redirect to F-16 Fighting Falcon), and the Navion article seems to prove the opposite. So heck, be bold. McNeight 18:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing image?

[edit]

Can someone, who knows where the problem is, repair the entry that goes

File:NASM ERCO Ercoupe N15692.jpg
First production ERCO Ercoupe, N15692.
just at the heading ERCO Ercoup? Please. Lin (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armless pilot

[edit]

Jessica Cox, born without arms, flies an Ercoupe. http://youtube.com/watch?v=b2IqpPSF9-U&feature=related She also plays piano, surfs, is a Tae Kwon Do black belt and many other activities. Bizzybody (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Variants

[edit]

The variants part of the page is just that. They list the variants by manufactures and by individuals. The twin Erco is a variant that was just a display aircraft and never certifed. My addition of the Heusdens Erco was removed as not being significant and just a minor STC. I consider it a major modification. Putting a Lycoming in where a Continental engine came out is not just a bolt-in change. It required the making of a new engine mount,cowling, engine baffeling,exhaust system, and modification to the airbox and nosegear. Then going through the engine change approval process with the FAA is no minor feet( any engine change now days with the FAA is a major undertaking). Then going through the procss of getting the aircraft recertified is another major project( as before mentioned the twin Erco was not). I believe the Heusdens coupe should be listed, it is a variant. I can provide all the ref. that you will need.On a side note I do have factory pictures of the Erco factory modified lycoming coupe that could be added to the page.(Coupemanwi (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Why don't you provide a link to the documentation so we can evaluate it in detail. - Ahunt (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the FAA Web site and look up the STC under ERCO (Univair) it's right near the top. (Coupemanwi (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)) here is the FAA link to the STC page http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSTC.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet you will have to click on the U at the top, then click on Univair, the click on 415-d and scroll down to the STC that says Lycoming firewall forward install.(Coupemanwi (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

SA01697CH only appears to be valid for one aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be this link here: SA01697CH. The STC is only applicable to one individual aircraft "serial number 3502 ONLY", is only to swap the engine and prop, plus the mods needed to get it to fit and does not result in a new type designation (still a "Univair 415-D", not a "Heusdens Ercoupe"). It is not a significant enough change to be considered a variant. Adding text on every STC mod to the Ercoupe would be WP:TRIVIA. Basically this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, although I would certainly expect to see it on an aircraft type club website or similar resource. - Ahunt (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The twin coupe did not get recertified nor did it recieve a new type certification so remove that one also. The Lycoming STC is approved data and it can be replicated on any 415-D ERCO as long as it is done by the original modifier, with only a small amount of paperwork. The STC has not been done on other aircraft because of the cost. (Coupemanwi (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hum, thats not what the STC says it clearly only authorises the modification on one aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see were the made up name "Huesdens Erco" come from Mark Huesdens is the registered owner of 3502 or N2877H to give its reg. Interesting it is listed as a Ercoupe 415-C with a Lycoming O-235. MilborneOne (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is just an engine swap on one specific aircraft, not a variant and not notable. It is not the FAA paperwork or lack thereof that makes a variant, it is the degree of change to the basic design - the Twin Coupe is a far more major modification. Also the Twin Coupe has been covered by the aviation press as per WP:N and cited in the article refs, whereas this STC mod has not. - Ahunt (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you have never done a major alteration.The Faa considered this more than a major alteration and required the extra work and the STC paperwork to be done. They also required flight tests the main one was a Vd test to prove that the major changes to the airframe did not produce any negitive effects. The meaning of approved data is just that, it's approved and can be done again, the paperwork (approved data) is stamped that it can only be used for replication when it is done by the original modifier. The aircraft has been in the national Ercoupe news letter many times and in the EAA Vintage magazine 11-2004. I know that you do not consider this a variant but many other people do. There are many other aircraft that just had engine changes and the manufactures gave them different model numbers, especially in military aircraft.(Coupemanwi (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I am quite familiar with mod requirements, as I have built aircraft and also was on the Transport Canada committee that created the airworthiness regs from 2000-2007 and was test pilot for a couple of decades as well. It isn't the volume of paperwork or whether the FAA considers is a "major mod" that makes a modification notable in this encyclopedia. The aircraft's designation remains the same and the FAA don't even consider it a variant for airworthiness purposes. It is a 415-D with a Lycoming engine installed under an STC, not a new model. That said, in the spirit of compromise, since this is a modified ERCO 415-D, I have added a note on this STC and the engine fitted to the article in the ERCO 415-D section, as shown here. How is that?- Ahunt (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compromise. I know that you do not consider this a variant, we just have different veiws. A manufacturer can make some small change and then call it a different model. Example, the real small amount of changes to convert a 415-C to a 415-D. Depending on serial number these changes can be done in a matter of hours. Compare these small changes to the great amount of work that an engine change requires. I'm sorry but I'm not the manufacturer and I can not designate a new model designation to meet the criteria of this encyclopedia. If a engine change is done by a manufacturer they would have given it a new designation,it may be as simple as a different dash number, even for a single example. Thank you for discussing the topic, we just disagree. This is the first time that I have had an objection to a post.(Coupemanwi (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Disagreements over content is a common way in which discussions start and build the encyclopedia from there, as explained in WP:BRD. It is just part of the process! - Ahunt (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Hunt Thank you for the nice reply. I know you must be getting tired of me. But I have a good example of just an engine change that ended up as a variant with a completely different model number. It's one of my favorite aircraft I hope you like it. It's right here in WP and it's called a variant in the text. It's a variant of the Boeing B-17, it's the Boeing XB-38. It sure is sweet looking with those engines and cowls, too bad they didn't put Merlins in instead. (Coupemanwi (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:ERCO Ercoupe/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs some hardcore editing; many of the lists should be moved to their own pages. Also, has three different specifications sections; if possible, this should be winnowed down to one. Karl Dickman talk 06:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 06:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 13:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ERCO Ercoupe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on ERCO Ercoupe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ERCO Ercoupe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ERCO_Ercoupe&oldid=1196276051"