Pilots: Is an Ercoupe model E qualified as Light Sport?

NMNA - I understand some do qualify, some don't. $15k.

They clean up nice if you don't mind the maintenance.

ercoupe.com/info_2.php

looks like the "E's" gross is 1400#s... so 80#s over max, iirc?  
 

edit:  maybe unless you can put it on some really light floats, and squeak under the 1430 limit for sea planes?

And... searching around for what the real limit is, I came across this AOPA article that LSA was maybe going to be increased to 3600#s?

https://www.avweb.com/ownership/lsa-weight-limit-increasing-to-3600-pounds-updated

Did that actually go through?  I feel like I would have heard/seen something about that if it did?

Not a pilot although I may change this eventually...

I believe the 415C does qualify as an LSA.

Although "annual just ran out" probably falls under the same heading as "just needs an easy fix" aka "the moneypit indicator".

In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :

I don't think that's actually gone through yet.

That's kind of interesting... I think I remember Langford talking about the possibility of that (increased gross and Vmax for LSA) back when he had his second Corvair engine-out?  Man, I don't even remember when that was!

Thanks guys.  Daydreaming really, I'm qualified for motor gliders which are being scarfed up by old pilots that can't pass the physical.  (not required for MG).  The buy in price for entry level motorgliders are sky rocketing because of this. 

Whatever the data plate for the empty weight is is what it weighs.  Regardless of what it actually weighs. Wouldn't you rather have an Airknocker, with, you know...rudder peddles?

I looked into this quite a bit when I was looking at getting my sport pilot license as I really like the ercoupe.  As noted above only the C models qualify under LSA currently unfortunately.

I have seen C models with an annual for not that much more that the E model linked above. Not that I was looking or anything.

i also believe that there is a way to convert them to rudder pedals, but I have no idea of the cost or effort involved. 

Appleseed said:

Wouldn't you rather have an Airknocker, with, you know...rudder peddles?

I get it...an airplane without rudder peddles is the automotive equivalent of having an automatic transmission.  Additionally, if you do your check ride in the plane, don't be surprised if you get a restriction on your license to only be allowed to fly rudderless planes which effectively means a Ercoupe.

However, there's an STC for conversion to rudder control and back when I was looking at them it seemed like a significant percent had already been converted.  As much as I'm a manual transmission type of person, these planes have seriously low payloads so even the few pounds required for the rudder STC matters just like the metalized wing STC matters (people do this as paying more to keep the plane out of the elements in a hanger is a hard sell on a 15K to 20K plane).

As I recall, one president of the Ercoupe Society actually died due to a failed takeoff attempt at a club event one year (IMHO, low payload accounts for nearly all of the reason why these planes are so inexpensive - not auto-coordinated rudders).

Let the plane be what it's supposed to be...cute, rankish open cockpit flying fun with your legs comfortably extended out in front of you.  If you've got kids, even more justification can be found as they can learn to fly before their legs are long enough to reach the rudder peddles.

Not to be a Debby Downer but one problem I do have with the design is that all of the fuel is held in a header tank behind the engine.  Basically, you've got a sandwich composed of:  hot engine - gas tank - electrical panel - pilot & passenger.  This scares me a lot...every plane I've ever flown had it's fuel out in the wings and standard pilot training is that if you're going to eat E36 M3, try to stick the nose between two trees or whatever so they get torn off and left behind you which both slows you down and keeps the fuel well away.

I love these planes, I can live with the automatic transmission (ops, auto-coordinated rudders), I'm not thrilled with the low payload but good planning can hold that in check, the real problem is that damn fuel just poised perfectly to be sprayed and ignited in my face. 

Still scanning motor gliders.  If the engine dies at 9,000 feet, you have more landing options with a higher L/D.  A friend has a Pipistrel Sirius, thing cruises at 120 mph!  It's quite comfortable but >$100k.  Another guy has a Lambada; I go to the gym, healthy for my age, but damn is that thing hard to get out of.

I've never looked into it, but there are homebuilt motorgliders.

Build it yourself

914Driver said:

They clean up nice if you don't mind the maintenance.

That one has the metal wing conversion.  The originals had fabric and then the FAA made a bad decision that all the planes had to have inspection holes cut into the wings to check for rot.  I don't think many had it, but a lot of planes got converted to metal wings after that.  They made the plane heavier and less responsive.

The Ercoupe, if in it's original guise, also has a unique license as their controls are different from all other planes.  Many were also converted to conventional controls.  The one I was learning on was such.

Those inspection ports are easy to install, I put a bunch in an Aeronca Champ.  For almost the same money I could find a Q-200 or similar but pretty set on a motor glider now.

I thought I remember you saying your wife wasn't a big fan of flying?  That was part of why you got rid of the last plane?

should you instead be looking at single-holers?

In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :

I would imagine he has friends.  At least one 

I have one. 

Wife's not uncomfortable flying once she knows I have time in the plane.  There were some issues and complications with the last plane and someone wanted it more than I did.

Edit:  If she'll fly with me in a plane with NO engine ......

In reply to 914Driver :

Gotcha, I might have misunderstood how that all went down.