Talk:ERCO Ercoupe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Aircraft WikiProject

[edit] Too Many Specs?

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Rename?

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)

• 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)

[edit] Missing image?

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

just at the heading ERCO Ercoup? Please. Lin (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)