Bob Urban wrote:

>> I asked the question publicly only because you did publish the 
"don't fly SIGNIFICANTLY over gross" publicly and attribute this to
Mr Weick to boot. 

My point really is that "don't fly SIGNIFICANTLY over gross" should
NEVER ever appear in print in the first place by a responsible person. 

Reading your post again seems to credit Mr. WEICK  with saying words
to that effect although you do not use quotes. If this really was said
by Mr. Weick, it might be best to keep it "off the record". <<

Apologies, all.

My paragraph an earlier message to Bob was faulty.  The statement by
Fred was the first sentance.  The remaining sentences were my own.  I
was definitely wrong in not separating them completely.  That paragraph
I wrote was:

> Fred Weick, the designer, told me once that he had underestimated
> the importance of good judgement to go with skill and good plane
> design. Don't run into hills, don't continue VFR into IFR 
> conditions, don't fly significantly over gross and don't fly 
> VFR at night when there's a chance you could get into a cloud 
> and Coupes will do very well for your safety.

Fred and others made the point that, if you are flying over gross you
are a test pilot.  Fred also told me he had underestimated the
importance of good judgment.  He cited as examples scud runners who flew
into hills or lost control.  

I put in the qualifier about flying "significantly" over gross because I
have seen a lot of Coupers fly with everything that will fit starting
with two portly adult males.  On a 415-C certificated with a max gross
of 1260 lbs, you see a lot of people going over gross. They start with a
900 lb airplane, add 144 pounds of fuel and a pilot and oops.

I'd _far_ rather see those people install the "D" STC even with the
faults of the 9 degree limited elevator or, even better, get their
elevator rebuilt to be a split elevator for real improved safety.

I think that flying overgross is unwise because of the squirly behavior
Fred told me about on the full-power stall.

Bob also wrote:

>> From your additional info here in this post, it appears that the
Ercoupe 
needs to stay within certified limits more than most other aircraft
given that there is no 3 control system to prevent spins from developing
from 
being over gross. <<

Three controls don't prevent spins, rather they cause them.  Having
three controls may get you out of a spin faster, I don't know since I've
never done any extensive spin testing.  Nor has anyone _I've_ ever met
other than Fred Weick.

However, if you were to get a sharp break in a within-gross stall with a
spin entry in a two-control Coupe, recovery should not be that difficult
-- just release the back pressure on the controls.  Once the angle of
attack reduces, you will be in coordinated flight.  Provided it doesn't
happen too close to the ground.  It is possible to stall a Coupe and get
a short spin entry by doing a hammer-head stall.  But a correctly rigged
Coupe, within its limits is not supposed to be capable of being _held_
in the stall/spin even with bad control inputs.

Over gross, incorrect rigging, etc., and all bets are off.  I think
you'd have a good chance of recovery if you relaxed back pressure but I
am NOT planning to be a test pilot.  A lot of people get turned down on
ride offers by me because I have too much fuel in the tanks and my
personal weight is 250.

So, no, I don't think Coupes have any more to worry about flying
over-gross than other planes.  But anyone who does it needs to realize
it's unwise.
Finally, Bob finished with:

>> <quoting me> "Point #1:  If you fly over certified gross in any
airplane, then you
are a test pilot flying an untested plane."

>> I don't mean to be argumentative, but I am upset about this kind of BS!
<<

Which of my statements did you think were BS, Bob?

P.S. I'm sorry you thought I was just giving you a private post of my
earlier gross weight answer. I have to do something special to change
the address from being just yours to being the lists' and I forgot at
first.  Then I immediately reposted it to the list.

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>

Reply via email to