----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
I am in the same situation as Larry. I have my Sport Pilot and let my medical laps. However, I just got my medical back, thinking of finishing my private in order to fly bigger airplanes. That is when my wife (who fly's with me most of the time) reminded me, that if we were renting a 4 place airplane that chances are the two people in back would be just along for the ride anyway. That the two paying customers would still be in the front seats. The medical examiner didn't know how to handle my case. He called the FAA to confirm that even though I have a Sport license, he still needed to issue me the Student/medical certificate, rather than a standard 3rd class. When I commented that I really didn't need the medical to fly my airplane. He stated "But you can't fly anything else". So I asked, don't you own a C172? "When was the last time he had flown someone else's airplane? Point is we are happy with our Coupe and are still rethinking moving to something bigger that costs a lot more to fly. I understand that there are only about 500 Sport Pilot's so far. However, I am one of them and I mentor those I introduce to aviation to exercise their options. Don Myers N99729 (Coupe 729) The Myers' Fly often and Fly Safe -----Original Message----- From: Ercoupe Hangar Flying [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 2:00 AM To: Ercoupe Hangar Flying Subject: Digest list: Ercoupe Hangar Flying ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]---- Message list: 1. [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: [COUPERS-TECH] LSA for a 415D (from Tech list) 2. [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: Digest list: Ercoupe Hangar Flying 3. Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: Digest list: Ercoupe Hangar Flying 4. [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: LSA for a 415-D 5. Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: [COUPERS-TECH] LSA for a 415D (from Tech list) 6. [COUPERS-FLYIN] Off Off topic 7. Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: LSA for a 415-D 8. Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: LSA for a 415-D 9. Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: LSA for a 415-D 10. [COUPERS-FLYIN] Congratulations to John Craparo 11. Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: LSA for a 415-D 12. Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: LSA for a 415-D 13. [COUPERS-FLYIN] Bob & Honey 14. Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Bob & Honey 15. Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Bob & Honey 16. Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Bob & Honey 17. Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Bob & Honey 18. Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Bob & Honey 19. Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: LSA for a 415-D 20. RE: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: LSA for a 415-D Messages: From: Larry Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Reply-To: Larry Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: [COUPERS-TECH] LSA for a 415D (from Tech list) You know, most pilots I know consider Sport Pilot to be the place where old Private Pilots go to die, not as an exciting new rating that will bring lots of new pilots on board. I think there is considerable fear that if the gross weight of an LSA was raised to 1600#, we would wildly increase the number of Private Pilots with expired medicals, who know they can't get another one, flying as Sport Pilots. Perhaps not the best thing for the safety of our skies. I vacillate between thinking that they should raise the limit and shouldn't. Right now I'm flying as a Sport Pilot, since my medical expired a couple of months ago. I'm getting it renewed, and should have it by the end of this month. But I get to fly my plane today - something I wouldn't get to do if I were flying a C150. But actually, I'm getting my medical just so I can fly at night, not necessarily because I want to fly something bigger. It would be really neat if we could find out the number of people holding Private Pilot licenses who are flying as Sport Pilots. Larry N99340 ---------------------------- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ercoupe Hangar Flying" <[email protected]> Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: Digest list: Ercoupe Hangar Flying Don Good idea with the mirror to see your 6. Also good to see if your are drooling! Glen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ercoupe Hangar Flying" <[email protected]> To: "Ercoupe Hangar Flying" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 3:00 AM Subject: Digest list: Ercoupe Hangar Flying > ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any > advice in this forum.]---- > > > Message list: > > 1. RE: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: Flyboys (Tri-Plane Question) > 2. [COUPERS-FLYIN] FLYBOYS & silk scarves > 3. [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: Digest list: Ercoupe Hangar Flying > 4. Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] FLYBOYS & silk scarves > > Messages: > > From: "Jeffrey R. Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Ercoupe Hangar Flying'" <[email protected]> > Reply-To: "Jeffrey R. Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: Flyboys (Tri-Plane Question) > >>Why did the mono-wing so quickly dominate? There must be a physical > quality in the chocolate bar wing (a la Ercoupe) that overcomes all > else.....But, what is it? > > > There are actually two reasons I can think of to explain why a mono-wing > is > more efficient aerodynamically than a bi-plane or a tri-plane (or any > number > of stacked wings if you're really ambitious). The primary reason has to > do > with wing tip vortices. Think about a wing this way - there's high > pressure > air on the lower surface, and low pressure air on the top surface (I'm > sure > most pilots already know this). Out at the wing tips, since there's > nothing > there to block it, that high pressure air can "leak" aroud the tip and > flow > up around to the top surface. That's what creates the wing tip vortex. > As > you can imagine, if air is leaking around the tip, it's not doing its job > of > pushing up on the wing, so the vortex reduces the efficiency of the wing. > That's why for a given wing area, high aspect ratio wings (sail planes) > are > more efficient than low aspect ratio wings (F-104) - less of the wing is > being affected by the wing tip vortex. That's also the reason why for a > given wing area, a monoplane is more efficient that a bi-plane or > tri-plane > - not as many wing tips to create vortices. This is also the reason for > different wing tip designs, such as the winglets on airliners, or the > Hoerner wing tips on general aviation aircraft. I've got a decent picture > of a wing tip vortex on my personal website, from some wind tunnel testing > I > did back in college, if anyone's interested: > http://www.jefflewis.net/graphics/aircraft/aerodesign_P0001840.html > > The other reason why bi-planes are less efficient aerodynamically is less > of > a factor, and can be minimized with proper design, but it's still there. > And it's just basically that the wings interfere with each other. Wings > don't just affect the air in their immediate vicinity - they deflect the > air > for a decent ways above and below them. (Here's another picture from my > website, where we put the smoke wand a little higher above the wing, and > you > can still see the air being deflected: > http://www.jefflewis.net/graphics/aircraft/aerodesign_P0001845.html). So, > if you have wings stacked, they'll interfere with each other in that way. > > So, that takes care of the aerodynamics, but everything's always a trade > off. Someone already brought up roll rate - the longer your wings, the > higher your inertia, so a bi-plane/tri-plane will give you better roll > maneuverability than a high aspect ratio monoplane of the same wing area. > Another trade-off is structural weight. A bi-plane with the struts and > braces connecting the wings can be made pretty structurally efficient, and > weigh a good deal less than a mono-plane of the same wing area. So, it > becomes a question of, is the increased aerodynamic efficiency of a > mono-plane worth the increased weight. In general, at the speeds most > aircraft fly at today, the answer is yes. At the speeds aircraft were > flying back in WWI, with the materials they had to build their aircraft > out > of, the bi-plane was probably the better option. > > Disclaimer: The above discussion was regarding subsonic flow. Once you go > faster than the speed of sound and get shock waves, the aerodynamics > associated with the shock waves becomes a big consideration, and > low-aspect > ratio wings start to look more appealing. > > -Jeff Lewis > > > > ---------------------------- > From: "DONALD BOWEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "FLYIN" <[email protected]> > Reply-To: "DONALD BOWEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] FLYBOYS & silk scarves > > There was a scene in FLYBOYS wherein the French flight instructor > described use of the long, flowing silk scarves to the new American > fighter pilot wannabes. He said "this isn't just to impress chicks, it > keeps your neck from becoming abraided/damaged by all the head turning > required in flight". The enemy force usually tried to descend on the > opposing force from above and out of the sun. Keeping your neck "on a > swivel" was mandatory. Last weekend I flew in company with a pilot in a > BONANZA. he attempted to stay in trail behind my ALON while I "pedaled as > fast as I could" @ 2475 rpm/108 mph. He was back there for more than an > hour, but I never saw him. My arthritic neck bones don't swivel so good > these days. Today I purchased a small ladies' mirror at the local Dollar > Store. it is only 2 1/2" x 3 1/2 " with a short handle. I tried it in > flight and was amazed at what I could see back there between my rudders > and off to the right and left and above and below!! From now on, I'll > never leave home without it! I'll save the silk scarf to impress the > chicks at the retirement home! > > Don Bowen > > ---------------------------- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [email protected] > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: Digest list: Ercoupe Hangar Flying > > Kim, > > If you want to come to Florida for a few weeks I know a GREAT CFI who > knows > a 415C very well! > > Mark > N2021H > > > ---------------------------- > From: ght <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Reply-To: ght <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] FLYBOYS & silk scarves > > Don, > > What a super an inexpensive way to solve a problem! I > always wondered if a small mirror would work. > > As for the silk scarf, don't wait until you're ready > for the retirement home. Wear it at the airport for > sauntering around, leaning against your plane, and > relaxing in the pilots' lounge. I'm positive that some > of the women will want to know who the handsome guy > with the classy white silk scarf is. :-) > > Spook > > --- DONALD BOWEN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> good these days. Today I purchased a small ladies' >> mirror at the local Dollar Store. it is only 2 1/2" >> x 3 1/2 " with a short handle. I tried it in flight >> and was amazed at what I could see back there >> between my rudders and off to the right and left and >> above and below!! From now on, I'll never leave home >> without it! I'll save the silk scarf to impress the >> chicks at the retirement home! >> >> Don Bowen > > > ---------------------------- > > > ============================================================================ == > To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm > > ---------------------------- From: "Wayne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ercoupe Hangar Flying" <[email protected]> Reply-To: "Wayne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: Digest list: Ercoupe Hangar Flying Don:: I have always had a small panoramic mirror mounted in the middle of the glare shield of my Alon. The necessity came to light when under positive airspace control a controller reported to me that I had another "target, half mile, approaching at my 6 O:clock, altitude unknown, closure rate of 75 MPH!" Scared the h--- outa me, especially when I could not see it visually. I did a 90 degree right turn, informed the controller, and spotted Bonanza overtaking me from behind, totally oblivious of me, and the airspace they were in! My next modification:: Turn Signals! Wayne Woollard ---- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ercoupe Hangar Flying" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 5:41 AM Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: Digest list: Ercoupe Hangar Flying > ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any > advice in this forum.]---- > > > Don > > Good idea with the mirror to see your 6. Also good to see if your are > drooling! > > Glen > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ercoupe Hangar Flying" <[email protected]> > To: "Ercoupe Hangar Flying" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 3:00 AM > Subject: Digest list: Ercoupe Hangar Flying > > >> ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any >> advice in this forum.]---- >> >> >> Message list: >> >> 1. RE: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: Flyboys (Tri-Plane Question) >> 2. [COUPERS-FLYIN] FLYBOYS & silk scarves >> 3. [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: Digest list: Ercoupe Hangar Flying >> 4. Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] FLYBOYS & silk scarves >> >> Messages: >> >> From: "Jeffrey R. Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "'Ercoupe Hangar Flying'" <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: "Jeffrey R. Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: RE: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: Flyboys (Tri-Plane Question) >> >>>Why did the mono-wing so quickly dominate? There must be a physical >> quality in the chocolate bar wing (a la Ercoupe) that overcomes all >> else.....But, what is it? >> >> >> There are actually two reasons I can think of to explain why a mono-wing >> is >> more efficient aerodynamically than a bi-plane or a tri-plane (or any >> number >> of stacked wings if you're really ambitious). The primary reason has to >> do >> with wing tip vortices. Think about a wing this way - there's high >> pressure >> air on the lower surface, and low pressure air on the top surface (I'm >> sure >> most pilots already know this). Out at the wing tips, since there's >> nothing >> there to block it, that high pressure air can "leak" aroud the tip and >> flow >> up around to the top surface. That's what creates the wing tip vortex. >> As >> you can imagine, if air is leaking around the tip, it's not doing its job >> of >> pushing up on the wing, so the vortex reduces the efficiency of the wing. >> That's why for a given wing area, high aspect ratio wings (sail planes) >> are >> more efficient than low aspect ratio wings (F-104) - less of the wing is >> being affected by the wing tip vortex. That's also the reason why for a >> given wing area, a monoplane is more efficient that a bi-plane or >> tri-plane >> - not as many wing tips to create vortices. This is also the reason for >> different wing tip designs, such as the winglets on airliners, or the >> Hoerner wing tips on general aviation aircraft. I've got a decent >> picture >> of a wing tip vortex on my personal website, from some wind tunnel >> testing I >> did back in college, if anyone's interested: >> http://www.jefflewis.net/graphics/aircraft/aerodesign_P0001840.html >> >> The other reason why bi-planes are less efficient aerodynamically is less >> of >> a factor, and can be minimized with proper design, but it's still there. >> And it's just basically that the wings interfere with each other. Wings >> don't just affect the air in their immediate vicinity - they deflect the >> air >> for a decent ways above and below them. (Here's another picture from my >> website, where we put the smoke wand a little higher above the wing, and >> you >> can still see the air being deflected: >> http://www.jefflewis.net/graphics/aircraft/aerodesign_P0001845.html). >> So, >> if you have wings stacked, they'll interfere with each other in that way. >> >> So, that takes care of the aerodynamics, but everything's always a trade >> off. Someone already brought up roll rate - the longer your wings, the >> higher your inertia, so a bi-plane/tri-plane will give you better roll >> maneuverability than a high aspect ratio monoplane of the same wing area. >> Another trade-off is structural weight. A bi-plane with the struts and >> braces connecting the wings can be made pretty structurally efficient, >> and >> weigh a good deal less than a mono-plane of the same wing area. So, it >> becomes a question of, is the increased aerodynamic efficiency of a >> mono-plane worth the increased weight. In general, at the speeds most >> aircraft fly at today, the answer is yes. At the speeds aircraft were >> flying back in WWI, with the materials they had to build their aircraft >> out >> of, the bi-plane was probably the better option. >> >> Disclaimer: The above discussion was regarding subsonic flow. Once you >> go >> faster than the speed of sound and get shock waves, the aerodynamics >> associated with the shock waves becomes a big consideration, and >> low-aspect >> ratio wings start to look more appealing. >> >> -Jeff Lewis >> >> >> >> ---------------------------- >> From: "DONALD BOWEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "FLYIN" <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: "DONALD BOWEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] FLYBOYS & silk scarves >> >> There was a scene in FLYBOYS wherein the French flight instructor >> described use of the long, flowing silk scarves to the new American >> fighter pilot wannabes. He said "this isn't just to impress chicks, it >> keeps your neck from becoming abraided/damaged by all the head turning >> required in flight". The enemy force usually tried to descend on the >> opposing force from above and out of the sun. Keeping your neck "on a >> swivel" was mandatory. Last weekend I flew in company with a pilot in a >> BONANZA. he attempted to stay in trail behind my ALON while I "pedaled as >> fast as I could" @ 2475 rpm/108 mph. He was back there for more than an >> hour, but I never saw him. My arthritic neck bones don't swivel so good >> these days. Today I purchased a small ladies' mirror at the local Dollar >> Store. it is only 2 1/2" x 3 1/2 " with a short handle. I tried it in >> flight and was amazed at what I could see back there between my rudders >> and off to the right and left and above and below!! From now on, I'll >> never leave home without it! I'll save the silk scarf to impress the >> chicks at the retirement home! >> >> Don Bowen >> >> ---------------------------- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> To: [email protected] >> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: Digest list: Ercoupe Hangar Flying >> >> Kim, >> >> If you want to come to Florida for a few weeks I know a GREAT CFI who >> knows >> a 415C very well! >> >> Mark >> N2021H >> >> >> ---------------------------- >> From: ght <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: [email protected] >> Reply-To: ght <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] FLYBOYS & silk scarves >> >> Don, >> >> What a super an inexpensive way to solve a problem! I >> always wondered if a small mirror would work. >> >> As for the silk scarf, don't wait until you're ready >> for the retirement home. Wear it at the airport for >> sauntering around, leaning against your plane, and >> relaxing in the pilots' lounge. I'm positive that some >> of the women will want to know who the handsome guy >> with the classy white silk scarf is. :-) >> >> Spook >> >> --- DONALD BOWEN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> good these days. Today I purchased a small ladies' >>> mirror at the local Dollar Store. it is only 2 1/2" >>> x 3 1/2 " with a short handle. I tried it in flight >>> and was amazed at what I could see back there >>> between my rudders and off to the right and left and >>> above and below!! From now on, I'll never leave home >>> without it! I'll save the silk scarf to impress the >>> chicks at the retirement home! >>> >>> Don Bowen >> >> >> ---------------------------- >> >> >> ============================================================================ == >> To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm >> >> > > ============================================================================ == > To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm > ---------------------------- From: Sydney Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Ercoupe Hangar Flying <[email protected]> Reply-To: Sydney Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: LSA for a 415-D Hoo, hoo, Al, good one. I can always count on you to make a ridiculous statement to brighten up my day. As usual, you are barking up the wrong tree. I'm not going to debate you on this issue; I don't have the time. I suggest that you send your email to my friend Joe Norris at EAA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] who actually was on the committee that wrote the Sport Pilot rules. He can clarify the weight limit issue for you, and he's paid to deal with silly questions and statements. (Sorry, gang, I'm not usually so sarcastic, but this one really got me.) Syd A DeMarzo wrote: > In my opinion, the lack of rectifying this problem with the converted > 415D's, rests squarely on the shoulders of the EOC. A strong type > club, one that works with the certificate holder, FAA, EAA and AOPA on > a regular basis would have been the answer to this dilemma. Instead > we sit here complaining to each other about how we're treated and send > in money primarily to subscribe to a newsletter. > > > > ---------------------------- From: "Greg B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Larry Snyder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[email protected]> Reply-To: "Greg B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: [COUPERS-TECH] LSA for a 415D (from Tech list) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Snyder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > It would be really neat if we could find out the number of people holding > Private Pilot licenses who are flying as Sport Pilots. I think it would be hard to determine a 'real' number. I have flown mine under SP rules, not because my medical was expired, but because I wasn't carrying a current medical with me at times while flying. The problem with trying to find that number is that there are records of how many (registered) pilots that don't have current medicals but there isn't any number available of how many are still flying. And there are still people flying that don't even have a pilot certificate... -Greg B. N93332 ---------------------------- From: John Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: John Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Off Off topic Anyone close enough to Edgewater, FL and willing to do me a favor? John Cooper, A&P Skyport Services PO Box 249 4996 Delaware Tnpk Rensselaerville, NY 12147 518 797-3064 Fax 518 797-3865 www.skyportservices.net ---------------------------- From: "A DeMarzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ercoupe Hangar Flying" <[email protected]> Reply-To: "A DeMarzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: LSA for a 415-D Hi Syd; How are things up there? You won't debate because you really don't have the ammo, if you stick to the issues/opinions of which I wrote. I'd love to see anything that can contradict it, please prove me wrong or inaccurate. Obviously your perception of what can and should be done varies greatly from mine, which is evident by our past conversations. Not a fault mind you, but in order to fend for ourselves we need real warriors out there. Where do we get them? Hell, I don't know, but we sure need them! I don't have a problem with the weight rules or the folks who wrote it, I never mentioned that, so please focus on what I'm saying. You're pretty good at spinning. I am a bit apprehensive of the Sport Rule in general, but we need to make the best of things that have come about. We're enjoying a resurgence of our airplanes, prices have climbed and as I noted, I can see more thorough maintenance practices being adhered to. Hate to say this, but there are folks out there that are not part of the solution, they're actually part of the problem. I would hate to think someone as dedicated and talented as you as in the latter. AL ----- Original Message ----- From: Sydney Cohen To: Ercoupe Hangar Flying Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 10:09 AM Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: LSA for a 415-D ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]---- Hoo, hoo, Al, good one. I can always count on you to make a ridiculous statement to brighten up my day. As usual, you are barking up the wrong tree. I'm not going to debate you on this issue; I don't have the time. I suggest that you send your email to my friend Joe Norris at EAA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] who actually was on the committee that wrote the Sport Pilot rules. He can clarify the weight limit issue for you, and he's paid to deal with silly questions and statements. (Sorry, gang, I'm not usually so sarcastic, but this one really got me.) Syd A DeMarzo wrote: In my opinion, the lack of rectifying this problem with the converted 415D's, rests squarely on the shoulders of the EOC. A strong type club, one that works with the certificate holder, FAA, EAA and AOPA on a regular basis would have been the answer to this dilemma. Instead we sit here complaining to each other about how we're treated and send in money primarily to subscribe to a newsletter. ============================================================================ == To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm ---------------------------- From: John Roach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: A DeMarzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: John Roach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: LSA for a 415-D Al, Syd does have an important point. The FAA decided to make the rule the way it was made. The rule had been under discussion for quite a while. If I remember correctly, the weight limit was changed upward from the original proposal. The decision to not allow certificated aircraft to download gross weight and still be sport pilot eligible was debated as well. In debates, someone always wins and someone always looses. The final decision was up to the FAA. And, like it or not, their decision stands. Perhaps a more aggressive approach by the EOC would have made a difference. But to be realistic, it is much more probable that it would not have changed the FAAs decision. I personally think that the EAA would have liked to see this part of the decision go the other way. And, the EAA has a lot more impact on the FAA than the EOC and probably more than any of the type clubs or even all of them together. Ercoupes are not the only aircraft affected by this part of the rule. The rule can be criticized by any of us. But, in the long run, it's a lot better than no sport pilot rule. John Roach N 2427H [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]---- > > > > Hi Syd; > How are things up there? > > You won't debate because you really don't have the ammo, if you stick > to the > issues/opinions of which I wrote. I'd love to see anything that can > contradict it, please prove me wrong or inaccurate. Obviously your > perception of what can and should be done varies greatly from mine.... ---------------------------- From: "A DeMarzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Reply-To: "A DeMarzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: LSA for a 415-D Hi John; Thanks for the email. He's a good guy and absolutely does make a valid point, albeit off my subject. My contention is that a keen observer, not someone from AOPA or EAA, who knows the Ercoupe and what the D Model mod was, should have picked up on the wording and spoken up. It didn't happen, so we're living with the rule, and so be it. I'm not looking to start a suit with the Fed but rather very disappointed because it didn't happen. I realize why it didn't happen, thus my latest in a long line of criticism of the alleged type club. I'm always wondering how many other airplanes this paragraph affects. Not really interested in just the ones who are looking to somehow downgrade their GW to fit, but how many other models out there have an STC to increase their GW with only an adjustment. I'm also wondering if the rule was actually intended to prohibit those airplanes that have extensive mods done in order to improve the gross weight. Case in point, the Bonanza, of which I'm a bit familiar with. Among other mods, if you add tip tanks, your GW is increased by 100 lbs. If you remove them, you loose the GW. Please don't think that I'm suggesting the Bo is included in Sportie, I'm only trying to make a point. Maybe floats, or bigger engines or something like that. So I guess what I would like to know is simply, how many other models of aircraft, that were built with a GW that allows them the pleasure of fitting into the Sport Rule, have a non structural STC to increase the weight. An additional and even better question would be why would an a/c who actually had the reverse mod in the past also be prohibited from Sport? An enterprising person with the right connections could maybe offer up an STC to do the reverse and have it blessed. The D Model crowd may buy into it with both wallets! Al -- Original Message ----- From: "John Roach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "A DeMarzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Ercoupe Hangar Flying" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: LSA for a 415-D > Al, > Syd does have an important point. The FAA decided to make the rule the way > it was made. The rule had been under discussion for quite a while. If I > remember correctly, the weight limit was changed upward from the original > proposal. The decision to not allow certificated aircraft to download > gross weight and still be sport pilot eligible was debated as well. In > debates, someone always wins and someone always looses. The final decision > was up to the FAA. And, like it or not, their decision stands. Perhaps a > more aggressive approach by the EOC would have made a difference. But to > be realistic, it is much more probable that it would not have changed the > FAAs decision. I personally think that the EAA would have liked to see > this part of the decision go the other way. And, the EAA has a lot more > impact on the FAA than the EOC and probably more than any of the type > clubs or even all of them together. Ercoupes are not the only aircraft > affected by this part of the rule. The rule can be criticized by any of > us. But, in the long run, it's a lot better than no sport pilot rule. > > John Roach > N 2427H ---------------------------- From: "Paul M. Anton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: "Paul M. Anton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Congratulations to John Craparo Hi John: Congratulations on the nice article in the latest Sport Aviation Nice looking Coupe !!!! Paul N1431A ---------------------------- From: Sydney Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Reply-To: Sydney Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: LSA for a 415-D Al, As I said before, quit wondering and contact Joe Norris at EAA. He can tell you all about it. His email is [EMAIL PROTECTED] And please quit blaming the EOC for everything that you don't understand. Syd A DeMarzo wrote: > I'm always wondering how many other airplanes this paragraph affects. > Not really interested in just the ones who are looking to somehow > downgrade their GW to fit, but how many other models out there have an > STC to increase their GW with only an adjustment. I'm also wondering > if the rule was actually intended to prohibit those airplanes that > have extensive mods done in order to improve the gross weight. Case > in point, the Bonanza, of which I'm a bit familiar with. Among other > mods, if you add tip tanks, your GW is increased by 100 lbs. If you > remove them, you loose the GW. Please don't think that I'm suggesting > the Bo is included in Sportie, I'm only trying to make a point. Maybe > floats, or bigger engines or something like that. > > So I guess what I would like to know is simply, how many other models > of aircraft, that were built with a GW that allows them the pleasure > of fitting into the Sport Rule, have a non structural STC to increase > the weight. An additional and even better question would be why would > an a/c who actually had the reverse mod in the past also be prohibited > from Sport? An enterprising person with the right connections could > maybe offer up an STC to do the reverse and have it blessed. The D > Model crowd may buy into it with both wallets! > > Al > ---------------------------- From: "A DeMarzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Reply-To: "A DeMarzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: LSA for a 415-D Syd; Hey Syd; Can you answer my questions yourself? I don't need to understand anything to justify my feelings about the EOC. They are what they are, based on many years of facts. <A whole bunch of great stuff snipped after typing.> You mentioned that the current director said he was stepping down and wanted the area directors to replace him. Finally there's an opportunity to put someone in place that cares about Ercoupes and Ercoupers. You have the power to make it right. Make it so I can't complain. In other words maybe it's time to shake all of the old blood off their cans and get them moving. And as I may have alluded to, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Finally, if you would like to continue this discussion on the email list, my next communication with you will be to ask what the club has done for its members in the last 10 years. ---- Original Message ----- From: "Sydney Cohen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Ercoupe Hangar Flying" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 6:31 PM Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: LSA for a 415-D > ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any > advice in this forum.]---- > > > Al, > As I said before, quit wondering and contact Joe Norris at EAA. He can > tell you all about it. His email is [EMAIL PROTECTED] And please quit > blaming the EOC for everything that you don't understand. > > Syd > > > A DeMarzo wrote: > >> I'm always wondering how many other airplanes this paragraph affects. >> Not really interested in just the ones who are looking to somehow >> downgrade their GW to fit, but how many other models out there have an >> STC to increase their GW with only an adjustment. I'm also wondering if >> the rule was actually intended to prohibit those airplanes that have >> extensive mods done in order to improve the gross weight. Case in point, >> the Bonanza, of which I'm a bit familiar with. Among other mods, if you >> add tip tanks, your GW is increased by 100 lbs. If you remove them, you >> loose the GW. Please don't think that I'm suggesting the Bo is included >> in Sportie, I'm only trying to make a point. Maybe floats, or bigger >> engines or something like that. >> >> So I guess what I would like to know is simply, how many other models of >> aircraft, that were built with a GW that allows them the pleasure of >> fitting into the Sport Rule, have a non structural STC to increase the >> weight. An additional and even better question would be why would an a/c >> who actually had the reverse mod in the past also be prohibited from >> Sport? An enterprising person with the right connections could maybe >> offer up an STC to do the reverse and have it blessed. The D Model crowd >> may buy into it with both wallets! >> >> Al >> > ============================================================================ == > To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm > > ---------------------------- From: "Tommy Terry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: "Tommy Terry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Bob & Honey Has anyone heard from them since they allegedly took off last Sunday? Tommy N93929 ---------------------------- From: "Dan Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tommy Terry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[email protected]> Reply-To: "Dan Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Bob & Honey I have not heard anything and was really hoping to be able to follow his journey..... Regards, Dan Hall Region 7 (CA) ----- Original Message ----- From: Tommy Terry To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 7:26 PM Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Bob & Honey ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]---- Has anyone heard from them since they allegedly took off last Sunday? Tommy N93929 ============================================================================ == To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm ---------------------------- From: "Dan Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tommy Terry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[email protected]> Reply-To: "Dan Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Bob & Honey I have not heard anything and was really hoping to be able to follow his journey..... Regards, Dan Hall Region 7 (CA) ----- Original Message ----- From: Tommy Terry To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 7:26 PM Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Bob & Honey ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]---- Has anyone heard from them since they allegedly took off last Sunday? Tommy N93929 ============================================================================ == To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm ---------------------------- From: "Dan Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tommy Terry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[email protected]> Reply-To: "Dan Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Bob & Honey I have not heard anything and was really hoping to be able to follow his journey..... Regards, Dan Hall Region 7 (CA) ----- Original Message ----- From: Tommy Terry To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 7:26 PM Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Bob & Honey ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]---- Has anyone heard from them since they allegedly took off last Sunday? Tommy N93929 ============================================================================ == To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm ---------------------------- From: "Dan Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tommy Terry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[email protected]> Reply-To: "Dan Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Bob & Honey I have not heard anything and was really hoping to be able to follow his journey..... Regards, Dan Hall Region 7 (CA) ----- Original Message ----- From: Tommy Terry To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 7:26 PM Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Bob & Honey ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]---- Has anyone heard from them since they allegedly took off last Sunday? Tommy N93929 ============================================================================ == To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm ---------------------------- From: "Dan Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Dan Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"Tommy Terry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[email protected]> Reply-To: "Dan Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Bob & Honey Sorry about the repeats folks! My Microsoft Outlook Express is sick - thank you Bill Gates. Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Hall To: Tommy Terry ; [email protected] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 7:32 PM Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Bob & Honey ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]---- I have not heard anything and was really hoping to be able to follow his journey..... Regards, Dan Hall Region 7 (CA) ----- Original Message ----- From: Tommy Terry To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 7:26 PM Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Bob & Honey ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]---- Has anyone heard from them since they allegedly took off last Sunday? Tommy N93929 ============================================================================ == To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm ============================================================================ == To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm ---------------------------- From: "Dan Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "A DeMarzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: "Dan Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: LSA for a 415-D Hey Al, Why put it on Syd's back? What about you? If you don't like the way things have been done, feel free to volunteer your time to take a shot at making the changes! After volunteering as a Regional Director for Region for 2 years, on top of a busy career, I have a greater appreciation for what Skip, Carolyn and others in the club do accomplish. Dan Hall N3968H Region 7 Director 2005/2006 ----- Original Message ----- From: "A DeMarzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Ercoupe Hangar Flying" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 6:20 PM Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: LSA for a 415-D > ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any > advice in this forum.]---- > > > Syd; > > Hey Syd; > > Can you answer my questions yourself? I don't need to understand anything > to justify my feelings about the EOC. They are what they are, based on > many years of facts. > > <A whole bunch of great stuff snipped after typing.> > > You mentioned that the current director said he was stepping down and > wanted the area directors to replace him. Finally there's an opportunity > to put someone in place that cares about Ercoupes and Ercoupers. You have > the power to make it right. Make it so I can't complain. In other words > maybe it's time to shake all of the old blood off their cans and get them > moving. And as I may have alluded to, if you're not part of the solution, > you're part of the problem. > > Finally, if you would like to continue this discussion on the email list, > my next communication with you will be to ask what the club has done for > its members in the last 10 years. > > > > ---- Original Message ----- > From: "Sydney Cohen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "Ercoupe Hangar Flying" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 6:31 PM > Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: LSA for a 415-D > > >> ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any >> advice in this forum.]---- >> >> >> Al, >> As I said before, quit wondering and contact Joe Norris at EAA. He >> can tell you all about it. His email is [EMAIL PROTECTED] And please >> quit blaming the EOC for everything that you don't understand. >> >> Syd >> >> >> A DeMarzo wrote: >> >>> I'm always wondering how many other airplanes this paragraph affects. >>> Not really interested in just the ones who are looking to somehow >>> downgrade their GW to fit, but how many other models out there have an >>> STC to increase their GW with only an adjustment. I'm also wondering if >>> the rule was actually intended to prohibit those airplanes that have >>> extensive mods done in order to improve the gross weight. Case in >>> point, the Bonanza, of which I'm a bit familiar with. Among other mods, >>> if you add tip tanks, your GW is increased by 100 lbs. If you remove >>> them, you loose the GW. Please don't think that I'm suggesting the Bo >>> is included in Sportie, I'm only trying to make a point. Maybe floats, >>> or bigger engines or something like that. >>> >>> So I guess what I would like to know is simply, how many other models of >>> aircraft, that were built with a GW that allows them the pleasure of >>> fitting into the Sport Rule, have a non structural STC to increase the >>> weight. An additional and even better question would be why would an >>> a/c who actually had the reverse mod in the past also be prohibited from >>> Sport? An enterprising person with the right connections could maybe >>> offer up an STC to do the reverse and have it blessed. The D Model >>> crowd may buy into it with both wallets! >>> >>> Al >>> >> ============================================================================ == >> To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm >> >> > > ============================================================================ == > To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm > ---------------------------- From: "Ed Burkhead" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'A DeMarzo'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"Cflyin" <[email protected]> Reply-To: "Ed Burkhead" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: LSA for a 415-D Al wrote: > In my opinion, the lack of rectifying this problem with the > converted 415D's, rests squarely on the shoulders of the > EOC. A strong type club, one that works with the > certificate holder, FAA, EAA and AOPA on a regular basis > would have been the answer to this dilemma. Instead we > sit here complaining to each other about how we're treated > and send in money primarily to subscribe to a newsletter. Al, This is not an issue the EOC could overcome, no matter who was running it nor however wonderful they could be. The provision in the regulation, disallowing aircraft which had ever been certified at higher than 600 kg. was directly aimed at the Experimental Amateur Built fleet of aircraft. ExpAB may have their gross weight changed by a paperwork exercise. The owner sends in the paperwork and declares a lower gross weight and the FAA can and almost always would approve it. But the FAA did not want tens of thousands of heavy planes being recertified at <=600 kg. and then being flown as always at higher gross weights (like they have for years). So, they wrote that provision into the regulations. Along the way, they caught our converted-up aircraft and a few others. But this is written in the regulation. It is a huge task to change the regulation. Heck, it took the FAA two years to change the order for ELSA operating limits even though everyone knew they were wrong from near the beginning. That's just an order - no NPRM or comment period required. If the EAA with all its clout can't twist the FAA's arm to change the regulation to allow gross weight downward-conversion, no one at the EOC would have the proverbial snowflake's change of doing it. We can push and agitate for an increase in the LSA gross weight. An increase to 650 kg. would allow all the late Ercoupes and the 1400 lb. Forneys into the club. An increase to 675 kg. would include-in the Alons. But, there's little incentive for the FAA to increase the gross weight limit at all unless they go whole hog and include the C-150s and C-152s so beloved by flight schools and CFIs. And including them in would half kill the market for new design SLSA. No way can I give ANY blame to the EOC management for not solving this problem. It's not in their league. Ed Burkhead http://edburkhead.com ed -at- edburkhead???.com (change -at- to @ and remove "???") ---------------------------- ============================================================================ == To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm ============================================================================== To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
