----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----on 04/24/04 11:58 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
----------
...A lot of things are not specifically called out in the TCDS, but none-the-less are airworthiness issues. For example, there are numerous "legal' gascolators that would easily fit on an Ercoupe, but the truth is that only the original, a substitute part called out by the TCDS holder, a part approved under a STC or a part approved by field approval constitutes a truly "legal" gascolator.
Don't confuse common sense with anything the FAA does... ;)
OK, John - I'll bite (while agreeing wholeheartedly with above salutation)!
The original material for Ercoupe sidescreens was "Vinylite" (or close). It isn't, to my knowledge, made any more. Everyone concerned with being "legal" seems to use plexiglas now. Others use Lexan. There is little commonality or consistance as to thickness.
Forney specified plexiglas for Forneys. Presumably that makes plexi "OK" to use on Ercoupes, but certainly not mandatory, absent a formal pronouncement by the type certificate holder. A pilot can also make parts for his plane so long as they are equal to or surperior to the original.
As an aside, the original Ercoupe fuel pump was a box stock automotive one. That should make automotive replacement pumps (and automotive rebuild kits) installed by the pilot just as "legal" as these overpriced "aviation paperwork" units that do the same thing.
An AD says replace the screen, etc. at annual...that's one thing. If an inspector wants to see aviation-approved parts used when the original aircraft neither specified nor furnished such, by exactly what authority does that "desire" become mandatory and when?
As to the fuel lines, these were originally rubber fuel hoses from the cheapest supplier! To "fabricate" one, a pilot cuts it to length and applys (automotive) hose clamps on each end (safety-wired, of course...heh heh). Any "aviation" hose available today is worlds better in terms of fuel resistance than was originally available. Go one better for safety and install Firesleeve on top. I doubt a 337 is necessary for any aviation fuel hose (but probably for the Firesleeve installation). This stuff is as generic as AN hardware.
A type certificate holder cannot by mere pronouncement nullify parts and equipment previously approved for existing airframes, and neither can the FAA. There must be due process.
At what point and by what process does the FAA and the type certificate holder purport to change by decree the very nature and actuality of older aircraft. Coupes are antiques designed and constructed by practical people, not "rocket science". The fuel pump was Ford automotive, and our brake reservoir made from exactly the same tin can Pet milk was sold in. Humbug!
I understand there are those in the FAA already moving towards arbitrarily assigning "life cycle" replacement requirements (arbitrarily determined, VERY conservative) on aircraft and components designed under CAR 3 (like the 415-C and CD coupe).
Any type certificate holder will support any such proposal because it lowers their liability and increases (single-source) parts sales. Insurance companies would like it...more ways to deny coverage or increase its cost. Used parts could not be used without an unbroken log book paper trail back to first flight.
If pilots don't tell "authorities" out of touch with reality to POUND SAND pending realistic cost/benefit testing, private flying has no future.
Another opinion, anyway. (off soap box)
Regards,
William R. Bayne
<____|(o)|____>
(Copyright 2002)
============================================================================== To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm Search the archives on http://escribe.com/aviation/coupers-tech/
