I believe the FAAs thinking was that light weight, slow flying airplanes are limited in the damage they can do in an event of failure of pilot or airframe. Add the fact that you can only seat another passenger, you are putting only ONE person aside the pilot in danger. That as principle. Minimize the potential damage. As I pointed out several times, the problem for all Ercoupe Types can easily be solved when Univair asks the FAA for an amendment to their 787 Type Certificate. It would read that all these above aircraft (415 D,E,G, F, Alon , Mooney) can be flown under LSA rules by limiting the gross weight to 1260 lb . This gross weight limitation can be upped with the Skyport STC. Going this way, the O-200 installations might not certify for a LSA conversion and the elevator must be rigged to a certain degree or whatever the special rule might be. But the difference between all these Ercoupes is so little that it is even for an insider hard to tell. Also The difference do not affect the flying capabilities of our Coupes. All 415 Ercoupes can be rigged to fly like a 415-C . It is just a matter of the elevator restriction. Hartmut
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:08:49 -0400Subject: RE: [ercoupe-tech] [ercoupe-flyin] Re: Keep Your Fingers Crossed! I don't have time today to go into this in detail, but the combination of max weight and max speed was carefully thought out. Kinetic energy is a function of mass going at a certain speed. The industry committee wanted to keep kinetic energy limited, since it's this energy that dictates in good part the performance of the airplane, and the needed training, skill, currency, etc. for the pilot. We all agree that it takes more of all of that to manage the energy in a 747 than in a Coupe - just an example of why kinetic energy was chosen as one of the prime determinants of the limits of an LSA. Jerry E. -----Original Message-----From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of mbpowellSent: Monday, August 18, 2008 9:36 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [ercoupe-tech] [ercoupe-flyin] Re: Keep Your Fingers Crossed! It seems to me that if the LSA industry wanted higher weight limits they would be lobbying for an increase. I don't think this is happening although requests for more safety features might drive them to it in the future. Mike @ C35--- In [email protected], "Jerry Eichenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Lee -> > No Federal agency, including FAA, makes a general rule that benefits only a> few. The FAA thinks "industry wide". While it's unfortunate that a very> few may suffer, lots more pilots are benefiting tremendously.> > Jerry> -----Original Message-----> From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 9:20 AM> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]> Subject: RE: [ercoupe-tech] RE: [ercoupe-flyin] Re: Keep Your Fingers> Crossed!> > > > Jerry E. said.> > Be careful kicking a sleeping dog. I had no personal involvement in the> development of the LSA and SP rules, but have friends who did.> > I didn't include Jerry's entire message as you have most probably read it.> Some of what he said is correct. However, we should remember that most of> the folks that a weight increase would affect are not those that would be> purchasing the new expensive planes. It would simply allow some, that are> selling their coupes because of an inability to pass a FAA medical, to keep> their planes and fly them. They can't fly them so they sell them or keep> them around to sit in and run up once and a while to bring back memories.> > Just my opinion.> Lee> > > __________________________________________________________> Click for free quote on refinancing your mortgage.> _________________________________________________________________ Be the filmmaker you always wanted to be—learn how to burn a DVD with Windows®. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108588797/direct/01/
