Hi Al,
Comments interspersed below:
On Feb 14, 2009, at 21:56, Al Demarzo wrote:
I'm not arguing the facts of legality
OK
but if you're asking what I think of it solely as a reason, I think
it's piss poor.
That's a valid opinion. If I could change these rules I would do so in
a New
York minute and my conscience would not bother me in the least
afterward.
What you're saying is that it's okay to fly an airplane in a different
configuration than what it was designed for not because the structure
has been modified, altered or flight tested but because you have a
piece of paper saying you can.
Actually, it's the FAA that is saying that; quite successfully I might
add.
Get my drift? How many pounds are we talking about here anyway.
The STC buys you 60 lbs., the D Model Conversion 140 lbs.
Your fuel burn is about 35 pounds per hour.
If you have a 415-C limited by the 1260 lb. gross to your own weight, a
passenger
six gallons of fuel in the nose tank and four each in each wing tank,
the 1320 lb.
STC allows you to carry ten more gallons of fuel legally. At a ground
speed of 100
mph burning 4.5 gph, that's 2.22 hours and 222 miles. I think that's
worthwhile.
I'd like to know if anyone ever actually witnessed a ramp check on a
light plane where there were scales involved.
An FAA inspector knows simple math. He knows most Ercoupes have an
allowable
gross weight of 1260 lbs., weigh in excess of 850 lbs. without fuel,
hold 24 gallons of
gas, and can guess the probable weight of plot and passenger to within
15 lbs. each.
He doesn't need scales to pull you over, and he can probably commandeer
a set to
violate the first pilot who does not voluntarily defer to his authority
so as to "set an
example" locally. This is a game that deals him all the high cards.
Don't play it.
I'd like to know if anyone actually has FIRST HAND knowledge of an
insurance company not paying a claim because the aircraft was downed
due to it being over grossed and that can include the Beech 1900 in
the Carolinas a while back that killed everyone.
Not me.
Lawsuits don't really count,
They all count that name you. Way more than either the STC or D model
"upgrade".
most of the ones we finally hear about are off the wall as it's well
known that anyone can make a claim against anything. I personally
know a chap who was named in a lawsuit for the sole reason of his
being an "Enthusiast" of the particular type. Yes, boys and girls,
that's right. His people figured cutting a check of $75,000 would be
cheaper than fighting it and it was. He's has more money than the
pope, but that's another matter. You Chicago people would know him if
I mentioned his biz.
So, the moral of my story is why not fly responsibly without gimmicks,
tricks and other methods?
That's a trick question, Al! I would like to think taking a passenger
on a trip is a
legitimate expectation of Ercoupe ownership; yet when I took my check
ride I had
to find a 145 lb. examiner. In my 415-C, he suggested I "figure on"
full fuel and 55
lbs of luggage. My response was "Why don't I figure on minimum fuel
and a box
of Kleenex?" He laughed, and said "You understand...OK". (Worked out
fine.)
The Ercoupe doesn't like weight at all and the lighter you fly, the
better.
You are 100% correct. The 415-C at 1260 lbs. gross had a "Service
Ceiling" or
"Maximum useful altitude for flight" of 14,000' corrected to "standard
day" conditions.
The 415-D had 2000' less. Every pound flown over the 1260# weight
thusly costs
over 14' in altitude capability.
That said, I have never cruised at an altitude above 11,000' above sea
level, and
most of us are at the age that our less efficient bodies need
supplemental oxygen
for extended cruise above 9,000 density altitude (which is a LOT lower
in summer)!
Take the $200 and spend it on other safety items but not burgers ;-)
Al, Will Never Get It, DeMarzo
Or buy the mod and deduct it at the end of the year as insurance ;<)
William R. Bayne
.____|-(o)-|____.
(Copyright 2009)
--
