Bill; If you want the STC for legalities, then by all means buy it and feel good about your purchase. Point is that too many coupe drivers operate right at the edge and even over the envelope and a $200 invoice gives them the sense of security that should not be there. For you new pilots as well as the old, there's a nifty old FAA film that you may enjoy and learn something. Good dust off for me as I'm a creature of habit and one that takes too many things for granted. Have a look. http://www.csobeech.com/mountain-flying.html . Naturally I watched the one entitled "Let's Load Up The Bonanza." Only about 45 years old and disappointed that I didn't see a coupe anywhere.
Many of the same folks that bought the STC operated over gross before they had it. Was it dangerous on Monday before it arrived in the mail and then any less dangerous by Saturday when the A&P with IA installed the valves in the gear and submitted the paperwork? So what my contention is that a paper STC has the ability to make many feel that the airplane can do what it actually can't. I'll bet your ranch that there was no flight testing involved in the issuance of this STC, only scientific calculations based on the D's abilities and the politics of the parties involved. But if using the D as a benchmark for the structure, how is it that the STC can be issued to the straight C. As you, if I could change the rules I would, but I'm afraid that the rules of physics are still a bit tough at this time. Finally, once again, let's not forget how the D mod hurt the LSA status of the Ercoupe without adding anything substantial except a GWI. Maybe it's still a wait and see thing for me. Al, Not Everything With Ice Cream Is Good, DeMarzo Visit the Ercoupe Swap Page Free, Easy and No Membership Required http://www.ercoupeowners.com/swap/swapbook.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: William R. Bayne To: ercoupe list Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 11:32 PM Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] stc for 1320 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) --
