Al,
I have thus far failed to address any concern about the 1320 STC and
the "upgrade"
from the 415-C to the 415-D model in terms of operational safety
because such is, and
has always been, the proverbial "red herring".
The CAR 4 requirements under which the Ercoupe was originally certified
had design
goals and requirements very similar to today's "Utility" category. The
CAA changed
such requirements by adopting CAR Regulations Part 03 on December 15,
1946.
The change was a relaxation of prior "overdesign" made obvious by
countless aircraft
operations around the world throughout the war years, and posed no
reduction in safety
whatsoever. It defined the "Normal", Utility", Aerobatic" and
"Restricted" categories that
have been used as the design basis for U.S. aircraft ever since.
As an engineer, Fred Weick "did the math" and expected the Ercoupe to
qualify without
structural change for operation with a gross weight of 1400 lbs. in the
new "Normal"
category with a level of safety comparable to later Bonanzas and
Cessnas. This should
be obvious from the later FAA approval of Aircraft Type Certificate 787
models Forney F-1A,
Alon A-2, A-2A and Mooney M10 Cadet at 1450 lbs. gross following
appropriate flight testing
with only minor structural changes deemed necessary.
Unfortunately, Fred's incomparable accomplishments in the design of the
Ercoupe had
aroused concern and envy of many when he was granted a patent for this
unique
combination of ideas. The "new" regulations singled out aircraft of
"...a type
"characteristically incapable of spinning" for flight testing so
draconian as to discourage
further development. Bureaucratic bad faith was clearly evident in
such treatment.
The 415-D model elevator limitation of 9º was the result. This so
adversely affected the
landing qualities that of the several produced, both owners had the
planes converted to
model 415-CD spec. It forced Erco to come up with the CD model so as
to continue
production, and made it clear to Henry Berliner the difficulties Erco
would face again and
again to develop, produce and market private aircraft in numbers deemed
necessary for
long term profit. He took Erco out of the market, and that was the
"right" decision.
My point here, is that your concerns about Ercoupe operations above the
1260 lb. gross
weight are misplaced. They are not valid at 1400 lbs. It is only when
contemplating
Ercoupe operations in excess of 1450 lbs. that it is fair to
characterize such as "...right at
the edge or even over the envelope". Extremely few (if any) "coupe
drivers" (I deem that
label an insult to a certificated pilot) attempt departures over 1450
lbs.
Any airplane at any weight is subject to the limitations high density
altitude places on
operations. Every pilot receives instruction in such he ignores at
his/her own peril. I
agree with you that a piece of paper does not enable a design to do
what it cannot.
I'm also confused as to how "the D mod hurt the LSA status of the
Ercoupe".
1. Converting a 415-C to 415-D preceded LSA by years. If we look at
doing this
today, the advantage of the increased and usable gross weight is
offset when
the plane is sold because it is forever excluded from LSA
operation.
2. LSA has produced a "windfall profit" for unconverted 415-C and CD
owners.
3. The 1320 lb. LSA SCT offers increased and usable gross weight and
likely
a commensurate increase in value when such LSA 415-C is sold.
Best regards,
William R. Bayne
.____|-(o)-|____.
(Copyright 2009)
--
On Feb 15, 2009, at 08:32, Al Demarzo wrote:
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)
--
