Bill; Thanks and I do agree with the reasoning of the other side, it's a valid one, just not mine. I too am tiring as I'm sure others are of trying to convince me otherwise. It's a belief I have based on years, education and too much experience.
Can the C or CD coupe handle 1400 pounds even though it's waaaaay over gross? Damn right it can and that's not part of my argument! It won't break up and fall out of the sky. Can all coupe pilots handle being even 25 pounds over gross? No! Some can't handle gross at 90 degrees in July. What I'm trying to point out is that too many people don't know the implications of weight, balance and density altitude. They figure this is a good STC to "carry more", which has been implied over and over. To quote the factory books printed 60+ years ago sometimes makes no sense because there aren't many coupes at factory specs out there any longer. I really wish this will end. I don't like the idea of GWI STC's because it contradicts the factory. I figure the factory has/had the best engineers at the time for this application. I also realize most respect that as do I their opinions, I just don't agree and am happy that not everyone agrees with me. That would certainly be scary. Al ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 7:01 PM Subject: RE: [ercoupe-tech] stc for 1320 I think we understand your reasoning Al and at least in my case, I respect your opinion. What can become tiresome for me and perhaps others is that you make your point over and over and over again. On the other side of the argument, there are a handful of folks here who tell us over and over and over again how any deviation from the norm regardless of how minor will void our insurance or cause us to lose our wealth through litigation. Jerry Eichenberger, who makes his living dealing with such things, took the time to explain to us that this just does not happen, at least in his experience. He also gave us a reason why it does not happen (see below). He said these things once. Although these issues have come up several times since, he did not feel the need to repeat himself and I think that is very cool. No disrespect is intended toward anyone, I have learned things from all of you. Cheers, Bill Al said: I'm not going to change my opinion on this and additional participation fortifies the fact that not many people are getting my reasoning. Jerry said awhile back: As to the airplane, if it has a properly signed off annual, that's all I've ever seen an insurer worry about to satisfy the airworthiness part of the requirements. As for insurance - many eons ago, some policies contained what was then known as a "violation of FAR" clause, which voided coverage if the pilot violated an FAR. This concept was dropped from insurance policies at least 20 years ago, probably much longer ago than that. Because, it became apparent to courts that it's almost impossible to have an accident without violating some FAR or operating limitation, so that clause, if applied, would void coverage for almost all accidents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the web. Get the Radio Toolbar!
