Dave,
Oops!!!!! Considering that the plane has rudder pedals, you wrote: > Ground steering is done by the wheel. The new owner (Alon > guy) says "you can steer with the rudders, too; but the yoke is > going to turn as well", which makes sense with the controls > interconnected. When we tried to check the ailerons for > freedom-of-movement from the cockpit, we had to have him > push the tail down to get the nose gear off the ground. That sounds like it's in an unairworthy and illegal state! THE AILERONS MAY NOT BE CONNECTED TO THE RUDDER PEDALS. It's an either/or situation. If you have rudder pedals physically in the aircraft the interlinkage MUST be disconnected. It's in violation of the design and FAA type certificate approval otherwise. I say that very definitively because I remember Fred Weick, the designer, discussing this issue at a fly-in when talking about his negotiations with the CAA. There's a choice: The ERCO pedal design leaves the nose wheel hooked to the yoke. The Alon design has the nose wheel hooked to the rudder pedals. ________________________________ When you get ready to buy the plane, I'd suggest you pick the mechanic who will be YOUR mechanic and make sure he knows that. Have him do the annual inspection with the agreement that the cost of the annual inspection will be deducted from some agreed "selling" dollar value which you've adjusted to cover the annual cost. ________________________________ Talking about gross weight, I know too, too well the difficulties in losing personal weight. It's worth doing what we can, of course. You might be able to get the plane to lose some significant weight by the substitution of money - I mean modern, light-weight instruments, light weight starter, go back to a 25 amp/hour battery if it's been upgraded, light weight upholstery if it has old, heavy upholstery, etc. Changing the wings to fabric covered might let the plane lose as much as 40 pounds (the weighed amount of some metalized wings - yours might be lighter). ________________________________ If you don't **need** high cruise speeds, consider changing (or repitching) the prop to be a climb prop or almost-climb prop. I don't see which horsepower your engine is, whether it's a C-75 or has been converted to be a C-85. On a C-85, with the McCauley prop, the old terminology was: 7152 cruise 7150 normal 7148 climb And that might have been valid if flying at gross weights of 1260 pounds. If you go over 1260 pounds, I'd recommend these values: 7150 cruise 7148 normal 7146 climb I had my prop repitched to 7146 and got decent climb and short field capability and was always able to get up to 12,500 feet. With the 7146, my airspeed at 2400 rpm was almost exactly 100 mph - very carefully measured. And, with the light loading of the climb prop, many (?most?) small Continental engine mechanics say to go ahead and spin it all the way up to redline when cruising - go with your judgment and your mechanic's recommendations on this. Me, I was always timid and contented myself with 100 mph even on my coast-to-coast flights. ________________________________ And, for gross weight, the tanks don't always have to be full. Most of us keep the entire header tank as our reserve. With 18 gallons in the wing tanks, my fuel burn of 5.4gph @2400 rpm gave me 3.3 hours of flight and that's long enough for bladders most of the time. Of course, if you go high and lean, you can do considerably better. (Yes, I know that telling you this is teaching grandmother how to suck eggs. [Did Grandma know how to suck eggs? I don't.] But, there are lurkers who can put this information to use.) But, leaving one hour of fuel on the ground saves you 32 pounds on high gross weight flights - without reducing your reserve. And, then there's the fact that with the 1320 pound STC, you are setting the plane to be in the exact, identical condition to what it'd be if that same plane were converted to be a 1400 lb. gross weight 415-D (except the 415-D must have a stainless steel panel over the header tank). Use your own judgment on maximizing flying safety. Ed
