Actually the current document is TCDS-718 which does not mention a spinner.
Replacing the original spinner with a scull cap would be a minor alteration and only require a logbook entry (if is FAA PMA) under the new AC23-27 and likely before. TCDS-718 allows an aeromatic prop which requires no spinner. IMHO Bill To: [email protected] From: [email protected] Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 17:25:18 -0500 Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Skull cap spinner All, The reason the "spinner topic" has been "beat to death so many times" is that it has not yet been conclusively resolved. I shall attempt once again to do that so we shall not forever continue to "beat a dead horse". We were all new to the Ercoupe (et al) once. At that time our limited "frame of reference" was insufficient to separate good information from misinformation. We need to inform these people, not confuse them. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to muddy clear water for others in the process. The process is not a democratic one, in which strong opinions prevail over actual pertinent facts. Accordingly, the facts should speak for themselves. FAR Section 91.7(a) states: "No person shall operate a civil aircraft unless it is in airworthy condition...". The FAA interpretation of "airworthy" is in Order 8130.2D, Fig. 8-1, which refers to Title 49 Section 44704 (c) and CFR part 21. The statutory language requires that: "The aircraft must conform to its TC (type certificate). Conformity to type design is considered attained when the aircraft configuration and the components installed are consistent with the drawings, specifications, and other data that are part of the TC, and would include any STC and field approved alterations incorporated into the aircraft." An Ercoupe without a spinner is NOT AIRWORTHY because the spinner drawing and all production drawings depicting the aircraft with the spinner installed "are part of the TC" to which conformance is mandatory. There is no more authoritative document in relationship to a particular airplane than its type certificate. An Ercoupe with a skull cap (or other non-standard spinner) whose installation in place of the original is not properly documented as a "field approved alteration" is similarly NOT AIRWORTHY! ERCO's manufacturing process was never itself approved by the CAA. Instead, ERCO employed certain persons authorized by the CAA to flight test each plane and personally certify that it conformed in every respect to the applicable type certificate before the Airworthiness Certificate could be issued. The ERCO Equipment List that was submitted to the CAA for every Ercoupe lists 24 items as "STANDARD - Installed on all Airplanes". The spinner is item no. 22. Regards, William R. Bayne .____|-(o)-|____. (Copyright 2009) -- On Sep 1, 2009, at 15:09, Bob Swinney wrote: Amen........ --- On Tue, 9/1/09, kgassert <[email protected]> wrote: From: kgassert <[email protected]> Subject: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Skull cap spinner To: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2009, 1:50 PM Sorry but the parts catalog is just that, a parts catalog with a list of parts and where they are applicable. Applicable, not mandatory. The mandatory stuff is in the TC and equipment list. This spinner topic has been beat to death so many times you can read about it in the archives for hours. How many of you guys have your sun shade and glove boxes??? They are in the parts manual you know. How about those little chrome trim strips on the panel. Need any more examples? Kevin1 _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_faster:082009
