Hi Bill,
When did I say that the current Type Certificate Data Sheet - 718
mentioned a spinner? The aircraft Equipment List, as originally
submitted to the CAA, is historical documentation of the original
configuration of each individual airframe following successful flight
testing and acceptance. With reference to that Equipment List the
original spinner is No. 22 thereon, a fact that will not ever change.
I'm no mechanic, but John Cooper pointed out significant qualifications
to "FAA PMA" procedures that could result in such installations being
deemed unairworthy (pending further paperwork and specific FAA
approval). Any mechanic willing to substitute a scull cap spinner for
the ERCO original with just a log book signature must answer as to the
legality of the modification if and when the FAA raises the question,
as must the owner/operator. Either or both risk FAA action on their
license. Being "grounded" hundreds of miles from home base can ruin
one's whole day (and then some).
If the plane has been sold, the new owner can be left "holding the bag"
for problems they had no part in and may be entirely unaware of. Few
Ercoupes are mechanically perfect or have complete and perfect
documentation as to what is or is no longer installed.
No "statute of limitations" limits FAA airworthiness interpretations
during a Ramp Check. To such extent as a Ercoupe skull cap spinner
suggests less than adequate maintenance, I would change that "message"
ASAP. No longer the cheapest plane in the air, the quality of our
fleet should improve as ownership passes to more and more pilots that
WANT to own and operate an Ercoupe properly. Planes that are well
maintained and pretty cost more and are worth more, and it has always
been so. The "bar" is ever raising as to what is a "good" coupe.
I agree if an Aeromatic prop is installed per the TCDS (and all
appropriate paperwork completed and submitted including modification of
the Equipment List), no spinner is required. This is, however, an
"answer" to a question never asked or "at issue". IMHO it is the
proverbial "red herring" that confuses rather than clarifies the
"legality" of the skull cap spinner.
Regards,
William R. Bayne
.____|-(o)-|____.
(Copyright 2009)
On Sep 1, 2009, at 18:01, Bill BIGGS wrote:
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
