Thanks Syd, I appreciate you corrections. I probably also misled William, by using 1340, instead of 1320..... and hopefully many folks also recognized the misleading/incorrect number. Please accept my apology.
I had just now signed on, as I realized I had used 1340 instead of the corect load 1320, and intended to apologize to the group for the confusion. Sorry Folks, I'm getting older . Fly Safe - have Fun Harry ________________________________ From: Syd Cohen <[email protected]> Cc: Techlist Ercoupe <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 10:17:43 PM Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] 415-C/D - When it is an LSA and when it is not? WRB and Harry, I think you both meant to say "1320 lb. gross," not 1340 lb. gross." Syd On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:05 PM, William R. Bayne wrote: >This is an area of Ercoupe history where many have not been as specific as is >necessary to be absolutely correct. > >Every Ercoupe historian stands on the shoulders of those who wrote before and >sees more clearly for it. But every enthusiast that would purport to speak >knowledgeably has the obligation to "get it right" when they write. At this >late date there is very little about the Ercoupe that remains genuinely >unknown or that should be confusing. Unfortunately a lot of new information >is as of yet unpublished. > >Some time ago I decided that it would be better "for the fleet" to share some >of what I have learned before I publish. In some cases it is because it will, >in my opinion, result in greater safety. In other cases this is because >published information is so wrong. > >While everyone is entitled to their own opinion(s), I believe each of us has >an obligation to try our best not to confuse; and by that I mean that opinion >should be clearly differentiated from speculation, and speculation similarly >differentiated from supportable fact. > >When I speak of the over 100 415-Cs that were factory-converted to 415-CD >specifications, I speak factually. I have ERCO letter copies containing >serial numbers, and have personally seen and photographed such >dataplates. These materials will be published in the future. > >Individuals may certainly choose until then to dismiss my assertions as >speculation. To such extent as they refuse to give reasonable consideration >to what I say it is their credibility that will suffer in the end. My >research will be published someday whether or not I manage to do it myself, >and facts I cite can be proven by anyone and everyone capable of visiting my >sources. It is much harder to discover facts few, if any, know than to verify >them later and independently. > >Comments interspersed below. > >WRB > >-- > >On Sep 11, 2009, at 17:40, Harry L. Francis wrote: > > > >> >>Roberto and the Group, >> >>First, let's try to define the models, and then you will see the >>qualifications: >> >>The Ercoupe 415 s/n 1, was first certified with the ERCO IL-116, 65 hp 4 >>cyl, Inverted air cooled, engine, and simply specified as Model 415. >> >>Before any were sold, Continental made the A-65-8 engine available at about >>a $500 saving per engine, thus making the 415C (for Continental) . All >>Ercoupes have been sold with versions of the Continental engine.. >> >>When CAA made new specifications for aircraft - (Normal and Utility >>Catagory), this allowed for a higher gross weight allowance... ...making the >>415C elgible for a higher gross weight...... Thus, was born the 415D with a >>higher gross weight (1400lbs). >> >Well....sort of. When the CAA updated their previous standards applicable to >the certification of light aircraft, several things happened. > >Whereas before there had been no category of aircraft certified as "incapable >of spinning", there had been a level playing field. ERCO and Fred Weick >surprised everyone with their Ercoupe design, which represented a huge leap >forward in light plane design. When prewar production ended due to materials >unavailability, there were approximately 600 airframes "on order". Everyone's >attention was quickly elsewhere "for the duration", but a number of >manufacturers and other "powers that be" were extremely concerned that ERCO >might dominate the postwar light plane market. > >It may be impossible to discover precisely where and when the idea came to the >CAA to update their design standards, but at some point there was incorporated >into them a set of test standards applied only to aircraft certified as >"incapable of spinning" (i.e. the Ercoupe). These were clearly far in excess >of standards applicable to other light aircraft, and were so draconian in >detail as to discourage further development. It was these test standards that >proved an Ercoupe was as spinproof with 18º up elevator movement as with 13º >up movement, but then "approved" only four degrees less than that. 13º - 4º = >the infamous 9º. > >I have an Ercoupe Service Manual with a date of January 1, 1947 as signed by >Service manager Ro. Sanders. It clearly shows that as of that date ERCO >expected that the CAA would approve all 415-C Ercoupes produced under the >older standards for the higher 1400 lb. gross weight. We now know that didn't >happen. The CAA insisted on testing according to the grossly unfair new >"rule", and the resulting "approval" for their latest model was under an >entirely new type certificate and elevator movement was limited to the >entirely arbitrary 9º up movement. > > >>Initially, many folks were not satisfied with the higher weight aircraft, >>which required a higher approach speed than the 415C, due to the limited >>elevator up travel of 9 degrees (C and CD models have 13 deg up); to prevent >>the coupe from potentially achieving a stall attitude. >> >No. Only two 415-D models were sold. Those two purchasers and ERCO were not >satisfied with the reduction in landing flair capability resulting from the >reduction in available elevator "up" travel. What to do? The production line >had already switched over to producing the "new" model, which had a revised >instrument panel and improved fuel tank plumbing allowing wing tank caps >without vents. > >The "solution was to apply for certification of the 415-CD model under the >original type certificate with the lower gross weight. Production could >continue. It was simply that both existing and new owners would be denied the >additional gross weight allowed under the new standards. Owners of both >415-Ds produced had their aircraft modified to 415-CD specification, and so, >for some time, there were NO 415-D models flying. > >None of the above had anything whatsoever to do with preventing "...the coupe >from potentially achieving a stall attitude" other than in a sense so abstract >as to be ridiculous. > > >>So, very shortly the factory incorporated the modification/ improvements that >>were made in the D model (such as a stainless steel cover over the header >>tank, etc) but maintained the elevator up travel in the C model, and >>certified the revised coupe at the C model GW of 1260 #. This model was >>called the CD model. >> >The factory didn't have to do a thing. This was what was rolling off the line >already. They just needed paperwork allowing them to rig the airframes as >before and sell them. Yes, they did then sell those airframes identical in >every respect to the D model as their 415-CD. > > >>There is no such thing as a C/D model, tho many people call a C model thas >>been converted to D specs ( higher GW, etc.) a C/D model. >> >Those people, as you say, would be simply wrong. > > >The conversion requires inspection and approval by a FAA field inspector, and >issuance of a new Airworthiness Certificate. There are over 100 415C models >registered that have been modified to D specs. I think many have been >inspected and approved, and many that have been modified with a 337, but >actually still have a 415C Standard Airworthiness Certificate. >> >As I have said before, over 100 415-C models in dealer hands and unsold when >the 415-CD was announced were of no interest whatsoever to a purchaser who >wanted the "latest and greatest" from the factory. ERCO understood and >factory modified these airframes in the field. After modification they were >identical to the 415-D. Physically they could become a 415-D merely by >re-rigging to 9º up elevator. Paperwork was another matter, in particular >since a new name plate showing they now operated under Type Certificate 787, >and a new Airworthiness Certificate would seem to be necessary at a >minimum. In any event, a majority of 415-C serialed airframes that later >became 415-D models per FAA records were ones the factory had upgraded from >415-C to 415-CD before sale. > > >(Some folks understand the Model of an Aircraft can only be changed by the >manufacturer; but that an aircraft can be modified to the later specs, by >simply following the Manufacture' s Service Memorandums, with the use of a >337. I would call this change as a C model modified to D model Specs.... >> >The factory apparently agreed. The 415-Cs it Modified to 415-CD specification >received ERCO plates stating they were "modified" as 415-CD and had the date >of that modification thereon stamped. Skyport may sell these plates for the >conversion to 415-D. If not, they did at one time. > > >>Here-in lies the problem: >> >>The LSA rules specifically state that an aircraft that has been operated at a >>legal GW higher than the LSA GW specs of 1340 pounds, does not qualify for >>certification as a LSA. >> >>Of course lots of discussion enters here ...just what does the rule really >>say..... and lots of arguments. >> >The rule says what it says. Lots of opinions. Arguments are optional ;<) > > >>There is NO Difference between the C/CD/ D model Ercoupes.... except simple >>modifications to throttle, carb heat, and trim control operation, minor >>changes to the landing gear, Gross Weight difference, and *stainless /steel >>over the header tank in the D and CD models.. >> >I believe you meant minor changes to the main gear oleo orifices >above. Obviously the "up" elevator movement rigging was a difference deemed >of substantial impact to comparative landing qualities. In addition, the >splitting of the header tank overflow line to go to both wing tanks was the >original change to unvented wing tank caps. This is obvious by comparing the >fuel diagrams of the Ercoupe Instruction Manual and the FAA-Approved Flight >Manual for the 415-D. The gross weight difference of 140 lbs. more for the >415-D made huge operational differences as to Service Ceiling, takeoff and >landing distances, etc. that should not be so lightly dismissed. > > >>*This regulatory safety requirement was missed in the original Certification >>of the C model with the Continental engine, because the IL-116 engine cowling >>stopped at the S/S firewall, and the change to the Continental engine >>required larger cowling that went past the firewall. >> >Strictly speaking, the Continental cowling ignored the position and shape of >the original firewall, covering parts of the aluminum fuselage that would now >be vulnerable in case of an engine compartment fire. > > >>The D model up elevator limit is set at 9 deg to supposedly prevent the >>heavier GW coupe from approaching a stall attitude at full throttle climb. >> >This is unsubstantiated speculation.. The 415-C is capable of full throttle >climb attitudes that cannot be sustained if power is lost. Put more weight in >that same airframe and the same engine simply cannot get the aircraft's nose >up as high. > > >The 1260# GW of the C and the CD model elevator travel is 13 deg up. >> >>There is now an STC for raising the C and CD model GW to 1340 # GW. >>Interestingly this STC requires limiting the elevator up travel to the D >>specs of 9 degrees.. >> >John Cooper has explained that the FAA was willing to accept the testing ERCO >had done for the 415-D model for the 1340# gross. > > >>I think we will eventually see the D model @ 1400 GW (maybe even 1450 GW, >>which would include the later Ercoupe models, Forney, Alon, ertc., all >>approved as LSA; ,,, tho the LSA industry will fight it to the end. Of course >>this would also lead to the Cessna 150, and other light aircraft to be >>approved as LSA. >> >>As you probably know, the creation of the LSA aircraft designation was simply >>to encourage the development of light, low cost, new airplanes... ..and were >>develped with specifications set by the manufactures with the use of ASTM >>consensus type development. >> >>Hopefully , we will see the inclusion of the D, E, F, G, Ercoupes into the >>LSA catagory. Interestingly the H model qualifies, except those that now >>weigh more because the owners added Battery, Starter and Generator. >> >>Just my opinion.... >> >>Fly Safe - Have Fun >> >>Harry Francis >>N93530 >> >>From:"r3...@warwick. net" <r3...@warwick. net> >>To:ercoupe-tech@ yahoogroups. com >>Sent:Friday, September 11, 2009 11:35:03 AM >>Subject:[ercoupe-tech] 415-C/D - When it is an LSA and when it is not? >> >> >>As subject says. >> >>I've seen ads for 415's C/D including lines such as: >> >>"LSA", >>"not an LSA", >>"qualifies as LSA", >>"light sport eligible", >>"light sport status dubious", >>"previous owner bought it as LSA, but it was not" >>"its a 415-CD, selling as a D model" (??) >> >>What are the criteria for determining if a C/D is a LSA or not? >> >>Thanks, >> >>Roberto Waltman. >> >> >> >> >> >>
