Kevin, Your remark is obviously premeditated and intended to intimidate. Without admission or explanation you convey utter contempt for both my post and my very right to post. We need to "clear that up".
Speaking NOT "for everyone who flies an Ercoupe", but only the ones that read the factory instructions, I refer you to page 5 of the Ercoupe Instruction Manual. Under the subject of "Cruising", it says: "The cruising speed will be approximately 5 mph higher with the windows closed. Therefore to obtain the best possible cruising performance, the windows should be closed and the airplane should be flown at the highest altitude at which cruising rpm can be obtained, due consideration being given, of course, to the wind and the weather." Question No. 1.: In the preceding context, if my first sentence (see below) is inaccurate, misleading, or off topic, can you explain further? Question No. 2.: In the context of an Ercoupe flying relatively high for an extended period in cruise flight with mostly closed windows, are my expressed concerns with leakage at the joints in the Ercoupe exhaust system unjustified, misleading, or off topic and, if so, precisely how? Question No. 3: Do you consider your remark, which offered no knowledge or experience, consistent with Ed Burkhead's repeated desire to maintain a "collegiate atmosphere" on TECH? Those who see their Ercoupe merely as a top-down low altitude "flivver" are certainly free to enjoy that experience, but they have less altitude in case of emergency and are at greater risk from TV and communications towers and guy wires. They burn more fuel getting anywhere, and they get there more slowly. Such choice has effects that should be understood and accepted. When I'm just up for the joy of flight on a given day I, too, throttle back and putter around. Here is no advantage in going nowhere at 105+ mph. At 80 mph less fuel is burned and one's leisure savored. Because wind buffeting is not a sensation I find pleasant any more, the only time I fully open the sidescreens is to impress a passenger or take pictures. The added stress keeping a landing spot within gliding range when flying at low altitude tends to minimize the time I linger below 2500' AGL. Each to their own. WRB -- On Mar 11, 2010, at 07:32, Kevin wrote: > Bill, > > Thanks for clearing that up and once again speaking for everyone who > flies an Ercoupe. > > Kevin1 > > > > --- In [email protected], William R. Bayne <ercog...@...> > wrote: >> >> >> Hi Kevin, Bob >> >> No one desiring speed or efficiency cross country in an Ercoupe flies >> "open cockpit" at 6,000+. Beyond that, the seal of the exhaust >> stack-to-muffler joints in MANY Ercoupes leak. The engine compartment >> is of higher pressure than the cabin, and a little carbon monoxide >> goes >> a long way toward progressive incapacitation of occupants unaware. >> >> It's true that normally the air change within the cabin area is >> sufficient that there is no problem. It is also true that a clamp can >> fail or seam open further in flight without occupant awareness. We >> literally bet our lives each time we fly without the ability to >> monitor >> the level of carbon monoxide present at any given time in the cabin. >> >> When it is obvious I can't win, I don't gamble. >> >> Regards, >> >> WRB >> >> -- >> >> On Mar 10, 2010, at 15:00, Bob Swinney wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> If your coupe is like mine there is more than adequate ventilation to >>> prevent the CO problem. Also I have used the pellet type for as many >>> years as it has been available and I am still here. I will not >>> install >>> another instrument, regardless. What is next with these knee jerk >>> govenment bureaucrats? >>> >>> Bob >> >> On Mar 10, 2010, at 15:00, Kevin wrote: >> >>> And just how necessary are they in an open cockpit aircraft? >>> >>> Kevin1 >>> >>> >>> >>> --- In [email protected], William R. Bayne <ercoguru@> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> The Devil made me ask this question ;<) >>>> >>>> Are these instruments TSO or FAA/PMA? >>>> >>>> WRB >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 10, 2010, at 09:58, Bill BIGGS wrote: >>>> >>>>> [Attachment(s) from Bill BIGGS included below] >>>>> >>>>> Just FYI >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:17:38 -0600 >>>>> From: usfaargl@ >>>>> Subject: Engine Exhaust (ATA code 78) and Carbon Monoxide Detectors >>>>> (ATA code 25) - General Aviation >>>>> To: webacraft@ >>>>> >>>>> CE-10-19 - Small Airplane/ All/ All Models >>>>> >>>>> You are subscribed to the FAA's GovDelivery service for >>>>> Airworthiness >>>>> Directives and Special Airworthiness Information Bulletins, which >>>>> are >>>>> also posted in our Regulatory and Guidance Library (RGL) at >>>>> http://rgl.faa.gov. >>>>> >>>>> This service is provided at no charge. You can update your >>>>> subscription information at any time on your User Profile Page. If >>>>> you >>>>> have any questions about this service, please email us at >>>>> 9-amc-air140-information-products@ >>>>> GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of FAA RGL · 408 St. Peter >>>>> Street >>>>> Suite 600 · St. Paul MN 55102 · 1-800-439-1420 >>>>> 1 of 1 File(s) >>>>> <image.tiff>ce-10-19.pdf >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
