Hi Kim, Comments interspersed below.
WRB On Mar 14, 2010, at 19:38, Kim Blackseth wrote: > All... > > I have purchased a 415C to replace/rebuild my recently damaged 415D. I > appreciate everyones support to have made this happen. I used Ed's > very complete pre-buy checklist and the plane has "good bones". While > it still needs modifications for my disability and some "TLC", it's > going to get me flying in a few months... Glad to hear that. > > The insurance company was kind enough to let me take most of my hand > controls and equipment for my disability out of the 415D. I'm > negotiating for the rest of the plane salvage, as there are MANY new > pieces that would be very useful. If I cannot make a "deal", I'll > just upgrade and work on the 415C, as resources permit. > > However, if a do get the "D" back, I have few questions: > > 1. Can the new 0-200 in the"D" be installed on a "C"? I understand this has been done before, but may depend on the hoops your particular FSDO makes you jump through. Would your mechanic talk to them to discern how cooperative they will be, then write a letter to them setting forth your "understandings" under which you propose to if no objections or additional conditions are put in writing to you within 30 days? Otherwise everyone has a blank check on your money. If the decision were mine, I would sell the "new 0-200" and use the proceeds to upgrade the engine in the 415-C with the 0-200 crank, etc. as Stan described. You'll still have a C-85, more power available, and the plane remains a 415-C model. > > 2. I hope this isn't to dumb, but as the airframes are the same, etc, > why is this "C" be limited to 1260 lb, but my old "D" is rated at 1400 > lb, besides the obvious, "the rules say so". The physical differenced are set forth in Ercoupe Information Letter No. 1 dated Jan. 1, 1956. > What physically or mechanically limits the GW limits on these two > identical > airframes? There are no meaningful limits. ERCO and Fred Weick expected the CAA to allow all previously manufactured 415-Cs to be allowed to operate at the 1400lb gross following CAA acceptance of the lesser structural requirements of the new "normal" category since the original certification had been under structural requirements consistent with the new "Utility" category. The short answer is that the Ercoupe was instead forced to demonstrate that the excess safety margins designed into it, which were truly unprecedented, were in no way different at the increased gross weight. Furthermore, the coupe had to demonstrate this with unreasonably excessive control movements and CG variations...which no other aircraft had to do. Just one example was that while the Ercoupe proved in actual testing it met all of the unreasonable requirements with 13º up elevator movement at 1400 lbs, the CAA only "approved" 9º of up elevator for production airframes. > I.e, while illegal, does the "C" fly bad at 1400 lb? In any unbiased flight evaluation the answer would be an unqualified NO (in my opinion). > > 3. I read in an earlier post discussing the split tail, that the > "landing speeds" were different between the "C" and "D". Again, what > physically or mechanically affects the landing speeds on these two > identical airframes? The amount of "up" elevator movement physically restricts how much "flare" is available to the pilot. With 13º movement the amount of possible "flare" allows landing about 8 mph slower than with 9º movement with the "standard" elevator. The "split elevator" is also discussed in Ercoupe Information Letter No. 1. It is rigged for 20º of "up", but the center area cut out reduces elevator area. There is a "low speed warning cushion" spring that is felt by the pilot before the final range of "up" is available. The full 20º of up available with it is not intended for pilot use except during the actual landing flare. > > By the way, the FAA and NTSB have finished their investigation on the > accident and tell me "preliminarily" that the pilot "must have" > knocked the fuel cutoff with his knee" off center slightly. I challenge anyone to demonstrate the ability to close ANY example of our valve behind the instrument panel with their knee. Such speculation goes beyond ignorance into the realm of incompetence or conscious refusal to admit that they are unable to identify a credible "cause". > I'm quite skeptical and they based their conclusion on: > > 1. The selector had no "positive" detents". (Couldn't tell you as I > never have turned it off!) > 2. I was in the off position when found. (It's because the pilot > turned it off after the incident, as he smelled gas!) > 3. The plane started up after the crash for the investigators; > 4. They could not find any other problem; and my favorite... > 5. When they turned the selector off center, the engine acted "just > like the pilot reported". This reasoning makes perfect sense to the bureaucratic mind. > > Oh well....I guess it could have happened, but I don't see the > "smoking gun"... > > Kim Blackseth > 310 17th St > Oakland, CA 94612 > [email protected] > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
