Ed,
The "Stall Speed" given as Item #1, p. 10 of the 415-D Manual is 58 mph
(power off, with "up" elevator limited to 9º).
This is presumed as being at 1400 lbs. gross weight because data in
Items 2, 3 and 4 are "at 1400 lbs., gross weight". on this and p. 11.
The "Stall Speed" given on p. 10 of the 415-E & G Manual is 60 mph
(power off, with "up" elevator limited to 20º).
This is verified as being at 1400 lbs. gross weight on p. 11.
Since the 415-D does not have the "split elevator" and later models do,
I would presume that substitution of the "split elevator" reduces
"minimum speed" (or touchdown speed) at any given weight on comparable
airframes by (a mere) 2 mph.
Two strictly personal observations:
1. I prefer the "look" of the earlier elevator (with a trim tab)
2. I HATE change in yoke "feel" with the "low speed warning cushion"
spring (and associated mental adjustment in the flare)
Any "cost to benefit" ratio calculated on above 2 mph difference would
make the "goodness" of this conversion all but impossible to justify.
What am I missing, here?
Regards,
William R. Bayne
.____|-(o)-|____.
(Copyright 2010)
--
On Mar 17, 2010, at 06:21, Ed Burkhead wrote:
I don’t think there are enough no-longer-needed split elevators
available to meet the demand.
Now, if someone were to set up an Ercoupe elevator conversion
“factory” with PMA authorization and convert a bunch of elevators, we
could improve the entire fleet.
Or, would it be (under current regulations) that each owner would
“fabricate” a replacement part him/herself, using a skilled mechanic
as his/her assistant?
But, then, demand also depends on cost. Back before you all caught on
to the goodness of the split elevator idea, I wanted one but couldn’t
justify the cost to benefit ratio.
Ed
