You (we?) can come up with a new designation; but what counts is what the FAA 
calls it. Before buying a LSA Ercoupe order the cd from the FAA and look 
closely for any reference to it being changed to a D or the legal gross weight 
being more than 1320 lbs. The fact that it may have been converted back does 
not make it LSA eligible again. 
If it ever fell out of the LSA criteria, it is always out.
If you find a plane you like and at the right price, give the seller a deposit 
and the two of you sign a buy/sell agreement that you will buy it at the agreed 
price IF it passes a prebuy inspection and is truely LSA eligible per the FAA. 
If not you get your deposit back. I missed out on about 3 planes when I was 
looking because they sold before I got the cd from the FAA (about a week).
Dan C


On Jun 26, 2010, at 8:29 AM, bbartsey wrote:

> I have a friend who is looking for an Ercoupe and it is difficult to explain 
> to him the model designations and what is and what is not considered a "light 
> sport" Ercoupe. Maybe we can get some standardization in terms so it will be 
> easier to explain to the uninitiated. For example, I find myself telling him 
> that a "C" that has had the STC upgrading it to a 1400 lb gross weight is 
> really a "D", but is sometimes refered to as a "C/D" or even a "CD" although 
> a "CD" is really the designation of a model that rolled off the production 
> line as a light sprort with a 1320 lb gross weight which may have an STC 
> increasing the gross weight to 1320 lbs but it is still a light sport unless 
> it also has the 1400 lb STC or rolled off the productionline as a D and 
> what's on second and I dunno's on third.
> The problem seems to be the C and CD models that have the 1400 lb upgrade and 
> are therefore not light sport. Is there any way we can come up with a 
> different term to designate or identify those airplanes which started out 
> qualifying as light sport but because of the 1400 lb gross weight upgrade are 
> now in the non-light sport category?
> Bart
> (whew!)
> 
> 

Reply via email to