The other option you alluded to that may be the cheaper/easier way to go is to convert the wing tanks to fit the STC for 30 gal. tanks. ? Dan C
On Aug 15, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Ed Burkhead wrote: > Tom wrote: > > Is it possible to prepare and submit 337's for work past > > completed, AND is there an STC that covers the work > > that was done to my plane? > > Tom, > > I'm not an A&P or AI and just have a pilot's level knowledge of this subject. > Nevertheless, let me take a swing at answering your question. > > A standard STC is researched, engineered and approved by the FAA. It's a > market commodity the use of which can be sold. There is no STC for removing > the header tank on an Ercoupe that I know of. > > Not to worry too much. > > Yes, you can document and get approval for a previously performed > modification - subject to the information below. > > The form 337 is often called a one-time-STC. It is a supplement covering > changes to the type certificate for one plane - approved by the FAA. It is > possible to use another pilot's form 337 as justification for a change to > your airplane. Form 337s signed off before a certain date are considered > "approved data" because all the FAA people back then who did such sign-offs > were engineers. Form 337s signed off since that time may be accepted as > "approved data" or maybe not. It'll depend on how much the current FAA > wienie feels that approving your change might threaten his/her career. > > In the last few years, the FAA has been reluctant to approve major changes to > aircraft without some "approved data." "Approved data" lets the blame fall > on the person who created the "approved data" rather than on the FAA wienie > who signs off on your form 337. > > In the absence of "approved data" in the form of an old form 337, an approved > STC, the FAA staffer may require an engineering analysis from a Designated > Engineering Representative (DER) who is a non-FAA person authorized to make > such analysis and charge money for the service. With a favorable analysis > from a DER, some pretty major changes can be made. > > Many people have bought planes and found changes for which there is no > documentation on file with the FAA. (See that document CD.) If it is a > "major" change, then the plane is not legally airworthy until a form 337 is > submitted and approved. You may be required to include an engineering > analysis from a DER. > > For your fuel tank removal and fuel system restructuring, you may well need > to have "approved data" to use as a reference. Perhaps one of the members > here can fax or scan/e-mail you a copy of prior approval for removal of the > header tank. > > Your fuel system restructuring is similar to that needed for the 30 gallon > wing tank installation and the STC for that modification may constitute > adequate approved data for your plane's change. I'd urge you to talk to > Skyport ( http://ercoupeparts.com ) and/or watch for a response from John > Cooper here on the forum. > > If your current mechanic is unwilling to do the paperwork and get approval > for the mods to your plane, you need to find a mechanic who will. I can't > blame this guy too much. He's presented with a plane that has a strangely > modified fuel system AND which is having fuel problems sever enough to cause > a forced landing. A mechanic with plenty of other work to do may well > decline to dive into this. But in doing so to me, he would forfeit any > further business from me if I could possibly help it. > > Unfortunately, I think you have some work to do and will need to pay for some > professional paperwork. In addition, some physical work will probably need > to be done to solve your current fuel delivery problems. > > Me, I liked to do cross country trips and like having the extra fuel reserve > in the header tank as well as the excellent hard-to-mismanage fuel system. > If it were mine, I'd seriously consider buying a refurbished fuel tank and > modifying the instruments as needed, putting the plane back to the original > design. > > Sorry, > > Ed > > Ed Burkhead > http://edburkhead.com/Ercoupe/index.htm > ed -at- edburk???head. com change -at- to @ and remove > question marks and extra space > >
