Re-read post 15403 and the answer will be revealed. Kevin1
--- In [email protected], Eddie Wilson <n56...@...> wrote: > > Where is everyone getting the 15 gallon fuel tanks to perform this STC? I was > not aware they are still being made or any available. > > How could performing this STC that requires a leading edge mod on the wings > be > cheaper than reinstalling a header tank and relocating the radios. > > > With the 15 gal wing tank STC, I thinks this makes wing removal much more > involved having to remove the tanks inorder to access the wing bolts.... >  > Eddie Wilson > N5625F >  >  >  >  > > ________________________________ > > From: Glenn Putnam <putp...@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 12:00:52 PM > Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Fuel System Problems > > Yes it removes header and replaces the wing tanks with twin 15 gal tanks with > elect.. pump Glenn > > On Aug 15, 2010, at 8:22 PM, Tom & Susan Crocco wrote: > >  > > > > > >Thanks Dan. > > > >Do you happen to know if the 30Gal conversion removes the nose tank? > > > >Tom > > > > > >From: Caliendo Dan > >Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 4:37 PM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Fuel System Problems > > > > > >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 > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
