Kevin, Thanks a lot! If you can send me the 337, I would appreciate it very much. If you can scan it, email it, if not, mail it to me at 13 Cici Park Ct., O'Fallon, MO 63366.
Thanks again, Tom Crocco From: Kevin Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 8:21 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Fuel System Problems Yes it does remove the header tank but the 30 Gal tanks are not available at this time. The STC and some supplies to produce them is for sale if you would like to go into the 30 gal Ercoupe tank business. Contack Kurt at Skyport for details. Woody's Ercoupe has the header tank removed and only has 9 gal wing tanks. It also has a left/right/off fuel selector valve and two fuel gages which I think makes since in this case so you don't have the problem you had with one blocked cap running you out of gas and not knowing so. I have a copy of the 337 if you would like to have it. AC 23-27 allows prior approved 337's to be used as approved data for field approved on vintage aircraft. A couple ways to go about this: 1. Fill out a 337 stating you found previous installed modification done by persons unknown and in good working order. This shows the modification has been installed for some time and so has been tested and proven. This may be all that is needed. 2. Get a copy of another 337 and hope it is installed the same way and state that you found modification installed by prior persons unknown and that it is installed per another prior approved 337. Per 23-27 this is all the approved data the FSDO needs to approve yours. If yours does not match the previous 337 you could try number 1 or modify to the 337 and do number 2. Kevin1 --- In [email protected], "Tom & Susan Crocco" <tcro...@...> 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 >
