Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New threads

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: New threads

    This plane has been all over the Midwest and NW all the way to CA and at least two trips to Oshkosh (pic is on the forum dating from 1980... it's prettier now but not as pretty as when I get done with it-) and prior to FL it was based in IL.

    Suffice to say it's been around.

    Main purpose in buying it was to fly solo to visit family *just* in range of full fuel load. (N. GA specifically...)

    Secondary hope was to visit friends / family on the West Coast.

    ...Will get back with you all on that. But at least I have few complaints regarding range. (TKS, Gary-)

    ...And Mike, thanks also for that tip. I just viewed the FAA registration and airworthiness cd on 29885 but found nothing about approval for wing tanks. Will keep looking.
    Last edited by wmfife; 01-02-2018, 18:08.
    Bill Fife
    BL12-65 '41 Deluxe Under (s-l-o-w) Restoration

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: New threads

      Originally posted by wmfife View Post
      Well I see TC #A-696 is BC models and the BL models are listed under #A-700.

      And in fact a single 6 gal aux tank is approved. (It does not specify which side.)

      So what now? What is the procedure for informing the FAA of their obvious oversight?
      I don't need to go through a ramp check with illegal parts.
      I would leave it alone! There is absolutely NO structural reason you could have a tank on the passenger side and not the pilots. The fact that the FAA missed that the factory only put them on the passenger side is irrelevant. No safety issue and no structural issue. It will never become an issue unless we make it one. They have approved it and if they pull the approval now they are putting themselves on report and REALLY hammering whoever didn't notice the error in the first place (and it is a harmless error). If we leave it alone, they will too and no one there is going to look that close at the TCs without a reason. We don't need to give them one.
      The only possible issue would be if someone wants to put TWO wing tanks in. That is also no longer an issue since the FAA has approved it on this plane and it has been flying on this plane for 25+ years with no problem (and many others without being reported). No ramp check is ever going to even notice it and your paperwork shows it is approved.
      If you are like me you will never use the wing tank (either one) anyway. My bladder would fill up long before my fuel tank would empty.

      DO NOT tell the FAA there is an over-site when the only one who will be hurt (and needlessly) will be you. They DO NOT like for us to point out their mistakes! I would not even consider it an over-site. They looked at the alternate TC and it was OK, and the planes look the same, and they OKed it. You (and they) are done.

      You just need to sort out the plumbing problems, which have nothing to do with one or two tanks in the wings.

      Hank

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: New threads

        Originally posted by LostnSpace View Post
        I've been through 3 ramp checks with my Tcraft 2 near Atlanta and one in Medford, OR., and they never looked at the wing tanks, just along the fuselage and wanted to see the required paperwork and my license, none of them lasted more than 10 minutes, it seemed like they just needed to check a box stating they had done X number of ramp checks, most of the FAA guys/girls don't know a BC from a BL or Tcraft from a Funk, wish you the best on your work, gary
        A few years ago on here there was a mechanic who was in hot water for signing off an annual on BL Taylorcraft with wing tanks. It became an issue after the airplane had been involved in a accident.
        http://vb.taylorcraft.org/showthread...ght=wing+tanks

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: New threads

          Couldn't agree more w /Hank.

          My focus now is on fuel valves and fuel plumbing.

          On a theoretical note though - C.G. was very much the engineer with attention to details and I am thinking the RH placement of the aux tank probably had something to do with balancing against engine torque in cruise, however slight.

          My response to that would simply be to always drain the LH tank FIRST... thereby restoring the delicate balance and regaining any lost longitudinal trim.

          Ask me about that. When you are out of trim like I was after that (expensive) re-paint job on my struts you learn fast how much it matters. But then that had nothing to do with fuel tanks!
          Last edited by wmfife; 01-02-2018, 18:24.
          Bill Fife
          BL12-65 '41 Deluxe Under (s-l-o-w) Restoration

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: New threads

            A few years ago on here there was a mechanic who was in hot water for signing off an annual on BL Taylorcraft with wing tanks. It became an issue after the airplane had been involved in a accident.
            http://vb.taylorcraft.org/showthread...ght=wing+tanks


            Could not this have been the last word on that?

            http://vb.taylorcraft.org/attachment...1&d=1383009779
            Bill Fife
            BL12-65 '41 Deluxe Under (s-l-o-w) Restoration

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: New threads

              Wouldn't a call to Terry Bowden at Certified Aeronautical Products help fix this up?: http://faa-der.blogspot.com

              CONTACT ME
              PHONE: (254) 715-4773
              E-MAIL CONTACT
              barnstmr@aol.com
              TERRY L. BOWDEN
              2457 Texas Highway 236; Moody, TX 76557

              His STC for a C-85 SA1-210 includes two wing tanks. "inspected aircraft and found wing fuel tanks installed by person or persons unknown...fuel system complies with [whatever] with the exception", and so on.

              Gary
              Last edited by PA1195; 01-02-2018, 20:53.
              N36007 1941 BF12-65 STC'd as BC12D-4-85

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: New threads

                Originally posted by wmfife View Post

                Could not this have been the last word on that?

                http://vb.taylorcraft.org/attachment...1&d=1383009779
                It is information that could be helpful in getting a field approval. It does not serve as an approval to install the tanks.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: New threads

                  Your IA is still going to have to get the info into your aircraft log showing the mods, but at least he has an example of the FAA having approved it before. The tanks are already installed, he is just documenting that they are there already (he didn't put them in) and there is paper showing the feds have approved them to be there on a like aircraft. Date of install unknown.

                  Hank

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: New threads

                    If I could make a suggestion, how about starting a new thread on dual wing tanks on 41 T's to document the info needed to make the mod once your IA / A&P get the paper sorted out. Not for discussion of the merits, but focused on how the next tribe member can do it if they want. It would be a great guide for someone to avoid the problems with fuel tank mounting, fuel lines, valves and line routing as well as the placards for the wings and panel. The photos and descriptions on what was settled on would be a God-send to the next guy in line.

                    Since you are planning to rework your shock mount panel too, when you start we should work the kinks out on this thread and do the same with a dedicated instrument panel thread too. I have an original panel with two of the placards now as well as several drawings I would like to update and archive. The goal being that anyone wanting to restore their panel would be able to get almost everything needed to do it right with less blood and sweat than we have put in.

                    Hank

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: New threads

                      Good idea.

                      Peterroy
                      N29780 1941 Deluxe

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: New threads

                        The Gilberti/Harer/CAP STC includes the dual wing mounted tanks and associated plumbing (It was originally spec'd for the Model 19 via TCDS 1A9). Prints, parts, and whatever are detailed and I assume approved data. My question is: Can said data be used to substantiate an installation that conforms to a portion of an STC?

                        Terry Bowden would know which is why I suggested he be contacted (and contracted as required) to make it work unless there's an alternative. The fuel system components would have to meet the STC's standards as installed in ........without the C-85 and its associated parts and modifications to the airframe to increase the GW (the "exception or deviation" part I mentioned earlier).

                        Edit: a short discussion of partial installation of STC SA1-210: https://app.box.com/s/344y96l9s9

                        Gary
                        Last edited by PA1195; 01-02-2018, 23:39.
                        N36007 1941 BF12-65 STC'd as BC12D-4-85

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: New threads

                          Agree with Hank the forum has infinite possibilities for revision /specialization. It just gets easier - if we do the work.

                          My IA and the one before him are reasonable guys and one has already signed off an annual...

                          When I was a Navy mech I was respected by the pilots because they knew their lives depended on guys like me. Now shoe on the other foot - I want to do right by my mechs... of which I am one. I will not put my IAs' careers, past or present- on the line.

                          If a Field Approval is sufficient I will ask for one. Ms. Ferris' letter would seem to indicate that's all needed for this mod. (To Hank: the LH tank installation is documented in detail. The RH one is unknown, possibly from factory. Who knows..)

                          IF my IA asks for it then I will apply through proper channels for a 337. If that is completed the FAA will not be able to touch me on this issue.

                          Other issues remain to be explored. But this is enough for now. My plate is full!

                          Bill

                          (To Gary: this is the B12 65 page. What are you doing here?)
                          ...Just kidding. My first attempt at buying was a 1939 BC with a (then) Gilberti STC with C85 and full electrics. And yes with a RH wing tank, that kept leaking! (Why both mine are Aluminum.)
                          I do have instruments and two (2) steel wing tanks from a parted-out BC12D (85) from Tok, AK that are (the wing tanks) for sale. But the instruments (some at least) are going in mine. Make me an offer for the tanks! (I am going to need the $$)
                          Last edited by wmfife; 01-03-2018, 08:10. Reason: spelling + add. info.
                          Bill Fife
                          BL12-65 '41 Deluxe Under (s-l-o-w) Restoration

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: New threads

                            One of the things we have to ALWAYS look out for is putting our A&Ps and IAs certificates in danger. I agree with Bill and think as long as we are completely open and honest with them we can do a lot with our planes without risking their income for the future. As for the RH wing tank there was a place in Chet's book where he talked about a RH tank being standard and as I remember it was in the original equipment advertising for the Deluxe in 41 (don't know about the other pre war planes). I did find some info once about a second tank that mounted under the baggage sling in the fuselage with a hand transfer pump but have never seen one of those tanks or any paperwork for them (I have seen a photo). I sure wouldn't want fuel over my knees AND behind my back with a wobble pump to move it!
                            We need to be very careful to protect our A&P/IAs. There aren't that many left out there who even care about old planes like ours.

                            Hank

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: New threads

                              Originally posted by Hank Jarrett View Post
                              If I could make a suggestion, how about starting a new thread on dual wing tanks on 41 T's to document the info needed to make the mod once your IA / A&P get the paper sorted out. Not for discussion of the merits, but focused on how the next tribe member can do it if they want. It would be a great guide for someone to avoid the problems with fuel tank mounting, fuel lines, valves and line routing as well as the placards for the wings and panel. The photos and descriptions on what was settled on would be a God-send to the next guy in line.

                              Since you are planning to rework your shock mount panel too, when you start we should work the kinks out on this thread and do the same with a dedicated instrument panel thread too. I have an original panel with two of the placards now as well as several drawings I would like to update and archive. The goal being that anyone wanting to restore their panel would be able to get almost everything needed to do it right with less blood and sweat than we have put in.

                              Hank
                              Hank, you need to remember that when it comes to modifying these airplane there are 3 different B model airplanes we are dealing with. They are produced under different type certificates. Putting the second wing tank in a BC12-65 is approved on the TCDS, so it is simple a logbook entry. For a BL12-65 it is not on the TCDS, so you need some other approval method. The same would apply to a BF12-65. I find it interesting that all of the D model aircraft are on the same TCDS. The CAA must have changed their policy sometime in that late 1930's to early 1940's time frame.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: New threads

                                Originally posted by wmfife View Post
                                If a Field Approval is sufficient I will ask for one. Ms. Ferris' letter would seem to indicate that's all needed for this mod. (To Hank: the LH tank installation is documented in detail. The RH one is unknown, possibly from factory. Who knows..)
                                For a BL12-65 the right hand tank is factory, and required by the TCDS. Only the left hand tank requires approval of some sort. In my opinion a IA signing off the installation on a 337 using the wrong TCDS does not pass muster, regardless of how well documented it is. What you need is approved data for the IA sign off, or approval from the FAA for the installation. As an IA without being able to examine the paperwork I have no way of knowing whether your installation has the proper documentation.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X