New threads

[3Dreaming]

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

Hank, the TCDS is where you need to look for the definitive answer. For the B*12-65 aircraft a single 6 gallon wing tank is required along with the 12 gallon fuselage tank, for a total fuel of 18 gallons. for pre war airplanes the wing tank was only standard on the B*12-65. The other models had the optional 6 gallon fuselage auxiliary tank. For the BC series of aircraft the A-696 TCDS allows for installation of wing tanks in the earlier pre war airplanes. The A-699 and A-700 TCDS do not.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: New threads

This I exactly why I asked for this new section on the Forum! There are SO MANY things in the time around the war when things changed! Once we get these things sorted out a thread on actually DOING the mods (or repairs, or restorations.....) can contain everything an A&P and IA need to properly do the change and document it. We just need to agree before we do a thread on the actual mod. No sense filling the final thread with discussions and disagreements/alternate solution. That is what THIS thread is for.

Hank

[wmfife]

Re: New threads

Tom,

The installation is recorded on an FAA Form 337.

The reference to TC gives the # for a BC12-65 but the rest of the data is correct.

Bill

[PA1195]

Re: New threads

The downside of the CAP dual wing tank STC for non C-85's would be having to comply with revisions of tank venting, fuel caps for all tanks, enlarged plumbing lines, and main tank gauge system. The larger engine needs more fuel flow.

Gary

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: New threads

I know there is precedent for dual wing tanks with a 65 HP. My 45 was delivered with two wing tanks and an A-65 (in the paperwork). She had dual valves in the wing roots and a placard warning not to transfer fuel unless the main was below half full. NOT like the larger lines and configuration used in production. Problem is my plane was used by the factory to test out potential new features for post war production. She didn't even get her final NC number until spring of 46 (and no, I don't know how that worked but it looks like she was flown in some experimental status). As I said before, my plane has all kinds of strange little features like the hand formed ribs (sheet metal but not like the hydroformed ones), fittings for dual brakes (but don't appear to have ever been hooked up), a wood trim tab that was only used on a few planes before it was changed to aluminum (there is still spots on the fuselage where a pre-war fuselage was modified including marks where the flipper mounts were ground off) a super complex dual triangular skylight and a 1010 steel fuselage instead of 4130 used in post war production.
Great plane but really an odd bird! Her paperwork shows a TC it was supposedly built to, but there sure are a lot of strange differences. Can't wait to get her restored! She has been recovered several times but there is NO indication anyone ever tried to put mods in her.

Hank

[3Dreaming]

Re: New threads

Tom,

The installation is recorded on an FAA Form 337.

The reference to TC gives the # for a BC12-65 but the rest of the data is correct.

Bill

Bill, I understand that. The 337 would be the place to make the recording of the addition of the left hand tank. I have no doubt that it was submitted to the FAA that way. What I am trying to say is an IA doesn't have the legal authority to approve the installation of the left hand wing tank in a BL12-65 based on the type certificate for the BC model aircraft. Unless there is a FAA stamp and signature in block 3 on the front of the form, or there was some other type of approved data for the modification your 337 may not be worth the paper it is written on. It should be easy enough to get the paperwork fixed if needed, and it would be a good idea to do so to protect the IA who is willing to work with you.

[wmfife]

Re: New threads

Here is the original form. Let me know if the print is readable. If not I can attempt a proper scan.

On page 1 Block 3 is blank. Block 4 only has ah "X" in the Alteration blank under "Airframe".

Block 5 provides the certified mechanic's details and under the headline of Block 7 is pre-printed the statement: "Pursuant to the authority given persons specified below, the unit identified in item 4 was inspected in the manner prescribed by the administrator of the FAA and is (X) Approved". The rest is signed and documented by the acting IA.

As far as any interaction by an FAA official other than the inspecting IA there doesn't seem to be any.

So if I understand you correctly not only was this action performed on the wrong make and model of Taylorcraft and mis-documented on the action description on the back but the PAPERWORK needed a stamp from the FAA to be valid?

After reading what Dorothy Feris wrote about only a Field Approval being needed regardless of the model variation (BL vs BC or BF) doesn't that seem a bit extreme?

Am not arguing that it wouldn't be the best possible precaution and am going to make every effort to set it right. Am just getting a bit confused with all the experts sending these mixed messages.

[wmfife]

Re: New threads

In my copy of the FAR AMT under part 43.9(a): Maintenance record entries - it lists these requirements: (1) Description of work, (2) Date of completion, (3) Name of the person performing the work; (4) If the work performed was done satisfactorily the name, signature and cert. # of the person approving the work. "The signature constitutes the approval for return to service ...for the work performed."

It then refers to Appendix B describing the procedure for submitting a form 337 in duplicate for any "major repair or alterations", under which fuel systems are applicable, and giving one copy to the aircraft owner and forwarding the second to Flight Standards District office within 48 hours except for "...major repairs made in accordance with a manual or specifications acceptable to the Administrator..." in which case a certificated repair station may "Use the customer's work order and give the customer a signed copy and retain a duplicate.." (for two years), give the owner a maintenance release signed by an authorized representative (of the repair shop) with full documentation and a signed statement in a form similarly worded to: "The aircraft, engine, airframe, etc. identified above was repaired and inspected in accordance with current FAR's and is approved for return to service".

At the bottom are spaces to be signed by an "authorized representative" of the repair facility.

Further, under FAA AC43-9C: 17 "FAA Form 337, Major Repair and Alteration" it states
under (a): "this form is to be executed by the person making the (alteration). Provisions are made on the form for a person other than that person performing the work to approve the repair or alteration for return to service."

Under (b) it states: "These forms are now required to be made part of the maintenance record of the part repaired or altered and retained in accordance with part 91.417."

And while my copy is a bit dated it was published over a decade after the work was done, so is 100% applicable for work done in 1993. Nowhere did I see a requirement for an independent FAA official to review and sign the form other than the IA himself.

[Garry Crookham]

Re: New threads

Bill, the Form 337 you show is not a field approval. It is approving a major alteration using Type Certificate A-696 as approved data. Your aircraft was manufactured under Type Certificate A-700, which does not provide for a left hand tank. For a field approval the FAA will approve the data or alteration by signing block 3 of the Form 337. I'll try to attach an example.

[PA1195]

Re: New threads

Who owned or now owns TCDS A-699 and A-700? Do the owners exist? Did the Ferris family ever own these TCDS in addition to A-696?

I've seen the letter stating the airframes are identical but wonder what that means when it comes to cross TCDS mods?

Terry Bowden at CAP might be able to untangle the left tank installation. But keep debating and see what happens.

Gary

[wmfife]

Re: New threads

My plane came with all those documents. The TCDS I have # A-700 does in fact state a 6-gal aux fuel tank is permitted. I take this to mean it was a factory-option and as many custom options were done prior to delivery to the various buyers it is a good bet some were installed there.

On my 337 on the back the tank is described as "original equipment". I interpret that to mean it is identical to and in fact IS the type tank installed in BC-12 ships at the factory and/or approved for upgrade in (appropriate) models.

"Original" tank it is, by manufacture (to my best knowledge) just not originally installed unless in the RH wing.... though this TCDS does NOT specify which wing (nor does it hint at any other location, which in the case of in-cabin would generate another whole jungle of paperwork).

The ref. needing correction is the one made to the wrong TC #. The rest of the form seems to be in order by all regulatory accounts (via FAR-AMT).

I am just glad we caught his before the current IA has performed or signed off an annual on mine. Why is too long a story for here.

On a more practical note, as all B-12 ships had the same empty and gross weight (someone has already remarked that the engine weights were the same although I have a independent publication stating the Lycs may have been 10 lbs lighter than the A-65... will get back on that if I find more) but otherwise the additional tank & fuel has the exact same effect on W&B on all models (as implied by Dorothy's letter) so it is hard to really see what all the fuss is about. Firewall-back the airframes are identical for all Deluxe models.

It remains the responsibility of the PIC to not exceed GW on any flight local or X-C. We were all taught this and in fact a military flying club I once belonged to required a W&B form to be entered in a permanent record before every flight.

Straw men are not permitted in this thread. If you find any kindly send them back to the cornfield. I typed with freezing fingers and anyone can read what I said. TY.

[Garry Crookham]

Re: New threads

As I stated in my previous post TC A-700 does not provide for a left hand wing tank. The aux fuel tank mentioned in A-700 mounts in the fuselage behind the seat. If you look at A-700 you can see that the location of the aux tank is at +30, the rh wing tank is at +24.

III - Model BL12-65 (Army L-2J) and BLS12-65, 2 PCL-SM (Cont.)

Fuel capacity:

18 gal. (12 gal. in fuselage (-9) and 6 gal. in wing (+24)).

312. Auxiliary 6 gal. fuselage fuel tank 8 lb. (+30)
installation (Fuel arm (+35))
(BL, BLS, BL-65 and BLS-65)

Hopefully your IA has researched this.
Good luck.

[3Dreaming]

Re: New threads

Bill,

this is the tank approved under TC A-700, "312. Auxiliary 6 gal. fuselage fuel tank installation". It does not grant permission to install a 6 gallon wing tank in its place.

In my opinion the IA was wrong in using the A-696 TC as approved date for the tank installation in your airplane. He shouldn't have jumped across type certificates like that. I also think that the issue should be cleared up, and doing so should just be a paperwork issue. Talk to your IA about it, because he is the one who is at risk if my opinion is right. If it were me I would use the letter stating all the airframes were the same firewall aft, and the A-696 TCDS showing that it can be installed in a BC12-65 aircraft. Write it up on a 337 and send it to the FSDO for approval.

[wmfife]

Re: New threads

I see it now. TKS for pointing that out.

I have never heard of a "fuselage" fuel tank being standard or otherwise installed in any prewar Taylorcraft so it was a total blindside as I read the entry. It didn't register nor have I ever seen such a creature..

Hopefully my IA has researched anything on Taylorcraft as the previous maintenance facility on the field was named "Executive Jet Club". Good riddance to them.

I may have to be the one to do the educating. For that I will need to have all the facts up front.

Thanks. Looks like I am going to need it. Luck.
It hasn't been too good thus far.

[PA1195]

Re: New threads

This thread is confusing. Isn't the point of having dual wing tanks a matter of getting approval for the second one? The TCDS prior to 1A9 call out a single tank (wing or fuselage) as a factory installed item on certain models. Taylorcraft installed dual wing tanks in the Model 19, F-19, and F-21 plus a nose tank under 1A9. How would an IA go about getting approval for a second wing tank without applying an STC like SA1-210 that includes that mod?

Gary