New threads

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: New threads

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

[wmfife]

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.

[LostnSpace]

Re: New threads

Well I see TC #A-696 is BC models and the BL models are listed under #A-700.


I don't need to go through a ramp check with illegal parts.

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

[Ragwing nut]

Re: New threads

I got both wing tanks approved in mine when the DAR signed it off. All you need to do is find a copy of a wing tank approval that pre-dates aug '56 because it is considered approved data by the FAA.

[wmfife]

Re: New threads

I thought about that too.

Either way it could be called into question.

On the practical side I have gone as far as siphoning fuel when I was getting checked out by a 200-lb instructor. To be fair the engine needed work and I've since had to replace 2 cyl heads.

But on a more serious note it could be allowed that the Baggage Limit placard that says 50 lbs may have to be amended to read: "when flying solo and with 18 gal fuel max" because it is possible to overload it if ignoring a thorough W&B before flight.

Needless to say I never have; never would.

But these planes have a tendency to outlive us.

[3Dreaming]

Re: New threads

...I know I should have been more clear. When I said I have not found a log entry for any changes I meant no changes to the fuel valves.

While the aircraft log entries only go back to 1983 the maintenance /repair records reach as far as 1969.

I believe this entry is from three owners ago and appears on a US DOT form OMB no. 2120-0020 and is boldly stamped "for FAA Use Only" at the top. It is dated 22 Jun 1993 and after the description of the covering method manual # and materials used under (b) it reads:

"Left wing tank installed in accordance with Type Certificate #A-696 original aircraft equipment."

The following line (c) also refers to aircraft type certificate #A-696 in reference to aircraft reassembly and rigging procedures following the Taylorcraft owners handbook.

These entries were dated 18 Jun 1993 checked as approved and signed for the owner by one IA 161419 on 22 June. In fact two signatures appear in the approval boxes the first the mechanic doing the work (Certificate # stamped above the signature) and the last the certifying IA with # added by hand.

So if the added tank isn't legal the plane's been flying nearly a quarter century that way and is still in one piece. And the FAA either doesn't know or doesn't care.

It really depends on whether the mechanic/IA did the install thinking it was approved because of the type certificate, or the FAA issued a field approval based on the A696 type certificate.

[wmfife]

Re: New threads

I suppose as long as I am in possession of the signed paperwork I should be in the clear then.

And yes it has been my intention all along to install the valves at the wing roots. And change out the copper line for flex!

Flying is only fun when it's safe.

Thanks for the advice. I'm going to need lots of it.

[wmfife]

Re: New threads

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.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: New threads

The FAA has approved the second tank. I would not disturb that sleeping snake. They are wrong, but that is their problem and it isn't a safety issue. Don't talk to them about the tank, just fix the plumbing to fit the later models with two valves and the placard. If the FAA approve the tank it is legal by their definition, just make sure it is safe. Your A&P / IA should be able to make sure you are safe and one of the IAs here can tell you if he can sign it off (in which case I wouldn't tell the FAA anything, just fix it).

Hank

[wmfife]

Re: New threads

...I know I should have been more clear. When I said I have not found a log entry for any changes I meant no changes to the fuel valves.

While the aircraft log entries only go back to 1983 the maintenance /repair records reach as far as 1969.

I believe this entry is from three owners ago and appears on a US DOT form OMB no. 2120-0020 and is boldly stamped "for FAA Use Only" at the top. It is dated 22 Jun 1993 and after the description of the covering method manual # and materials used under (b) it reads:

"Left wing tank installed in accordance with Type Certificate #A-696 original aircraft equipment."

The following line (c) also refers to aircraft type certificate #A-696 in reference to aircraft reassembly and rigging procedures following the Taylorcraft owners handbook.

These entries were dated 18 Jun 1993 checked as approved and signed for the owner by one IA 161419 on 22 June. In fact two signatures appear in the approval boxes the first the mechanic doing the work (Certificate # stamped above the signature) and the last the certifying IA with # added by hand.

So if the added tank isn't legal the plane's been flying nearly a quarter century that way and is still in one piece. And the FAA either doesn't know or doesn't care.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: New threads

is the lines already there? If so, put the fuel valves under the dash like factory, just rotate them where the handle wont impale you leg.

The lines (all copper) are in place leading from the 2 wing tanks to the panel. There is one valve there that opens both lines.

The shop told me the valve there now was an air valve. (!) I have 2 Apollo SS & Teflon valves for draining the tanks separately. This was not possible with the original setup. And so far I have not found a log entry for any changes.

In fact losing the headliner is the least of my concerns as I would like to have some kind of custom (inspired by Monocoupe-?) skylight installed if can get it approved. I have a roll of stock headliner material that matches so a small problem at worst.

I wonder what sort of approval I would require to install the separate valves the way you describe. It looks like I have two approved choices but don't think that is one of them.

I would really like to move them to the wing roots. Under the panel would be a bit snug... could end up damaging some knees.

Bill,
As some others have already said I don't think the TC allows for two wing tanks, although I have seen several in place that were never logged and the owners were "assuming" they were like that stock from the factory......They weren't. Someone along the way just wanted two tanks and did it with no paperwork. Legally all you can do is get an approval to have them and since you have a Deluxe you should have the 15 rib wings and I don't see any structural or safety problem (except for the loss of useful load). Remember, I am an engineer, but am NOT an A&P, IA or DER. My advice is worth just what you are paying for it. My opinion, minor issue, just get it legal.

As for the fuel valves the location under the panel is what the factory did for ONE tank. The lever will tear the passengers knee up on exiting if left in the open position, but then, once the fuel is transferred you are supposed to close the valve any way. It is ONLY supposed to be open when fuel is being transferred. The passenger screaming as they try to depart the plane is an early audible warning system that you have left the valve open. ;-) The two tank planes have TWO valves for a very good reason. If you transfer from both wing tanks at once (6 gallons each) into a 12 gallon tank, and your engine was still running, you WILL overflow the main tank! If you have never experienced having fuel come out of the cap in flight, TRUST ME! you DO NOT want to! The slip stream carries a fine mist of fuel around the fuselage and straight into the pilots window. EVERYTHING gets soaked in raw fuel. If you decide to keep a single valve I suggest you paint a pretty comet on the side of the plane, because eventually you will become one! Part of your modification paperwork should include putting the TWO valves in on the wing roots. It will also eliminate the passenger screams and replace them with a nice duet as BOTH of you split your heads open on the new valves. That's right, the factory placed them aft when closed and down when open. If you forget, they are just high enough to not see them and low enough to open up your forehead. Place the valves so they are UP when closed and FORWARD when open. Make a new placard for around the valve stem and don't tell them that isn't the way the factory did it. Your skull will thank you. My 45 was a real head buster. I always hoped the 46 and on changed that.....but kind of doubt it. This one is a safety issue TWO VALVES!!!!! NO DOWN LEVER EVER!!!! Also DO NOT forget to put the STC placard in that says to never open the transfer valve with more than half a tank of fuel (and it doesn't say it but NEVER NEVER NEVER open both at once! I really don't want to read your OBIT until we are both over 100 years old.

Next, and this is another safety issue, NO COPPER FUEL LINES! NONE! NEVER! Get them OUT of your fuel system. Copper will stress harden over time and crack. Even TINY flexing from vibration will do it. DON'T USE IT! I lost a good friend to an in flight fire. He burned to death because of a cracked copper fuel line. When I rebuilt my 41 I also found some bends in the line up at the leading edge of the wing down to the "A pillar" (the tube with the door hinges) that were too tight. The line was slightly kinked and failed when I took the tube out. I re-plumbed with elbows and standard fuel fittings so there were no severe bends in the tubing. As a bonus the fuel now transfers MUCH easier and faster. Again, SAFETY ISSUE! NO TIGHT BENDS IN FUEL LINES AND NO COPPER LINES!!!

Next, and I kind of wonder if I even need to say it, AIR VALVES? Seriously? No, get them out. If your new SS valves are rated for Gasoline I wouldn't worry. Not legal maybe, but the originals were brass with leather seals. Modern auto valves are 100% better than original ones. The only place you may have a problem is with the FAA as they may want you to use an "aviation" valve.

Skylight and headliner are completely different issues, just do the plumbing and test everything out FIRST. From my headliner experience I would use Velcro in a lot of places in the next one along with upholstery hooks so the headline can be opened up easily. Sure is nice to be able to inspect up there by opening everything up. I will be doing that on the 45 and when I recover the 41 she will get a removable headliner too. Right now I use a flex bore scope to inspect, but it is a PITA.

Be safe and check with your FSDO (whatever they are called now) to be SAFE first and legal second.

Hank

By the way, where the heck are you flying that you need 24 gallons of fuel? Looking for an "Iron Butt" award?

[3Dreaming]

Re: New threads

The TCDS for the BL12-65 doesn't provide an approval for dual wing tanks. You need to have an approval for the Left tank. For the BC series airplanes it is approved on the type certificate.

[wmfife]

Re: New threads

is the lines already there? If so, put the fuel valves under the dash like factory, just rotate them where the handle wont impale you leg.

The lines (all copper) are in place leading from the 2 wing tanks to the panel. There is one valve there that opens both lines.

The shop told me the valve there now was an air valve. (!) I have 2 Apollo SS & Teflon valves for draining the tanks separately. This was not possible with the original setup. And so far I have not found a log entry for any changes.

In fact losing the headliner is the least of my concerns as I would like to have some kind of custom (inspired by Monocoupe-?) skylight installed if can get it approved. I have a roll of stock headliner material that matches so a small problem at worst.

I wonder what sort of approval I would require to install the separate valves the way you describe. It looks like I have two approved choices but don't think that is one of them.

I would really like to move them to the wing roots. Under the panel would be a bit snug... could end up damaging some knees.

[Ragwing nut]

Re: New threads

I agree they are the best and I am 100% convinced C.G. would agree! We have the thoroughbreds of the clan so will have to be careful not to let it go to our heads!

Thanks Hank for opening this one and Bob for setting it up.

Right now I am having some issues with fuel vales and that infamous shock-mounted panel. I want to get it back in the air before I turn eighty so need to start some power discussion that can get things moving again. Past problems with shop staff (I hope) are long over and my IA is very cooperative from what I've seen so far. I do not intend to try and fly with a 50% out of rig wing again. Once was enough.

Where to begin. Am I being too ambitions to try and install wing fuel valves? That headliner will certainly have to go before I start. Meanwhile this knuckle-buster of a new main valve has me thinking of putting the old one back in... at least it can be disassembled and installed in bits.

And Hank apologies about the one-piece windshield but there are too many other items that are more pressing... like rebuilding this engine right. It was an in flight fire waiting to happen when I got it.

...Oh yes, and the cast grills and molding strips. Another project. Along with the nickel plating on these banjo yokes. Wonder if I can get the fuel valve done along with them? Am still going to try and lap it. (Confucius say: man with one fuel valve knows what to install; man with two is never sure.) Onward.

is the lines already there? If so, put the fuel valves under the dash like factory, just rotate them where the handle wont impale you leg.

[wmfife]

Re: New threads

I agree they are the best and I am 100% convinced C.G. would agree! We have the thoroughbreds of the clan so will have to be careful not to let it go to our heads!

Thanks Hank for opening this one and Bob for setting it up.

Right now I am having some issues with fuel vales and that infamous shock-mounted panel. I want to get it back in the air before I turn eighty so need to start some power discussion that can get things moving again. Past problems with shop staff (I hope) are long over and my IA is very cooperative from what I've seen so far. I do not intend to try and fly with a 50% out of rig wing again. Once was enough.

Where to begin. Am I being too ambitions to try and install wing fuel valves? That headliner will certainly have to go before I start. Meanwhile this knuckle-buster of a new main valve has me thinking of putting the old one back in... at least it can be disassembled and installed in bits.

And Hank apologies about the one-piece windshield but there are too many other items that are more pressing... like rebuilding this engine right. It was an in flight fire waiting to happen when I got it.

...Oh yes, and the cast grills and molding strips. Another project. Along with the nickel plating on these banjo yokes. Wonder if I can get the fuel valve done along with them? Am still going to try and lap it. (Confucius say: man with one fuel valve knows what to install; man with two is never sure.) Onward.