wing tanks in a vag

[pa23pilot]

hi all i just joined i am doing a pa-17 and need help with:
wing tanks. wagaeros or pa-12 tanks
pilot door (sea plane)
c85 or c90 swap
thanks
doc

[rmalone]

Welcome Doc. The more the merrier!

[Steve Pierce]

I would search the STC data base and Type Certificate Data Sheet. I think the Wag tanks would be your best bet on the fuel tank. Gonna need some field approvals I am afraid.

[Stephen]

It would seem that installing only a one right side wing tank of 18+ gallons would be a simple way to go. It would be cheaper and save weight.

[Airwrench]

Doc - Welcome aboard.
Are you planning on adding tanks to both wings or just one? Keeping the nose tank?
My 2 cents worth - I am assuming that you have a standard metal spar PA-17 wing, if so I would install a Pacer / Tripacer tank. I believe that the wings are structurally the same on the inboard section, which would allow you to use the Pacer drag tube, straps, leading edge, tank cover, and hardware for the installation. The early Pacer had an external sight gage also. The tanks can be modified to accept an interior mounted sight gage also. The plumbing can be simple as an aux tank, or you can plumb it with the proven Pacer system. This installation should be reasoably acceptable to the Feds as a field approval. - Bryant

[Gilbert Pierce]

The Vag TCDS allows a 6 gallon wing tank to be installed in accordance with a specific drawing. I have the drawing but no tank and to my knowledge there are none available. The J3 Cub TCDS allows the same installation, same drawing and same tank. There is an ative STC for the J3 however. Yesterday I asked the FAA for field approval to use the STC'd J3 Cub tank made by WAGAERO in the Vag. "I can't approve that" was the answer I got. He went to tell me to get a DER to approve the tank and then I could install it in accordane with the drawing on the TCDS and would not need a field approval.

If you are wiling to share the cost of the DER, I am sure approving two won't cost any more than approving one installation.

[Hillbilly]

Gilbert, I dont suppose you have any detailed drawings on the tank as far as dimensions do you?

[Gilbert Pierce]

Gilbert, I don't suppose you have any detailed drawings on the tank as far as dimensions do you?

Yes I do. The drawings show it between the butt rib and the 2nd rib all the way from the rear spar to the front spar and the same height and shape as the rib.
Other then the brackets, which are dimensioned, that's all they show. The TCDS drawing the STC drawing are both pretty sparse. Fits my criteria of don't tell the feds anything more then necessary.

[Steve Pierce]

We could build a tank or modify the Wag Aero tank to meet the drawing. :idea:

[JohnW]

Gilbert; Honestly, I never liked the answer that you seem to have gotten. Fortunately, my ASI doesn't, either. He recommended I familiarize myself with the new version of what used to be Order 8300. Its 8900 now. Since I suspect you are a "reader" (and some people seem to think that if you take the time to read something that you don't have "anything else to do". I disagree with that inanity, too. Knowing the "rules of engagement" makes doing the difficult tasks POSSIBLE, even when the person that need to work WITH YOU doesn't understand. In short: knowlege is power).

So, if you are so inclined, please peruse this link:

http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=EBookContents

once there, kindly expand < volume 4 >, then <chapter 9 >, then < section 1 >. These are the "rules" that [WE and THEY] play by (and "They" seem to be doing their DAMNDEST to make these rules harder to find! COME ON, FAA, get on the Information Highway instead of putting up MORE "Red Tape"). Please note especially the part in vol 4 ch 9: 4-1178(A)(5) ASI Qualifications and Responsibilities paragraphs (13) -(16), inclusive. After you digest this section, and while trying to remain pleasant and "inquiring"... I would that you ask him to explain please how recommending that you instead comply with the next immediately following part (B) ISN'T "passing you off without assisting you" at YOUR out-of-pocket expense??? If he REALLY isn't just trying to "snake out from under the paperwork", then write up a Form 337 and submit it for consideration (YIPES! DO NOT sign the work as "accomplished" nor have the RTS signed off. This is ONLY your "application" for Field Approval and you -as you no doubt know- cannot so much as scratch paint until Block 3 is Approved). If he isn't willing to "communicate" clearly to you why he feels he "can't do that" based on the amount of APPROVED Data involved with what you are trying to do (btw, "what you are trying to do" looks to me like you are trying to employ an "exception" by using a DIFFERENT tank to accomplish the SAME alteration that is APPROVED on TCDS, not really a full-blown "Field Approval" from "scratch" with no "data". The "exception" is just a "technicality" that you are looking to "legitimize". You don' need no stinkin' DER). You are NOT required to re-evaluate an APPROVED installation, when your "exception" is a "Minor Change", by definition! Get him looking at an Application that "takes him off the hook" for buying the whole shebang, and if he gets mad...re-submit the Application to the Department Manager with a note that says the ASI assigned doesn't seem to "understand your position" here. Probably more than anything else..."gentle prodding" with appropriate explanation -with possession of the intent in the Order under your belt- is they way you will "catch the flies" here...?

Or, if that isn't "worth the work", I guess you should either "abandon" the idea, or spring open your wallet and take the ASI out of the loop (as he would APPARENTLY wish you would do). Ya know, this whole "Major Alteration" thing was supposed to work this way from the very beginning. Too bad FAA didn't adequately TRAIN their Safety Inspectors early on. They ARE TRYING to now, from what I see. We DO "have a system", and I believe when both parties use it correctly, it will do exactly what it was meant to do.

To ME, this is very productive reading. Well worth the "investment" of time. Accomplishment never comes cheap.

[Steve Pierce]

Thanks for that John. They keep changing things around. I had the 8300 bookmarked and then it was gone. I agree with what you say. I have had to educate myself to deal with them. They said they couldn't field approve my modification to install the Pacer double groove trim system in a Clipper because they can't field approve any modification to a control system. Well after some reading I found that was incorrect. There are several modifications to a control system they cannot approve but mine wasn't one of them. I am going to read a lot, educate myself and make a run at them on several mods. Thanks again. ;)

[Gilbert Pierce]

Steve: There is plenty of installation information on both drawings but no real data on the tank. To JohnW's point, all I really asked for was to approve the STC'd J3 installation in the Vag since the wing is the same just minus 2 bays and the TCDS installation was the same for both. Using an STC's tank seemed to me, being I think a reasonable person, a no brain-er. WRONG.

JohnW. It's late, I will read the info you sent tomorrow when my brain is fully engaged. Thanks for sending it. Getting old you know. The FSDO guy did say I could submit it but it would have to be sent up the line and would take 3 to 6 months to hear something and suggested the best route was use the DER.

I had another thought-Manufacture the tank under 21.303(b)(2). Owner produced part and install it under the TCDS addition. To Manufacture the part all I need to do is a quality control inspection of the WagAero tank OR have Steve build one. Can't be that difficult since it is the same shape as the rib and fits the rib bay. I have detailed drawings on the brackets.
Wonder how much trouble I would have defending that decision? Your thoughts on that; Steve, John?

[andya]

JW, couldn't agree with you more,BUT, it will really depend on the guy Gilbert has to work with. My PMI won't touch the simplest modification without a DER or "lots of engineering data" approved from region. Now in the same office, I lucked onto another inspector to help with a minor electrical change, and he is knowledgeable , helpful and logical and after a coffee and a couple donuts, says "yes, nothing wrong here, submit it".

On the other side of the coin, a friend of mine had a DER evaluate and do approval engineering paper work for us on modification to splitting the fiberglass nose bowl on PA-30's horizontally instead of vertically. One price and as many as we want to modify.

andy

[Hillbilly]

We could build a tank or modify the Wag Aero tank to meet the drawing. :idea:

Thats what I had in mind.

[Steve Pierce]

Build the tank that is on the TCDS as an owner produced part and install it with a log book entry.

[JohnW]

ahhhhhhh, I see the water is starting to boil. Almost time to drop the noodles in!

I'll say it one more time..."I never LIKED that answer...". Just always remember, it is the A&P Mechanic's decision what it an Major and what is a Minor repair or alteration. Read what is a "Major Alteration" in CFR 14 and remember that the definition of a Minor Alteration is "any alteration that is not a Major Alteration". Add in a little "don't make any glaring mistakes" and you'll be all right. When in doubt that you may be interpreting a situation in the direction of a "certificate action", THEN ring up your ASI for a little of that "guidance" the are so happy to provide.

Gilbert, wuz you saying YOU are "getting old" or wuz you saying I are "getting old"??? Your answer doesn't matter much, I guess, since both are equally TRUE. Oh, and I have to be overly anal retentive on ONE point...you as an owner can NOT "manufacture" a part. You MAY "fabricate" a part. "Manufacture" implies "to make in quantity with intention to resell" (trafficking, if you will). Owner fabricated parts are specifically by definition NOT to be resold. Parts "manufactured for resale" require the "manufacturer" to have a PMA. OPP is REALLY clear about not for resale. When you OPP a part like this tank in question, avoid the semantic quagmire... you are NOT "manufacturing the part", you are "fabricating it".

No doubt, given enough time of "misuse" the "common usage will change" (just like Papal Edicts. Now, how DOES that work with Official Interpretations of what God means??? How can that change if it was right to begin with? Because more people DO IT???) and fabricate and manufacture will indeed have interchangeable definitions. But no matter how hard I try, I STILL can't rationalize using the word "irregardless". I don't care that it IS "in Webster's" now, ir-regardless is two negatives, and that totals up to "one positive". So...since the meaning of REGARDLESS is clear, and you add "ir-" to the front, then irregardless must mean "not regardless", right? So. It is clear that that has NO MEANING whatsoever! When what really happened to BEGIN WITH was that some illiterate that MEANT to say "IRRESPECTIVE" blew trying to show off how smart he was and his vocabularial limitations fell down around his knees, and now because ignorance is the norm (not to mention "perfectly acceptable"), we have a word in the English language that is a total oxymoron and can't POSSIBLY mean what was intended to be said! And what happens NEXT? Will it become irirregardless? What "more sense" would THAT make (like "I always give 110% on the Field, duhhh"). Its just not, right, I tell ya.

[Steve Pierce]

The tank is listed on the TCDS so if it was installed IAW wouldn't you do it with a log book entry?

[pa23pilot]

thanks to all for the help on wing tanks!!
i have found some 337s that have been done one with one 16 gal in right wing. one using 2 wagaero tanks.
the IA i am working will be back 3rd week of next mo. the plan is to submit the copies we have with the changes we want,and wait and see what they the faa say we have to work with helena mt.
one was done in 87 in mt ,the other one was in spokane wa in 93.
doc

[pacerman]

I'm interested in that mod too (wing tank in a VAG) but one 6 gallon tank would be enough for me.

Joe

[N4567A]

Be very careful when requesting government agencies cut red tape...if left to their own devices they'll cut it lengthwise.
Remember, the definition of an elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.
Rodg