Page 2 of 2

Re: 1948 Fuel Tank 337/STC

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 1:24 am
by melcessna
There is a 337 and a Limited STC, two approvals. The Limited STC is a mirror image. My tanks are a mirror image of the left wing. We hope to prevail. Thanks for your follow up. Mike

Re: 1948 Fuel Tank 337/STC

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 2:09 am
by Bruce Fenstermacher
Ryan Smith wrote:
gahorn wrote:
melcessna wrote:No. It is a left tank reversed just like the STC on file.
Michaei, that's not an STC, it's a "field approval" with Block 3 approved by FAA on a Form 337. A Left tank reversed would still have a cap...so I suppose you mean it's a right outboard tank which is reversed, i.e., "mirror image". (Better in my opinion, but not in accordance with the 337 in our library. I doubt if an FAA Inspector who looks at yours will have any trouble with that difference if he's inclined to accept the 337. I just wanted you to see that difference so you could correct your parts-listing in your application.) :wink:
Item 79 (which I highlighted...) is a limited STC. SA869NW

That’s the file I sent Mike.
Oh now I see item 079 Ryan. I missed that myself. So we do have two documents about this subject in our library.

Re: 1948 Fuel Tank 337/STC

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 4:42 pm
by GAHorn
Yes, Ryan I see what you highlighted, thank you., But that is not an "STC" in the traditional sense... it's actually no more valid than the "field approval" which Bruce actually posted which I thought was what we were discussing. (My monitor did not adequately "highlight" your choice so I didn't read it or reference it. Thanks for pointing that out.)

My point was/is that the left outboard tank must be exactly as descrived in the approval utilized for a new application...or that difference should be noted. The simplest method for most is to use an original 140/170 left tank because the feed lines are already existent. But some installations use a 170 right outboard tank with altered lines, and those alterations sometimes are merely rubber hoses and some are welded tubes.

Whichever Michael (or anyone else) submits for approval should document those differences.