HELP, HELP AirGlas Belly tank / Cargo pod field approval

[mrpolaris]

I need help from one of you Super Cub drivers out there.
I have a PA 18-105 special that I just finished instaling a new 160HP in.
I purchased the STC for this from CC.
I have met all of there requirments for the STC for the motor in my PA 18-105.
I want to install a Airglas Belly tank/Cargo pod in her but Airglas's STC is for PA 18-150's.
What do I have to do to show the FSDO that my 105 conforms to a 150 for the Belly/cargo pod?
Also has anyone out there ever received a field approval for this mod?
Thanks for any help on this.
Mark

 

[StewartB]

You should be able to get a deviation for your installation. I asked the same question for a pod on my 12, and was told (yes, by the FAA) that a deviation would be no problem, using the PA-18 STC, and that answer came very recently.
SB

 

[cobblemaster]

Landis should ammend their STC to show all PA18s with approved 0320 and 1750 gross weight. Did the FAA tell you needed a field approval or your IA? I see lots of 337s with STCs signed off that are for PA18-150 only but they are installed in PA18-125 etc.

I would state in the 337 that the aircraft conforms to the PA18-150 type certificate via CC stc and what ever gross weight STC you used.

 

[T.J.]

delete

 

[mrpolaris]

I want to say Thank you to all of you for the info.
I will let you know what the outcome is after the paper work ordeal!!
I was really hoping that someone already had a field approval that I could get a copy of.
O well I think I will be able to get through this.
Mark

 

[StewartB]

Mark,
Did you get approval? I'm curious because up here, we can't get field approval of pods anymore. Landis didn't like Furmin pods getting installed by FA when they have an STC'd pod, so they complained and essentially got Furmin shut-down (Bill's STC is coming soon,) using the argument that you can't field approve when there's an available STC. I asked about how to get approval of either brand on a 12 and was told the deviation story. I was told I could install a Landis right now, but I'm waiting for Bill's STC.
SB

edit: And no, I'm not bashing Landis. In their position, I'd do the same thing to protect my sales niche.

 

[cobblemaster]

so they complained and essentially got Furmin shut-down

Maybe the manufactures should share some of the blame for the lack of field approvals?

 

[mrpolaris]

SB
No haven't yet
I am still working on it.
I will have a better idea on how it is going in about 2 weeks.
I wouldn't think it should be a problem but were talking the FAA here.
I will keep you all informed
Mark

 

[SuperCub MD]

I don't know your particular plane Mark, but if it is legally converted from a 105 to a PA18-150 in every way, maybe you could just put PA18-150 under "model" on the 337, send it in and be done. This has been done before with success. You could make the arguement that "legally", it isn't a 105 anymore.

 

[diggler]

[delete

 

[StewartB]

No, it's the rules that we live by. The FAA can be blamed for making the rules, Landis and every other business just has to figure out how to survive under those rules. In my business I do it every day. If we don't like the way things are, we have the ability to lobby the FAA, or other government agency, to change the rules in our favor. Private business is motivated by profit, not public opinion.
SB
And, by the way, the point of my statement is that, theoretically, Landis pods CAN'T BE FIELD APPROVED EITHER! Thus the deviation. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
SB

 

[diggler]

[delete