Long range tanks

[romair]

Hello

The time has come for my bird to get a strip and reseal. I will stay with wet tanks, and its going to be either weep no more or the Florida place. They both seem good options. One option is to add the long range tanks at this time (around $6500 extra). I plan on owning the airplane for another 3-4 years then selling (looking for something Turbo and ice protection). In terms of selling the airplane, does having the long range tanks help significantly? Am I going to recoup most of the expense, or will it be a sunk cost? An advantage would of course be even if I don't recoup a significant amount of the cost but I get to sell it fairly fast.

My mission does not involve flying great distances often. Sometimes I toy with the idea of flying from Houston to Cancun over the gulf, but then the thought of single engine over a big ole pond makes me reconsider. 

Another issue is accurate fuel management. It seems like most owners with the long range tanks have this problem.

What do you guys think

Thanks

Stefan

[ArtVandelay]

The J has a 6.5 hr endurance at 55% power, I think if you took a poll, 95% or more would say 4-5 hours is their personal max. That said if there is someone who really needs it, your plane will stand out.

I think the extra tankage makes more sense if its a K or conversion with higher burn rate.

[rbridges]

getting a recent strip/reseal will not add a whole lot to your plane's value.  I believe Jimmy Garrison gives a grand or so.  It does help with selling, however.  Buyers like the idea of a wilmar/wetwingologist reseal.  I don't know about the long range tanks.  Personally, I wouldn't care for them, but it would definitely stand out to the pilot that wants them.

[carusoam]

Leaking tanks can drag out the sales process, and limit your target audience.

A new reseal helps move things along.

I sold one and bought the other...

My experience,

-a-

[FoxMike]

Stefan,

Sometimes a complete seal is not necessary.  Although a long way to go, try the Weep No More people.  They have done some work on my airplane and did not need to completely reseal.  On the subject of tank size, I would not mess with larger tanks unless you have a continual need for them.  Your idea of a trip to Cancun could be done with the tanks you have.  Fly over to New Orleans and kick the trip off from from KNEW. The overwater would be about 150NM less.  Adding tankage for sale purposes would be attractive to a few buyers but I would bet you would not recover 50% of your cost.  Putting in an ADS-B system (UAT) would be a better use of money.  Just my thoughts.

Walt

[Bob - S50]

Every person is different, but for me long range tanks would be a negative.  Like teejayevans said, the J has more endurance than most pilots/wives as is.  Our limit for planning purposes is 3 hours +/- between stops.  Adding long range tanks will reduce the useful load which would be a negative to me.

 

Your choice though,

 

Bob

[aviatoreb]

Hello

The time has come for my bird to get a strip and reseal. I will stay with wet tanks, and its going to be either weep no more or the Florida place. They both seem good options. One option is to add the long range tanks at this time (around $6500 extra). I plan on owning the airplane for another 3-4 years then selling (looking for something Turbo and ice protection). In terms of selling the airplane, does having the long range tanks help significantly? Am I going to recoup most of the expense, or will it be a sunk cost? An advantage would of course be even if I don't recoup a significant amount of the cost but I get to sell it fairly fast.

My mission does not involve flying great distances often. Sometimes I toy with the idea of flying from Houston to Cancun over the gulf, but then the thought of single engine over a big ole pond makes me reconsider. 

Another issue is accurate fuel management. It seems like most owners with the long range tanks have this problem.

What do you guys think

Thanks

Stefan

 

Wow - thats a little less than I heard it costs to install LR tanks.  $6500? So what is the total with LR and a reseal all at once?

[ArtVandelay]

The long range tanks add 36 gal, or 30 if you have speed brakes, you could ask about retrofitting the K tanks, which would add an extra 10 gal, might be much cheaper but still give you the extra range you want. Anybody know if that's an option?

[romair]

Wow - thats a little less than I heard it costs to install LR tanks.  $6500? So what is the total with LR and a reseal all at once?

In the process of negociating that...

[Z W]

I have long range tanks. They are rarely useful. I don't think I've used their capacity in about two years. I would not pay $6500 for them. I would bet this is a sunk cost for you for resale purposes. 

 

If I ever get around to flying to Alaska or thar British Virgin Islands, I'll be glad they're there. 

[chrisk]

I've toyed with the idea of getting long range tanks, but have not done it for a few reasons:  1) It's expensive.  2) It's to much effort to take the plane to weep-no-more, which are the only folks I would use.  --You should read this as expensive in time, fuel, and airline tickets.  and 3) with an extra 30 gallons of fuel, I loose 150 lbs of useful load.  i.e. it leaves me with around 350 lbs of useful load. which is consumed by me, my wife, and the required POH.  Forget about luggage, clothing, or an iPad. --Which reminds me, I looked at buying a 252 with long range tanks.  With full fuel I would have been at gross just by my self and no luggage. 

[Seth]

I love my long range tanks - but I also have the Missile Engine - IO-550.

 

For an IO-360, unless you are continually burning through all the gas and needing a little more distance to be covered between your usual flights, I would advise not getting the conversion.  Though the extra range is wonderful, how often would you use it?  I know it was worth it for my airplane as I can now fly 5.5 hour legs if need be.  Without it, I'm looking at 3-3.5 hour legs at high speed.  It adds flexibility for the thirstier engines, for the IO360, it will add endurance, but will without question outlast your bladder.

 

Also, when not needing full fuel, or when you don't want to keep it topped off on the ground because you have a flight coming up with multiple people on board, are you going to go flying to burn off the extra fuel or simply not fill it entirely and let the tanks sit half empty, or with 60 gallons?  This will in time dry out the sealant as the best thing for the sealant is to have full tanks.  That will degrade your climb and cruise performance and make your flexibility an issue when you need to take a quick trip with two or three others but have a wing full of fuel to burn off or drain before taking the trip.

 

It's the fastest speed addition you can put on a plane as you'll have less fuel stops, but unless warranted, in a J it may not make sense.

 

I usually keep 60 gallons in my aircraft when parked and I know it must be drying out the sealant in certain areas.

 

-Seth

[romair]

Thanks guys. This has been helpful. Looks like a regular strip and reseal, and use the left over money to buy 1000 gallons of 100LL and fly around with those newly sealed tanks...

[ArtVandelay]

I usually keep 60 gallons in my aircraft when parked and I know it must be drying out the sealant in certain areas.

 

-Seth

Everyone I've talked to says that as long as your plane is hangared, having some fuel is enough.

It's heat from being baked in the sun that causes the sealant to break down. YMMV

[Danb]

I'm in Seth's camp although I have a Bravo which need's the added fuel, I also had 2 J's with standard tanks. The J model had enough range in terms of a Hours of flight therefore I don't think there would be much value in this addition, I feel the opposite is true in the long bodies, the purchase of long range tanks was one of my best additions to my Bravo for a few reasons, I think a Bravo with only 89 gal of usable fuel is a huge detriment to the plane but the addition to 130 gal. makes the airplane considerably useful without pushing on with low tanks. A nonstop flight from De. to Miami is very convenient with the LR tanks. I found the purchase very beneficial.....

[teethdoc]

My personal bladder is only good for 3h.  30 extra gallons would just eat up more weight.

[1964-M20E]

I have an F with 54 gallon bladders./  I’ve toyed with the idea of getting the extra bladders to get back up to 64 gallons.  My longest trip to date which will be next month the extra 10 gallons would be nice but this trip is out of the ordinary although for the next couple of years I will probably make it several times a year.  If the weather cooperates and I do not need to shoo an approach I can easily make it without a fuel stop, but if the weather requires an approach I’m going to have to make a fuel stop just to make sure.

 

In the end 94 gallons vs 64 gallons I don't think I'd do it.

[201er]

Extended range tanks are one of the best things you can possibly have on your plane IF you will actually use them. There are 2 great ways to save money with long range tanks:

1) Fly long range without stops
2) Buy cheap fuel and skip expensive

When fuel varies by several dollars a gallon between airports, you can literally save hundreds of dollars by being able to skip the monopoly at those expensive airports. Because you have to choose between fuel and passengers, the extended range tanks only make sense if you fly only 1-2 people. If you fly 3 or more, or one of those on board weighs for 2, the tanks are worthless.

When it comes to extended range, the ability to carry another 50% more fuel actually doubles your range! This is what most people don't realize. It sounds like an 64 gallons is 6 hours and 100 gallons is 10 hours which is just 4 more. In reality, I think most of us will agree that 20 gallons is a good reserve and few of us like to be below that. That means 64 gallons only provides 44 usable whereas 100 gallons provides 80 usable. That's near double the range because the reserve does not need to increase. Fuel reserve is a fixed amount regardless of capacity so adding a little more capacity goes a longer way overall. That's either 10 hours of non-stop flying or 2x 5 hour legs without having to get fuel or maybe even 3x 3 hour legs where you can skip expensive gas.

Take it from me, I flew New Jersey to Texas on $88 of fuel.

[chrisk]

Because you have to choose between fuel and passengers, the extended range tanks only make sense if you fly only 1-2 people. If you fly 3 or more, or one of those on board weighs for 2, the tanks are worthless.

 

I agree, but this is very dependent on your plane. A K model going fr0m 76 to 110 gal means you can have 660 lbs of fuel.  This is ok if your gross is at 1000 lbs, but if its 900 lbs (and some 252's have less), then you have 240 lbs of useful.  Unfortunately that would put my wife and I over by 80 lbs.  We are not big folks either. 

 

And I have to agree on your comment about longer legs and not stopping.   Stopping will probably cost you 10 gallons and an hour. 

 

P.S.  As I recall, the long range tanks were really useful in your Caribbean trip.  Was it Belize to Aruba?

[teethdoc]

Take it from me, I flew New Jersey to Texas on $88 of fuel.

 

This was fun to watch as you went along.

[201er]

Yeah, the 3 key elements to saving money on fuel have been flying nonstop, buying cheap fuel, and leaning LOP. Extended range tanks really help for the first two. Cost per capita really wins when you fill all the seats, particularly if it's little people. Where's that thread about Mooney pilots being cheap?

[Z W]

For a time I flew regularly with over 75 gallons on board. In my K 75 gallons is full mains. 105 gallons is full extended range tanks too. I figured fuel left at the pump is no use to me. May as well have a 5 hour reserve if the plane can carry it and be under gross.

When solo I can fill the all the tanks and have just enough gross weight for me and a bag. That's about 8 hours of fuel.

I have since decided the plane performs much better a couple hundred pounds under gross. Less runway used on takeoff and landing. Easier to grease landings. Better rate of climb. It feels safer with the extra performance than with the extra fuel.

So now I keep just a 1.5 hour fuel reserve in the plane in the hangar. Before each trip I add just enough for the trip. Sometimes an extra hour of fuel for headwinds, ifr conditions, or if the load is light.

Using this method I have had little or no use for the extended tanks in quite a while. I do plan stops every 3-4 hours for comfort.

Your experience may vary.

[adrian]

I have the long range tanks in my E. For me, they paid for themselves several times over when flying the airplane from the USA to Europe. On one leg, with unexpectedly strong headwinds I burned 53 gallons. Standard capacity is 52 and there were no alternates nearby.

That may be the only time I'll ever do that kind of trip, but in more routine flying in Europe I find them useful. 100LL supplies are not always good; in the south of France lots of airports seem to run out every summer, and the ones that do have it are often closed for lunch! And there are big price variations - it's nice to fill up at home and fly somewhere knowing that I can fly home without having to buy any of the destination airport's expensive fuel.

As the E is really only a 2 seater anyway, and as I'm usually alone, the weight of the extra fuel isn't a big issue. If I was buying a Mooney and had to choose between two identical aircraft, one with LR tanks and one without, I'd definitely buy the one that had them - even if it cost a couple of thousand dollars more.

[ArtVandelay]

Zane, I'm surprised that you can tell the difference, it's not like the K is underpowered, assume you took on 45 instead of 75, that's like having 1 passenger.

[mmgreve]

Adrian, if you fly in and out of the UK on a regular basis, it also gives you a little more fuel to claim the duty back on.

 

By rough calculation, you can claim back 40p on an extra 113 litres, or £45.  If the $6500 (£4000) install price holds, you only need to fill up 89 times to recoup the cost