par Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 For those who have gone through the process and spent the money, how much value did you add with fuel bladders? I recently purchased a C that had the tanks sealed but that does not appear to have solved all the leaks. If the problems continue, I would consider going the bladder route. How much of the investment can I expect to recover upon resale? Par Quote
BigTex Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 You'll not recover much but if you have leaky tanks or it's been a long time since the last reseal job, that would be a big negative. Quote
rbridges Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 Jimmy garrison gave it around $1000 but it's subjective. It will depend on the buyer. Some will love it, others will not. 1 Quote
carusoam Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 Tough to look at it this way but... You will sell at full price without having to give a discount for old or near leaky tanks... It is expected that an airworthy Mooney doesn't have leaks. Technically, some small leaks are acceptable. If you have to explain that while selling.... You won't be the guy... Always wondering if this year will be the year I have a leak... It's your choice... A good reseal vs bladders will have the same effect. Another way to look at it... Nobody is really disappointed with their bladders. Both choices are good. Both cost more than you want to pay. Both last more than a decade when done correctly. Both can be fixed if you have a problem... best regards, -a- 3 Quote
Mooneymite Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 I am a big fan of the bladder conversion....now. When I bought my Mooney, I was scarcely aware of them as a feature. As a Mooney newbie, it just didn't mean anything to me that the plane had them. Quote
lahso Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 As others have said, probably not very much. After leaking tanks, and strong fuel smell in the cockpit, I debated sealing - but eventually - went the bladder route. Quote
ArtVandelay Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 What is the con of bladders? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote
Mooneymite Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 What is the con of bladders? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk The biggest disadvantage of bladders is that when other Mooney owners are sitting around discussing their latest fuel seep/leak/weep, you will have to sit smugley as a non-participant. You will feel so lonely. :-) :-) 3 Quote
RobertGary1 Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 I'd pay more for a fresh resealed plane than a bladder. So I'd devalue a plane with a bladder. Especially if it's the older style that reduced fuel capacity to 50 gal Quote
ArtVandelay Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 They weigh 30ish pounds and cost a bit more than a reseal. Do you lose any capacity? How long do they last? If you have nonstandard fuel gauges (wing mounted), is that a problem? Quote
Marauder Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 As a long time bladder owner (early 90s), I am absolutely satisfied with them. Like moomeymite says, us bladders guys sit quietly and smugly listening to the reseal conversations. I don't know the useful life of a properly resealed tank - mine was leaking 15 years after coming out of the factory. If 20 years is the norm, I would be looking at a reseal about now after 24 years of ownership. For a C owner, I think you will pick up a few gallons of fuel. Going from 52 to 54.8 useable (I think). Quote
Marauder Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 Do you lose any capacity? How long do they last? If you have nonstandard fuel gauges (wing mounted), is that a problem? The initial bladder conversions did result in the loss of about 9 gallons on the planes with 64 gallon tanks. Since then O&N have added a couple more bladders to the STC to get it back up to 64. I never went back to get it upgraded because after 4 hours of flying, I'm ready for a break. At 10 GPH I have 5+40 on board. Quote
ryoder Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 I'd pay more for a fresh resealed plane than a bladder. So I'd devalue a plane with a bladder. Especially if it's the older style that reduced fuel capacity to 50 gal And so the flame war begins... I was quoted 1850 for a full reseal on both tanks. Haven't had it done yet but I will report back when I do. Quote
rbridges Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 1850 for reseals is awful low. I'd be very wary of how well it will be done. Even patch jobs run a grand or so. 1 Quote
xrs135 Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 And so the flame war begins... I was quoted 1850 for a full reseal on both tanks. Haven't had it done yet but I will report back when I do. $1850 for a FULL reseal?! That's a deal! Weep No More runs about $6700 + tax for a full reseal in the C. Bladders seem to be significantly more expensive to me... On the O&N website, they have an old price from 2011 of $6,050 listed and that's before labor and tax! I'll likely have to make this decision sometime in the near future as well. Quote
bonal Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 My D/C has O&N's I have 54 usable at 9gph that's way longer than I care to go without a stretch. I know this may also be a stretch but I like knowing there is another barrier between my fuel an the ground should I ever have to do an off field landing. I would like to get a sample of the rubber used to see how strong it is. OK gents fire away... Quote
carusoam Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 Interesting point Bonal... Do we have any known evidence that the bladder is strong enough to withstand broken sheet metal? Regarding landing with trees... Best regards, -a- Quote
bonal Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 I have never seen any such thing I suppose if accidents that result in fire and those that did not and if there was a way to statisticaly see the results we might have something there. But you said it yourself torn sheet metal is just that nothing to keep the fuel from escaping. I'm sure it would fail in some cases but maybe not. Quote
ryoder Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 $1850 for a FULL reseal?! That's a deal! Weep No More runs about $6700 + tax for a full reseal in the C. Bladders seem to be significantly more expensive to me... On the O&N website, they have an old price from 2011 of $6,050 listed and that's before labor and tax! I'll likely have to make this decision sometime in the near future as well. Bender Aviation KCLW call Jeff the owner. Quote
jetdriven Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 Last guy I know has his M20E resealed in FL and it was more like 9K Quote
jetdriven Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 My D/C has O&N's I have 54 usable at 9gph that's way longer than I care to go without a stretch. I know this may also be a stretch but I like knowing there is another barrier between my fuel an the ground should I ever have to do an off field landing. I would like to get a sample of the rubber used to see how strong it is. OK gents fire away... Bonal The real problem with 54 gallons is filing IFR /A with an alternate. You end up only being able to fly 400 miles Quote
bonal Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 The real problem with 54 gallons is filing IFR /A with an alternate. You end up only being able to fly 400 miles Sadly I must admit not knowing what the reserve requirements are for IFR but with daylight VFR and ground speed of 150mph easily done at around 8gph winds not wistanding I can fly for 5 hours or 750 statute miles. Quote
jetdriven Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 Sadly I must admit not knowing what the reserve requirements are for IFR but with daylight VFR and ground speed of 150mph easily done at around 8gph winds not wistanding I can fly for 5 hours or 750 statute miles.Well you have to fly to your destination, go missed, then proceed to the alternate then :45 mins at normal cruise thereafter. Which means 7.5 gallons at the missed approach point, at the alternate which is suicidal if the weather is bad enough for two missed approaches. So let's call it 10 at alternate missed. Plus 5-10 for destination to first alternate. /G GPS LPV approach capability helps greatly, but for us it's ILS or VOR only, and anymore those airports are getting less common. And the ones that do fuel costs 8.00$ a gallon. So for us, going from HOU to Tampa. Vfr no problem, but close with tailwinds. IFR with alternate not possible. You need 15 gallons landing at destination, which only gives you 39 gallons burnoff. Or 3.5 hours LOP cruise including taxi, takeoff and climb, or 500-550 NM. If the alternate is 120 NM away, then your alternate fuel at destination is more like 20 gallons. Which only leaves 34 for burnoff. With 64 gallons you basically add ten gallons of cruise burn to all this. Or 1/4 to 1/3rd more range Quote
DonMuncy Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 I think the question of how long tanks will go before needing a re-seal depends on what sealant was being used when your plane was built, and perhaps which particular Mooney employee was doing the work. My 231 is now about 33 years old without leaks or re-seals. I also do not believe that hard landings are a big factor. I have done at least my share of less than greaser landings. 2 Quote
Mooneymite Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 Don, I think hangaring will also prolong sealant life. As a matter of fact (without any evidence, whatsoever), I suspect that hangaring will also prolong the life of bladders. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.