Mooneymite Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 I further suspect that hangared pilots live longer than those tied down outside. :-) Quote
ryoder Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 Yeah, I have a feeling that with an $1850 reseal you are going to get exactly what you pay for.  The only way to get bladders installed semi-affordably is to get O&N to do it themselves at their facility in Pennsylvania. They do it at a deep discount. I think I paid them $8700 laid in back about six years ago to install my 64 gallon bladder system.  You will lose your wing sight gauges if you go the bladder route, but you pick up stainless steel filler rings and new caps that don't seem to be as prone to leaking o-rings as the originals. The original senders and panel-mounted gauges are retained.  Jim I hope you are wrong. I have spoken to a couple of mechanics and engine builders and they were all surprised at the 6500 dollar price so common to our Mooney community. I think there is a bit of price fixing going on since they all h ave the exact same prive to the dollar. I spoke with Jeff at length about the operation and it included using Poly Gone, not sure how to spell that, and I think it's worth giving him the chance to do the reseal. He said he could repair the leaks for around five hundred or so if it didn't need a full reseal. These guys work on everything and maintain the helicopters and the airplane's for the local school plus a bunch of Mooneys on the field. Quote
xcrmckenna Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 I am looking at a plane in the Seattle area and it has a leak unde the wing walk "no bladder" is that a common place for sealed tanks to leak? Off track a little but it would give the pro bladder peeps a chance to tell me bladders should go in it, cuz theirs don't leak there... Quote
DrBill Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 I spent a bit over $6K on bladders in 2012. I"ll never have to worry about leaks in my lifetime. So far there are no documented bladder failures for the past 20+ years. It is clearly worth the 30 pounds I lost. I gained 3 gal (54 to 57) after bladder install. The value to me is NO MORE LEAKS IN MY LIFETIME. BILL 2 Quote
Marauder Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 I am looking at a plane in the Seattle area and it has a leak unde the wing walk "no bladder" is that a common place for sealed tanks to leak? Off track a little but it would give the pro bladder peeps a chance to tell me bladders should go in it, cuz theirs don't leak there... Wheel well is where I found my leak. Quote
DonMuncy Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 xcrmckenna' If you are talking about a spot on top of the wing in the wing walk area that shows a "wet" spot when the tanks are full, it is not that unusual, and super easy to fix. A hangar elf can do it in 15 minutes. 1 Quote
xcrmckenna Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 That is great news... But I guess I can't use that to get the price down.... is it a leak that is caused by walking on it? xcrmckenna' If you are talking about a spot on top of the wing in the wing walk area that shows a "wet" spot when the tanks are full, it is not that unusual, and super easy to fix. A hangar elf can do it in 15 minutes. Quote
par Posted January 18, 2015 Author Report Posted January 18, 2015 I spent a bit over $6K on bladders in 2012. I"ll never have to worry about leaks in my lifetime. So far there are no documented bladder failures for the past 20+ years. It is clearly worth the 30 pounds I lost. I gained 3 gal (54 to 57) after bladder install. The value to me is NO MORE LEAKS IN MY LIFETIME. BILL That is also my thought on the subject. I'm going to see if the guy can fix the issue under his warranty first but if that does not work, I will most likely go the bladder route. Quote
DrBill Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 If your leak is one of the top access panels then by all means, reseal the panel. If it's anywhere under the wing.  make your choice of where your AMUs will go ! BILL Quote
DonMuncy Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 Mine, and several others, just had a leaking screw. Scrape off the wing walk material, remove the screw, Put sealer on it and replace it. Dab wing walk goo on the scraped spot. 1 Quote
DaV8or Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 They weigh 30ish pounds and cost a bit more than a reseal. Â And you cannot install the visual fuel gauges in the wings if want those. Quote
xcrmckenna Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 From what I can see its leaking at the forward or upper part of the wing. Under the wing walk but on the top of the wing The gentleman said he just doesn't fill the tank all the way and it doesn't leak. I'm guessing it lacks 5 gallons or less to be full. Don that sounds like a pretty easy fix. Thank you and cheaper than a compleat reseal or bladders. Is that my first lesson into the CB' club??? Quote
Bob_Belville Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 I spent a bit over $6K on bladders in 2012. I"ll never have to worry about leaks in my lifetime. So far there are no documented bladder failures for the past 20+ years. It is clearly worth the 30 pounds I lost. I gained 3 gal (54 to 57) after bladder install. The value to me is NO MORE LEAKS IN MY LIFETIME. BILL Bill, the original E capacity is 52. I thought our bladders took that to 54? Quote
carusoam Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 Summary of the posts... Top of the wing can get realy hot in the sun... Heat is bad for sealant... There are rigid spots on the wing top that Mooney owners prefer to stay on... Guests have a tendency to find the flexy surface to stand on. Chris reviews these rigid spots with his models prior to wing walking. Rivets and seams are a place that leaks happen. Screws around the inspection panels are my favorite. A good pixie or hangar fary has been known to see rivets up close. Seams, not so much... Always fill the tanks to the top prior to negotiating on price.... Somewhere the polymer chemistry changed... Possibly at the introduction of the J & K. There is definitely a known science to stripping and resealing. It includes removing all of the old sealant but leave the paint unblemished. There is also a pair of gaskets in each tank that can get old and shrink or disintegrate. These are related to fuel level sensors. Best regards, -a- Quote
carusoam Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 Con... Bladder guys need to answer old lame humor regarding condoms in their tanks. Oh, the humanity... Quote
xcrmckenna Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 Par, I'm not a seller but hope to soon be a buyer and for what it is worth if I had two planes sitting next to each other one just had the tanks sealed "not at wet wing" and the other with bladders "not the extended tank" I would go with the bladders trusting them and willing to pay for them. 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
carusoam Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 XCRM, Thanks for defining your preference. Would you add that - the extra 30# loss of UL - mechanical fuel gauges for partial filling - small additional volume of fuel above 52gallons std. Doesn't sway your logic? Best regards, -a- Quote
Hank Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 I've not seen many Mooneys with bladders, but don't care for the new bladder cap a foot or so from the no longer used fuel cap. It's unattractive to say the least. And bladders cost more to install than is charged for a strip and reseal (about 1/3 more). Quote
Marauder Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 Bill, the original E capacity is 52. I thought our bladders took that to 54? It should have taken your fuel to 54.8 useable. I think there is another 2.2 gallons of unusable which is where Bill may have gotten the 57 from. Quote
Marauder Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 From what I can see its leaking at the forward or upper part of the wing. Under the wing walk but on the top of the wing The gentleman said he just doesn't fill the tank all the way and it doesn't leak. I'm guessing it lacks 5 gallons or less to be full. Don that sounds like a pretty easy fix. Thank you and cheaper than a compleat reseal or bladders. Is that my first lesson into the CB' club??? I often wonder if those guys who are not fixing the leaks at the top of the tanks aren't risking water getting in. Just because you aren't filling it to prevent fuel from leaking out doesn't mean water can't get in. Especially in a heavy rainstorm or flying through rain. Quote
xcrmckenna Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 XCRM, Thanks for defining your preference. Would you add that - the extra 30# loss of UL - mechanical fuel gauges for partial filling - small additional volume of fuel above 52gallons std. Doesn't sway your logic? Best regards, -a- If the plane I purchase doesn't have bladders and they start to leak I would go to the pros Wet Wing "at least they seem to be the best from what I have read on here" and not lose the UL over the bladders personally. Â But if someone told me they had just resealed their tanks and they only paid $1,800 a tank like someone had posted earlier "not that the seal wouldn't be a good seal" but others have said you get what you pay for. so I wouldn't trust them as much as a plane sitting right next to it that just had the bladders installed. Â getting into the mission of my future plane, I'm still young enough that I can out last the fuel tanks sitting or needing to use the bathroom, but my girlfriend seems to have the bladder of a 12 year old "she is NOT 12 years old.......:)" so she would need to land in 4 to 5 hours of flight time anyways. Â I would hope to put a JPI 930 in with plans to run LOP for numerous reasons and the added safety of removing fuel lines from the back of the panel and give me a fuel flow calculator. So if there was bladders in her already then the fuel gauges don't bother me as much. If I'm understanding right. Â but I wouldn't be interested in looking at a plane with the extended bladders i believe 64 or 88 gallons "could be off on the sizes" because I wouldn't want to lose all that useful load. 1 Quote
xcrmckenna Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 I often wonder if those guys who are not fixing the leaks at the top of the tanks aren't risking water getting in. Just because you aren't filling it to prevent fuel from leaking out doesn't mean water can't get in. Especially in a heavy rainstorm or flying through rain. That's a great point I never really thought of that as much. I had just planned on getting it fixed. I realize water in the tanks is very bad for engine performance but is it hard on the sealant or lead to corrosion in the tanks where there isn't sealant after you do get the water out? Something that could lead to another leak or a clog? Quote
bonal Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 What are you talking about, Hank? Please explain. Thanks, Jim I was wondering that myself don't have extra fuel caps or unused ones. Speaking of which when in annual my mech checks to see if my caps need something replaced and remembers I have bladders and says oh nothing to do here. Quote
carusoam Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 Challenges for outdoor storage for sure... Rain entry while flying, less likely because, pressure differential is from the inside towards the outside of the tank... Water in the tanks can be hazardous in so many ways. It is best to be avoided. Most often a gas cap seal leaks. There are two on each cap...inner and outer... Best regards, -a- Quote
Hank Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 What are you talking about, Hank? Please explain. Thanks, Jim Maybe it's because he had a short body (52 gal tanks), he may have opted for the 64 gal bladders which require an additional wing bay. 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.