Bladders or Patch+Strip/Reseal (sorry, another thread on this - need advice)

[Bob_Belville]

I thought bladder installation was a little involved.  Has anyone had a local A&P or IA do an O&N bladder installation for them?

I think the question comes from a UK based owner. While Factoryville, Joey Cole, or Don Maxwell, etc. would be more efficient due to experience, his local folks should be able to do a good job with the kit.

[Bob_Belville]

I've toyed with adding the now available 10 gallon option to my 54 gallon set up. Even if it took Lynn a little longer than it would for O&N, the cost of taking the plane to Factoryville PA, or even Dalton GA, would cost more. Lynn would have no problem with the install. And we'd do it in my hanger with me helping.

[Bob_Belville]

You should do it, Bob. They allowed us to make it home to NC from Oshkosh for the first time non-stop. Inbound, though, we refueled anyway in case we had to hold around the lake. Priceless!

The hesitation is that the airplane's bladder is in reality not the bladder that limits my range.

[mike_elliott]

The hesitation is that the airplane's bladder is in reality not the bladder that limits my range.

I had the same problem with my F and 64 Gal useable at 8.6 GPH, 144 TAS. Dang thing could outfly me. Sure don't have that problem with the Bravo (yet)

[bonal]

^{54 gallons for me is perfect 3 hour legs and I am ready for a stretch but if I have to the extra hour is no problem and still have an hour reserve after that.}

[helitim]

Would the installation of bladders require the same stripping and cleaning of the interior of the tanks or, do you place them in position and connect them as is? If cleaning the tanks is not required, why does it cost so much for installation? I just finished helping a hangar neighbor replace the bladder in the left side of his 182 and it really didn't seem all that difficult. We stripped out all the old tape, cleaned and replaced it prior to adding the bladder. Took maybe 5-6 hours. Are Mooneys that much more difficult?

Tim

[rbridges]

Would the installation of bladders require the same stripping and cleaning of the interior of the tanks or, do you place them in position and connect them as is? If cleaning the tanks is not required, why does it cost so much for installation? I just finished helping a hangar neighbor replace the bladder in the left side of his 182 and it really didn't seem all that difficult. We stripped out all the old tape, cleaned and replaced it prior to adding the bladder. Took maybe 5-6 hours. Are Mooneys that much more difficult?

Tim

 

not sure of the details, but the kit itself is several thousand dollars plus the cost of the labor.  it's not as simple as just putting them in the fuel tank b/c they do need to make some modifications to the wing.

[helitim]

"not sure of the details, but the kit itself is several thousand dollars plus the cost of the labor. it's not as simple as just putting them in the fuel tank b/c they do need to make some modifications to the wing."

No question there is some work but, how much is what I am wondering? What modifications are required?

[DonMuncy]

I have no real knowledge, but it is my understanding that if you make the modifications to go to bladders, you can not go back.

[mooney2201]

did bladders 14 years ago.....lever looked back...zero problems

[chrisk]

I know the folks with bladders love them.  I also know other planes (Cessna 210, and 337) have had issues with bladders wrinkling, which has caused issues with water not making its way to the sump, but making it to the engine after take off.  Perhaps the dihedral on the Mooney is sufficient that this is not a problem.  And if you hangar the plane, it is probably not an issue.  --But maybe some thing to think and ask about.

 

If I had an E, I would certain get bladders to increase the fuel capacity.  For my plane, I went with a re-seal, since I have 76 gal capacity and didn't want to loose any.

[Marauder]

I know the folks with bladders love them. I also know other planes (Cessna 210, and 337) have had issues with bladders wrinkling, which has caused issues with water not making its way to the sump, but making it to the engine after take off. Perhaps the dihedral on the Mooney is sufficient that this is not a problem. And if you hangar the plane, it is probably not an issue. --But maybe some thing to think and ask about.

If I had an E, I would certain get bladders to increase the fuel capacity. For my plane, I went with a re-seal, since I have 76 gal capacity and didn't want to loose any.

The O&N bladders did have a couple of issues that led to an AD. They had to put foam blocks under the bladders, a vain in front of the vent and cap design was changed.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/6ff2eeba54075bb686256f65005b79bc/$FILE/042504.pdf

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Marauder]

And... I still love my bladders!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Bob_Belville]

I know the folks with bladders love them.  I also know other planes (Cessna 210, and 337) have had issues with bladders wrinkling, which has caused issues with water not making its way to the sump, but making it to the engine after take off.  Perhaps the dihedral on the Mooney is sufficient that this is not a problem.  And if you hangar the plane, it is probably not an issue.  --But maybe some thing to think and ask about.

 

If I had an E, I would certain get bladders to increase the fuel capacity.  For my plane, I went with a re-seal, since I have 76 gal capacity and didn't want to loose any.

Understansd and agree.

 

And I might add the extra capacity. The original fuel capacity for Es was 52 gal. With slightly higher caps the bladders are supposed to have 54. I suspect you have to keeping topping off to get that much in.

 

Gross for Es is only 2575# (vs. 2740 for Fs and 2900 for Js) so useful is usually about 900#. Standard fuel takes a little more than 300# of that. Another 60# of fuel leave 525-540# which is fine unless you're filling seats. Or your co-pilot is one of B26's pinups.

[Mooneymite]

The O&N bladders did have a couple of issues that led to an AD. They had to put foam blocks under the bladders, a vain in front of the vent and cap design was changed.

 

>>>>and cap design was changed.<<<

 

When I complied with the AD, I did not change the fuel caps; I use the AMOC for that part.  I love the fuel caps that came with the original installation.  In 18 years, I've never found a drop of water in my tanks and the caps are much less prone to needing maintenance than the ones that use O-rings.

 

As an aside, the caps I have are identical to the ones on many biz jets.  No AD on them, so I'm suspecting it was another FAA 'overkill'.  The downside is that if you DO need parts, they charge you biz-jet prices!

[Seth]

I had bladders in my 1967 F model and never worried about leaks even though there could have been issues.  It is rare when a bladder leaks and it is repairable. There is an ADs over moisture getting trapped in a fold in the bladder.  See Maurader's response below for more information regarding this AD.  It was never an issue when I owned and flew my Mooney with Bladders.

 

In my Missile, I have the Monroy extended tanks, which do not have a bladder solution.  I can install bladders and lose 34 gallons, or I can reseal.  So I will reseal the Mooney when the time is right.  If I top off the tanks completely with all 98 gallons, I have a slight leak, so I know the top of my Monroy extended range tanks have a small leak.  I rarely need 98 gallons on board.  2-3 gallons per side less, and I'm fine with no leak, so if I'm making a real long trip, I'll top off and take off, otherwise, 90 gallons in the aircraft is plenty.  I will reseal with Paul and Weep No More at some point, hopefully years from now.  He and I have talked and though I have not yet been serviced by his company, he seems to match his reputation.

 

You can't go wrong.  Bladders are great, but cost useful load and the inability to add Monroy tanks in the future.  It will fix your issue, as will a reseal.

 

-Seth

[mooniac15u]

There are some ADs over moisture getting trapped between the bladder and the skin of the plane and thus contributing to corrosion.

 

 

For Mooney bladders?

[Marauder]

For Mooney bladders?

There is no AD for moisture under them. The AD is for moisture in them. They now require foam under them to force water to the drain.

[mooniac15u]

There is no AD for moisture under them. The AD is for moisture in them. They now require foam under them to force water to the drain.

 

I know about that AD.  My old M20D had bladders.  I thought maybe there was a new one that I hadn't heard about yet.

[Marauder]

I know about that AD. My old M20D had bladders. I thought maybe there was a new one that I hadn't heard about yet.

No new ADs that I am aware of.

[Seth]

There is no AD for moisture under them. The AD is for moisture in them. They now require foam under them to force water to the drain.

I have fixed my thread response to reflect this.  Thanks for pointing out the correct information.

 

-Seth