Fuel Bladders

[scottfromiowa]

Thanks Jim & Mike.  My tanks seep.  Right tank will empty if it sits for 3 weeks.  Left tank O.K. as long as it's less than 1/2 full.  It's a slow seep so I have not addressed.  When I do it will be with bladders.  54 gallon tanks are fine for me and the weight is not an issue.  I look forward to the SS/new caps and filler neck.  I will replace senders when I have them get in there...then paint...after replacement of a right flap that I damaged shortly after getting my plane.  Hanger had a "downhill" and there are two support posts (vertical) in the hangers.  Some installed wood blocks, but mine didn't have them and the second time I hangered my plane she started down hill and be time I realized what happened it was a "thunk" and a damaged flap.  I hate looking at that damn flap.  Reminds me every time I get in the plane. sigh...

I found out how long wings on Mooney's are too as I thought "hey I'll swing around" and get "closer" missed hanger door by six inches...probably more like two...I had flown Cherokee's before and just wasn't used to that big long wing.  Never again on both those gotchas/near miss's...

Be careful....newbee's don't resemble my "never again" stories...

[Theo]

Quote: scottfromiowa

 

How do the fuel level sendors work with the O&N conversion?  What is done to existing fuel senders?

[rbridges]

Surely the material used to seal the wings is superior to the stuff used in the 60's.  I noticed a slow weep in my right wing shortly after I bought the plane.  Cost may be my ultimate deciding point, but I wanted to go with a reseal vs. bladders.  I weigh 210 lbs, and the 880 lb useable weight is already a bit skimpy for me.

[ToddDPT]

We are currently trying to decide if we are going to do a reseal or bladders.  It seems like all the discussion of shops isn't anywhere near California.  Anyone have any suggestions on reputable shops in the west for either reseals or bladders?

[scottfromiowa]

Hey Theo...Idiot say... "Duh".

[jetdriven]

Quote: JimR

Don't count on no more leaks for good. Plenty of bladders leak. Wasn't there an AD on them a couple of years ago ?

The one time AD that you are referring to applied to Mooney bladder systems installed prior to February 1, 1998.  It involved adding anti-ice masts in front of the fuel tank vents.  It should have been a non issue for many years now. 

When properly installed, leaking bladders are rare, but are usually attributable to a loose clamp or a bad gasket on the fuel senders or fuel filler rings.  Chasing bladder leaks requires time but no special skills, unlike tank re-sealing, which seems to be somewhat of an art best left to the masters.  Of course, when bladders start to deteriate from age (after 20, or 30, or 40, or 50 years), they will need to be removed and sent out for overhaul, which can be done relatively inexpensively directly by one of several manufacturers throughout the country.

Funny how most everyone that has then loves them. 

Jim

 

[jetdriven]

Our bladders are fine. Currently we are keeping them 1/2 full due to weight restrictions and 4 people but we may go ahead and keep them full.   Do you think 1/2 full can damage them? O&N's instructions say not to let them stay empty "for any length of time".   

Aerotech is who I emailed.  They refused to deal with the O&N bladders for a Mooney.   Its O&N or nobody.  Hopefully they are reasonable. 

 

From: BDR737 [mailto:bdr737@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 12:16 PM
To: sales@aerotechservicesinc.com
Subject: Mooney M20J bladders

 

[jetdriven]

Yes that was unexpected from Aerotech, I thought bladder overhauls were a pretty standard job.  Given as our bladders are 19 years old I was concerned about the cost to overhaul so I decided to find out the cost while the plane was in prebuy. 

[MooneyMitch]

For the re-seal on Jolie's E model, we used these good folks in Troutdale, Oregon, an MSC.  Greg uses the Wilmar process.  Excellent service and top quality.  No leaks now.

 Greg Lehman
 Advanced Aircraft Service, LLC
 503-465-2298

[ToddDPT]

Quote: Mitch

For the re-seal on Jolie's E model, we used these good folks in Troutdale, Oregon, an MSC.  Greg uses the Wilmar process.  Excellent service and top quality.  No leaks now.

 Greg Lehman

 Advanced Aircraft Service, LLC

 503-465-2298

[Mooneymite]

Quote: JimR

Don't count on no more leaks for good. Plenty of bladders leak. Wasn't there an AD on them a couple of years ago ?

The one time AD that you are referring to applied to Mooney bladder systems installed prior to February 1, 1998.  It involved adding anti-ice masts in front of the fuel tank vents.  It should have been a non issue for many years now. 

When properly installed, leaking bladders are rare, but are usually attributable to a loose clamp or a bad gasket on the fuel senders or fuel filler rings.  Chasing bladder leaks requires time but no special skills, unlike tank re-sealing, which seems to be somewhat of an art best left to the masters.  Of course, when bladders start to deteriate from age (after 20, or 30, or 40, or 50 years), they will need to be removed and sent out for overhaul, which can be done relatively inexpensively directly by one of several manufacturers throughout the country.

Funny how most everyone that has then loves them. 

Jim

 

[Seth]

My former 1967 F model had bladders when I purchased it in 2008.  The tanks were the 54 bladder system, so I lost 10 gallons of fuel, but gained it in useful weight when the tanks were full.  A few times I did wish I could push a few minute further but had to land - 64 gallons are a perfect combo for the 200 HP Mooney aircraft in my opinon.

The new to me 83 Missile does not have bladders, but it does have long range tanks - 98 gallons total!  However, it is a heavier airplane, and I worry about potential leaks and reseal.  In the logs, it shows that a patch was perfomed in one of the 17 gallon extended tanks in the wing last year.  So, I know most likely there will be a reseal in the next 10 years.

I never had a problem with the bladders in the F, and the useful load was still very good - 1017 lbs.   Never a hint of water in the tanks, and I do like the gas cap used as part of the bladder STC.   I have nothing but good things to say about bladdres.

My bladders were installed in the early to mid 90s I think - but I don't have the logs or the plane anymore to verify.

The Missile I don't think can use bladders since I have the extended fuel tanks, so I can lose capacity, or reseal when the time comes in the new bird - hopefully it will be a long time.

Choosing bladders won't be a bad decision, just a prefereance.  I really liked my former plane and the bladders installed.

Take care,

-Seth

[jetdriven]

Ours are about 19 years old.  No leaks and no log entries showing work done to them. Yes the 54 gallon system is  alittle short, and nowhere in the history of aviation has someone made more of a big deal than 33 lbs.

[John Pleisse]

I have had 3 tank patches in 13 years. The next weep, I will likely do bladders. Reading this thread provides more good news than bad. I just wish there wasn't a 32 lbs. UL loss. O&N is a 45 minute flight from my home base, so install and warranty work or assistance would not be an issue. They promise under two weeks downtime and can likely put the bladders in cheaper and faster that a MSC.

[jetdriven]

How much do each of those patch jobs cost?

[jetdriven]

I do wish i had the extra ten gallons but for 3K in parts plus labor (hours) we have to pass.

[John Pleisse]

Quote: JimR

O&N promised, and delivered, a three business day turnaround time for me about three years ago.  Just FYI.  I love mine and consider the peace of mind well worth the added weight.  I agree with you that it's unlikely that anyone can beat their price on the installation, and presumably they know how to do it correctly.

Jim 

 

[travism740]

just my opinion but it seems to me by what i have read that reseals last 10 to 15 years and bladders which are 1000 dollars more have gone as long as 19 year with the only complaint with a leak (on a bladder)being a clamp or a seal which are cheap to fix seems to me the best bang for the buck is the bladder i'm myself thinking about bladders on my m20f and i have a 1027lb useful and i could easly remove some old stuff out of the planei dont need (adf,switch to alternator,lightwieght starter,exc.) to make up for the added weight of the bladders

[DaV8or]

Quote: travism740

just my opinion but it seems to me by what i have read that reseals last 10 to 15 years and bladders which are 1000 dollars more have gone as long as 19 year with the only complaint with a leak (on a bladder)being a clamp or a seal which are cheap to fix seems to me the best bang for the buck is the bladder i'm myself thinking about bladders on my m20f and i have a 1027lb useful and i could easly remove some old stuff out of the planei dont need (adf,switch to alternator,lightwieght starter,exc.) to make up for the added weight of the bladders

[Piloto]

Aside from the added weight bladders brings a maintenance issue that was a headache for airlines MRO (Maintenace Repair Overhaul) facilities. For a small plane is not an issue but something like a B707 it was a big headache. The bladders for the left wing are different than for the right wing. So in order to insure repair on time the airlines needed to stock all of them for each aircraft model. Multiply by the different number of models and the stocking problem scalate quickly. With the wet wing tank the only thing that need to be kept in stock is a few cans of sealant that are compatible with all the planes in the fleet. Unlike Mooney wet tanks in the Boeing tanks the sealant is applied during wing assembly. The sealant is sandwich in between the structural members rather than applied over like Mooney used to do. This provides a longer leak free condition even if the sealant bonding fails because it is compressed by the structural members. This why when you look inside a jet fuel tank you don't see coated sealant but a structure. The same technique is used for the pressurized cabin sealing and boats.

José