vorlon1 Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 With regards to the current thread on the values of our planes, I am curious as to what the perceived value of fuel bladders is (are?). I am trying to make a quick decision: patch or replace with bladders? What are they worth to you? What should they be worth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooneymite Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 39 minutes ago, vorlon1 said: With regards to the current thread on the values of our planes, I am curious as to what the perceived value of fuel bladders is (are?). I am trying to make a quick decision: patch or replace with bladders? What are they worth to you? What should they be worth? If I ever replace my Mooney, bladders would definitely be near the top of my wish list. To me, the freedom from fear of fuel leaks is very valuable. However, most aircraft valuations don't give full value for them. Obviously, the bladder haters will not value them highly and might even assign a negative value, so it's one of those things (like C models with electric gear) the value is in the eye of the purchaser. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonMuncy Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 It is kinda like selling a house with a swimming pool. For people who want a swimming pool, it increases the value a lot. For someone who doesn't want a swimming pool; not at all. From my reading of the posts, it appears that the bladder people vs non bladder people may be fairly evenly split. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbridges Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 30 minutes ago, DonMuncy said: It is kinda like selling a house with a swimming pool. For people who want a swimming pool, it increases the value a lot. For someone who doesn't want a swimming pool; not at all. From my reading of the posts, it appears that the bladder people vs non bladder people may be fairly evenly split. that's the exact analogy I was going to use. Jimmy Garrison used to add $1000 to the valuation for bladders, but it would really depend on what the buyer wants IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piloto Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 Since the days of the B707 new transport planes no longer use bladders but wet wing tanks. So for an airplane that holds 10,000 gallons and a fleet over 10,000 planes leaks on integral tanks can not be that bad. Bladder tanks add significant extra weight and maintenance labor (spar corrosion inspection). Bladder replacement involves having a replacement available for that specific wing section (ten different part numbers for each plane model). For the same wing volume section bladder tanks fuel capacity is 80% (with no wrinkles) that of integral tanks. José Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964-M20E Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 I have the bladders and they were installed by the previous owner. When I bought the plane it did not make much difference to me except that at they are the 54 gallon version not the 64 gallon. I have owned planes with wet wing and bladders each about the same no rela prefence. I would choose the most economical, fastest and closest option to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964-M20E Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 At least in Robinson helicopters they are transitioning all older models that were "wet wing tanks" to bladders for increase fire safety in the unlikely event of a crash. I'm not sure if the bladders in our planes add any such value but Robinson has seen value added in the helicopters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 Trying to assign a value seems to be an effort in futility... at least, inaccuracy... Depending on why the effort is being made... and who is assigning the value... Take this situation as an example... 1) For a pilot on the west coast that uses his plane to go places on a usual schedule... 2) The only thing he runs into often is coastal fog... 3) A tool that would help him achieve this level of reliability would be the IR and a WAAS GPS... 4) A used G430W is 6amu. 5) If buying a 50amu plane without that gps... does he borrow 56amu and go through with the transaction? 6) Since it may take a week of time to get it installed properly... that would be another 4amu... and a month before flying it... 7) A fully enabled plane for this pilot is now worth 60amu... unless he can find a very similar plane with a WAAS navigator already installed... 8) without the enabling equipment, this pilot doesn’t buy the plane... 9) what really skews the values... a shark in the water... it only takes two buyers in the market looking at the same plane... one guy sets the price, the second guy buys it for about 1amu more... 10) you learn this the first time you spend months looking at a plane trying to figure out how to put a price on it... then somebody comes along and just buys it... 11) This is called market forces in action... 12) I have to bounce my finance questions of my financial administrator. What do I tell her? - Do I over promise and under deliver... honey, we’re getting a plane for 50amu... yay! First flight you have scheduled, gets cancelled due to fog... - Do I make sure everything is ready to go including transition training... - The FA needs to be happy with your financial decisions... 13) Extended to fuel bladders... - The technology works... - The hardware is available... - Installation process is well known... - bladders are good for decades... - but do they stand-out against a modern resealed wet wing? - both wet wings and bladders enable flight... if either has a significant leak, it can ground the plane... - check the details of useful fuel and useful load... they can vary by installation... - the shark in the water this time... another plane for sale that has no leaks... how do you assign a value to a particular upgrade that allows you to fly your plane as expected? What do you do when your plane is grounded? Drive five hours, both ways? Another bladder vs reseal thread demystified..! Best regards, -a- 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kortopates Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 No more than what a fresh reseal provides in value - if any. I never really thought of a fresh reseal as an upgrade - its maintenance IMO. But like an engine TBO time, a fresh reseal certainly adds value given especially how we hear potential buyers discuss wanting discounts when tanks don't have a fresh reseal yet no leaks either. But I have no clue how to price it or how to separate the tangible from the intangible selling points. I just don't think an owner can go wrong maintaining their aircraft per the type certificate; including resealing their tanks. But not all modifications are considered upgrades and there is probably none more controversial than bladders which are a personal preference; especially when the owner only see 2 options: "patch or replace with bladders?" Apparently 'reseal' isn't an option with some owners.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertGary1 Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 Another way of saying you have bladders is saying you have less useful load. Depends on if the buyer values the useful load more or the bladders. -Robert 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steingar Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 When I went to purchase my Mooney the bladders were 20 years old. Had it been a 20 year old reseal I doubt I would have moved forward on the deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooniac15u Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 1 hour ago, RobertGary1 said: Another way of saying you have bladders is saying you have less useful load. Depends on if the buyer values the useful load more or the bladders. -Robert You could say the same thing about an autopilot or any other installed equipment. Each adds weight and each adds value. The amount of value is in the eye of the beholder. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooniac15u Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 2 hours ago, DonMuncy said: It is kinda like selling a house with a swimming pool. For people who want a swimming pool, it increases the value a lot. For someone who doesn't want a swimming pool; not at all. From my reading of the posts, it appears that the bladder people vs non bladder people may be fairly evenly split. It seems to me that most folks on MooneySpace don't have a strong opinion either way. There are just a few loud folks who trash on bladders every time it comes up. Most of the loudest have never owned a Mooney with bladders. On the other side I have yet to hear a complaint from someone who has actually owned a Mooney with bladders. I've owned one with and one without. Both are fine. The added weight is not a huge deal and it's nice to have confidence that you won't get leaks. My current Mooney has sealed tanks and that works fine too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob_Belville Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 To address the OPer's question, I believe Jimmy Garrison's worksheet gives bladders a value of $1000. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSMooniac Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 Don's swimming pool analogy is perfect! My last house hunting op looked over all houses with pools as I didn't want to maintain one, nor pay extra to remove one. Bladders are exactly like that to me, but not others. They add 35-45 lbs of useless weight, so that hurts range and payload possibilities. And yes, I have flown 4-up trips with bags, and I'm very protective of my good useful load. I've also flown 1100 NM non-stop, so I wouldn't want to give up capacity like the original bladders do. Bladders run counter to my needs, so if I were shopping again I'd assign a substantial penalty to a plane with bladders. I already wrote the check for an expert reseal and don't expect issues again.Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob_Belville Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 8 minutes ago, mooniac15u said: It seems to me that most folks on MooneySpace don't have a strong opinion either way. There are just a few loud folks who trash on bladders every time it comes up. Most of the loudest have never owned a Mooney with bladders. On the other side I have yet to hear a complaint from someone who has actually owned a Mooney with bladders. I've owned one with and one without. Both are fine. The added weight is not a huge deal and it's nice to have confidence that you won't get leaks. My current Mooney has sealed tanks and that works fine too. Ditto. My first M20E did not have bladders. It was relatively new (11 years old) when I bought it and the tanks were patched a time or 2 while I owned it. I now have a M20E that a PO converted to bladders. I like having the bladders a lot... I even added the 64 gallon option and I like them even more. And it is my observation as well that bladder owners have never complained about them here. To the contrary, @Marauder, myself and others have offered longevity testimonials. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mjknick@gmail.com Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 The Robinson had tanks behind passengers at shoulder level. In the event of very hard crash fuel would be all over occupants. Not sure it’s of much crash safety in a Mooney perhaps it might be. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertGary1 Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Bob_Belville said: Ditto. My first M20E did not have bladders. It was relatively new (11 years old) when I bought it and the tanks were patched a time or 2 while I owned it. I now have a M20E that a PO converted to bladders. I like having the bladders a lot... I even added the 64 gallon option and I like them even more. And it is my observation as well that bladder owners have never complained about them here. To the contrary, @Marauder, myself and others have offered longevity testimonials. It is true that people who don’t like bladders don’t tend to buy planes with bladders if that’s your point. -Robert 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob_Belville Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 22 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said: It is true that people who don’t like bladders don’t tend to buy planes with bladders if that’s your point. -Robert whatever... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 In 35 years of maintenance I’ve see just as many leaking bladders and leaking wet wings. The big difference is a bladder is fairly easy to change. A typical Comanche 30 gallon main tank is about $1000.00 and takes 3-4 hours to replace. No flying across the country to get it done and no long waiting list to deal with. Clarence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob_Belville Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 6 minutes ago, M20Doc said: In 35 years of maintenance I’ve see just as many leaking bladders and leaking wet wings. The big difference is a bladder is fairly easy to change. A typical Comanche 30 gallon main tank is about $1000.00 and takes 3-4 hours to replace. No flying across the country to get it done and no long waiting list to deal with. Clarence Interesting, Clarence. Have you seen leaking Mooney (O&N) bladders? Are the Comanche bladders the same heavy gauge rubber as the Mooney? My A&P/IA tells me the O&N are significantly heavier than other bladders... I think he was comparing to Bonanza. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steingar Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 Joey Cole told me on the phone that if the bladders leak they can be refurbished in situ for about an AMU. That makes them at most a minor squawk. If I ever get back there I owe that man a beer, if not a bottle of really good bourbon. He helped out hugely when I was shopping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 9 hours ago, Bob_Belville said: Interesting, Clarence. Have you seen leaking Mooney (O&N) bladders? Are the Comanche bladders the same heavy gauge rubber as the Mooney? My A&P/IA tells me the O&N are significantly heavier than other bladders... I think he was comparing to Bonanza. Hi Bob, I’ve only had a few O & N Mooneys through my shop and non were leaking. I would say that most of the bladders in other makes are of similar thickness. Compared to other airframes with wet wing fuel tanks, Mooney’s leak more. Clarence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooniac15u Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 It seems to me that bladders and Monroy tanks are competing products... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kellym Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 3 hours ago, M20Doc said: Hi Bob, I’ve only had a few O & N Mooneys through my shop and non were leaking. I would say that most of the bladders in other makes are of similar thickness. Compared to other airframes with wet wing fuel tanks, Mooney’s leak more. Clarence Mooneys are more prone to leaks for one reason, mostly with a few other issues. Mooney until around 10-12 yrs ago did all of the tank sealing AFTER the wings were built. That meant no sealant under the lap joints, no sealant under the rivets. Also there is a huge gap between the main spar and the rib at the inner end of the wing. Every other manufacturer riveted the wing skins on with sealant applied, so there was sealant inside every joint. Also, the vast majority of Mooneys were built before 1970, and the sealant used in that era was very inferior to what has been used from some time in the 1970s on. I would say a strip and reseal done by the handful of specialty shops is more likely to be leak-free for many years than a new wing built by Mooney before the turn of the century. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.