O&N Bladders v/s Reseal...Lets collect the facts.

[GeorgePerry]

I think the only way to "factually" determine the merits of O&N bladders v/s a factory style fuel Tank Reseal is to collect data from those with first hand experience.  I believe this poll has significant merit as many Mooney owners will eventually face this very expensive decision. 

Those interested in participating should do so only if they have FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE, either with a reseal or bladders. (i.e. You wrote a check to pay for one or the other)  "I know a guy" feedback is not helpful.

Honesty matters...If your answers are not completely truthful it will skew the data.  If your reseal leaked 1 week after the maintenance was performed and the shop subsequently fixed it:  That qualifies as OPTION 3, since it required a "return" trip to the maintenance facility.  Conversely if your O&N's leaked 10 yrs after install, that qualifies as OPTION 5

I hope everyone who participates can put ego aside so we as a group can determine the reliability and merit of each. 

OBTW - you have to log on to see/take the survey

 

[Piloto]

George, I think this survey will show an unfair disadvantage for the bladders due to the overwhelming majority of Mooneys (over 9000) with wet wing tanks. Models M20K and later has no bladder options and these represents a big chunk of the total. Theses models because they are newer will show less leak problems than the older ones. To be more fair the survey should be limited to those models (M20C - M20J) that the O&N product applies to.

José

 

[eaglebkh]

Wet wings here.  No leaks (i.e. fuel isn't dripping/seaping) but there is usually a strong fuel smell in the plane when topped off or when parked.  I also get a good whiff of fuel when the gear is extended in flight or I slow the plane down for approaches/landings.

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: eaglebkh

Wet wings here.  No leaks (i.e. fuel isn't dripping/seaping) but there is usually a strong fuel smell in the plane when topped off or when parked.  I also get a good whiff of fuel when the gear is extended in flight or I slow the plane down for approaches/landings.

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: Piloto

George, I think this survey will show an unfair disadvantage for the bladders due to the overwhelming majority of Mooneys (over 9000) with wet wing tanks. Models M20K and later has no bladder options and these represents a big chunk of the total. Theses models because they are newer will show less leak problems than the older ones. To be more fair the survey should be limited to those models (M20C - M20J) that the O&N product applies to.

José

[KSMooniac]

I don't think we have nearly enough users here to collect any meaningful data, sorry.  At least we have the option to go two different routes on the pre-M20K airframes.  I made my choice for a Willmar reseal and would do it again.  A plane with bladders is a huge deduction for me due to the useful load hit, and if I liked everything else on it I would offer accordingly to remove the bladders and reseal.  YMMV

If you never fly 4-up, I suppose you don't mind losing useful load.  Not me...losing 35 pounds is the difference between some luggage and no luggage on a weekend trip.  That removes a decent chunk of utility that I'm not willing to sacrifice.

[The-sky-captain]

I have a reseal job that was done by WW 5 years ago and they are as good as new. I bought the plane after it was done so I personally have not went through the process.

[The-sky-captain]

I have a reseal job that was done by WW 5 years ago and they are as good as new. I bought the plane after it was done so I personally have not went through the process.

[lahso]

When purchased, the right tank had been resealed by Dugosh. No problems with it. The left tank leaks occassionally, but not enough to reseal yet.

[Seth]

I have had no problems with my tanks and they are O&N Bladders.  Like George, there is no smell of gas anytime except when fueling.  I also do not have water leakage problems (that I know of) and my fuel is VERY clean.  I do try to top off as soon as I land at my home airport so that the bladders are always full and do not dry out.  The bladders were in the plane when I purchased it and are over ten years old (probably older).

I did not vote as I purchased the plane with the bladders and did not put the money down for the repair.

-Seth

1967F

[N207LS]

35% with original Mooney tanks not leaking seems astonoshingly high to me, unless they are all much newer airplanes than mine.  I have seen several newer (1990 and 2000 something Mooney's at Edison's shop - Wet Wingologists) in my visits there.  However, my plane went from 1968 until 1992 with no work on the tanks in the log books.  Then patchwork three times before strip/reseal in 2009.  Maybe there should be some segmentation based on the age of the airframe in the questionnaire. 

I do like this idea though, as the Mooney fuel tank discussion never seems to go away...

...  I am still partial to the reseal.

Aaron

[Piloto]

Another point to consider is the resale appeal when bladders are installed. A friend of mine has a 1977 201 with 54 gals bladders and he is happy with them. Lost his medicals and now is selling his plane. Potential buyers has turn down on purchase because of the bladders lower fuel capacity. Another buyer wanted to do the Missile (300HP) conversion on it and add long range tanks but found out that the Monroy tanks are incompatible with the bladders.

José

   

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: Piloto

Another point to consider is the resale appeal when bladders are installed. A friend of mine has a 1977 201 with 54 gals bladders and he is happy with them. Lost his medicals and now is selling his plane. Potential buyers has turn down on purchase because of the bladders lower fuel capacity. Another buyer wanted to do the Missile (300HP) conversion on it and add long range tanks but found out that the Monroy tanks are incompatible with the bladders.

José   

[fantom]

Jimmy Garrison, of All American Aircraft, in the April 2009 MAPA Log, states it's "subjective" to add $1K to $2K to the selling price for fuel bladders on pre 201 Mooneys.

[KSMooniac]

That might be a fair "subjective" addition on the short-bodies IMO since (typically) those would not see a frequent 4-up trip and thus might have a lower likelihood of max gross operations where the weight penalty would really impact the mission.

On the F's and J's, though,  I'd still argue that the weight penalty can *really* reduce the utility of those planes, especially if the bladder-buyer only opted for the 54 gallon installation instead of the full 64 gallons option.

YMMV as always.

[fantom]

I agree Scott. I know more Mooney owners, first hand, who've had issues with bladders, than I know who've had issues with a reseal. My corcerns would be weight and installation quality. To each their own.

The only fuel leak I've ever experienced personally, is the common one on top of the wing, just outside the passanger door, on the wing walk. The solution for that, which the factory finally went with, was G8 'Tinnerman' style washers. You may want to add them under the four screw heads when you have your plane painted.

[Piloto]

Quote: GeorgePerry

 This is just not true...An opinion, yes, a fact with regards to market-wide resale value, it is not. 

Just so I’ve got the record straight...I don’t mind opinions that challenge or differ from mine, in fact I like hearing opinions that are contrary to mine.  Often times a different perspective will present beneficial insights.

A blanket statement saying the Bladder equipped Mooney’s have lower resale values is completely inaccurate and not based on any kind of market analysis. 

Yes, some potential buyers might prefer factory tanks over bladders...that is surely true.  Conversely, some potential buyers (like the one typing) see “added” value to a Mooney with O&N’s.

To state as “fact” that a Mooney that has never had a reseal, is potentially worth more than one with bladders is simply incorrect and misleading.

 George, I never said that will have a lower resale value. I am sure that for some it is an added value. It all depends what the buyer plans to do with the plane. Some may prefer the wet tanks if they plan to add long range tanks. Most Missile conversions have them. Others may prefer the bladders if they feel more confident with them. The appeal is different for each prospective buyer.

José

 

[jlunseth]

Would you mind saying what Willmar's quote was to reseal?

[KSMooniac]

I don't remember exactly, but I think the original quote was $7200 for both.  I ended up needing a new sending unit, and they added the wing sight fuel gauges at the same time for the cost of parts only ($500) so my total was right around 8 AMU out-the-door.

[GeorgePerry]

Everything in aviation is a trade off. 

The math behind useful load / range / endurance and O&N Bladders.

 

O&N offers both a 64 Gal and 54 gal option.  If a plane is equipped with the 64 gal system, the plane will loose about 34 lbs of full fuel useful load, but range and endurance numbers will be the same as a stock aircraft.  If the plane has the 54 gallon system it will actually gain useful 31 lbs of useful load since the total full fuel load weight is reduced by 65 lbs.  However, with the 54 gal system the pilot gives up about 55 minutes flight time and range is reduced by 140 nm

 

The advantages & disadvantages to each. 

 

Here’s the Math

 

Generic Mooney (150 kts cruise), no Bladders and a 1010 lb useful load.  64 Gal full = 384 lbs leaving 626 lbs for passengers and bags.  With an average fuel burn of 11 g/hr yields approximately (5+04 endurance, 760 nm range w/ IFR reserves)

 

Generic Mooney (150 kts cruise), with Bladders and a 976 lb useful load.  54 Gal full = 324 lbs leaving 652 lbs for passengers and bags.  With an average fuel burn of 11 g/hr yields approximately (4+09 endurance, 624 nm range w/ IFR reserves)

 

Or if carrying 4 full sized adults is the mission

 

Generic Mooney (150 kts cruise), no Bladders and a 1010 lb useful load.  4 adults @ 170 lbs each = 680 lbs and 40 lbs of bags, leaving 290 lbs or 48.3 gal for fuel.  With an average fuel burn of 11 g/hr yields approximately (3+38 endurance, 546 nm range w/ IFR reserves)

 

Generic Mooney (150 kts cruise), with Bladders and a 976 lb useful load.  4 adults @ 170 lbs each = 680 lbs and 40 lbs of bags, leaving 256 lbs or 42.6 gal for fuel.  With an average fuel burn of 11 g/hr yields approximately (3+08 endurance, 468 nm range w/ IFR reserves)

 

The importance of these numbers is that pilots have a choice.  Bladders and no bladders each have advantages and disadvantages depending on individual mission requirements.  If ultimate range is the goal then conventionally equipped Mooney’s have a clear advantage. If the typical mission requires less than 400 nm range payload is important and the airplane's fuel tanks are kept full most of the time then O&N’s have an advantage.

 

I personally don’t enjoy flying much more than 3 or 4 hours at a time, without stopping for a break and to stretch.   So for me, I don’t loose that much utility and the tradeoff in not having to worry about leaky wings is worth it.  For others it might not be.  

[Piloto]

Typical Mooney owners and others don't fly for more than three hours but they fly to remote fields were there is no AVGAS for refueling for the return trip. This is common in the Bahamas, Bermuda, Canada, Europe and South America. Having that extra fuel onboard saves significant time or makes the mission possible. Like I always say better to pee on your pants than having to swim that extra mile, either way you are going to get wet.

José

  

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: JimR

 The wet wing equipped Mooney will always have a 34 pound advantage, either for fuel or for people depending on the mission.  

Yes...I know it's counter intuitive, but really is simple math.  The max gross takeoff weight always stays the same.  However, after installing the bladders basic empty weight increases by 34 lbs but the maximum weight of the fuel you can carry is reduced by 65 lbs.  This results in a net increase in Payload.   

Wet Wing Mooney

 

Mooney With Bladders

No bladders BEW = 1740 Lbs

 

Bladders BEW = 1770

Useful load = 1010 Lbs

 

Useful Load = 976

Payload, full std. fuel (64 Gal) = 626

 

Payload, full std. fuel (54 Gal) = 652

Can your reduce fuel load in a wet wing mooney to gain the same advantage...yes.  However, Most of us top the tanks after each flight.  If we need to adjust fuel (ie take some out) it becomes very problematic.  Point being if you top your tanks with an O&N equipped bird you'll have more PAYLOAD capacity than you will in a wet wing mooney with full tanks.

This is a great discussion!!

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: Piloto

Typical Mooney owners and others don't fly for more than three hours but they fly to remote fields were there is no AVGAS for refueling for the return trip. This is common in the Bahamas, Bermuda, Canada, Europe and South America. Having that extra fuel onboard saves significant time or makes the mission possible. Like I always say better to pee on your pants than having to swim that extra mile, either way you are going to get wet.

José  

[mjc]

I just took the survey and chose option 1 (factory-applied wet wings, never resealed) for my 1969 M20C. That is the most applicable of the given options, but it doesn't tell the entire truth. Yes, the tanks have never been completely resealed, but both have been patched during my ownership, and the left tank has a slight weep again (acceptable per Mooney's guidelines).

So I have neither resealed the tanks nor ever installed bladders, but I'm pretty sure I'd go for reseal given that the current sealant has served for 40 years.

One thing I wonder, after reading all these posts that concern 30 lbs. here and there, is what the total amount of sealant in the wings weighs. Does the bladder installation account for removal of the old sealant? Or is that weight included in the 30-whatever pound hit for having bladders.

 

[KSMooniac]

And I'll further stir the pot by saying I rarely take off with full fuel since I have a totalizer and enjoy the better performance flying at lower weights.    I only tank-up if I find cheap fuel and can spare the weight. 

I've done a few XC missions with 4 folks when I only needed to have 42 or 45 gallons on board or similar...so I either fill up to that amount or go fly a little bit to get down to that.  Then I can take 4 people and some luggage on a 450 NM trip.  If I had bladders, I would need to make an en-route fuel stop, so I'm thankful I don't have them.

Personally, I think "full-fuel payload" is a ridiculous number for comparing planes, especially across different brands.  We should always be talking in terms of a specific mission such as how far can I carry XXX lbs of people and bags with YYY plane.  The fuel totalizer systems aren't horribly expensive and allow partial-fueling and much more mission flexibility beyond the flight school practice of topping off after every flight.