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

[Piloto]

Quote: GeorgePerry

CONUS flights...not an issue.  OCONUS, yep that extra hundred miles might be worth something

[KSMooniac]

In my instance, we were looking at ~680 lbs of people and 65 lbs of bags.  450 NM IFR at normal cruise speeds...not super-economy cruise at 120 KTAS. 

To be fair, an Ovation couldn't do that mission at normal Ovation speeds either...I think an Ovation would have to throttle down to 201 speed and fuel burn to carry that load in one trip, and maybe then it might not still be possible.  That is my biggest single complaint about the modern Mooneys (and every other brand for that matter)...they cannot carry 4 adults and some baggage any reasonable distance at normal cruise.

[Piloto]

Quote: KSMooniac

In my instance, we were looking at ~680 lbs of people and 65 lbs of bags.  450 NM IFR at normal cruise speeds...not super-economy cruise at 120 KTAS. 

To be fair, an Ovation couldn't do that mission at normal Ovation speeds either...I think an Ovation would have to throttle down to 201 speed and fuel burn to carry that load in one trip, and maybe then it might not still be possible.  That is my biggest single complaint about the modern Mooneys (and every other brand for that matter)...they cannot carry 4 adults and some baggage any reasonable distance at normal cruise.

[KSMooniac]

Jose, I agree, but it is impractical to get a ferry permit every time you want to take your friends on a weekend trip, and in fact it is probably not allowed with more than 1 or 2 folks on board for a particular mission.

My 201 at 2740 lbs and 200 hp has a 13.7 lb/hp ratio.  An Ovation at 3368 and 280 hp = 12.0 lb/hp.  To get a 201 equivalent lb/hp ratio on the Ovation it could go 468 lbs over gross!  Quite remarkable, but still not allowed on a routine basis.  An O3 or Screamin' Eagle conversion at 310 hp would be even more impressive! 

[Piloto]

Quote: JimR

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6599257/Fuel-bladder-leaks-why-repairs.html

 

[N207LS]

Mike,

Your story is quite similar to mine.  I bit the bullet this year with the reseal, not because I had a bad seep or weep, but because I wanted to repaint my plane.  It seems amazing to me that our 60s era Mooney's fuel tanks performed so well compared to the newer models.  Especially since I have seen countless 90s and 2000s in for strip and reseals. 

As far as this debate goes, it will most likely never end.  There will always be a bladder camp and a reseal camp.  There are really good arguments to both sides.  This is like debating which car is nicer Mercedes S series or a BMW 7 series.  Both are great vehicles, but talk to owners of each and they will debate this point all day long (I know because I drive a BMW 7 and it eats the S for lunch on the road in terms of handling and performance). 

I think that having WW just an hour away, helps to solidify my opinion towards a reseal.  The bottom line is that both solutions work to fix the achilles heel of our birds.

Aaron

[eaglebkh]

Quote: N207LS

This is like debating which car is nicer Mercedes S series or a BMW 7 series.  Both are great vehicles, but talk to owners of each and they will debate this point all day long (I know because I drive a BMW 7 and it eats the S for lunch on the road in terms of handling and performance). 

Aaron

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: GeorgePerry

Here’s the Math

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)

[KSMooniac]

Major bummer indeed!  Sorry you're *that* close on this trip, George.  Do you have a fuel flow/totalizer system?

[Greg_D]

George: in an Ovation, if you were to run it LOP and top off the tanks, you could make the trip down AND back without refueling, and still have about an hour of reserve fuel, all at about 177 knots TAS.  Assuming no wind, of course.

[Flybeech21]

Quote: Greg_D

George: in an Ovation, if you were to run it LOP and top off the tanks, you could make the trip down AND back without refueling, and still have about an hour of reserve fuel, all at about 177 knots TAS.  Assuming no wind, of course.

[Theo]

Quote: JimR

For anyone considering bladders, I highly recommend that you take your plane to O&N in Factoryville, PA for the installation.  Not only are they the STC developer and owner, they will install the 64 gallon system for only about a $1,000 premium over the price of the kit, which is $7,750. 

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: Greg_D

George: in an Ovation, if you were to run it LOP and top off the tanks, you could make the trip down AND back without refueling, and still have about an hour of reserve fuel, all at about 177 knots TAS.  Assuming no wind, of course.

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: KSMooniac

Major bummer indeed!  Sorry you're *that* close on this trip, George.  Do you have a fuel flow/totalizer system?

[fantom]

I'll be at Barnwell early Sunday afternoon. I don't care about the very reasonable fuel price. It's the good donuts that bring me back! ;-)

How LOP are you willing to go, George?

[jetdriven]

Quote: 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.