Bladders vs. Reseal

[pjsny78]

Okay,

I am a fairly new Mooney owner and it seems that there is a big debate about bladders vs. a reseal.

I don’t get it,  and maybe some of you can share your experiences and pros and cons.

I admit after meeting Paul Beck at weep no more and getting to know how the process works I may be a bit biased.

This is how I see it:

Bladders Cons:  Extra Weight, Decays over time, once installed almost impossible to go back to original state, $2K Replacement Fuel Cap, Lots of new hardware.

Pros: Fuel Caps Look Amazing

 

Reseal: Original Design (This may be both a pro or con) Decays over time but lasts longer than Bladders.

 

 

 

 

[bnicolette]

Oh my gosh patrick..................Do you realize what you have just done!!!!!!

[KSMooniac]

<trying to put the cat back in the bag>

[pjsny78]

I just want to get people’s opinions and see why this is a touchy subject for some people.

[rbridges]

I don't care what people say about my bladders, I did it for the stunning fuel caps.

[jetdriven]

To be fair, Rob's fuel bladder kit and all the new kits, do not have the 2,000$ fuel caps.  Thye changed suppliers.

[Sabremech]

I'll step into the fray, I personally like the sealed tanks. There's no guarantee that bladders won't leak as I've evidenced in the F86 I maintain. I'm accusomed to maintaining wet wing airplanes, so no problem for me. If you want bladders and they fit what you want, get them. From an technicians perspective, it's all airplane maint regardless of a wet wing or bladder. We're still going to smell like 100LL. 

[gregwatts]

I say RESEAL!..........I also fly ROP!

[kris_adams]

Rob your caps do look awesome!

[pjsny78]

Quote: gregwatts

I say RESEAL!..........I also fly ROP!

[jetdriven]

My bladders are 20 years old.  No work done to them, and no leaks.   There's a data point for you.  Is that patch job reseal going to last 20 years?

Here we go....

[Piloto]

When you look at new airplane production (from 2000 and on) you will notice that none contain bladder tanks. This trend started with the production of large airplanes were blader cost, weight and maintenance logistics were big issues for the airlines. Here are some comparison between the two concepts

1. Bladder tanks require specially made parts (bags) for a particular plane like the B707. This could be over 20 different part numbers for each wing side and wing section. Because of the long delay on getting these from the bladder manufacturer the maintnance facility needs to stock all of them to insure quick turn around. With wet wing integral tank all you need to stock is a can of sealant.

2. Bladder tanks on the average have 20% less fuel capacity than integral tanks for the same wing volume.

3. Bladder tanks weight is about four times the weight of integral tanks (sealant weight).

4. Bladder tanks can trap moisture between the bladder skin and the wing structure. Periodic inspection is required to prevent corrosion.

5. If not properly installed bladders can collapse or wrinkle causing fuel depravation.

Sealant sandwich between structural members assures no leakage even after sealant deterioration. Later Mooneys were assemble this way. On older ones the sealant is applied over assembled structure.

José

 

 

 

[pjsny78]

Quote: jetdriven

My bladders are 20 years old.  No work done to them, and no leaks.   There's a data point for you.  Is that patch job reseal going to last 20 years?

Here we go....

[Sabremech]

Stepping out before the wrestling with pigs in mud begins! The pig always wins!!

[jetdriven]

Jose:  We are talking Mooney M20s and O&N bladders.

Quote: Piloto

When you look at new airplane production (from 2000 and on) you will notice that none contain bladder tanks. This trend started with the production of large airplanes were blader cost, weight and maintenance logistics were big issues for the airlines. Here are some comparison between the two concepts

1. Bladder tanks require specially made parts (bags) for a particular plane like the B707. This could be over 20 different part numbers for each wing side and wing section. Because of the long delay on getting these from the bladder manufacturer the maintnance facility needs to stock all of them to insure quick turn around. With wet wing integral tank all you need to stock is a can of sealant.

A B-707 discussion is irrelevant to a Mooney.  There are 6 or 8 bags, with their respective part numbers.

 

2. Bladder tanks on the average have 20% less fuel capacity than integral tanks for the same wing volume.

Again, irrelevant.  You can get 54.7 or 64 gallon bladders.

 

3. Bladder tanks weight is about four times the weight of integral tanks (sealant weight).

Again, irrelevant.  The O&N STC adds 30 lbs to a M20.

 

4. Bladder tanks can trap moisture between the bladder skin and the wing structure. Periodic inspection is required to prevent corrosion.

Have you ever heard of this is a Mooney?  Once even?

 

 

5. If not properly installed bladders can collapse or wrinkle causing fuel depravation.

Mooney bladders are small enough they are stiff enough not to collapse.  Unless a fuel vent is obstructed. 

 

Sealant sandwich between structural members assures no leakage even after sealant deterioration. Later Mooneys were assemble this way. On older ones the sealant is applied over assembled structure.

Docket's Mooney Eagle had to be patched, I think it is a 98 model.   They all leak, sonner or later.

 

 

José

 

 

 

[bnicolette]

My tanks just had their 30th birthday without a single patch. Of course I know I'm on borrowed time. 

[pjsny78]

Quote: Bnicolette

My tanks just had their 30th birthday without a single patch. Of course I know I'm on borrowed time. 

[pjsny78]

Quote: Piloto

When you look at new airplane production (from 2000 and on) you will notice that none contain bladder tanks. This trend started with the production of large airplanes were blader cost, weight and maintenance logistics were big issues for the airlines. Here are some comparison between the two concepts

1. Bladder tanks require specially made parts (bags) for a particular plane like the B707. This could be over 20 different part numbers for each wing side and wing section. Because of the long delay on getting these from the bladder manufacturer the maintnance facility needs to stock all of them to insure quick turn around. With wet wing integral tank all you need to stock is a can of sealant.

2. Bladder tanks on the average have 20% less fuel capacity than integral tanks for the same wing volume.

3. Bladder tanks weight is about four times the weight of integral tanks (sealant weight).

4. Bladder tanks can trap moisture between the bladder skin and the wing structure. Periodic inspection is required to prevent corrosion.

5. If not properly installed bladders can collapse or wrinkle causing fuel depravation.

Sealant sandwich between structural members assures no leakage even after sealant deterioration. Later Mooneys were assemble this way. On older ones the sealant is applied over assembled structure.

José

 

 

 

[Piloto]

Quote: Bnicolette

My tanks just had their 30th birthday without a single patch. Of course I know I'm on borrowed time.

[Piloto]

Quote: Bnicolette

My tanks just had their 30th birthday without a single patch. Of course I know I'm on borrowed time.

[rbridges]

In all seriousness, I did it because of logistics.  I wanted to go to Minnesota or wet wingolosists, but neither were easy to arrange.  Cole Aviation was a 50 minute flight from my hangar.  I researched both, and I didn't want someone who didn't specialize in reseals doing the job.  The people that have bladders seemed very pleased with them.  I've only had them a few months, but I would do it again.

[M016576]

I spoke to an a&p that did a reseal on a m20c a little while back.  Rather than do a full strip& reseal, he said that he let the tanks dry out for a few days, applied some sealant to the inside of the tanks, plugged up the fuel lines and vents, then applied 5psi of pressure to the tank.  The sealant sought out the leaks.  He let the sealant dry, then refueled the aircraft... No leaks.

 

That was 5 years ago and apparently the wet wing is still holding up without weeps.  He also said that he has had bad luck with Cessna bladders.

Anyone tried this method for patchIng the wet wing?  Applying a little pressure?  The a&p said it was much much cheaper than a strip&reseal (to the tune of $800 bucks total...

[pjsny78]

Quote: M016576

I spoke to an a&p that did a reseal on a m20c a little while back.  Rather than do a full strip& reseal, he said that he let the tanks dry out for a few days, applied some sealant to the inside of the tanks, plugged up the fuel lines and vents, then applied 5psi of pressure to the tank.  The sealant sought out the leaks.  He let the sealant dry, then refueled the aircraft... No leaks.

 

That was 5 years ago and apparently the wet wing is still holding up without weeps.  He also said that he has had bad luck with Cessna bladders.

Anyone tried this method for patchIng the wet wing?  Applying a little pressure?  The a&p said it was much much cheaper than a strip&reseal (to the tune of $800 bucks total...

[Piloto]

Quote: M016576

I spoke to an a&p that did a reseal on a m20c a little while back.

[Piloto]

Quote: M016576

I spoke to an a&p that did a reseal on a m20c a little while back. Rather than do a full strip& reseal, he said that he let the tanks dry out for a few days, applied some sealant to the inside of the tanks, plugged up the fuel lines and vents, then applied 5psi of pressure to the tank. The sealant sought out the leaks. He let the sealant dry, then refueled the aircraft... No leaks.

 

That was 5 years ago and apparently the wet wing is still holding up without weeps. He also said that he has had bad luck with Cessna bladders.

Anyone tried this method for patchIng the wet wing? Applying a little pressure? The a&p said it was much much cheaper than a strip&reseal (to the tune of $800 bucks total...