• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Fuel Tank Safety

stewartb

MEMBER
Building upon the ankle tube thread, I have an idea about improving my Cub's fuel tanks and wonder if anyone has done anything similar whether in a Cub, a Mooney, or any other airplane. The reason I mention Mooney is because there is a process to do this mod.

I'm considering building a shell to duplicate my fuel tanks, or maybe use my tanks, but cut the tops off and install a custom made fuel bladder inside, then re-attach the top. The idea is to provide flexibility to the fuel cell to minimize the risk of fuel leaking from a tank rupture or seam failure should the wing get bent. Eagle Fuel Cells says they can make me a cell and that the idea has merit. They told me about how Mooney wet wings can be repaired by dropping in a bladder. Anyone have any experience with something like this?
 
Fuel tank bladders undoubtedly add safety in case of a crash that deforms the wing. That is why they have been used in race cars for a long time. There are some downsides to consider, though. They add weight and decrease fuel capacity if installed in an existing tank. On the other hand they can add capacity if you can remove the metal tank and take advantage of the entire space it formerly occupied. They must be kept full of fuel to prevent deterioration. They do have a finite life. I had a fuel bladder fail on a plane I owned once and lost 40 gallons of fuel overnight. It was a lot of fun flying home with 40 gallons in one side and zero in the other. And lastly, you would need an STC if your plane is certificated.
 
If the bladders get any folds in them, the folds can trap a quantity of water and release it into the system suddenly. If your existing tanks have baffles they will have to be removed. Not being negative but just saying some things to think about/plan for. It would be wonderful to have a tank that could deform a very large amount and not spill it's contents all over the place!
 
All true, no doubt. More thoughts. Definitely experimental. The FAA would'nt allow improving safety on the certified side, at least not without a fight. :) I've had wet wings and bladders in different Cessnas. I prefer bladders. I changed both in my 180 early on as one developed a leak. These are nearing 20 years old and have almost never had more than half capacity fuel in them parked in the elements in Alaska. If I got that kind of life in the new plane they'd outlast any interest I had in them. I don't recall the weight of bladders other than kinda heavy but my Cessna cells are 39 gallons a side so much bigger than what I'm proposing for the Cub. I guess weight will be a tradeoff to consider. Capacity isn't a big issue. If I lost 20% to the bladders I wouldn't miss it for most ops. I doubt the bladders weigh much more than that 4 4-1/2 gallons a side lost, either. The reason to keep the tanks as shells is for cavity contour and tank retention. I've got to get some dimensions for Eagle. I'll get a price and weight estimate and will scratch my head a little more about the pros and cons. It's just an idea. I appreciate the comments.
 
My question is whether you are more likely to get doused with gas from a ruptured fuel line, broken valve, or broken sight gauge than a ruptured tank in a crash? I have no idea.
 
the one good idea someone here(i don't remember who..) had done was to put sight gauges outside fuselage in wing root, so they don't get damaged when wing starts to rip off....
 
the one good idea someone here(i don't remember who..) had done was to put sight gauges outside fuselage in wing root, so they don't get damaged when wing starts to rip off....
SMITHCUBPetes022.jpg


SMITHCUBPetes040.jpg


The back plate should be painted with a different color to give a better contrast with the fuel in the tube. Under some conditions it is a bit difficult to get a clear view of the level.
 
I'm considering building a shell to duplicate my fuel tanks, or maybe use my tanks, but cut the tops off and install a custom made fuel bladder inside, then re-attach the top.
The fuel tank has a diagonal tube which is part of the wing structure passing though the tank. There is a lot more here than just cutting the top off your tank and dropping in a bladder. You will need to completely redesign the entire bay of the wing to make this work. Good thought, but a lot more work and modification than that which meets the eye.
 
I'm surprised that nobody makes plastic molded fuel tanks for airplanes yet. Seems like a no brainer. Cheap, relatively light, crash worthy, and they don't leak. Maybe I'm missing something or perhaps its just such a small scale of production that its not worth making the molds.
 
The fuel tank has a diagonal tube which is part of the wing structure passing though the tank. There is a lot more here than just cutting the top off your tank and dropping in a bladder. You will need to completely redesign the entire bay of the wing to make this work. Good thought, but a lot more work and modification than that which meets the eye.

I asked about that. Eagle says providing for the diagonal braces is no problem.
 
I asked about that. Eagle says providing for the diagonal braces is no problem.
I'll bet that Mike would be able to make you a support cavity for a bladder which would not waste as much space as cutting off the top of your tank would. Also you could modify the existing tank cover to support the top of the tank as well as making the opening/filler attachment similar to your Cessna 180. A bit of imagination could make this work without sacrificing much if any capacity.
 
PA 12 tank doesn't have any diagonal going through it. Yeah, maybe a tray to lay the bladder in and a screw on lid with snaps to hold the roof of the bladder up. Would be way easier to install than going through the hole in a Cessna wing.
 
This has me wondering, could Eagle make the bladder with a clear section in the butt end so that fuel level could be seen and not need the sight tubes?
 
PA 12 tank doesn't have any diagonal going through it. Yeah, maybe a tray to lay the bladder in and a screw on lid with snaps to hold the roof of the bladder up. Would be way easier to install than going through the hole in a Cessna wing.
Marty, What tank does your PA-12 have? I'm unaware of any high wing fabric Piper which does not have the diagonal tube unless there is no tank in the wing. It is part of the drag/anti-drag bracing between the spars. There has to be structure in that location.
 
Marty, What tank does your PA-12 have?
I have Air Energy that is an aluminum copy of original tern metal tanks. I haven't actually looked at them to see how they compare to Wag Aero replacements. The brace is underneath the tank and definitely not through the tank like a Supercub or Tripacer. I still have two original tern from my previous 12 that got new Wag's.
 
Marty, What tank does your PA-12 have? I'm unaware of any high wing fabric Piper which does not have the diagonal tube unless there is no tank in the wing. It is part of the drag/anti-drag bracing between the spars. There has to be structure in that location.
In the original PA-12 there are drag/anti-drag wires like in the rest of the wing. They're located under the tank saddle. There is no diagonal tube in the tank bay.
 
I'm surprised that nobody makes plastic molded fuel tanks for airplanes yet. Seems like a no brainer. Cheap, relatively light, crash worthy, and they don't leak. Maybe I'm missing something or perhaps its just such a small scale of production that its not worth making the molds.

This old one still says it's okay...

4e772197420a2277da01591b.jpg
 
I'm surprised that nobody makes plastic molded fuel tanks for airplanes yet. Seems like a no brainer. Cheap, relatively light, crash worthy, and they don't leak. Maybe I'm missing something or perhaps its just such a small scale of production that its not worth making the molds.

You ARE missing something! RANS has been using "rotationally molded"/plastic tanks for some years. I have two 13 gallon ones in my wings of my S-7S. I'd much rather crash with one of them, based on decades ago ultralight crashes with plastic fuel jugs, then a metal or 'glas one. I am not real sure they are as light as an aluminum one of equeal volume, but close enough for the advantages they offer.

In their new S-21, they are also using plastic tanks, 40 gallons total. FWIW: in the last 12 years of using their poly tanks, I have yet to see even a smidgen of water, ever, in any fuel sample (while using various misc. fuel cans and hauling mogas no less), and I surmise that the reason is either my climate, luck, or just maybe, the poly tanks don't condensate like a metal tank? NOT claiming that is so, just a WAG.
 
You ARE missing something! RANS has been using "rotationally molded"/plastic tanks for some years. I have two 13 gallon ones in my wings of my S-7S. I'd much rather crash with one of them, based on decades ago ultralight crashes with plastic fuel jugs, then a metal or 'glas one. I am not real sure they are as light as an aluminum one of equeal volume, but close enough for the advantages they offer.

In their new S-21, they are also using plastic tanks, 40 gallons total. FWIW: in the last 12 years of using their poly tanks, I have yet to see even a smidgen of water, ever, in any fuel sample (while using various misc. fuel cans and hauling mogas no less), and I surmise that the reason is either my climate, luck, or just maybe, the poly tanks don't condensate like a metal tank? NOT claiming that is so, just a WAG.

It's because the water collects in the "ribs" of the tank and there is no direct way to sump them.

When you live where we do, you find where the water goes, guaranteed.
 
Plenty of poly tanks in marine use as well. These tanks many being upwards of 200+ gallons take one hill of a pounding, forever.
A decade or so ago I had a custom poly tank made in a shop in Fla, lord knows if I can find his info. The rotomolded tanks do not need to be thick and heavy either.
Eagle used to be considerably more economical than they are now, I am still using Fuel Safe for the race cars.
I would build the tank cavity to properly support the bag or cell and not use a modified factory tank that floats loose and needs to be strapped in. The cell or bladder should fit to the extremes of the compartment such that heavy loads due to accelerations or deceleration allow the fuel load to force against the main structure, not some cut open can with edges that can distort.
FWIW the race cells are considerably stiffer than aircraft bladders. The race cells will hold their shape even without the internal foam where the aircraft bladders generally get clipped up to retain their volume when partially filled.
I would probably not get internal foam as a race car has but if balling is available I would consider it if the volume warrants such.
 
Every new Inboard that I’ve sold since 1993 has a Roto cast poly tank. All the hard tanks for water ballast are the same thing. Originally we just had senders in them but now they all have in-tank fuel pumps.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
Back
Top