Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 41

Thread: Weak Bladder and 180 Short Range Tanks - What Would You Do?

  1. #1
    SJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Kansas City, USA
    Posts
    14,427
    Post Thanks / Like

    Weak Bladder and 180 Short Range Tanks - What Would You Do?

    It was 2007 when the late Paul Fisher replaced both bladders on my 55' C-180, and it appears that the crossover is starting to seep just a little on the right side probably meaning it is almost time again. I was looking at the different options for replacements and notice there were some that are lighter weight and easier to install, etc.

    The short range bladders have a lot not to like - lots of unusable fuel, etc. It was suggested to me by Scott Mauch at Beagle's the the easy way to fix all of those problems was to bolt on some later model wings, and sell the ones I have. At the time (years ago), this was a reasonable (a relative term in aviation) endeavor at about $25-30K. It probably would not be the lightweight easy handling airplane it is now, or as inexpensive to do it.

    I'm very interested in your comments, suggestions, brand preferences (Eagle's are in there now) abuse, etc....

    Thanks!

    sj
    "Often Mistaken, but Never in Doubt"
    ------------------------------------------

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,404
    Post Thanks / Like
    Your bladders should last well past 12 years.

    Like most aviation major mods, you'd come out ahead buying a different plane that suits you better and selling yours.
    Likes Dave Calkins, Steve Pierce liked this post

  3. #3
    SJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Kansas City, USA
    Posts
    14,427
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    Your bladders should last well past 12 years.
    I have been really careful to keep the tanks full when it sits as I have heard that helps prolong the life, so not sure what else it could be.

    sj
    "Often Mistaken, but Never in Doubt"
    ------------------------------------------

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    174
    Post Thanks / Like
    Have you considered the Monarch tanks? (now by Hartwig) They add 36 gallons with a relatively simple installation. I've used them in my Birddog (by field approval) for 25 years now (the old "pump-transfer" type) and they have worked very well. Took that plane from 36 usable to 72 usable. I agree your bladders should be good still. (Maybe a leaking vent or feed fitting?) If they do need repair or replacement, I've had good results with Hartwig for that as well.
    Likes mike mcs repair liked this post

  5. #5
    SJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Kansas City, USA
    Posts
    14,427
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 46 Cub View Post
    Have you considered the Monarch tanks? (now by Hartwig) They add 36 gallons with a relatively simple installation. I've used them in my Birddog (by field approval) for 25 years now (the old "pump-transfer" type) and they have worked very well. Took that plane from 36 usable to 72 usable. I agree your bladders should be good still. (Maybe a leaking vent or feed fitting?) If they do need repair or replacement, I've had good results with Hartwig for that as well.
    I don't like the Monarch caps (actually the inside flap) , which is why I did not do them last time. Do they offer those tanks without those spinny caps now?

    sj
    "Often Mistaken, but Never in Doubt"
    ------------------------------------------

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,404
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SJ View Post
    I have been really careful to keep the tanks full when it sits as I have heard that helps prolong the life, so not sure what else it could be.

    sj
    I almost never have more than half tanks and my Eagles are the same age as yours. Maybe heat works againt you down south. I probably just jinxed myself!

    Hartwig and Eagle are two brothers' companies. At least they used to be. I heard they weren't friendly but that could have been myth. It could make for interesting family gatherings!
    Thanks SJ thanked for this post
    Likes mike mcs repair, WindOnHisNose liked this post

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    174
    Post Thanks / Like
    i don't know what their caps are like now. Mine have no flap and are "quarter turn". They are the umbrella kind though (big bright and heavy). The only problem I had was the screws that held the cap and lid assy to the tanks would let in water. They are outside the umbrella and pass through to the tank. I sealed those years ago with Aerograde Hylomar and have not had a problem since. My caps are on the aux tanks only. I have the old flush "suicide caps" on the original mains.. never got around to finding the right screw pattern to replace those.
    Thanks SJ thanked for this post

  8. #8
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,341
    Post Thanks / Like
    Steve,

    I believe the Monarch tanks that 46 Cub is referring to install outboard of your existing bladders, thereby adding capacity, but not affecting any existing issue your bladders may have.

    I don't know if Monarch builds replacement hard tanks for your model airplane, but I will tell you from experience that those replacement tanks reduce tank capacity somewhat, which would likely not be desirable on an early model 180.

    I agree with others that bladders should last well beyond 12 years. I'd do some careful inspection to see if the problem is a fitting or???

    MTV
    Thanks SJ thanked for this post

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,404
    Post Thanks / Like
    Does Monarch (Hartwig) still make tanks? I thought they stopped. They still make caps.

  10. #10
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,518
    Post Thanks / Like
    https://www.hartwigfuelcell.com/newaircraft.php

    Looks like they make & overhaul "fuel cells", which I take it to mean bladders.
    No mention of the old Monarch plastic tanks.
    I always though they might be a good alternative to the bladders,
    but I do remember hearing that Monarch quit making them for the early (1953-56?) 180's,
    aka "slant tanks", due to fitting issues.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!
    Thanks SJ thanked for this post
    Likes mike mcs repair liked this post

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    174
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes, I was suggesting the aux tanks that go just outboard of the wing struts for added range, and keeping the existing bladders (with leaks fixed by whatever appropriate means).
    I hadn't checked to see if they still produced those aux tanks and that's a good question.
    It appears they may be available through Hartwig Canada. I just now ended up on the Wing X stol site and they were currently promoting the plastic aux tanks. The address at the bottom showed Winnipeg Canada.
    I went with these tanks instead of wingtip tanks because I felt they would induce less stress to the wings during rough ground and rough water operations. They have served well for many years and many thousands of hours, on floats, wheels, and skis.
    Thanks SJ thanked for this post

  12. #12
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    10,194
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 46 Cub View Post
    i don't know what their caps are like now. Mine have no flap and are "quarter turn". They are the umbrella kind though (big bright and heavy). The only problem I had was the screws that held the cap and lid assy to the tanks would let in water. They are outside the umbrella and pass through to the tank. I sealed those years ago with Aerograde Hylomar and have not had a problem since. My caps are on the aux tanks only. I have the old flush "suicide caps" on the original mains.. never got around to finding the right screw pattern to replace those.
    Atlee dodge offers a bolt in replacement to fix the flush caps. And turn them into raised filler necks. You glue them into the flush hole and they have 3? Positive latches to keep them in place


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app

  13. #13
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    10,194
    Post Thanks / Like
    Have them make you a custom set of slant tanks with front and rear outlets and move the middle line to rear, then add a front line in fuselage. Much safer. With the middle only pickup you can run out of gas with 10 gallons in each tank in a long/steep power on decent.... and need to remember to pull the nose UP to get it to restart.... or is what I did when I put the plastic monarch tanks in. Plane was a 53 but donít think it had slant tanks.


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

  14. #14
    SJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Kansas City, USA
    Posts
    14,427
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mike mcs repair View Post
    Have them make you a custom set of slant tanks with front and rear outlets and move the middle line to rear, then add a front line in fuselage. Much safer. With the middle only pickup you can run out of gas with 10 gallons in each tank in a long/steep power on decent.... and need to remember to pull the nose UP to get it to restart.... or is what I did when I put the plastic monarch tanks in. Plane was a 53 but donít think it had slant tanks.


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
    That would be nice, but sounds expensive (and is it field approvable?). I would not need bigger tanks if I could safely use the fuel I have! It will also run out of gas when you put the tail down...

    Are the caps like mine that have the metal flap cover over the gas cap the ones called suicide caps and why? I like how they keep water out!

    sj
    "Often Mistaken, but Never in Doubt"
    ------------------------------------------

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    61
    Post Thanks / Like
    The red plastic flush caps are the suicide caps (a term coined by John Frank). So-called because the use a square (in cross-section) seal instead of a circular o-ring.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    174
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not sure what mine are really called.. I just used the "suicide" term loosely.. They are the original flush caps, with the metal flap to lock them. With good O rings (don't forget the tiny one in the center) they keep water out fine. The problem with them (besides leaking with old rubber) is you have to get the water off them before you open them, which can be a hassle. It seems odd you can't get all your fuel out of your tanks and they are leaking (seemingly) prematurely. It makes me wonder if there is a problem with the install at last replacement... but I don't really know anything about 180 bladders specifically

  17. #17
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,518
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mike mcs repair View Post
    Atlee dodge offers a bolt in replacement to fix the flush caps. And turn them into raised filler necks. You glue them into the flush hole and they have 3? Positive latches to keep them in place.
    I think they actually offer two different replacement set-ups for the flush caps, not sure of the difference.

    http://www.fadodge.com/shaw-filler-neck-adapter/

    http://www.fadodge.com/wisco-filler-neck-adapter/

    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,404
    Post Thanks / Like
    "Killer caps" is what they're nicknamed. My outboard fillers still have them and they work just fine but I almost never use them. If I did? They're a pain to open and I'd change them to something easier. As it is? Mine will stay.

  19. #19
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    10,194
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    I think they actually offer two different replacement set-ups for the flush caps, not sure of the difference.

    http://www.fadodge.com/shaw-filler-neck-adapter/

    http://www.fadodge.com/wisco-filler-neck-adapter/


    looks like your choice of new filler cap style, not sure what's the difference

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Finger Lakes area, western NY.
    Posts
    51
    Post Thanks / Like
    If I had a weak bladder, I would wear dark colored pants.
    Likes OLDCROWE, WindOnHisNose liked this post

  21. #21
    180Marty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Paullina, Ia
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bladders are interesting. Summer before last I took an original out of my "54" 180 with 1953 stamped on it. It still wasn't leaking but weeping a little goo from the drain hole by the quick drain. I replaced with Eagle because they are resistant to ethanol. Their nipple placement leaves a little be desired on my original wing but was easy to install. I did find that especially for the gas gauge gasket you had to retorque many times before it would not leak. Can't imagine installing and sending it out the door for a customer and expecting it not to leak. Still love my 1990 vintage Monarch caps from Bill Barton. The flappers still seal good and you can fly without the cap and not lose a drop. Don't ask how I know.
    Likes mike mcs repair liked this post

  22. #22
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,518
    Post Thanks / Like
    I guess there's an AD or SB or something that requires changing from the overhead vent to the under-wing style when replacing the LH bladder on a 53-55 180.
    Not happy about that since I like the overhead vent, so I'm hoping my LH bladder hangs in there.
    Most of the underwing vents I've seen have a habit of dribbling when parked.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  23. #23
    180Marty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Paullina, Ia
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like
    I guess there's an AD or SB or something that requires changing from the overhead vent to the under-wing style when replacing the LH bladder
    What bugs me about that---- Cessna 195 and 170 still up on top where I like it. Where is the vent on a 210 or 177 without struts.

  24. #24
    18180's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    96
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have Eagles in my '55 slant tank wings. Also have their sump drain stc. Installed new in 2006 and both out for some leading edge rivet replacements in the last couple of years. Messy job since most of the glue from the cavity tape wound up on the bladders. Thought maybe it was the improper tape so I order from two different sources and got the same stuff...green duct tape.. The tanks are not super difficult to install. They are quite pliable which I think is both good....for installation and bad for shape retention once inside. I open the tanks every other annual and always find most of the upper snaps have let go. I also continue to get occasional fuel odor in the cabin when I first open the doors after it has been sitting a while. I believe that to be related to the melted glue on the tape in that somehow, fumes make it into the cavity. Never any staining and seems to happen more when tanks are not full when parking. I too have thought about swapping wings. Ideally a set of '62 wings which would have the double outlets in the tanks however, I suspect the changes to the fuel system might be too much in terms of getting any kind of FAA buy-in without an STC. Therefore, I would go with the '57 to '60 wings which would allow me to install Monarch plastic tanks which I believe are still readily available. To that end, If anyone has a copy of a field approval for either swap I would certainly be interested in a copy....

  25. #25
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    10,194
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 18180 View Post
    ... Ideally a set of '62 wings which would have the double outlets in the tanks however, I suspect the changes to the fuel system might be too much in terms of getting any kind of FAA buy-in without an STC. ..
    the wings are already FAA approved on a newer same model.... just reference that wing assembly P/N... just like all the Cessna parts that contain a WEU (When Exhausted Use) newer part number....provided the gross weight is equal/more, which probably is the case.......

    somewhere in my box of paperwork I have copy of a guy up here that got cessna to write a letter in support of putting 175 wings on a 170B.... Cessna engineer didn't blanket say it was easy/or possible, but said they saw no objection, if physical things could be matched and then he got a field approval using that as part of it... I think this is the n number

    N3452C at least searching his name from memory...

  26. #26
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,044
    Post Thanks / Like
    Unless you happen to have an excessive amount of $, how about first determine the cause of the leak.

    Once you find that, and assess the repair cost, then consider all these other ideas. Seriously, that plane holds enough fuel to go from Juneau to anchorage on one fuel load, and from Anchorage to Dillingham... do you really need more? Fuel down there is everywhere you look.
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!
    Likes mike mcs repair liked this post

  27. #27
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    10,194
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 18180 View Post
    .. Ideally a set of '62 wings which would have the double outlets in the tanks however, I suspect the changes to the fuel system might be too much in terms of getting any kind of FAA buy-in without an STC.
    the fuel system changes are/were already approved by the FAA.... in that model... just reference that... and do it the same

  28. #28
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,518
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SJ View Post
    .....The short range bladders have a lot not to like ….
    I've seen a number of comments over the years talking about the smaller tanks limiting the range of the early model 180's.
    They hold 60 gallons, 55 useable-- and that's in all attitudes.
    My 53 model burns 11 gph just bopping around locally, and about 12 on a trip.
    So leaving a half hour VFR reserve, I can fly for 4 hours at 12 gph going approx 140 mph which comes out to 560 miles.
    Just how much more range is really necessary?

    FWIW a stock supercub holds 36 gallons, dunno official useable but it's probably around 32 gallons.
    Leaving a half-hour reserve, with an O320 that's 3-1/2 hours at 8gph and typically 100 mph,.
    That works out to only 350 miles, yet I rarely hear anyone refer to a SC as "short range".
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  29. #29
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,341
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    I've seen a number of comments over the years talking about the smaller tanks limiting the range of the early model 180's.
    They hold 60 gallons, 55 useable-- and that's in all attitudes.
    My 53 model burns 11 gph just bopping around locally, and about 12 on a trip.
    So leaving a half hour VFR reserve, I can fly for 4 hours at 12 gph going approx 140 mph which comes out to 560 miles.
    Just how much more range is really necessary?

    FWIW a stock supercub holds 36 gallons, dunno official useable but it's probably around 32 gallons.
    Leaving a half-hour reserve, with an O320 that's 3-1/2 hours at 8gph and typically 100 mph,.
    That works out to only 350 miles, yet I rarely hear anyone refer to a SC as "short range".
    FYI, There are a whole bunch of STC approved mods to add gas and thus range to Super Cubs. Literally more different mods than any other airplane. Do a search on this forum and you’ll find all kinds of folks wanting more tang in their Super Cubs.

    MTV

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    MA & ME
    Posts
    393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Doesn't SJ have the PPonk with commensurately higher fuel burn? In his case, he'd have to pull back a ways on the go-faster knob to achieve your numbers.

    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    I've seen a number of comments over the years talking about the smaller tanks limiting the range of the early model 180's.
    They hold 60 gallons, 55 useable-- and that's in all attitudes.
    My 53 model burns 11 gph just bopping around locally, and about 12 on a trip.
    So leaving a half hour VFR reserve, I can fly for 4 hours at 12 gph going approx 140 mph which comes out to 560 miles.
    Just how much more range is really necessary?

    FWIW a stock supercub holds 36 gallons, dunno official useable but it's probably around 32 gallons.
    Leaving a half-hour reserve, with an O320 that's 3-1/2 hours at 8gph and typically 100 mph,.
    That works out to only 350 miles, yet I rarely hear anyone refer to a SC as "short range".
    Likes RaisedByWolves liked this post

  31. #31
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    ...So leaving a half hour VFR reserve, I can fly for 4 hours at 12 gph going approx 140 mph which comes out to 560 miles.
    Just how much more range is really necessary?
    You have not flown out in the boonies. If you had you would know that your range is only 280 miles.
    N1PA
    Thanks mvivion thanked for this post

  32. #32
    RaisedByWolves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,733
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyR View Post
    Doesn't SJ have the PPonk with commensurately higher fuel burn? In his case, he'd have to pull back a ways on the go-faster knob to achieve your numbers.
    Yeah itís pponked, range is much shorter. Donít look at the fuel flow on takeoff haha


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Likes OLDCROWE liked this post

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,404
    Post Thanks / Like
    Most PPonk owners see speed increases that offset fuel flow increases, or we can roll back power to equal the 470 with 470-like fuel consumption. The 520 upgrade allows using better props, too. Another factor usually overlooked. My Pponk did not decrease my range. I appreciate 75 gallons capacity but rarely use it.
    Likes 180Marty, hotrod180 liked this post

  34. #34
    18180's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    96
    Post Thanks / Like
    For me...the path to later wings is not so much about range but to expand my options in terms of available wings and elimination of bladders. Approach would be to swap bladders for Monarch plastic tanks and install a Sportsman LE all while wings on a bench and then do a wing swap.
    Likes 180Marty liked this post

  35. #35
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,518
    Post Thanks / Like
    Apparently Hartwing / Monarch no longer offers plastic replacement tanks, for early or late wings.
    They do offer plastic aux tanks, including some for the early "slant tank" wings.
    You'd still have to put up with bladders for the mains, early or late.

    https://www.facebook.com/hartwigfuelcell/posts/increase-the-fuel-capacity-on-your-older-180-182-standard-wings-with-slant-fuel-/657322311056706/
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,404
    Post Thanks / Like
    Put up with bladders? I prefer bladders!

  37. #37
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,518
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    You have not flown out in the boonies. If you had you would know that your range is only 280 miles.
    I'm thinking that there's not too many places in the lower 48 are actually more than 280 miles from fuel.
    Washington is a relatively large state and it measures 350 miles east/west x 250 miles north/south.
    But I get it that sometimes you wanna fill up at home and not have to refuel until you get back home or to a distant destination.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  38. #38
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Actually hotrod I usually have a set of floats under me. Whenever I go out somewhere I need to always think of the trip back since many of the water bodies which I visit are nowhere near a fuel pump. Many of my trips have been many hours away with lots of places to land, none of which have fuel or even people. I understand your thinking.
    N1PA

  39. #39
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,518
    Post Thanks / Like
    Being on floats definitely puts another slant on the "limited range" thinking.
    So I see better where you're coming from now.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  40. #40
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,341
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    Being on floats definitely puts another slant on the "limited range" thinking.
    So I see better where you're coming from now.
    Actually, fuel stops can be a ways apart in the middle of the country, or central Idaho, when weather makes you follow terrain.

    MTV

Similar Threads

  1. pa -12 weak tail with 0-360
    By pelican-12 in forum Modifications
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-31-2016, 11:11 AM
  2. Bladder tanks
    By freestone in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-07-2007, 10:58 AM
  3. LONG RANGE TANKS
    By supercub88 in forum Tips and Tricks
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-04-2004, 04:11 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •