• 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!

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

sj

Staff member
Northwest Arkansas
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.... :lol:

Thanks!

sj
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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!
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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 don’t think it had slant tanks.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
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 don’t 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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]http://www.fadodge.com/shaw-filler-neck-adapter/

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]http://www.fadodge.com/wisco-filler-neck-adapter/[/FONT]

[/FONT]
 
"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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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....
 
... 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...
 
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.
 
.. 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
 
.....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".
 
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
 
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.

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".
 
Back
Top