Hammer makes a good point. Lots of places around Idaho to get fuel, getting to them may be the problem. One time I mismanaged my fuel while playing in the Frank Church. In my case the weather was fine but it was getting warm and climbing out of the Big Creek drainage was costing me precious fuel, fuel I knew I couldn't spare. By the time I weaved my way around the peaks and made my way to Salmon I knew I dangerously low on fuel. It wasn't till I filled up till I realized how low I really was. The image of the fuel station indicating I had just put 24.6gallons in my tanks is burned into my brain.

Years ago someone on BCP mentioned those 5gal Swiss Army water bags. Said they use them for fuel up in Alaska. I went to the local Army Surplus and bought one for like $10. Still works fine for me and I've put E10 mogas through it. I don't like the cap on it, impossible to pour the fuel without getting it on your hands, but I haven't bothered looking for an alternative.

Hammer wrote:...

The odds are good that if the engine quits (for any reason) the airplane will not only land safely, it won't arrive on the ground with any serious damage.

Comforting, but that is simply not true while flying over the Frank, or the Bob, or the Bitterroot, or the Wallowa's or the Sierra's, or almost anywhere else that people access the backcountry on wheels.

Fuel in the Idaho backcountry can be a bit more ticklish than some other places. The "direct to" function on your ipad or gps does not give any sort of accurate indication of true flight distances if the ceiling is "high but present"...say 9,000 feet. During high blue weather there's usually substantial climbing involved in getting anywhere, and it's VERY easy to get blocked by weather that's undetectable from your starting point...including valley fog in the summer, which often makes the fuel stops IFR.

I absolutely agree. The survey wasn't specifically limited to pilots flying backcountry ops. So we can't assume that the 1 in 5 ratio necessarily holds for back country flyers, low level wildlife surveys, VFR bank check runs [does anyone still do those?] or other flights conducted over inhospitable terrain or in the weather.. However we can speculate that (assuming terrain and obstacles aren't too bad, AND we're flying with some potential energy in the bank from altitude and airspeed) we might have a good chance of having a re-useable aircraft when the wheels come to rest. The survey was limited by four very specific criteria: it was for loss of power events in SE FW Piston Engine Factory Built aircraft, regardless of where they were flown. Most of the respondents provided a brief narrative that described their powerloss event. A small minority were in the back country or over mountainous terrain when their powered aircraft turned into a glider. FWIW I didn't detect any respondents to the survey who were dead, so we can likely take the NTSB db stats to the bank. If you (or I) lose an power (for any reason) and have a fatal accident means the odds are relatively high that you (or I) too won't respond to the engine out survey..

PapernScissors wrote:

Cary wrote:On the issue of engines failing but not getting into the NTSB data base, unless someone gets hurt or there's airframe (not engine) damage exceeding $25,000, they aren't interested. All those who successfully land without doing much damage to the airplane, no matter that a $50,000 engine was cratered, won't see their names in the data base.

I have no idea how often there are successful landings without damage from engine failures, but I'm really glad that I have one! Well, actually, I'd just as soon not have had the engine failure at all, but I'm glad that there was no other damage.

Cary

Good question. Based on 550 respondents to a survey many of the participants on this board have contributed their experience... The odds are good that if the engine quits (for any reason) the airplane will not only land safely, it won't arrive on the ground with any serious damage. About 1 in 5 engine failures where the powerplant dies (for any reason) make it to the big league (NTSB DB). Cary, didn't you contribute your lifeline to that interesting survey statistic?

I don't recall (sounds Reaganistic, right? ) I take surveys frequently, I don't keep track of most of them, and besides, I'm getting old! I just cleared 8" of snow off the back deck, and earlier today I got out the new Toro and did the driveway, our walk, and the walks of the neighbors. I'm feeling really, really old right now!

Cary

[quote="whee"]... By the time I weaved my way around the peaks and made my way to Salmon I knew I dangerously low on fuel. It wasn't till I filled up till I realized how low I really was. The image of the fuel station indicating I had just put 24.6gallons in my tanks is burned into my brain.
...[quote]

There's a gas receipt (front and center) on our bulletin board from 2009: $4.19 per gallon: 37.43 gallons: $156.46. My wife brought it home after one of her IFR training sessions.

Our plane has 39 gallons total, 37 gallons usable.

Wasn't too many weeks afterwards that we installed a fuel flow meter.

The fuel tank management posts have been split to a new topic: Fuel tank and reserve management.

Please continue this discussion about access to and management of fuel from backcountry locations.

Has anyone tried something like this?



http://www.liquidcontainment.com.au/product/256/100-Ltr-Fuel-Bladder-Pillow-Style#.WHW-wYFyjqA

The places I go tend not to be within range of a quick fuel run. This seems like something that you could dump off at camp to fill the tanks with at the end of the day. The price seems to be very reasonable too, much more cost effective for the capacity than a Turtle Pac or the ABW collapsible jerry cans.

Looks good Shipping costs and custom fees would change that. The Manga bladder are available state side, though French made pricy for sure, but very tough. Drop tests prove it. About 400 for 9 gallons, cheaper as you get bigger. Not repurposed but designed for ALL fuels.

My question on the pillow bag is how do you fill the plane from that thing? As I understand it, the Turtle Pac has the advantage of an internal transfer pump. Unless you're capable of heaving a 150lb fuel bag up in the air and letting gravity do the work for you, I think you'd need pressure of some kind. I suppose you could attach the hose and just sit on it, but I think a pump of some kind is the most likely approach. Seems a bit complicated and messy to me, but probably cheaper.

I don't know this for sure, because the Turtle Pac website is so terrible, but it appears to me that they use an external 12v pump. Would be pretty easy to put together a similar setup for any portable fuel bag.

whee wrote:I don't know this for sure, because the Turtle Pac website is so terrible, but it appears to me that they use an external 12v pump. Would be pretty easy to put together a similar setup for any portable fuel bag.

Sorry you are correct, and yes the website is not ideal. It is an external pump. Might be possible to rig up the same concept on the pillow bag then.

Not bad price but full it would be about 160 lbs. Go fill a small duffle bag with 160 lbs of sand and see how you like getting it in and out of the back of the plane. Maul would be easy A cub would suck. Now if you had pump attached and filled wings before you pulled it out it would be lighter. Moving fuel from large to small container is a pain in the ass. I have done it with jiggle hose. Lots of ways to make it work just think it through before you jump. 6 bushwheel bags will give you 36 gal. Take/leave whatever you want throw on top of wing and empty about as fast as it gets folds flat when done. 5-6 gal cans from Canada have better old style caps. I set on wing and use jiggle hose, a little slower than bags and don't fold flat but gets er done. The cheapest way I have found is to carry 1 bag or can and long jiggle hose to get fuel out of my buddys 185.
DENNY

I like the idea of the ABW bags but when I talked to them they told me they don't even make them - makes it hard to fix/warranty if they don't do it in house. Plus, what good is a bag if it leaks? Any kind of turbulence or forced go around = fuel in the cabin.

courierguy wrote:Looks good Shipping costs and custom fees would change that. The Manga bladder are available state side, though French made pricy for sure, but very tough. Drop tests prove it. About 400 for 9 gallons, cheaper as you get bigger. Not repurposed but designed for ALL fuels.

Shipping is $75 AUD (about $56 USD) to me here in Canada for to total of about $216 USD. That's still a hell of a lot cheaper than anything similiar I've seen.

colopilot wrote:My question on the pillow bag is how do you fill the plane from that thing? As I understand it, the Turtle Pac has the advantage of an internal transfer pump. Unless you're capable of heaving a 150lb fuel bag up in the air and letting gravity do the work for you, I think you'd need pressure of some kind. I suppose you could attach the hose and just sit on it, but I think a pump of some kind is the most likely approach. Seems a bit complicated and messy to me, but probably cheaper.

I have a low wing, so that task would be a little easier for me (though it would be an awkward load to lift). 12 volt transfer pumps can be had fairly cheap though.

whee wrote:Years ago someone on BCP mentioned those 5gal Swiss Army water bags. Said they use them for fuel up in Alaska. I went to the local Army Surplus and bought one for like $10. Still works fine for me and I've put E10 mogas through it. I don't like the cap on it, impossible to pour the fuel without getting it on your hands, but I haven't bothered looking for an alternative.

These sound like an interesting alternative as well, collapsible, cheap, and no pump required. How are they to fill? Can they be easily filled from a normal gas pump, or is the hole too small (it's hard to tell from the pictures)? I've read elsewhere about people having issues with mogas melting the inside of the bag and putting gunk in the fuel, have you had any issues with this?

I came across this when I was googling Swiss water bags: https://shop.tigerexped.de/Adapter-1-2-for-Swiss-Army-Water-Bag-incl-Gasket Using that to hook to a hose might reduce the spillage issue.

courierguy wrote:Looks good Shipping costs and custom fees would change that. The Manga bladder are available state side, though French made pricy for sure, but very tough. Drop tests prove it. About 400 for 9 gallons, cheaper as you get bigger. Not repurposed but designed for ALL fuels.

That should have read Nauta, damn spell check, plus posting while on the chair lift. I too could not fathom the TurtlePac site, and when I finally talked to someone, I was left more confused. The marine site in the US that sold me the Nauta was super easy to deal with in comparison. It's the most robust bladder type I've seen, multi layered.

Rigging an on board transfer pump is child's play, I did it. Besides the obvious advantage of no lifting/spilling, you can also easily monitor how full the wing tank is getting, so no spillage from overfilling. I really don't want to set a 5 gallon container on my wing top, it's built to fly, not be a work surface.

BC: sounds like a deal, get one and report back. It's only airplane money (doesn't count)! It looks pretty good for that price especially.

courierguy wrote: That should have read Nauta, damn spell check, plus posting while on the chair lift.

Thanks, I tried googling "manga bladder" and suffice to say the results are not quite what one would expect!

courierguy wrote: Rigging an on board transfer pump is child's play, I did it. Besides the obvious advantage of no lifting/spilling, you can also easily monitor how full the wing tank is getting, so no spillage from overfilling. I really don't want to set a 5 gallon container on my wing top, it's built to fly, not be a work surface.

BC: sounds like a deal, get one and report back. It's only airplane money (doesn't count)! It looks pretty good for that price especially.

Do you have a picture of your transfer pump setup?

BCPilotguy wrote:

courierguy wrote:Looks good Shipping costs and custom fees would change that. The Manga bladder are available state side, though French made pricy for sure, but very tough. Drop tests prove it. About 400 for 9 gallons, cheaper as you get bigger. Not repurposed but designed for ALL fuels.

Shipping is $75 AUD (about $56 USD) to me here in Canada for to total of about $216 USD. That's still a hell of a lot cheaper than anything similiar I've seen.

colopilot wrote:My question on the pillow bag is how do you fill the plane from that thing? As I understand it, the Turtle Pac has the advantage of an internal transfer pump. Unless you're capable of heaving a 150lb fuel bag up in the air and letting gravity do the work for you, I think you'd need pressure of some kind. I suppose you could attach the hose and just sit on it, but I think a pump of some kind is the most likely approach. Seems a bit complicated and messy to me, but probably cheaper.

I have a low wing, so that task would be a little easier for me (though it would be an awkward load to lift). 12 volt transfer pumps can be had fairly cheap though.

whee wrote:Years ago someone on BCP mentioned those 5gal Swiss Army water bags. Said they use them for fuel up in Alaska. I went to the local Army Surplus and bought one for like $10. Still works fine for me and I've put E10 mogas through it. I don't like the cap on it, impossible to pour the fuel without getting it on your hands, but I haven't bothered looking for an alternative.

These sound like an interesting alternative as well, collapsible, cheap, and no pump required. How are they to fill? Can they be easily filled from a normal gas pump, or is the hole too small (it's hard to tell from the pictures)? I've read elsewhere about people having issues with mogas melting the inside of the bag and putting gunk in the fuel, have you had any issues with this?

I came across this when I was googling Swiss water bags: https://shop.tigerexped.de/Adapter-1-2-for-Swiss-Army-Water-Bag-incl-Gasket Using that to hook to a hose might reduce the spillage issue.

My question is how do you get it in and out of the plane when full? 100 liters of gas ain't light!

Couple of random thoughts:

Nauta makes a dozen sizes of fuel bags, but for diesel fuel only, ranging from 14 gallons to 400 gallons (try wrestling that sucker around!). According to their website, they only make 4 sizes of fuel bags specific for gasoline, 6, 9, 13, and 18 gallons. I have no idea what the difference is in materials, but apparently it's different enough that they have specific pages for each. What putting gas into a diesel bladder would do to it, I haven't any idea, either. Here's their website: http://www.imtra.com/other-products-nauta-tanks.htm

When I'm camping and need to move water from wherever I get it to the camp, it's about all I can do to move 5 gallons very far, and lifting it very high isn't going to happen. I'd guess that's about 41 lbs. of water plus whatever the can or bag weighs--not a whole lot anyway, but I've found it to be a lot easier to move smaller amounts and do it more often. Similar amounts of gas would be 2 1/3 pounds per gallon lighter, but that wouldn't make much difference. Granted a lot of youse guys can outlift me due to being young whippersnappers, but all I'm saying is hauling very much fuel in containers isn't easy. Moving it short distances would be easier, but moving it in bladder/bag tanks would require handles of some kind--bags are pretty awkward.

Cary