Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 8:31 pm
55 usable

Just before I picked the 182 up in Providence, RI, the previous owner and I split the cost of a new right fuel bladder. Flew the plane to Weed, CA with no problems but as with a new to me plane I did not push the 55 usable.

I am quite familiar with the plane now and know what it burns so I have been doing a few longer legs.

Flew to the Austin fly in to meet a bunch of A Holes and have a good meal and just way too much fun. After all the fun I filled up in Delle, UT then flew to Morgan, UT to see my son and family. Then to Provo to see my mom. Did not get fuel at either place but have been keeping track of fuel the old fashion way.

Should have easily made it to Wells, NV for a fill up. Had a good headwind but the math said I would land with about eight gallons. I ran out of gas with the airport in sight, put it on best glide but with the headwind, did not make it.

I-80 ended up being my alternate. Pretty good dead stick just behind an 18 wheeler and in front of a land barge. Got off on the shoulder a bit to keep a lane open. Called 911 and asked for roadside assistance.

The troopers were very nice and I got 10 gallons mogas (I have the STC)from Triple A. They stopped traffic and I took off and made the next 1/4 mile to Wells. Filled up there and it only took 40 gallons. Where was the other 5 gallons usable.

Made it home and my mechanic and I drained the tanks to search out the problem. Low and behold, the mechanic in Providence when putting in the new bladder must have thought, what the heck, is that rear outboard snap that important. Too much work so I will just leave it out.

The air vent is on the left tank for that series of 182 so the right bladder can get a little neg pressure so that part of it just got sucked up (about 7 gallons worth.

Installed a snap, put in fuel 5 gallons at a time and and made a fuel stick. It took 57 gallons.

Bonanza Guy, please do not call me a moron.

I will send the bill to the Mechanic in Providence.

Tim

That's two glider landings now Tim... Are you rated???

Gump

Glad that you handled it well and that all is OK. An actual engine failure that ends up without injury or aircraft damage is a great flight scenario to add to your portfolio of experience. You are that much more prepared for your next engine out than I am.

Tim:

Happy to read that all turned out well and that no one hurt!

The fuel bladders in my late 58 Skylane hold 32.5 gallons a side. That is 65 total with 60 usable, 62 in level flight. Your 59 ought to be the same.

Once, on landing after 5 hours and using my reserve, I put in 60 gallons. With bladders it takes a little time to completely expand them to full, and I often have to coach a lineman to put in another 5 gallons a side. Full means full, not nearly, not almost, not about... but full.

BTW: The bladders are a legacy of WWII American airplane's bullet proof gas tanks. The ones in our planes have identical material to those used in P-40's and F6F's, etc.

I cant believe you waited so long to take the chance of being called a moron Tim.

Look real good and make sure that snap didnt come off and is slowing rubbing a hole under your new bladder.

mr scout wrote:
Look real good and make sure that snap didnt come off and is slowing rubbing a hole under your new bladder.

Looked pretty good. You 180 and 182 guys all know that few people have a long enough arm to reach that snap. So what you do is drill a hole in the top of the wing and pull the snap through with a piece of safety wire. Then you put in a rivet. The rivet was there from the previous bladder replacement. It had old paint on it.

The other 182 (same year 1959) had the same usable as stated by Quail. My Current 182 has a hinged doore with the fuel cap in a pocket that is about 3 inches deep where the fuel cap is. The previous 182 had flush caps. The flush caps would raise the top of the bladder to the top of the wing and allow for more fuel. I think.

Tim

qmdv wrote:

mr scout wrote:
Look real good and make sure that snap didnt come off and is slowing rubbing a hole under your new bladder.

Looked pretty good. You 180 and 182 guys all know that few people have a long enough arm to reach that snap. So what you do is drill a hole in the top of the wing and pull the snap through with a piece of safety wire. Then you put in a rivet. The rivet was there from the previous bladder replacement. It had old paint on it.

The other 182 (same year 1959) had the same usable as stated by Quail. My Current 182 has a hinged doore with the fuel cap in a pocket that is about 3 inches deep where the fuel cap is. The previous 182 had flush caps. The flush caps would raise the top of the bladder to the top of the wing and allow for more fuel. I think.

Tim

Tim and Flight:
Went to Hurricane, Utah once to do annual on 58 182. Upon opening up
fuel caps to inspect for folds or creases (per AD check) found both fuel bladders were down on outboard end(s) severally limiting capacity .After
putting bladders back up where they belong there "measuring stick"
had to be recalibrated . Skydive outfit only wanted 10 gallons a side so they could hall more "jr. dirtdarts " to jump altitude. Old measuring stick to new was almost 2 to 1 . When they thought they had 10 gallons a side was ACTUALLY more like 1/2 that. Pilot kept complaining that 182 would quit while gliding down. Fuel pickup in aft end of tank (pre 1963) didn't help.

qmdv wrote

The previous 182 had flush caps. The flush caps would raise the top of the bladder to the top of the wing and allow for more fuel. I think.

I think you're right. When I installed my Monarch caps and replaced what you have the middle of the tank was raised and should hold more.

Nice work Tim, glad to hear you made it through that OK. The more I fool around with light aircraft the less I trust what is recorded in engine and airframe logbooks, and the older they are the more suspect I am. Too many examples of shoddy or negligent (as in your case) maintenance that gets pencil whipped in the logs. And who knows what work has been done that ISN'T recorded.

As a new owner of older aircraft the tendency is to take a lot on faith - even an exhaustive prebuy can only tell you so much. Seems the only way to be absolutely sure is to restore it to new yourself, then you know what you've got.

Please tell us how the conversation with the mechanic goes, I'd love to hear his explanation.

Great Story Tim!! All this fuel bladder talk in 182's is worrying me a little because I plan on getting one in the next 18 months and I like (read: can afford) the older ones as well.

I sat next to a pilot on the way home from NBAA a few years ago. He had a Cessna 180 that he flew from Idaho Falls to Wichita a few times a year. He told me he couldn't do the trip non-stop without worrying himself sick so he always stopped for fuel.

He decided to buy a FP-5 fuel computer and calibrate it over a few cross countries which he did. He told me that his FP-5 is never more than 3 tenths of a gallon off when they top him off and he now makes the trip in peace.

I decided to buy one for my Cherokee (I like peace) and have loved knowing exactly how much fuel I've used, have onboard, current flow, and TTE. Best 500 bucks I've spent.

The old fashioned way hurts my brain too much.

My mechanic replaced one of my fuel bladders after I had it set in for repair. I fly a 1959 182, and he used the drill a hole and pull the tank in place with a piece of safety wire. I hardly ever go over three hours (36 Gal.) before refueling. My bladder isn't quite 55 useable. Bob

Tim,
Glad to hear you stuck that landing! Be careful out there we need your good cooking at the flyin's

I can't imagine having to land on a freeway...that would suck.

SixTwoLeemer wrote:He decided to buy a FP-5 fuel computer and calibrate it over a few cross countries which he did. He told me that his FP-5 is never more than 3 tenths of a gallon off when they top him off and he now makes the trip in peace.

I agree that the fuel flow computer is probably worth it's weight in gold, but in Tim's case, or anyone flying with bladders, it's gonna get you if you get negative pressure collapsing the bag, and you fly off with less than what should be in there. Damn fuel tanks and management have led to some interesting rides over the years, and the older and more chicken-shit I get, the more fuel I have in the wing.

Gump

GumpAir wrote:

SixTwoLeemer wrote:He decided to buy a FP-5 fuel computer and calibrate it over a few cross countries which he did. He told me that his FP-5 is never more than 3 tenths of a gallon off when they top him off and he now makes the trip in peace.

I agree that the fuel flow computer is probably worth it's weight in gold, but in Tim's case, or anyone flying with bladders, it's gonna get you if you get negative pressure collapsing the bag, and you fly off with less than what should be in there. Damn fuel tanks and management have led to some interesting rides over the years, and the older and more chicken-shit I get, the more fuel I have in the wing.

Gump

Gump those jugs on your struts look like hell, and external loads down here are a no-no.
At least you could take the nozzel off and put on the cap. Or use straps instead of twine

whee wrote:I can't imagine having to land on a freeway...that would suck.

Four foot high sagebrush would suck harder. At least with an engine loss landing on a freeway you do not need to worry about overshooting it.

Tim

Good job on the landing,and a great place to put down if you have to,wide open I-80.
It is amazing to me how attentive you get, when the fan up front stops working,a good ass chewin is in order,but you prob. wont get much from it.
be safe,and nice job again.

Tim, Great job, makes for good campfire stories later. What ever happened to that nose fork? Do you have "big" tires on now? John

qmdv wrote:Made it home and my mechanic and I drained the tanks to search out the problem. Low and behold, the mechanic in Providence when putting in the new bladder must have thought, what the heck, is that rear outboard snap that important. Too much work so I will just leave it out.


Tim

Why would I call you a moron, you didn't fly with a known unairworthy condition. When you say you installed a snap what does that mean? I had a 182 and replaced both bladders, although they were the 40 gallon ones. Did your new tank have a snap that the old tank did not have? My new tanks had the snaps in the same place as the 35 year old ones. Or did you mean there was a snap in there that he couldn't reach so he just said the hell with it? It's also possible for a snap to come loose. Lots of things can go wrong there.

Bonanza Man wrote:

qmdv wrote:Made it home and my mechanic and I drained the tanks to search out the problem. Low and behold, the mechanic in Providence when putting in the new bladder must have thought, what the heck, is that rear outboard snap that important. Too much work so I will just leave it out.


Tim

Why would I call you a moron, you didn't fly with a known unairworthy condition.

Gee I didn't see your name mentioned anywhere. Why would you think this was directed at you?