Maybe not that bad. I was quoted 5k to install a tank into the PA46 which is more complicated as it is pressurised.
Is the installation of the bladder tanks retrofit on R44 compulsory on UK registered aircrafts on the basis of the manufacturer's mandatory service bullettin or it can be deferred because a SB, even if defined as mandatory, is different from an AD? Anyone has had this issue?
Eal, please tell me about the Turtepack ferry tank, where does is join up into the fuel line?
Thanks, Q
The PA46 Malibu fuel system has the left fuel tank line going through the pressure vessel along the main wing spar under the two front pilot seats.
The ferry tank is connected by breaking into that line using a fuel selector valve thus allowing you to choose between the left wing tank, or the ferry tank.
The Jetprop STC adds in a fuel header tank that directly feeds the engine, so there is never any interruption of fuel to the engine when switching to/from the ferry supply since in my installation I am merely switching the top up fuel source to the header tank.
The other very neat attribute is that since the cabin is pressurised +5.3 PSI, it helps to “squeeze” the fuel out of the bladder and negates the need for any auxiliary fuel pumps and associated wiring, keeping the design very simple. Ferry Tank, tank fuel shut off, and selector valve. That is it.
I made use of some Eaton Aerospace quick disconnect fuel fittings so that there is no fuel drip or tooling required when connecting/disconnecting the tank. When the tank is empty it collapses completely flat allowing me to stow it in the nose baggage compartment giving me back the full cabin on those flights when I do not require it.
Unfortunately this option is only available for the Malibu as the Meridian has all the fuel lines running externally to the pressure vessel.
The main limitation is that you are adding in 400 lbs of weight on to the back seats – equivalent to two big passengers sitting there, and have to manage the CG accordingly. The design I used was derived from an existing FAA/DER 8110-3 certified design (originally developed for a few RTW trips – using an aluminium tank) and comes with an extrapolated weight and balance chart, and a 10% over gross weight dispensation with a POH supplement that defines operating limitations new emergency procedures etc. The aircraft becomes two person when using the tank.
This is probably defined as thread drift, so may have to move this to the technical section as a separate thread?
Cheers – E
Here’s a 100 gallon (+10% safety margin as always) turtle pack in a C182 in lieu of the rear bench. The nicest thing about is that due to its bladder design, you can fill it to any level, its weight is negligible (maybe 5kg with the whole pump assembly) and you can fold and stow it when not using it. If you fill it completely with 100LL, it would be about 320kg which might be a W&B challenge.
The drawback is that the the material used (they have a thin and a stronger variant) does let fuel get through. They are always a bit smelly and not suitable for long term storage of fuel. You have to wash them with soap afterwards and inflate them with air to dry.
In the picture it was inflated with shop air. You can see the filler neck and the small breather hose which you need when storing fuel to release the fuel vapor pressure that gradually builds up.
Unless you connect it to the fuel system, I don’t think need any sort of approvals, it’s just a better way of carrying extra fuel and it goes much better with the airports that do not like to fill jerry cans. My personal use is not so much to allow for longer non stop flights (I can do 7h already) but to fly to places that do not have avgas.
I used a Turtle bag as well on my Africa trip and had it connected to the fuel-lines. Then turning on the aux-pump and selecting the fuel switch to flow, it would pump the fuel from the Turtle bag into the right wing tank.
Here we are refueling in Africa somewhere.
eal wrote:
The design I used was derived from an existing FAA/DER 8110-3 certified design (originally developed for a few RTW trips – using an aluminium tank) and comes with an extrapolated weight and balance chart, and a 10% over gross weight dispensation with a POH supplement that defines operating limitations new emergency procedures etc.
@eal – I am assuming that you made the installation in Europe ? Ifso, which DER did you use ?
Further, I would think that substituting a TurtlePack for a rigid aluminum tank would be a MAJOR change to the original tank installation design and would require a complete re-work. To care to elaborate ?
May I add that I heard a rumor that the FAA has taken a very “aggressive” position on the use of TurtlePacks following a fatal accident where the TP was not properly secured in a Mooney that shifted on rotation.
achimha wrote:
I don’t think need any sort of approvals, it’s just a better way of carrying extra fuel and it goes much better with the airports that do not like to fill jerry cans.
WoW ! Needless to say – I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT for any EASA or FAA registered aircraft.
Where would EASA regulations prohibit me from carrying jerry cans in the cabin?
I think that you formally are not even allowed to carry 1 liter oil cans in the cockpit… ?
