Fuel Bladders vs Wet Wing

J

JC150

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
491
Display Name
Display name:
JC150
I've been looking at 182's for sale, so I met with a gentleman who was selling his 1975 Cessna 182. During the pre-flight, I was surprised that he was rocking the wings up and down. The reason he told me was to move any water that might be trapped by wrinkles in the rubber bladders which act as dams.

I talked with a friend who owns a 182S model, and he advised me to stay away from rubber bladders and try to find a wet wing Cessna 182 (1979 and on). The problem is most of the 182's on controller and trade-a-plane that I like are pre-1979 182's, so they have the bladders. My question is can you buy a pre-1979 Cessna 182 and install a wet wing tank? Thanks
 
The wet wing (integral tank) is a slightly different animal. The structure itself is sealed up to act as a tank. Converting a bladder system to an integral tank would require an STC and considerable cash, since access to the inside of the cavity is very difficult. I don't know if it's been done.

The were some fiberglass tanks made to replace bladders in some Cessnas, but the wing has to come off and the root rib removed to get it into the wing.

Bladders work fine if they're properly installed and cared for.

Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
Bladders work fine if they're properly installed and cared for.
Click to expand...

Agreed. OP should not be afraid of them.

And if you remember to fill tanks after flight/use is done, chances of condensation within the bladders is minimized. Within our club, we do this, and the few times that I got any water when I checked during preflight, the amount was minimal and a recheck showed none.
 
Is it true that when you sump for water with rubber bladders, some water can remain still if there are wrinkles in the rubber bladders? On the test flight I went on, I sumped the fuel and found no water. The owner rocked the wings several times and we were able to get a considerable amount of water out
 
Can you stick a set of late model wings on and older 182? Can this be done on a log book entry with the part on the same TC?
 
JC150 said:
I've been looking at 182's for sale, so I met with a gentleman who was selling his 1975 Cessna 182. During the pre-flight, I was surprised that he was rocking the wings up and down. The reason he told me was to move any water that might be trapped by wrinkles in the rubber bladders which act as dams.

I talked with a friend who owns a 182S model, and he advised me to stay away from rubber bladders and try to find a wet wing Cessna 182 (1979 and on). The problem is most of the 182's on controller and trade-a-plane that I like are pre-1979 182's, so they have the bladders. My question is can you buy a pre-1979 Cessna 182 and install a wet wing tank? Thanks
Click to expand...

Your friend and you need to visit sumpthis.com. Saying wet wing is better than blader is :goofy:

Each has its own drawbacks.
 
Bladders are a predictable beast. They will last at least 15 years, possible up to 30. The cost for the bladders is a known quantity, and there are at least 3 well known suppliers. The labor is a b!tch, but also a predictable quantity. What you don't want is a short-range bladder tank 182, but there aren't that many of them. (The problem with the short range tanks is there is only one port on the top of the wing that opens up, rather than two, which makes swapping bladders a lot more difficult.)

I know a guy who had a true nightmare with a wet-wing 182. Couldn't track a leak. Turns out it wasn't the original wing. The news, and his bank account balance, went downhill (rapidly) from there.

Basically, the problems with a wet wing are more rare, but more expensive to deal with. You pay your money and you take your chances.

Jeff
 
JC150 said:
I've been looking at 182's for sale, so I met with a gentleman who was selling his 1975 Cessna 182. During the pre-flight, I was surprised that he was rocking the wings up and down. The reason he told me was to move any water that might be trapped by wrinkles in the rubber bladders which act as dams.

I talked with a friend who owns a 182S model, and he advised me to stay away from rubber bladders and try to find a wet wing Cessna 182 (1979 and on). The problem is most of the 182's on controller and trade-a-plane that I like are pre-1979 182's, so they have the bladders. My question is can you buy a pre-1979 Cessna 182 and install a wet wing tank? Thanks
Click to expand...

I'd advise that you should read AD 84-10-01 R1 and comply with on any 182 with fuel bladders.
 
Does anyone know if the Maule uses a wet wing design or fuel bladders? As someone looking to buy a plane, should I try and avoid the bladders?
 
Last edited:
JC150 said:
Is it true that when you sump for water with rubber bladders, some water can remain still if there are wrinkles in the rubber bladders? On the test flight I went on, I sumped the fuel and found no water. The owner rocked the wings several times and we were able to get a considerable amount of water out
Click to expand...


The best way to avoid that is to keep the damn water out in the first place.

Get proper fuel caps installed, don't leave tanks partially full in high humidity climates whenever possible, and don't buy fuel from crappy contaminated sources at deserted airports just to save a few bucks. Main thing is to figure out how the water is getting IN.

Bladders and wet wings both have advantages and disadvantages. We had a bladder fail on one wing and replaced it. The mechanic laughed when we asked if we should replace the other as preventative maintenance.

"The other one could go tomorrow, or it could last another ten years. Leave it alone. It'll tell you like this one did when it's starting to go and then you'll find the same pool of blue plus goo in the hangar that day it finally does. And then we fix it."

Couple thousand bucks all in, including labor, and there's websites with all the gory photos to see how much work it is to replace them.

Have also seen wet wing folks struggle with leaks and sealing them up. I suspect their mechanics would say similar. They all break/leak/fail eventually.

Every mechanic will have their favorite bladder manufacturer too. We decided to go with the one the mechanic said he liked installing the best and their fancy STCed test sumps that make the installation of those easier. Figured the mechanics pick their favorites and will do the best job using the stuff they know best.
 
Some will say in an accident a bladder is less likely to cause a fuel leak but who knows :)

When I purchased my '76 Skylane, the only thing I didn't do is check when the bladders were replaced. They were original (30 years old). The following year they started to leak so I replaced them. The bladders (Eagle) were around $950 (2005) each and the labor was around 11hrs each (remove old, install new).

The new ones are much more robust than the old ones and keeping the tanks full, should last me another 30 years.

Don't be afraid of them. Just take into account the cost in the purchase price or buy an airplane that has had them replaced recently.

Kevin
 
JC150 said:
I talked with a friend who owns a 182S model, and he advised me to stay away from rubber bladders and try to find a wet wing Cessna 182 (1979 and on).
Click to expand...

As others have said, I really don't think your friend knows what he's talking about.

Regarding keeping bladders full. It' said to help them last longer by keeping the bladder "wetted".

OTOH It's said to be false that not keeping them full contributes to water in the fuel, that one is an OWT and the math is easy to do on that one.

So, keep them full, but to extend lifespan, not eliminate the water in fuel.

Regarding rocking the wings, yes, I do that also, pretty vigorously. Both for water and to check for "oil canning" that might indicate a structural issue with the wing.

As an aside. I owned a '57 172 for 3 years and now a '58 182 for 10 years. I've never sumped water out of either but I don't allow that to reduce my pre-flight sumping diligence.
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
The best way to avoid that is to keep the damn water out in the first place.

Get proper fuel caps installed, don't leave tanks partially full in high humidity climates whenever possible, and don't buy fuel from crappy contaminated sources at deserted airports just to save a few bucks. Main thing is to figure out how the water is getting IN.
Click to expand...


Certainly, keeping external water out is a given, but water can be held in fuel and oil in solution suspended in the fuel. Water will settle out of the fuel based on the amount of water in the fuel ( up to a tea spoon per gallon) and the ambient temperature. This is why sumping the tanks is so important before the first flight of every day. Mogas is much more susceptible to water coming out of solution than 100ll, so extra care and caution must be used. Ask me how I know. :)

A little bit of water in the fuel will go through the engine completely unnoticed and won't harm anything. You might get a "stumble" once in a while at altitude. Nothing to worry about. :eek:

When I was a kid we would "clean out" our engines by pouring water into the a running, hot engine. This would convert the water into steam and blow all kinds of carbon and crap out of the exhaust. Made quite a cloud, but the engine would keep on running.
 
Last edited:
Nothing wrong with bladders if installed correctly. I have installed six bladders in 182s. (I'm the guy with the long arms that can get the clip on the back outside corner.) Getting the bottom to lay smooth takes a bit of time to do it right. The one you looked at probably has a clip or two not fastened or was not put in correctly in the first place. On one like that you might be able to open it up and smooth it out but I suspect it probably got a crease in it on installation and if you try and smooth it it would crack and leak if the tank is old. Don
 
I thought I had posted the math here before, I found it, from last July when we were also discussing water in the tank:

Water in fuel calculations...Doing the math on condensation:

20 gallons of air left for a month, going through daily cycles of 95*F high with 65% RH and 75*F lows will produce about 1 oz of water in 30 days.

And that assumes the air in the tanks fluctuating as much as the air temps...which it won't if it's hangared. If it's on a ramp it could very well fluctuate more but that won't change the numbers.

That also assumes a 100% exchange of air in the tank with 95*F air from the outside everyday. And that ain't gonna happen either.

Well, I don't actually show the math, just the results.
 
yakdriver said:
Nothing wrong with bladders if installed correctly. I have installed six bladders in 182s. (I'm the guy with the long arms that can get the clip on the back outside corner.) Getting the bottom to lay smooth takes a bit of time to do it right. The one you looked at probably has a clip or two not fastened or was not put in correctly in the first place. On one like that you might be able to open it up and smooth it out but I suspect it probably got a crease in it on installation and if you try and smooth it it would crack and leak if the tank is old. Don
Click to expand...

Agreed

Maintenance wise

Cessna wet wings don't typically cause a lot of maintenance issues, but I have seen at least one trouble maker wet winged 182 with very persistent fuel leaks. Bladders don't really surprise you.
 
Geico266 said:
When I was a kid we would "clean out" our engines by pouring water into the a running, hot engine. This would convert the water into steam and blow all kinds of carbon and crap out of the exhaust. Made quite a cloud, but the engine would keep on running.
Click to expand...

So cool you brought that up!

I was in my late teens, me and a friend liked to tinker and work on stuff. Guy down at the service station told him to pour some ice cold water in the hot running engine to clean out all the carbon, gunk, etc. So he did just that....with an ENTIRE PITCHER of ice water! :mad2:

I've never seen an engine stop so fast in my life. One minute she's idling high, he starts to pour, she gurgles, and one single WHAP!....silence. Oh, f... :rofl:
 
I have a '75 182P with the bladders. I was a little nervous when I began shopping for planes, but I personally have had no problems. Like others mentioned, you just run them until they fail, and then replace.
 
I've got a 77 Q model with bladders, it's hangared unless we are at the beach and I have never gotten more than a trace of water from the sumps. Two real keys, obviously hangaring keeps the rain off, but the second is the new style caps that I think everyone has on high wing Cessnas now. :D
Our old 182 had the original caps and only saw a hangar during maintenance:eek: I was forever draining water out of the tanks.:mad2: People always said it was condensation, should have kept the tanks full etc, but the reality was the water was coming in from the horrible fuel cap/o-ring design. ;)
I wouldn't shy away from or favor a good airplane because of the tanks installed. I have replaced one tank on our current 182, it started leaking about 3 months after I bought it. :rolleyes:
One good thing about the wet wing 182's is they have 24v electrical systems.
 
N747JB said:
I've got a 77 Q model with bladders, it's hangared unless we are at the beach and I have never gotten more than a trace of water from the sumps. Two real keys, obviously hangaring keeps the rain off, but the second is the new style caps that I think everyone has on high wing Cessnas now. :D
Our old 182 had the original caps and only saw a hangar during maintenance:eek: I was forever draining water out of the tanks.:mad2: People always said it was condensation, should have kept the tanks full etc, but the reality was the water was coming in from the horrible fuel cap/o-ring design. ;)
I wouldn't shy away from or favor a good airplane because of the tanks installed. I have replaced one tank on our current 182, it started leaking about 3 months after I bought it. :rolleyes:
One good thing about the wet wing 182's is they have 24v electrical systems.
Click to expand...

The AD Tom mentioned deals with replacing the flush fuel caps with the raised design. Most of the water does indeed get in though those old caps.

24 volt batteries are horribly expensive. I don't know that 24V systems are all that much better overall.

Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
The AD Tom mentioned deals with replacing the flush fuel caps with the raised design. Most of the water does indeed get in though those old caps.

24 volt batteries are horribly expensive. I don't know that 24V systems are all that much better overall.

Dan
Click to expand...


Mind reader!

Why the heck does a family sedan (24v 182) have a $400+ battery? And folks complain about parts costs?
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
A little bit of water in the fuel will go through the engine completely unnoticed and won't harm anything. You might get a "stumble" once in a while at altitude. Nothing to worry about. :eek:

When I was a kid we would "clean out" our engines by pouring water into the a running, hot engine. This would convert the water into steam and blow all kinds of carbon and crap out of the exhaust. Made quite a cloud, but the engine would keep on running.
Click to expand...

A little bit of water poured into the intake will go though the engine without stopping it. A droplet of water trying to get through the metering jet in the carburetor will often refuse to do so because of surface tension and the engine will stop. If it gets that far, that is. The very fine screens in the fuel strainer and carb inlet will usually stop the water, but if we get enough water against those, they're completely occluded and the engine quits.

Dan
 
When I first read the title I was sympathizing with the guy that didn't have an onboard potty. I thought it said FULL bladder.
 
bnt83 said:
Mind reader!

Why the heck does a family sedan (24v 182) have a $400+ battery? And folks complain about parts costs?
Click to expand...

Because the higher the voltage, the thinner the wire you can run to everything.
 
Signal wiring is in the 20 gauge range regardless if the system is 12 or 24 volt. So there is no weight savings there anyway. Coax doesn't change.

So maybe 10% of the total wiring can be .001 # per foot lighter by adding 10 # more battery. :goofy:
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the input, i will open up my options to pre 1979 C182s as well now.
 
bnt83 said:
Why not ask Cessna?

I've seen a salvaged Lear 35 wing go onto a Lear 36 with a one paged description from the OEM engineering.
Click to expand...

I have seen a J-4 with a one page maintenance manual and a 5 page Addendum for a replacement fuel selector.

Brian
 
JC150 said:
Thanks for the input, i will open up my options to pre 1979 C182s as well now.
Click to expand...

Don't know if you looking at restart Cessnas but the only thing better I can think they would have is factory applied epoxy corrosion proofing. Many of which already have a decent autopilot installed.

Pre-restart cessnas have more aftermarket parts resources and bare sheet alumimum with more corrosion issues.
 
Dan Thomas said:
The AD Tom mentioned deals with replacing the flush fuel caps with the raised design. Most of the water does indeed get in though those old caps. Dan
Click to expand...

It also deals with wrinkles in the bladder, and rocking the wings

When the AD is completely complied with the rocking the wing need not be done any more but there are those who will be rocking 182 wings for ever.

The monarch file caps and new bags will end the water issues for ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top