What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RV-10 Extra Fuel Tank

R

rv6ejguy

Well Known Member
I'm contemplating adding a 14 gallon fuselage tank just behind the baggage bay bulkhead in my -10 to extend range a bit when I've got less than 4 people aboard. This would be about the same C of G condition as with another 180 lb. person in one of the rear seats. Anyone else looked at doing something like this. Adding fuel to the wings seems like a lot of work or a lot of $$. Wished Van's had put 75 gallons or so in the -10 for the long legs with only 2 or 3 on board.

Plan on using a Facet pump to transfer to one of the mains and a float switch to turn on a light when the aux tank is pumped dry. Flush filler door in upper fuselage skin, vent line out the top of the fuselage skin. Any thoughts?
 
This is not a flame, but...

I don't like the idea of 180 lb of fuel behind me, but if you go that way do what you can to make it rupture proof. The vent will need to run from the top of the tank down the side and out the bottom skin.

Kent
 
MOre fuel is avialable for the RV-10

Why don't you buy the ER tanks from Hotel Whiskey Aviation for the RV-10. Slides into the lightening holes in the nose ribs fwd of the spar. 8 hrs work and you're done, it's been engineered, flight tested and it's safe.

www.hotelwhiskey.com

I have em in my RV-8, and there will soon be an article on the install in Sport Aviation.

Art
 
What kind of math do you use for C of G calcs? 14 X 6= 84, not 180. I said the effect on C of G was the same as a 180lb person in a rear seat.

Like I mentioned, Not keen on spending $2000+ for some aluminum wing tanks.

How is fuel gonna siphon out a forward facing vent line on the top of the tank?

I've given the crash worthiness some thought already. Maybe go with a cell and a dry break as in race cars.

Any USEFUL comments welcome!! :confused:
 
A few thoughs came to minde reading this. :rolleyes:

"The right tool for the job"
"You get what you pay for"
"the try'd and true"

Its hard to argue with the apparent success of those HW extended range tanks, but to each is his own. Good luck :D
I hope you find what you are looking for.
 
I'm done

rv6ejguy said:
Like I mentioned, Not keen on spending $2000+ for some aluminum wing tanks.

Any USEFUL comments welcome!! :confused:
Click to expand...

RV6ejguy,

Sorry that you did not find my input USEFUL. You obviously have a preconceived notion of what you're looking for. Have at it.

I'm done spending time posting to builder threads.

Art
 
Didn't think about the forward facing part until later... Diamond has all the fuel in the fuse. (at least in the eclipse(right behind the pilot) IIRC They have never has a post crash fire.
Jeff
 
Sorry, should have mentioned that I've already looked at the tubular wing tanks. Just too much money in my view which is why I mentioned $$$. Very nicely done however. I was really seeking people who were contemplating something other than these tanks or an extended wet wing, both of which are already discussed on this forum.

Didn't mean to ruffle feathers. Not afraid to design something new as I already fly an EFI Sube -6A and this -10 will also be Sube powered with EFI. Is everyone else installing a 540 with 60 gallons or are there some other thoughts out there?

Yes 1911 pilot, I don't think fuselage mounted fuel tanks have to dangerous as lots of aircraft doit. Just needs to be designed correctly. Like you mention, Diamond Aircraft have a lot flying.
 
I like your idea of an aft fuse tank...would like to learn more from you if you decide to go that route...I am waiting for my slow built fuse kit...
I like the idea of productive use (extra fuel) instead of useless ballast in the baggage compartment

Son
flying RV6A Lyc O360
about to complete RV10 emp. plan to have Lyc O540
 
attson said:
I like your idea of an aft fuse tank...would like to learn more from you if you decide to go that route...I am waiting for my slow built fuse kit...
I like the idea of productive use (extra fuel) instead of useless ballast in the baggage compartment

Son
flying RV6A Lyc O360
about to complete RV10 emp. plan to have Lyc O540
Click to expand...

I've got a QB 10 and flying a 6A Sube right now. Seems like on the 2 or 3 pax flights, some extra fuel would be nice. If others are interested, might offer a kit with doublers, mount, tank, door, pump and vent. Trying to keep it light as it would not be used all the time. I hate to haul a lot of dead weight the rest of the time. I'll keep you informed.
 
thomasjorgensen said:
RV6 guy

any news on the fuselage tank? I wouldn't mind an auxiliary tank instead of moving around ballast either!
Click to expand...

Pretty old thread to revive, but still a relevant subject. I think more fuel inside the fuselage is a bad idea, since there are plenty of wing tank options available. My two cents....

John
 
fuel inside the fuselage is a bad idea?

The RV-12 has the fuel tank inside the fuselage... up close and personal... just sayin
 
I have a mate here with a set of tip tanks, they hold about 27L per side, are all sealled and baffled. We made three sets as there was enough material to do so.

We have two tanks. All you need is the pumps and tube etc.

AUD$1000 will get them plus freight of course.

m_IMG_1799.jpg


m_IMG_1907.jpg


m_IMG_2089.jpg
 
Lyndon Tretherway from Custom Aircraft Centre in Goolwa South Australia assisted with an RV 10 here that he fabrcated additioanal tanks out board of the standard tanks in the leading edge of the wing. The modification gave the owner 100 litres extra each side. If money is a factor this may be an option and may be a safer one at that. Email me if you want his contact details
Jon Johanson has built a 10 with the same mod and from memory it may of even had tip tanks as well (cant be sure onthat one)
 
Detailed Write-up

Paul Walter said:
Lyndon Tretherway from Custom Aircraft Centre in Goolwa South Australia assisted with an RV 10 here that he fabrcated additioanal tanks out board of the standard tanks in the leading edge of the wing. The modification gave the owner 100 litres extra each side. If money is a factor this may be an option and may be a safer one at that. Email me if you want his contact details
Jon Johanson has built a 10 with the same mod and from memory it may of even had tip tanks as well (cant be sure onthat one)
Click to expand...

Any chance that there's a write-up from either guy? I'm interested in the "wet wing" mod.
 
The RV 10 that Jon Johanson assisted with was for a company that did mapping or survailance of some type over Antarctica - it had the most amazing cockpit and electrical system you would ever see.

Jon did the test flying

Also it had a huge belly pod much bigger than i have see else where.
I'm not sure what Vans would say about the extra 100 litre custom tank plus tip tanks in each wing but If my memory serves me correctly this is what it had. Over 10 hours endurance !!!

Jon Johanson has a company based in Adelaide - Flymore Pty Ltd, he sells RV accessories, bits and peices.

Drop him a line and ask about the extra tank in the leading edge


http://www.flymore.com.au/

mailto:[email protected]

Paul
 
I have a mate in Melbourne who has done the same thing, even had an engineer do the checks on the structure.

Problem is you need slow build wings.

In my case with QB wings it was easier to go for smaller tip tanks, we foamed them into the tip.

52 usable litres seems to be a good extra range boost. An extra 200L is really a lot of extra fuel and not often justified or used.......except in some very long range missions :eek:
 
Paul Walter said:
Drop him a line and ask about the extra tank in the leading edge

http://www.flymore.com.au/

mailto:[email protected]

Paul
Click to expand...

One step ahead of you Paul. I sent him a message already. I may not plan to fly across the poles, but I would like the ability make the CA to Hawaii leap in my 10, with my wife along for the ride. I figure I'll need 350 pounds of "full fuel useful load," which is a lot of weight when all that extra fuel is included! Think it's doable in the 10?
 
ppilotmike said:
One step ahead of you Paul. I sent him a message already. I may not plan to fly across the poles, but I would like the ability make the CA to Hawaii leap in my 10, with my wife along for the ride. I figure I'll need 350 pounds of "full fuel useful load," which is a lot of weight when all that extra fuel is included! Think it's doable in the 10?
Click to expand...

A quick look at a calculator shows a fuel cost of $1200, one way. Not to mention single engine over 2390 miles of empty ocean. It would take a minimum of 16 hours, which means flying at night, as well.
It's cheaper to fly Hawaiian Airlines - and they have a toilet.

John
 
johngoodman said:
A quick look at a calculator shows a fuel cost of $1200, one way. Not to mention single engine over 2390 miles of empty ocean. It would take a minimum of 16 hours, which means flying at night, as well.
It's cheaper to fly Hawaiian Airlines - and they have a toilet.

John
Click to expand...

John,

For long trips, it's always less hassle and cost to travel in "the tube." My wife and I used to live in Hawaii. In fact, that's where I learned to fly. We've been back several times since moving to the mainland. I want to fly us there as part of a "round the world trip", not on a "let's go to Hawaii for a week" type of trip. I know it's quite a challenge, but that's the exciting part about it. For me, the "in-flight movie" is outside the windows. :)
 
Paul Walter said:
The RV 10 that Jon Johanson assisted with was for a company that did mapping or survailance of some type over Antarctica - it had the most amazing cockpit and electrical system you would ever see.

Jon did the test flying

Also it had a huge belly pod much bigger than i have see else where.
I'm not sure what Vans would say about the extra 100 litre custom tank plus tip tanks in each wing but If my memory serves me correctly this is what it had. Over 10 hours endurance !!!
Click to expand...

I'm sure a number of us would enjoy hearing more about this machine, as well as the work it is doing. Sounds very interesting.
 
I hav'nt seen or heard much of Jon Johanson lateley but he'll be arround. Hopefully he will shed some light.
He landed this plane at oiur local airport when it had 60 or 70 hours on it.
As my other Australian on the list rightly pointed out, his mate had out board tanks fabricated and had the wing engineered - this would be all you would need. Who knows Vans may make it an option ?. Jon also had what you guys call Hotel Whiskey tanks in the tips as well.
If you are going to fly to Hawai then talk to Jon.
 
Placard the airplane!

When/if you add wingtips and/or leading edge tanks, be absolutely sure to placard the airplane: "No spins, intentional or otherwise, with fuel in any extra tank!" Years down the road, someone else will own the airplane.

The -10 has been spin tested but with fuel outboard, in a spin, it may well be unrecoverable because of the high polar moment of inertia.

Best,
 
Design Guidance

Although he RV-10 is experimental, it's helpful to refer to FAR Part 23 for appropriate design guidance. Check out the following sections:

? 23.561 ? 23.843 ? 23.1337
? 23.571 ? 23.853 ? 23.1351
? 23.601 ? 23.863 ? 23.1357
? 23.603 ? 23.867 ?? 23.1501
through 23.1529
? 23.609 ? 23.901 ? 23.1541
? 23.613 ? 23.903 ? 23.1543
? 23.615 ?? 23.951 ? 23.1553
through 23.1001 ? 23.1555
? 23.619 ? 23.1011 ? 23.1557
? 23.625 ? 23.1183 ?? 23.1581
? 23.777 ? 23.1189 through 23.1589
? 23.787 ? 23.1305

Also, Advisory Circular 23-10 "AUXILIARY FUEL SYSTEMS FOR RECIPROCATING AND TURBINE POWERED PART 23 AIRPLANES" is very useful.

One important consideration... aux fuel systems for certified airplanes are required to have a redundant barrier to catch fuel spills. Consider putting some type of fuel bladder into an aluminum tank. That way, a cracked weld won't spill fuel onto live wires and ignite!

Another consideration... make sure your plumbing doesn't result in low line pressures and risk vapor lock. In any event, I'd recommend using the stock tanks for takeoff and landing.

A while back, we did some preliminary design for a 35 gallon fuel bladder in one of our RV-10 belly pods. The design called for a durable fuel cell with articulated foam for crash safety. An additional bulkhead was used to create a dedicated fuel compartment that is properly ventilated, free from ignition sources and equipped with drain holes. The fuel didn't take up very much room in the pod, leaving room for bicycles, skis and other lightweight items.

Good luck.
 
John Nys has built many -10s, and completed some of them with an extra stock Van's tank in each wing, outboard of the standard one, and has the engineering data to support his modification. I have seen several of the installations and they seem to be very well done. I don't know if he's on this forum but if anyone needs his contact info, give me a call.


Roger Pierce
RV-10 #40148
(Fuselage 1/3 completed)
Broken Arrow, OK
918-810-0603
 
I still like the idea of a fuselage tank, so long as its done properly, for my RV-10, as I will mainly be flying 1-2 pax onboard. Of course its only good for ballast provided you don't actually use any of the fuel! So it would be more of a reserve in reality i guess.

Good point about the bladder inside an aluminium tank. Do off-the-shelf race car fuel cells have this by chance? I know many of these are crash resistant, will have to look into that.

there are a lot of other aircraft with fuselage tanks, has anyone done one in an RV ?(yeah, rv-12, I know)

I just like the idea of extra fuel+better c.g without resorting to carrying around lead in the baggage compartment. I am willing to pay the small increase in empty weight as the tank would be used most of the time (only the pilot and copilot seats will be occupied 90% of the time)
 
Last edited:
I keep thinkin' of a certain Petaluma RV builder who used to fly a pre-60 cessna all over the country with 5 gallon cans in the back (nordo always). Hey if your listenin'... Do you still have that 45-70 1886?
 
Put the extra in the wings, either tips or built in. If in the tail was a good idea, plenty would be doing it.

CofG is almost not affected, and besides in the tail cone it gets busy when you have AP servo's and maybe a second battery.

If you do inspections or any other work back there once the plane is built it will be apparent to you why I say this now.

It looks like a huge waste of space when you are building it, but it cramps up pretty quick later ;)
 
thomasjorgensen said:
Good point about the bladder inside an aluminium tank. Do off-the-shelf race car fuel cells have this by chance?
Click to expand...

Race car fuel tanks are typically constructed of a flexible fuel bladder inside of a rigid container. They are also commonly filled with articulated foam which helps prevent fuel from sloshing and also reduces certain types of fire risk.
 
One more quick point about aux fuel tanks... obviously, they come in handy on long legs and allow for certain flights (ocean crossings) that are not otherwise possible. On some occassions, the ability to stock up on cheap fuel can save money. However, there are some trade-offs if we routinely fly carry enormous fuel reserves.

Two of my neighbors fly identical airplanes. One likes to keep his tanks topped off, even for the shortest of flights. The extra fuel weight reduces aircraft performance and he must burn more gas just to haul it around. The other, a professional airline pilot, manages his fuel carefully and avoids carrying excess fuel. I once calculated a difference of $600/yr in fuel consumption between the two, soley due to their different fuel management styles. This adds up to $24,000 over a 40 year flying career.
 
David,

Do you mean "reticulated foam"? Google comes up virtually silent on "articulated foam"...
 
Dave!

David Shelton said:
A while back, we did some preliminary design for a 35 gallon fuel bladder in one of our RV-10 belly pods.... .....The fuel didn't take up very much room in the pod, leaving room for bicycles, skis and other lightweight items.
Good luck.
Click to expand...

Dave!

That's great that you're looking into the fuel tank for your motopod. I especially like the idea that there si still room for gear. Keep at it and I'll be looking to get one when my build is done.

Mike
 
digidocs said:
David,

Do you mean "reticulated foam"? Google comes up virtually silent on "articulated foam"...
Click to expand...
Sorry about that. You are correct, it's "reticulated" foam.

It's a light plastic foam that's 98% void. It acts as a baffle to keep fuel from sloshing and it also helps suppress explosions. When fuel vapors ignite, the flame front travels faster and faster as it grows. When reticulated foam is present, it divides the fuel vapor into many tiny ignition spaces and causes the flame front and pressure wave to travel more slowly. As a result, fuel explosions and fires tend to be less severe.


Hi Mike, how is your build coming along? I imagine an RV-10 aux fuel cell will be in our future. We might be putting a fuel system into a surveillance pod for a Cirrus. After that, it should be very easy to adapt for the RV-10. I don't know about you, but that's got me thinking about an Earth Rounders trip.
 
Coming along... slowly.

David Shelton said:
Hi Mike, how is your build coming along? I imagine an RV-10 aux fuel cell will be in our future. We might be putting a fuel system into a surveillance pod for a Cirrus. After that, it should be very easy to adapt for the RV-10. I don't know about you, but that's got me thinking about an Earth Rounders trip.
Click to expand...

Well the build is coming along slowly. I'm still working on the tail kit (HS now). I agree that extended range fuel tanks are definitely in my future. I'm just not sure yet how I want to proceed with that (i.e. wing tanks, fuse tanks or your belly tank). i love the idea of centerlining the extra weight, either in the fuse or on the belly, since that's where Vans intended the useful load to be carried. I really like the idea of the pod, because it frees up the interior of the fuse. However, I'm concerned about drag over the oceans. Headwinds are dangerous enough for fuel exhaustion. I need as large a safety margin as possible. However, for long distance travel for two, with stuff on board (i.e. bikes, tents, coolers, etc.) the belly tank mod makes a lot of sense. We'll be in touch. :cool:
 
I have a mate in Melbourne who has done the same thing, even had an engineer do the checks on the structure.
Click to expand...

That would be me!

I'll put some piccies up when the built in tanks are done. I'll also get a calculation of how much they hold.

I actually have the the tip tanks that RV10inOz mentioned in a previous post (thanks DB!) they are for sale. I will be in the States (L.A. & San Fran) from 10th of December 2011 & L.A. Oshkosh and points in between from mid July 2012, this will save you a stack in postage if anyone's interested?

Regards all!
 
Last edited:
IMO, extra fuel in wings is more of a concern.

Put the extra in the wings, either tips or built in. If in the tail was a good idea, plenty would be doing it.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what gets me. It is a good idea. What seems to be a bad idea is putting the fuel in the wings. They where never designed for that. Image what a hard landing with 120 gals of fuel in the wings that far outboard is going to do to your spar. Not to mention the unknown effect on flight characteristics (roll rates, stall, spin, etc.. Wouldn't the fuselage/baggage compartment tank be the only option not outside original design intentions?. Plus the whole point for me was that it would affect CG rearwards.

It scares me how willing people are to slap some extra tanks in the tips of an aircraft not necessarily designed for it because Everyone's doing it.

Now I do agree that in the event of an accident it probably is safer to have fuel out in the wings rather than on fire behind you.

The fact that it clutters up the tail section is a good point.
 
Belly or Fuse..

Unless further study and perhaps additional engineering/strengthening of the wings. However, since everything is connected (engineering-wise) and the forces have to go somewhere (i.e. fuse, skin, etc.), this could potentially create quite a headache to track down every engineering problem that could rear its ugly head. Therefore, it seems wise to put the extra weight where Van intended it; inside the fuse or at least on the belly of the plane. This centers the load and places the stresses in an area that was designed to take those stresses. I hate to give up cabin space for an extra tank, and having the fuel in the cab with me is not so warm and fuzzy, but it's better than the wing spars breaking.:eek: It's great that we, as experimental builders, can do most anything we want with our airplanes. However, it's important that we weigh (andl locate :D) the risks very carefully.
 
Dimensions?

Is anyone with a -10 able to take and post (or PM) some quick measurements of the luggage space and maybe the rear seat spaces?
 
What seems to be a bad idea is putting the fuel in the wings. They where never designed for that. Image what a hard landing with 120 gals of fuel in the wings that far outboard is going to do to your spar
Click to expand...

Ummmmm. Mine were designed by a Professional Qantas Engineer, not a LAME but an engineer.

And I don't intend any hard landings
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top