Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Extended Range tanks...
- Thread starter rvpilot
- Start date
DCat22
Well Known Member
Not for the RV-4...but there was a good recent thread about the RV-10 version of these tanks that may still be a useful read: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=63144
So far, they look like the best "full time available" option I was considering for my RV-7, that doesn't involve modifying the wing itself.
So far, they look like the best "full time available" option I was considering for my RV-7, that doesn't involve modifying the wing itself.
rvator51
Well Known Member
Actual installation was pretty straight forward for our RV-4.
Things I remember from several years ago:
1. Had to redo the radius of the fuel line where it exited the tank to get the radius small enough that it would allow the main fuel tanks to go back on.
2. Didnt want to drill holes in the spar to hold the fuel lines so used short pieces of hose that the fuel lines would fit inside of and used silicone to hold them to the spar. Worked great so far.
3. Trying to figure out how to cut door opening in wing tip and then what fastener to use to keep it closed.
4. Had to install new fuel valves on inside of each fuselage. Had to relocate fuel lines to make it work as I recall.
5. Had to install hinges on side panels on RV-4 so could get access to new fuel valves. I understand now that they use an electric valve so you no longer need to install the manual valves.
Would I do it again? Yes
Things I remember from several years ago:
1. Had to redo the radius of the fuel line where it exited the tank to get the radius small enough that it would allow the main fuel tanks to go back on.
2. Didnt want to drill holes in the spar to hold the fuel lines so used short pieces of hose that the fuel lines would fit inside of and used silicone to hold them to the spar. Worked great so far.
3. Trying to figure out how to cut door opening in wing tip and then what fastener to use to keep it closed.
4. Had to install new fuel valves on inside of each fuselage. Had to relocate fuel lines to make it work as I recall.
5. Had to install hinges on side panels on RV-4 so could get access to new fuel valves. I understand now that they use an electric valve so you no longer need to install the manual valves.
Would I do it again? Yes
building for them now
I'm working on adding them right now to mostly assembled new 8 wings, but nothing they require would be hard for a retrofit.
It appears the tanks for the 4 are a bit different in that they use a transfer valve in the cockpit and gravity to move the fuel, the 7, 8, & 10 models use a pump hidden in the LE. Still imagine that they shouldn't require a crazy amount of work to retrofit, I would say:
- add a bung to the existing tanks. so remove, empty, drill, attach, seal and recheck
- add some braces to the inbound and outboard LE ribs, so do that when the tanks and tips are off
- run new fuel lines to a new transfer valve in the cockpit, one for each side
- mount the tanks, attach the lines to ER and mains
- slightly modify the tip fairings to allow for a hinged door for fuel filling. Might be flush mount on the 4, but still a slight mod
And again, they write their manuals assuming retrofit for the model I have, and the work there is pretty straightforward. The big difference is more fuel lines and valves for the 4/6 instead of pumps and wires for the others.
I would assume the biggest issue is finding places for the transfer valves. And maybe some repainting depending on your situation.
Otherwise, they look really well made and their kit includes everything for the install.
I'm working on adding them right now to mostly assembled new 8 wings, but nothing they require would be hard for a retrofit.
It appears the tanks for the 4 are a bit different in that they use a transfer valve in the cockpit and gravity to move the fuel, the 7, 8, & 10 models use a pump hidden in the LE. Still imagine that they shouldn't require a crazy amount of work to retrofit, I would say:
- add a bung to the existing tanks. so remove, empty, drill, attach, seal and recheck
- add some braces to the inbound and outboard LE ribs, so do that when the tanks and tips are off
- run new fuel lines to a new transfer valve in the cockpit, one for each side
- mount the tanks, attach the lines to ER and mains
- slightly modify the tip fairings to allow for a hinged door for fuel filling. Might be flush mount on the 4, but still a slight mod
And again, they write their manuals assuming retrofit for the model I have, and the work there is pretty straightforward. The big difference is more fuel lines and valves for the 4/6 instead of pumps and wires for the others.
I would assume the biggest issue is finding places for the transfer valves. And maybe some repainting depending on your situation.
Otherwise, they look really well made and their kit includes everything for the install.
RV4er
Well Known Member
I installed them this past winter in my 10 year old RV-4. The installation was simple and instructions clear. The only small problem I had was that my AOA top sensor in the left wing was in the way of the new tank. The fix was to move the sensor forward about 6 inches. Go for it!!!
smokyray
Well Known Member
Three for three!
Bill,
I have installed three sets of Hotel Whiskey aviation's (Safe Air One) tanks in my RV-4, my HR2 and my Dad's RV-6X. All were straightforward and work as advertised. The flexibility added to a 4 is priceless, especially when you do alot of cross country. Make sure you hook the vents up exactly like they depict. When removing the main tanks a razor blade helps reduce paint cracks around screw heads. If you ever wanted to add strobes, wingtip antennas or anything else, now is the time! Follow the plans and you won't have any problems. The transfer valves go under the floor plates forward of the spar normally held in place by screws. Jeff removed mine, hinged them with a snap access and voila, more storage right at your fingertips and access to the valve. Very slick!
In flight, don't try to feed them into a tank with more than 1/2 fuel. I normally wait until 1/4 tank to feed the tips and feed the engine off the opposite tank when I do. In some cases it may take up to 20 minutes to fully feed them dry.
Range? I flight planned 600NM in my RV4 no wind. The new owner claims 700NM at maximum range airspeed. The tanks also add capability when you find cheap gas and want to fill up. In my Rocket it brought my total fuel to 54 gallons or nearly 1000NM range. The RV6X holds slightly more than my 4 at 41.5 gallons and it too can go 600NM with ease.
Chuck and Jeff are personal friends of mine and straight shooters to the Nth degree. If you have any questions or problems they will make it right.
GREAT product!
Smokey
HR2
RVX
Bill,
I have installed three sets of Hotel Whiskey aviation's (Safe Air One) tanks in my RV-4, my HR2 and my Dad's RV-6X. All were straightforward and work as advertised. The flexibility added to a 4 is priceless, especially when you do alot of cross country. Make sure you hook the vents up exactly like they depict. When removing the main tanks a razor blade helps reduce paint cracks around screw heads. If you ever wanted to add strobes, wingtip antennas or anything else, now is the time! Follow the plans and you won't have any problems. The transfer valves go under the floor plates forward of the spar normally held in place by screws. Jeff removed mine, hinged them with a snap access and voila, more storage right at your fingertips and access to the valve. Very slick!
In flight, don't try to feed them into a tank with more than 1/2 fuel. I normally wait until 1/4 tank to feed the tips and feed the engine off the opposite tank when I do. In some cases it may take up to 20 minutes to fully feed them dry.
Range? I flight planned 600NM in my RV4 no wind. The new owner claims 700NM at maximum range airspeed. The tanks also add capability when you find cheap gas and want to fill up. In my Rocket it brought my total fuel to 54 gallons or nearly 1000NM range. The RV6X holds slightly more than my 4 at 41.5 gallons and it too can go 600NM with ease.
Chuck and Jeff are personal friends of mine and straight shooters to the Nth degree. If you have any questions or problems they will make it right.
GREAT product!
Smokey
HR2
RVX
Last edited:
smokyray
Well Known Member
The RVX
My RVX is an RV-6 with RV4 wings and tail. During construction the main tanks were finished before I could change them. So, I used the RV6 ER tanks in it with no issues which gives it 41.5 total gallons.
Now, if I had it to do over again, I would build my RV4 with RV6 main tanks as well. My friend BW has this on his RV4 built originally by Art Chard and his total is nearly 45 gallons with the ER tanks.
Smokey
My RVX is an RV-6 with RV4 wings and tail. During construction the main tanks were finished before I could change them. So, I used the RV6 ER tanks in it with no issues which gives it 41.5 total gallons.
Now, if I had it to do over again, I would build my RV4 with RV6 main tanks as well. My friend BW has this on his RV4 built originally by Art Chard and his total is nearly 45 gallons with the ER tanks.
Smokey
Great utility from these tanks
I installed the HWA tanks in my RV7A quick build wings right at construction time. I strongly recommend them if you are building the plane with travel in mind.
A couple of comments:
1. The HWA instructions were very, very clear and detailed. So thorough and in baby-step detail that I thought the installation would be more complicated that it actually was. The parts were all in fine finish, and the kit came together with very little (and routine) adjustments. No factory guidance calls were needed. So easy, even this caveman could do it easily.
2. The 8.5 to 9 gallons seemed disappointing at first, and I thought that the spacing in the lightening holes would permit a larger diameter tube portion of the tank, thus more capacity. It seemed that 12 or 14 gallons would be possible and more useful. But, the added capacity turns out to be just fine. My factory tanks hold 42 gallons and, with the HWA tanks, I flightplan with 50 usable. The most I've put in the plane on a single long leg was 40 gallons, so I don't think that an additional 4 or so gallons would effect my mission planning.
3. The pumps transfer fuel at over twice the cruise rate of consumption, but I usually transfer when 1/4 of the main tank remains if I will need that fuel for use or reserve, just in case it wont move. Better to find out early if the planned fuel is not available. While the HWA tanks are not gauged, the AFS 3400 accurately reports the fuel level increase over the 14 or 15 minutes needed to transfer the full amount, one side at a time. The AFS timer function alerts me to turn off the pump.
4. When building, I was contemplating more fuel. It was around that time that the FAA enforcement case on the builder that had made several fuel system modifications came out, so I decided to build in that capacity for the first inspection. I installed a removable 15 gallon tank for the baggage compartment with floor reinforcement, external fill, bottom drain, sender info to the AFS 3400, and venting. I used an aluminum tank from Summit Racing from which I removed the four original mounting brackets and had 5 new ones welded on. The outlet attaches by flexible hose to a fitting on a floor rib that carries the fuel via hard tubing through the center tunnel up to a three way (Left/Right/Aux) valve. Turns out that I have not had it in the plane since Phase I testing. But, its there if I want to use it without the requirement to go back into Phase I testing again.
Mike
N92MB RV7A (KFRR)
I installed the HWA tanks in my RV7A quick build wings right at construction time. I strongly recommend them if you are building the plane with travel in mind.
A couple of comments:
1. The HWA instructions were very, very clear and detailed. So thorough and in baby-step detail that I thought the installation would be more complicated that it actually was. The parts were all in fine finish, and the kit came together with very little (and routine) adjustments. No factory guidance calls were needed. So easy, even this caveman could do it easily.
2. The 8.5 to 9 gallons seemed disappointing at first, and I thought that the spacing in the lightening holes would permit a larger diameter tube portion of the tank, thus more capacity. It seemed that 12 or 14 gallons would be possible and more useful. But, the added capacity turns out to be just fine. My factory tanks hold 42 gallons and, with the HWA tanks, I flightplan with 50 usable. The most I've put in the plane on a single long leg was 40 gallons, so I don't think that an additional 4 or so gallons would effect my mission planning.
3. The pumps transfer fuel at over twice the cruise rate of consumption, but I usually transfer when 1/4 of the main tank remains if I will need that fuel for use or reserve, just in case it wont move. Better to find out early if the planned fuel is not available. While the HWA tanks are not gauged, the AFS 3400 accurately reports the fuel level increase over the 14 or 15 minutes needed to transfer the full amount, one side at a time. The AFS timer function alerts me to turn off the pump.
4. When building, I was contemplating more fuel. It was around that time that the FAA enforcement case on the builder that had made several fuel system modifications came out, so I decided to build in that capacity for the first inspection. I installed a removable 15 gallon tank for the baggage compartment with floor reinforcement, external fill, bottom drain, sender info to the AFS 3400, and venting. I used an aluminum tank from Summit Racing from which I removed the four original mounting brackets and had 5 new ones welded on. The outlet attaches by flexible hose to a fitting on a floor rib that carries the fuel via hard tubing through the center tunnel up to a three way (Left/Right/Aux) valve. Turns out that I have not had it in the plane since Phase I testing. But, its there if I want to use it without the requirement to go back into Phase I testing again.
Mike
N92MB RV7A (KFRR)
FAA enforcement that I mentioned
I searched for the report without success this morning. The event I mentioned was a successful enforcement action against a builder about 2 to 3 years ago. The fellow had a fuel starvation event and the ensuing investigation found that he had twice modified his fuel system from the original configuration that had been inspected. The modifications included the installation of additional tanks and change to the fuel valve needed to flow those tanks. My memory is vague, but I think the configuration at the time of the starvation event was very close to that originally inspected. I.e., the plane had been more substantially modified, then "unmodified" to conform closely to the original. Bottom line, legally speaking was a successful enforcement action for having made two (or more) modifications to the fuel system that would have required a return to Phase I testing and perhaps additional inspections.
I cannot find the case or related articles. I recall that it appeared in several online mentions as well as an EAA or AOPA magazine print article, perhaps by John Yodice. Hopefullly, someone here will remember.
The take away on that lesson was that augmentation of your fuel system should be accomplished at the original build and Phase I testing period -- or to undertake later changes only in discussion with the FSDO to see what they thought in their [ultimate, non-uniform, and sometimes less than fully informed (editor)] wisdom. Better to be regulatory-safe than enforcement-sorry. In this fellows particular case, perhaps a set of second eyes reviewing his plans and/or an inspection would have prevented the fuel starvation and poor outcome.
Mike
I searched for the report without success this morning. The event I mentioned was a successful enforcement action against a builder about 2 to 3 years ago. The fellow had a fuel starvation event and the ensuing investigation found that he had twice modified his fuel system from the original configuration that had been inspected. The modifications included the installation of additional tanks and change to the fuel valve needed to flow those tanks. My memory is vague, but I think the configuration at the time of the starvation event was very close to that originally inspected. I.e., the plane had been more substantially modified, then "unmodified" to conform closely to the original. Bottom line, legally speaking was a successful enforcement action for having made two (or more) modifications to the fuel system that would have required a return to Phase I testing and perhaps additional inspections.
I cannot find the case or related articles. I recall that it appeared in several online mentions as well as an EAA or AOPA magazine print article, perhaps by John Yodice. Hopefullly, someone here will remember.
The take away on that lesson was that augmentation of your fuel system should be accomplished at the original build and Phase I testing period -- or to undertake later changes only in discussion with the FSDO to see what they thought in their [ultimate, non-uniform, and sometimes less than fully informed (editor)] wisdom. Better to be regulatory-safe than enforcement-sorry. In this fellows particular case, perhaps a set of second eyes reviewing his plans and/or an inspection would have prevented the fuel starvation and poor outcome.
Mike
Close........
From memory, may be a little fuzzy.
It was a Long Eze and it was probably 10 years or so ago. It wasn't an enforcement action. It was Avemco essentially declaring that the op limits were violated by the modification. Even though it was changed back. Older op limits said that any "major change" invalidated the op limits. Therefore, the plane was not airworthy and they denied the insurance claim.
Even more fuzzy.... didn't the FAA change the operating limitations for homebuilts as a direct result of this incident ??
John
From memory, may be a little fuzzy.
It was a Long Eze and it was probably 10 years or so ago. It wasn't an enforcement action. It was Avemco essentially declaring that the op limits were violated by the modification. Even though it was changed back. Older op limits said that any "major change" invalidated the op limits. Therefore, the plane was not airworthy and they denied the insurance claim.
Even more fuzzy.... didn't the FAA change the operating limitations for homebuilts as a direct result of this incident ??
John
Closer???
John: I think the case I recall was more recent and did involve an enforcement action. The terminal article that I remember was an NTSB judge decision affirming the FAA penalty. The press on the case I vaguely recall was about 2-3 years ago on an incident that happened a 2 years prior to that. I will try to research it further.
Are you thinking of the John Denver Long EZ crash, where nonstandard fuel valve location (as well as minimal familiarization before solo flight and loss of control during the fuel tank switching effort) were found as causes? That one did lead to some reg-making by the FAA, as I recall.
Mike
John: I think the case I recall was more recent and did involve an enforcement action. The terminal article that I remember was an NTSB judge decision affirming the FAA penalty. The press on the case I vaguely recall was about 2-3 years ago on an incident that happened a 2 years prior to that. I will try to research it further.
Are you thinking of the John Denver Long EZ crash, where nonstandard fuel valve location (as well as minimal familiarization before solo flight and loss of control during the fuel tank switching effort) were found as causes? That one did lead to some reg-making by the FAA, as I recall.
Mike
I found it ... I think...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1097158.html
I believe this is the case I was referring to. It was 1998. The fuel system was modified and put back. There was an accident and Avemco denied coverage. The court ruled that Avemco coud deny coverage.
Bottom line: Be careful about any mods post Phase I.
John
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1097158.html
I believe this is the case I was referring to. It was 1998. The fuel system was modified and put back. There was an accident and Avemco denied coverage. The court ruled that Avemco coud deny coverage.
Bottom line: Be careful about any mods post Phase I.
John
smokyray
Well Known Member
The Paperwork...
Neither of these cases relate to the installation of Safe Air One tanks, the key word being "appreciable modification".
I installed all three sets on three aircraft, only one pre-phase 1. I spoke with the DAR about the tanks during the inspection on the X and his comment concerning my other two aircraft installations was "As long as it's documented in the aircraft log and you provide a supplement to the FM, I'm OK with it" Sign here...
The Hotel Whiskey aviation plans come with a sample flight manual supplement for the aux tank operation. Any inspector out there could find something (prop, avionics, battery) you changed post phase-1 and a good lawyer could shoot holes in it.
The lesson here is clear, avoid buffoonery, don't starve your engine for fuel and don't insure with Avemco
Smokey
Mel Asberry (DAR) has a set of Safe-Air One tanks on his RV-6 installed post Phase-1, I believe. Maybe he could shed a bit more light on it.
Neither of these cases relate to the installation of Safe Air One tanks, the key word being "appreciable modification".
I installed all three sets on three aircraft, only one pre-phase 1. I spoke with the DAR about the tanks during the inspection on the X and his comment concerning my other two aircraft installations was "As long as it's documented in the aircraft log and you provide a supplement to the FM, I'm OK with it" Sign here...
The Hotel Whiskey aviation plans come with a sample flight manual supplement for the aux tank operation. Any inspector out there could find something (prop, avionics, battery) you changed post phase-1 and a good lawyer could shoot holes in it.
The lesson here is clear, avoid buffoonery, don't starve your engine for fuel and don't insure with Avemco
Smokey
Mel Asberry (DAR) has a set of Safe-Air One tanks on his RV-6 installed post Phase-1, I believe. Maybe he could shed a bit more light on it.
After installation of the H/W ER tanks, I documented completely, returned the aircraft to phase I and did complete flight testing including acro. Now back in phase II.
