What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Tuckey Tanks? extended fuel

I modified his plans slightly for my 9, still building the wings. I am estimating I put right at 50 additional work hours into it for the mod, and a couple hundred dollars in materials. Right wing is complete, I'm prosealing the left tanks now.
 
Haven't actually done it yet but..

This is the way I would go..I have a design for the Tuckney tank that will work for a completed airplane..even a painted one with minimal damage.

The only difference is I think I would not use a pump..but add a vent to the outboard wing and a check valve between the tanks.

This method has been used by Jon Johanson and Steve Reynolds and it works very well.

The trick is on the completed airplane is cut the LE skin and leave enough of a flap to reconnect the tank to. This avoids trying to rivet to the aft side of the spar..almost impossible without damaging the paint.

The skin needs to be cut with an OLFA knife which will avoid streatching the LE skin as it is cut..

Of course cutting into t perfectly airworthy airplane is HARD to do..But naturally I am now planning a Xcountry trip that is right on the edge of the fuel range of the airplane's 42 gallon tanks..darn it..:)

Frank
 
This is the way I would go..I have a design for the Tuckney tank that will work for a completed airplane..even a painted one with minimal damage.

The only difference is I think I would not use a pump..but add a vent to the outboard wing and a check valve between the tanks.

This method has been used by Jon Johanson and Steve Reynolds and it works very well.


Frank

Did you mean "add a vent to the INBOARD tanks"? Pat's design already has a vented outboard tank.

When selecting a check valve, just remember that the forward pressure drop, however small, needs to be overcome by the head pressure of fuel in the outboard tank. (Maybe some sort of "flapper" in the outboard section of the inboard tank, similar to the one used to keep fuel inboard in a flop tube install.)

I talked to Pat in person about his design a week or so ago, and it seems to me he put a lot thought into the decisions he made regarding the plumbing. He's made about 16 "long range" flights with the system without a hiccup. My take is that his system is fairly elegant in that it ensures that outboard fuel gets burned first, and you can make use of ALL of the outboard fuel with a standard fuel selector, and you don't have to starve the engine to ensure it.

The system would "probably" work without the pump, as the inboard tank is vented through the outboard tank and will automatically draw fuel from the outboard if any is there. The pump is there mostly as a "warm fuzzy" to ensure that the pressure drop in the plumbing between the tanks can be overcome during periods of high fuel flow, such as takeoff.

The only issue with the system Pat has noticed is that diring a rapid climb to high altitude with partial fuel in the inboard tanks, the air space tends to pressurize and push a small amount of fuel back to the outboard tank. This issue resolves itself soon after leveling off.
 
The only issue with the system Pat has noticed is that diring a rapid climb to high altitude with partial fuel in the inboard tanks, the air space tends to pressurize and push a small amount of fuel back to the outboard tank. This issue resolves itself soon after leveling off.

I followed Pat's design (mostly) and my outboard tank fuel pickup (vent line, not the pump line) goes to the top of the outboard rib on the main tank - so with a partial fuel load in the mains and a high climb rate, it should be air backing up through that vent line into the outboard tank, not fuel. I don't know where Pat physically put his vent line entrance into the main tank, but mine is high and aft, at the highest possible point, just the way he shows in his drawings.

*EDIT* - I just reviewed Pat's drawings, and if installed as drawn, he will indeed push fuel from the main to the aux tank under hard climb. My vent installation will not do that.

I currently have Facet transfer pumps for moving fuel inboard, but I also have the ventline that will self-transfer as you burn fuel from the mains. I am considering removing the fuel pumps entirely and just going with the vent transfer system, as Frankh mentioned. I'm rolling this one around in my head for a bit, knocking off the rough edges of the idea before acting on it. The only practical reason for having the transfer pump is in the case of a plugged vent transfer line, or to displace an air bubble in the main tank to the aux tank. The first scenario is highly unlikely, and the second is very easy to avoid with proper fueling technique.

As for the vent, Frankh is talking about doing the vent the way I did (or at least I think he is!). Pat shows a NACA duct at the midwing point for venting his tanks, I eliminated the inboard fuselage vent and went with a wingtip vent from Bonaco that vents air into the outboard tank, which then vents the inboard tank through the vent transfer line that can move either fuel or air. The vent transfer connects the lowest point of the outboard tank to the highest point of the inboard tank.

Here's a shot of the vent fitting...

1001641.jpg


Here's a shot of the outboard end of the inboard tank (midwing) showing the fuel and vent connections. The larger connection is for the fuel transfer pump, the smaller is the vent line.

1001518m.jpg


Here's a shot of the inboard end of the outboard tank, showing the pickups for the fuel transfer pump and vent transfer line in the auxiliary tank.

1001530.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 100_1641.jpg
    100_1641.jpg
    257.4 KB · Views: 144
Last edited:
Tuckey's Take on Tuckey Tanks

Remember that when you change fuel system design, you are playing with fire! Extreme caution is called for, because you can cause all kinds of unexpected problems.

Here is a little background for my tank design. Because I wanted to retain the aerobatic cababilities of my RV-8, I needed to make sure that I could keep the outboard tank empty for acro. There are several reasons for not doing aerobatics with fuel in the outboard tanks, but the most important is stall/spin handling. Increasing the angular moment of inertia of an airplane can have significant unpleasant effects on the stall/spin characteristics, and fuel in the outboard tanks has 4 times the angular momentum of fuel in the inboard tanks.

Spar loading is another consideration. Without getting into boring mathematical details, adding fuel to the outboard section of the wing actually decreases both the shear load and the bending load of all spar sections inboard of the added fuel, provided the gross weight is not increased. Increasing the gross weight by adding outboard fuel is a slightly more complicated issue best left for another time. The above comments apply with the airplane in flight, but things are quite different when the airplane is being supported by its gear. On the ground, shear load is increased significantly by adding outboard fuel, but bending load is increased MASSIVELY! A hard landing or even taxiing on a rough surface is going to put huge loads on the wing spar if there is any fuel outboard. For this reason, I never land with fuel in the outboard tanks.

If an outboard tank is simply plumbed with a direct flow or even a one-way valve, it will never be emptied until the main tank is down to about 1/3 full. This was not acceptable to me. My plumbing system insures that the outboard tank is completely empty before any significant fuel is burned from the inboard tank. The geometry of the vent lines insures that even if the airplane is significantly uncoordinated or on the ground on an uneven surface, fuel cannot flow out of the vents. Additionally, the geometry of the fuel transfer vent from the outboard to the inboard results in no negative pressure head in normal, coordinated flight. The transfer pump may be used to eliminate the negative pressure head even in uncoordinated flight.

To address a few of the comments by other posters:

I do not think that it would be a good idea to eliminate the transfer pump. The transfer pump will prime the siphon on the vent/transfer line, which is why I always run both pumps for a few minutes before flight. Also, in addition to maintaining a positive head pressure in uncoordinated conditions, this pump can be used to address several emergencies I can think of. In particular, if there is any air leak in the inboard tank, whether due to bird strike, cap leaks, or deterioration of a seal, there may be insufficient negative head to draw fuel from the outboard tank.

Greg, I can see three issues with your adaptation which give me some concern. I hope you have already thought through these, but I am presenting them here anyway for anyone else reading this thread:

1. All of the lines through which fuel actually flows in my system (or Van's standard system) are 3/8 inch tubing. Your vent/transfer line appears to be 1/4 inch. This is obviously adequate for venting air, but have you made any calculations for running fuel through it?

2. My vent/transfer line runs to the inboard end of the main tank for two reasons; first to prevent the outboard flow of fuel with the tip lower than the root, and second to provide a siphon system for the transfer of fuel. With your system, if the outboard tank has some fuel but is nearly empty there will be 4 or 5 inches fuel column negative pressure head applied to your inboard tank. This will be in addition to any other negative head in your system and if not properly addressed could lead to vapor lock problems. Frank addresses this by having an electric pump in his wing root, but a standard Van's fuel system could have issues with this, especially in high temperatures or using auto fuel.

3. If your vent leads overboard at the wing tip with a tank fitting at the upper outboard end of the tank, there will be nothing but suction keeping fuel in the tank if the tip is lower than the root. In uncoordinated flight or when operating on uneven surfaces this could lead to significant fuel loss. This is the reason for the vent line routing Van designed into the standard tanks. My routing is not as good as Van's, but it is better than a straight run out the wingtip.

Remember: this may be experimental aviation, but more experimental accidents are caused by fuel system problems than any other building error. Please be careful.

Pat
 
Spar loading is another consideration. Without getting into boring mathematical details, adding fuel to the outboard section of the wing actually decreases both the shear load and the bending load of all spar sections inboard of the added fuel, provided the gross weight is not increased. Increasing the gross weight by adding outboard fuel is a slightly more complicated issue best left for another time. The above comments apply with the airplane in flight, but things are quite different when the airplane is being supported by its gear. On the ground, shear load is increased significantly by adding outboard fuel, but bending load is increased MASSIVELY! A hard landing or even taxiing on a rough surface is going to put huge loads on the wing spar if there is any fuel outboard. For this reason, I never land with fuel in the outboard tanks.

If an outboard tank is simply plumbed with a direct flow or even a one-way valve, it will never be emptied until the main tank is down to about 1/3 full. This was not acceptable to me. My plumbing system insures that the outboard tank is completely empty before any significant fuel is burned from the inboard tank. The geometry of the vent lines insures that even if the airplane is significantly uncoordinated or on the ground on an uneven surface, fuel cannot flow out of the vents. Additionally, the geometry of the fuel transfer vent from the outboard to the inboard results in no negative pressure head in normal, coordinated flight. The transfer pump may be used to eliminate the negative pressure head even in uncoordinated flight.

To address a few of the comments by other posters:

I do not think that it would be a good idea to eliminate the transfer pump. The transfer pump will prime the siphon on the vent/transfer line, which is why I always run both pumps for a few minutes before flight. Also, in addition to maintaining a positive head pressure in uncoordinated conditions, this pump can be used to address several emergencies I can think of. In particular, if there is any air leak in the inboard tank, whether due to bird strike, cap leaks, or deterioration of a seal, there may be insufficient negative head to draw fuel from the outboard tank.


Valid concerns, Pat. In my case, this aircraft (while I own it, anyway) will be operated only off paved surfaces, so the uneven ground and rough ground handling should be a non-issue, with the exception of landings with fuel in the outboard tanks. I read through your missive on your website about your operating limitations with respect to the outboard tanks before ever launching into this project, and you addressed every scenario I had in mind, plus a few I had not considered, and I take exception with none of your logic. I agree with your assessment of the shear and spar bending loads on the wing during ground ops and flight, and accept the restrictions inherent with auxiliary fuel ops. I had not considered the aspect of an atmospheric pressure leak from impact damage or seal detoriation on the main tank, but that is a valid reason to consider keeping the transfer pumps, if only a remote possibility. A much more driving reason, in my opinion, is the ability to prime the transfer lines as you referenced to eliminate any negative head pressure in the mains which could bite you at the least opportune time.


Greg, I can see three issues with your adaptation which give me some concern. I hope you have already thought through these, but I am presenting them here anyway for anyone else reading this thread:

1. All of the lines through which fuel actually flows in my system (or Van's standard system) are 3/8 inch tubing. Your vent/transfer line appears to be 1/4 inch. This is obviously adequate for venting air, but have you made any calculations for running fuel through it?

2. My vent/transfer line runs to the inboard end of the main tank for two reasons; first to prevent the outboard flow of fuel with the tip lower than the root, and second to provide a siphon system for the transfer of fuel. With your system, if the outboard tank has some fuel but is nearly empty there will be 4 or 5 inches fuel column negative pressure head applied to your inboard tank. This will be in addition to any other negative head in your system and if not properly addressed could lead to vapor lock problems. Frank addresses this by having an electric pump in his wing root, but a standard Van's fuel system could have issues with this, especially in high temperatures or using auto fuel.

3. If your vent leads overboard at the wing tip with a tank fitting at the upper outboard end of the tank, there will be nothing but suction keeping fuel in the tank if the tip is lower than the root. In uncoordinated flight or when operating on uneven surfaces this could lead to significant fuel loss. This is the reason for the vent line routing Van designed into the standard tanks. My routing is not as good as Van's, but it is better than a straight run out the wingtip.

Remember: this may be experimental aviation, but more experimental accidents are caused by fuel system problems than any other building error. Please be careful.

Pat

1: Agreed - the photo shows 3/8" lines for the fuel transfer pickup and 1/4" lines for the vent feed pickup. I reconsidered this before closing the tank (after shooting the picture) and replaced the 1/4" line for the vent feed with 3/8". 1/4" line would work just fine for air venting, but may present too much friction loss for flowing fuel at full power - especially considering the smaller openings in the fuel pickup and any possible FOD clogging that pickup.

2: My plan from the origin was to run wing-root fuel pumps as Frankh has, more for the aspect of solving potential vapor lock issues firewall-forward than anything else, but it will still solve this issue. I will eliminate the engine-driven fuel pump. As for the venting of fuel during non-level ground ops, refer to my opening comments - while I own the aircraft, it will not be operated in this manner. My next airplane is going to be a coin-flip between a Harmon Rocket and a Super-Six, I'll worry about aerobatics and grass strips with that bird. This one is a business travel airplane and will be used to pay for the next one.

3: Part 3 would only apply during uncoordinated flight or uneven ground ops WHILE carrying full outboard fuel. I intend to minimize this opportunity for fuel loss by every possible means within my control, but I also made the 1/4" fuel vent line into a 3-loop coil in the final bay before feeding to the exterior pickup. Below is a photo of the vent coil in the outboard tip of the right aux tank, the exterior vent connection is in the bottom right of the photo just off screen. While this won't completely prevent fuel loss in the event of a significant non-level gravitational vector, the loop will slow it down (for the event of temporary uncoordinated flight) and present an impediment to flow initiation in the event of a non-level parking surface. In addition, the 1/4" line itself will serve to limit the amount of fuel that could be lost in any given period of time, and this condition would only apply while the aircraft is in uncoordinated flight or on a substantially non-level piece of ground - one would hope that both these conditions would be very temporary.

Again, as I've said before, please don't feel like I'm shooting down your points. I THINK I've considered all the implications with this mod, but it would be the high point of hubris to believe that this was actually true. All comments and objections are welcome and will be considered.

1001642.jpg
 
Last edited:
Greg,

Thanks. I thought you had probably addressed all of these issues, but again I just wanted to make sure other viewers of this thread would think things through before blindly copying either of our set-ups.

Pat
 
Morning all

I had to catchup with the conversation.

But yes Steve reynolds vent just the outboard tanks and the vent pressure forces the fuel from the outboard tank to the inboard.

The concern for me would be icing up the outborad vent to be honest in IMC
I'm thinking the vents in the standard location get some warm air from the cowl discharge.

Losing fuel from an outborad vent is a non issue..My Zenair Zodiac had its tanks vented that way and if you slipped it with full tanks you'd see a spray of fuel but its not a big deal for normal flight.

I might consider using the standard vent plumbed to just the outboard tank. This way the the fuel auto transfers.

Before I do that I will verify what the pressure is you get from the standard vent at cruise...Sure it will be OK but best to check.

The forward pressure drop for the fuel will be 6" of fuel and whatever the FWD pressure drop of the check valve is..Either way I bet the total PD will be less than a foot of fuel which is about 0.6 psi.

Roumour has it the vents produce between 1 and 2 psi but I have not verifyed that yet..In other words there should still be a net positive pressure on the inboard tank...At least at cruise.

I have not done any of this yet so the warning about making sure all the failure moes are understood is valid..While I can vouch the wingroot fuel pump system works very well I cannot personally attest to this method of venting

Frank
 
Willing to share

Frank,
Would you be willing to share the plans or where to get them for the mod to add these tanks to a completed wing. I have been thinking about the HW ER tanks but I like this idea a lot more, I understand it will take more time but doesn't everything?

KC
 
I do not think that it would be a good idea to eliminate the transfer pump. The transfer pump will prime the siphon on the vent/transfer line, which is why I always run both pumps for a few minutes before flight. Also, in addition to maintaining a positive head pressure in uncoordinated conditions, this pump can be used to address several emergencies I can think of. In particular, if there is any air leak in the inboard tank, whether due to bird strike, cap leaks, or deterioration of a seal, there may be insufficient negative head to draw fuel from the outboard tank.

Ok Pat, you got me.

I had it in my head that I really wanted to do away with the transfer pumps, for the sake of weight saving and simplicity of operation. After about a week of rolling that idea around in my head (without removing the already installed pump in the right wing, and before installing the one in the left wing) I was still "awake-at-night" worried about the issue you raised that I had not considered. If there is a vent leak in the main tank with fuel in the outboards, that fuel has now become unusable.

That in itself is bad enough, but it becomes worse in that now the aircraft is committed to a landing with fuel in the outboards, which I would consider to be a near-emergency off-nominal condition. Additionally you face the prospect of a possibly severe fuel imbalance since only one main tank will develop the air leak, and the other main tank will continue to burn fuel from the outboard tank. You could limit your fuel burn to the affected inboard tank to minimize the imbalance, but that cuts even further into your available fuel, leaving you with only 1/4 of your total fuel capacity usable before creating an ugly imbalance. The lever arm for the outboard tanks is significant and it would be quite possible to run out of aileron at approach speeds if this occurred during a long flight over water or rough terrain before you could get down in a suitable place. It would mean almost certain ditching if it were to occur on a transoceanic leg, with predictably poor results.

Saturday night at about 3 AM I woke up again thinking about it, and realized that it was due to my rational brain kicking me in my irrational tail to do it right. I decided to keep the pumps, immediately felt better about the whole deal, and went right back to sleep. I'll be pressure testing the tanks for the left wing and installing them this week, with the transfer pump.

This is why I love this forum - thanks Pat and Doug!
 
would it be so difficult or cost inhibitive to just add two inbound lines to fuel level. My dads comanche 400 had 4 tanks and 4 spots on the fuel level in the cockpit to choose from. ??.
 
No, that would be entirely do-able, and has been done by others. I was referring to the design of the tanks (and fuel pickups) as built by Pat and myself.

If you ran 4 fuel feeder lines to your fuel control valve, and 4 vent lines to your 4 fuel tanks, you would be OK. I have 4 tanks, 2 vents, and no fuel control valve, it's a little bit of a different animal.
 
Dumping Fuel

This thread hasn't been active for a while but as I am in the planning stages of building a -8, I'm considering extended tanks. The system seems pretty self-explanatory and his restrictions on acro and overweight landing make sense. Has there been any thought of putting electric solenoids between the pump and inboard fuel tanks and running a tube aft for dumping the outboard tanks? Obviously , normally closed, and a very protected switch! This wouldn't be economical with the price of 110LL but in an emergency situation not having fuel in the outboards make for a lighter, easier to fly (esp. on approach), and if you do cartwheel down the runway, a safer bird (without as much fuel)...thoughts?
 
I think you're trying to apply big plane logic to a small aircraft.

What failure are you expecting in a single engine aircraft that will be such an emergency that requires immediate landing, yet affords you the time to dump fuel? About the only thing I could think of is an electrical failure, but I wouldn't spend a whole lot of time working out a hold with approach to dump.

Any dumping I've ever done in the 707 was to be able to get the landing performance required to stop the aircraft safely... And then, nine times out of ten, it would be due to brake energy. Most small aircraft are fully capable of a max gross weight landing.

I guess if you want to add the margin of safety to feel better about it, it's your plane... I'm just not sure I see a need.

Has there been any thought of putting electric solenoids between the pump and inboard fuel tanks and running a tube aft for dumping the outboard tanks?
 
I started this thread and can say after flying for 3 years now I am glad I didn't go the trouble and expense of adding the extra tanks. I have foun that 3 hrs is plenty long enough to fly before I am ready to get out and stretch and make a bathroom break. I did do a 4 hour leg once, but that was only because I determined to make it from Houston to Indy non stop taking full advantage of the 40 knot tailwind I had...needless to say I made it with safe reserves.
 
Agreed... The amount of fuel on board a standard Van's is more than enough for the vast majority of flights.
 
If you only occasionally need extra fuel and are solo, the "RV-8 passenger seat tank" is easy. Non-perminent. Can be done to a finished airplane. Yada yada.
 
I started this thread and can say after flying for 3 years now I am glad I didn't go the trouble and expense of adding the extra tanks. I have foun that 3 hrs is plenty long enough to fly before I am ready to get out and stretch and make a bathroom break. I did do a 4 hour leg once, but that was only because I determined to make it from Houston to Indy non stop taking full advantage of the 40 knot tailwind I had...needless to say I made it with safe reserves.

I'm planning to use my extra fuel not to fly for hours and hours at a time, but rather so I can go anywhere within a 3-1/2 hour radius and return home without having to buy fuel at the destination. I'm planning to run mogas, and that isn't generally available at most airports.

Point is, there's more than one reason to add fuel beyond bladder capacity range.
 
I put in a smaller version of the Tuckey tanks...9 gals on each side, and after a year of flying, am thrilled with how they have functioned and would do it again. I would leave out the fuel pumps though (which I did), I have seen no need for them. I will admit though, I havent gone more than 4 hrs in one flight, so you can guage how much they are "needed" for you. Usually the girlfriend needs a potty break before then. I like having the option of four tanks...and they werent that difficult to install and much cheaper than other ER tank options. So far, the biggest use case for me is when I find cheap fuel and I can fill up all four tanks. The airplane really doesnt have a problem getting off the runway fully loaded at 2000 lbs on a hot summer day...the performance of these planes is impressive.
 
...
Point is, there's more than one reason to add fuel beyond bladder capacity range.

Bingo! I have yet to find the FAR that requires using an airplane's maximum range or endurance in one leg. Also, there is no rule that says all tanks have to be full to start a flight.

PS: If anyone wants a set of partially built HRII wings modified for outboard tanks, let me know. I'm getting ready to move, and I'll let 'em go pretty cheap.
 
I'm planning to use my extra fuel not to fly for hours and hours at a time, but rather so I can go anywhere within a 3-1/2 hour radius and return home without fuel at the destination.

I have this situation a few times a year. It is nice having the option.
 
I installed separate vents and ran individual feed lines from the 4 tanks to a five position selector valve. If I have to empty the aux tanks, I just turn on the transfer pumps and when the mains are full it just flows out the mains vent lines.
 
55 Gallon HRII Option on RV-6?

Has anyone bought the skins and back plate from Harmon for the 55 Gallon ER Option and installed them on a RV-6. Two big tanks rather than 4 medium size tanks. Drawbacks or bonuses? Possible?
 
I'd say it depends on your mission, i.e.. how often you plan on needing 55 gallons. If most of your flying will require 55 gallons, build two big tanks. If you only need that range occasionally, build smaller auxiliary tanks in addition to the standard ones.

Once upon a time, I started a set of HRII wings with the thought of mostly flying within the standard range, but occasionally a loooong solo cross country, so I modified the spars with tank attach doublers for two 21 gallon tanks inboard, and two 16 gallon tanks outboard. That way I could fill just the inboards and take a passenger, or put all 74 gallons on board for a 5-hour plus solo endurance with reserve.

I built the tanks for one side before I sold the project, and plumbed them per the method Pat Tuckey describes for his RV-8, so that the outboard fuel fed into the inboards, so that outboard fuel would always be used first.
 
Agreed... The amount of fuel on board a standard Van's is more than enough for the vast majority of flights.

As a rule, I agree with that. However, there are other threads that talk about extra fuel for IFR operations. It would be nice. There have been times when I wanted more fuel during IFR flight planning but it is not a big enough issue for me personally to add more tanks ,
 
Has anyone bought the skins and back plate from Harmon for the 55 Gallon ER Option and installed them on a RV-6. Two big tanks rather than 4 medium size tanks. Drawbacks or bonuses? Possible?

I am with you. Maybe I have not read enough threads to see this addressed, but wouldn't the easiest solution be to make the existing tanks one or two nose ribs wider? No extra pumps or plumbing.
 
I am with you. Maybe I have not read enough threads to see this addressed, but wouldn't the easiest solution be to make the existing tanks one or two nose ribs wider? No extra pumps or plumbing.

It's much more easily done on a -6 than on a -7, because the -6 spar, ribs, etc. are not pre-punched. Otherwise, that's what I might have done.
 
Tuckey Tanks on a RV6A

Does anyone have experience installing and/or operating Tuckey extended range tanks on a RV6A? How do you like them? Did you add a fuel pump for the tanks? Could you provide recommendations for an A&P who can install them?
 
Last edited:
Are you sure?

“Tuckey Tanks” are not individual standalone tanks. They are modifications to the outboard leading-edge skins.
 
Picture of the Extended Range Tanks

I am posting a picture of one of the tanks (9-gal each side) and detachable wing tips that are being sold together. They were previously installed on a RV-8. I was told that they are Tuckey tanks. I would like to install them on my RV-6A to have the option of another two hours of range .

Does anyone have experience installing and/or operating these extended range tanks (9-gal each side) on a RV-6A?

What are your thoughts about how they improve or impair the RV-6's performance? Is it necessary to install another fuel pump?
 

Attachments

  • Tanks.jpg
    Tanks.jpg
    120 KB · Views: 229
Those aren't Tuckey Tanks - those are Farn Reed style "Bladder Buster" tip tanks, some folks confuse the two. I thought about these for a bit but never built a set, I went with the Tuckey tanks.

I'll try to attach the build/install instructions here.
 

Attachments

  • Bladder Buster tanks.pdf
    3.1 MB · Views: 375
Last edited:
Plans or drawings?

Does anyone know where to find any plans, drawings or instructions for the Tuckey tanks? I am very interested.
Thanks!
Steve Ashby
 
Greg,

Thanks. I thought you had probably addressed all of these issues, but again I just wanted to make sure other viewers of this thread would think things through before blindly copying either of our set-ups.

Pat

Hey, Pat...

Would your setup work in the 10 I'm starting on? I'd like to do some international cross-oceanic flying (Philippines) and having extra fuel onboard would be a huge help.
 
Back
Top