What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Hotel Whiskey ER Tank Quality Issues

Strikhedonia

Well Known Member
I really hate posting negative experiences but in thinking about this for a few days I decided that if I was considering buy a set of ER tanks I would want to know my experience.

I wrote a long blog post with a number of pictures for those that are interested in detailed information. http://www.strikhedonia.com/hotel-whiskey-er-fuel-tanks/

The bullet points:
1. I have talked to two other builders who had poor quality tanks - one was shipped a second set of replacement tanks
2. Troy (owner of Hotel Whiskey) admitted his welder that made the first set of tanks was not good and he rushed them out because they were so late shipping to me.
3. I had three welders and a welding instructor look at the first set of tanks and they uniformly said they were not acceptable. The instructor used them in her class to illustrate what not to do.
4. Troy sent me a second set of tanks that were evidently from a new welder. These tanks were marginally better. But the instructor and welders I know told me they were still unacceptable quality for commercial welding.
5. I intend to complete my phase 1 and then pay a local welder to build new tanks for me.
 
Wow

Had a look at those photos....how did those ever get shipped?

I wonder if it was their first time welding?
 
This is unfortunate to hear as I was planning on ordering said tanks. I may have to reconsider. I am not aware of any other providers of extended range tanks for a 10. Is that accurate?
 
You are correct, they are the only commercial option.

If I had to do it again I would hire a local welder to make the tanks for me. The mounting brackets (the tube bracket is provided and you have to fabricate the three tip brackets) and facet pumps are not difficult to build/acquire.
 
As a welder, I take offense to you calling that welding, and the person that did it a welder! I am dumbfounded that a company would ship any product like that, let alone an aviation company. I am at a loss of words...
 
Thanks, I am a ways away from needing them but I will take a serious look at hiring a local welder when the time comes. If you happen to find a local welder to fix your tanks, they may be able to get my business too. I am in the Twin Cities also.
 
Has anybody ever thought of using the same basic tank building technique as the main wing tanks for AUX tanks?

Bend some sheet aluminum, rivets and proseal.

Make a hex-tube instead of a round tube for simplicity.......
 
Wow.........

I'll echo disappointment. I plan to install the HW ER tank bungs for later retrofit, someday. But I'll definitely be sure these issues are addressed before ordering. I'm sure they will be - but man, how those got sent out.....
 
I considered making my own wing aux tanks. Large tube would fit through the lightening holes easily enough. Some angle, .032 or. 040 alclad sheets, rivets and proseal. The building part would be easy. The engineering part and ensuring it's a safe design, that's way beyond me.

I didn't persue it on my RV8 project because I decided the range wasn't needed. Also I didn't want the weight for fuel tanks I'd rarely use.

A different builder with a different mission might be worth figuring out the engineering and development. This is experimental aviation.
 
I spoke with Troy a couple of weeks ago regarding outlet finger strainers (post here)When the company was bought and moved to TX 1-1/2 years ago ish, he indicated he's been having an issue with finding good welders. Seems he hasn't found one yet.

My tank welds from 3 years ago look good.
 
I considered making my own wing aux tanks. Large tube would fit through the lightening holes easily enough. Some angle, .032 or. 040 alclad sheets, rivets and proseal. The building part would be easy. The engineering part and ensuring it's a safe design, that's way beyond me.

I didn't persue it on my RV8 project because I decided the range wasn't needed. Also I didn't want the weight for fuel tanks I'd rarely use.

A different builder with a different mission might be worth figuring out the engineering and development. This is experimental aviation.

You are right.... it is experimental aviation.

So in that context I offer this. When you talk about figuring out the engineering, are you aware that adding the mass of tanks and fuel in the outer portions of the wings can have flight dynamics influences?

A (potentially) minor one would be a potential influence on yaw stability.

A more major one would be a possible influence on spin recovery. I say possible, because even though the RV-10 went through an extensive spin test program during development, no testing was done with additional mass located in the outboard portion of the wing, so I can't say for certain that it would have a negative influence but from an engineering standpoint it is expected to until the test program proves otherwise.

If you are interested in the science, do a web search on Aircraft / Moment of Inertia.
 
I suspect if the weights are equal, it shouldn't change spin recovery. However, with trapped fuel this and also more likely to get into a spin as well. I can't remember all the moment of inertia stuff, but this is something that people should consider. I don't plan on a spin chute and testing, and I'll accept the risk. However, won't fly with anyone else until I get through testing.
 
We stopped installing them because of the poor workmanship. I really wish they would get their act together because they do work well.

Scott, I hear you on the moment of inertia and it is correct. Don’t forget at one time Van’s provided fiberglass wing tip tanks for the 6. I used them, and they are still going strong on that 6 over 20 years and 2000 hours. I don’t know if vans did any testing.

I’ve also installed them on both of my 10’s, so now have about 3000 hours with them. There’s not as much out in the tip as the fiberglass tanks, as the tube holds quite a bit of the fuel. I’ve not notice any different flight characteristics, and did extensive testing during phase I, except for spins of course.

Just my opinion and experience.

Vic
 
I suspect if the weights are equal, it shouldn't change spin recovery.
Not to be critical, but that's not correct. Adding mass to the wings, even symmetrically, will most definitely increase moment of inertia about the yaw and roll axes and will affect all the stability and handling qualities characteristics that Scott mentioned.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Not to be critical, but that's not correct. Adding mass to the wings, even symmetrically, will most definitely increase moment of inertia about the yaw and roll axes and will affect all the stability and handling qualities characteristics that Scott mentioned.

Dave

Didn't say iyy and Izz wouldn't change just figured with symmetric loading spin recovery difference wouldn't change. I need to review, hadn't thought about that stuff in a while. More further out, more inertia to overcome.
 
Roll and yaw inertia in the wing tips was another reason I decided against wing tip tanks. Another consideration was bladder tank capacity. After 3-4 hours in any plane, I'm ready to stretch my legs and use a bathroom. Once my bladder tank is full, I can't just step into the lav in the back of an RV. Some RVs have panels to make an airliner envious, but there's still no flush toilet ;)
 
I see the ER tanks for more fuel options and going to places without fuel than for long non-stop flights.
 
Yep

I have the er tanks and have already been using them...gas at a one local airport is nearly $1 a gallon cheaper than most others... that adds up quickly...
 
We stopped installing them because of the poor workmanship. I really wish they would get their act together because they do work well.

Scott, I hear you on the moment of inertia and it is correct. Don’t forget at one time Van’s provided fiberglass wing tip tanks for the 6. I used them, and they are still going strong on that 6 over 20 years and 2000 hours. I don’t know if vans did any testing.

I’ve also installed them on both of my 10’s, so now have about 3000 hours with them. There’s not as much out in the tip as the fiberglass tanks, as the tube holds quite a bit of the fuel. I’ve not notice any different flight characteristics, and did extensive testing during phase I, except for spins of course.

Just my opinion and experience.

Vic


Spin recovery is what would likely be dynamically influenced the most, and without doing actual testing, the level of influence is a total unknown.

I agree Vic, that distributing the fuel along more of the span is better than putting it all in the tip, but it seems my point is being misinterpreted like they often are. I never said it would be a serious issue, I just pointed out that it is a factor that very few "experimenters" even know or think about.

I do know that there are many RV's flying with "no problems" with this type of extended range tank but I think we should be careful characterizing that to mean they have no influence.
Perhaps there has not been a circumstance of an RV flying loaded and at an aft C.G., and full aux tanks, having an inadvertent spin entry and then crashing because the spin recovery characteristics were degrade.
To be clear, I am not saying it will happen (read my other post.. I said it hasn't been tested), but since it hasn't been tested, it could happen.
It is operating in an unknown area. All I am doing is providing the info that very few people seem to be aware of.

That is largely what this forum venue is for, isn't it?

As for the fiberglass tip tanks.... you are correct, but not everyone at Van's was in favor of selling them without having done any testing (there has never been any installed on factory airplanes). At least I for one was not fully in favor of it. I think it was done as a favor to John Johansen (the original developer and maker of them, modeled after what he had done for his around the world flights.
 
Scott, I don’t think you are being misinterpreted in a bad way. The problem with the written word is that inflection and intent get missed.

As with anything in aviation, there are risks and merits. As long as it is not dangerous, it might be worth understanding the merits, as well as any potential operating limitations.

We don’t use the tanks for bladder-busting trips, but primarily for the safety factor and the convenience factor. During Alaska trips it is quite possible to fly 2 hours in a direction only to have to turn around and go back. Having the extra fuel makes the decision easier and really takes the stress out.
Even here at home the extra tanks give us the flexibility to make round-trip day trips to places that don’t have fuel, like to Cedar Key.

The bottom line I that you do have to pay attention to loading, CG, and operational impacts, but with all of the hours I have flown with them installed in at least 2 different model of RV’s, they seem to provide lot of merit without any problems SO FAR. I say SO FAR because in the scheme of things 3000 hours is not a lot of time. We still see AD’S issued on the certified fleet that has a whole lot more hours on it. Our wonderful RV fleet is still young in the scheme of things.

Vic
 
I've seen an RV-8 that had two full tanks on each wing. He simply ordered an extra set of tanks and modified things to work. I've also seen an RV-7 with the same thing only his were 2/3 or 1/2 in size. Couldn't this be done on a 10? It would also keep the extra fuel more inboard.

Brandon
 
How much of the leading edge of the wing is structural vs just being there...

Outer (rivets) vs inner (bolted on tanks).

There has to be a difference between being riveted on vs bolted on.
 
I think Scott is just being honest and saying that the Vans planes werent engineered with ER tanks, or Vans would have developed them and made them an option. It doesnt mean it cant be done, just means that Vans engineering hasnt tested it, and doesnt intend to.
Vic makes a valid point about the safety factor in having extra fuel. So with the issues with the HW tanks, and builders wanting the larger capacity, froma n engineering standpoint, whats the best solution---full leading edge tanks, or tip tanks for RV's? Maybe a belly tank?

Tom
 
I've seen an RV-8 that had two full tanks on each wing. He simply ordered an extra set of tanks and modified things to work. I've also seen an RV-7 with the same thing only his were 2/3 or 1/2 in size. Couldn't this be done on a 10? It would also keep the extra fuel more inboard.

Brandon

If I were building a 10, I would put two standatd but seperate tanks in each wing and plumb them like the Hotel Wiskey tanks so that I could keep the outer tanks empty if I wanted. It would add virtually no weight, double your fuel capasity, and allow you to operate just like a standard system.
 
Probably best solution would be replace the pilot with a tank. Any change will make things different. In the baggage compartment and no more than tested in that compartment should fit within original testing.

I too wanted the ER tanks more for options than for 5+ hour sorties.
 
except

Except when you put another 180 lbs of fuel in each of them...

The ER tanks hold about 45 lbs a side...

Big difference...

I am using my ER tanks; fuel near me at one airport is nearly a dollar a gallon cheaper than most other places...it adds up quick...
 
I am not an engineer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but I do get to see a lot of the RV-10's during the course of my work. I'm just not comfortable with the whole outboard leading edge being converted to a fuel tank. That's a LOT more weight out there than the few gallons in the Safe-Air tanks.

Just my opinion. :)

Vic
 
I hate to hear this. I was strongly considering installing ER tanks on my 10. I think I will wait a while and see if they get things straightened out.
 
I ask this because I dont know but is there any room in the cabin to put a center tank that both mains could drain to as an option for extended flight?
 
not really

Not really unless you wanted to use the baggage compartment...

If HWA gets their welding back on track, the tanks work fine. I have a set from 5 or 6 years ago and the welds are fine...
 
Nope

I ask this because I dont know but is there any room in the cabin to put a center tank that both mains could drain to as an option for extended flight?

No. Is 4 hours not enough? You have 3.5 hours with a 30 minute reserve and most bladders seem to have enough capability for that much air time.

Regards,
 
Last edited:
I routinely fly 5+ hour legs with my ER tanks (locally made copies of the HW ones, welded by a race shop).

I also have extended range bladders (AKA empty Gatorade bottles). The ER bladders tend to be a bit turbulence sensitive.
 
...and

...and it nice to be able to take advantage of fuel that's nearly a dollar a gallon cheaper...that adds up quick.
 
...and it nice to be able to take advantage of fuel that's nearly a dollar a gallon cheaper...that adds up quick.

By far the cheapest option is ....... just fly slower. With flow-matched injectors, I typically fly full throttle at 9.5 or 10.5K', leaned out to a bit less than 10 gal/hr. Sure just 160 KTAS, but 5 hours (plus 1 reserve) endurance on standard tanks, engine CHTs run cool, and the gas saved buys a very nice restaurant meal to make up for the 20 extra minutes of flight time. And, ironically, on some longer trips, I get there sooner by flying slower - because I can skip a fuel stop.
 
I didn't buy a fast airplane just to slow down, save fuel and stay in the air longer....:D

-Marc
 
+1

Yep, I didn't build my -10 to go slow and save a buck...

If I can save a buck by topping the ER tanks at a cheap gas stop, that's just a bonus...
 
No. Is 4 hours not enough? You have 3.5 hours with a 30 minute reserve and most bladders seem to have enough capability for that much air time.

Regards,

From my experience on cross countries you can never have enough gas, time on the ground is still time wasted. My reason for an RV-10 is to travel where ever I can and experience not just the US but other places and being able to add distance is great thing.
 
Personally, I'd prefer to land every 2-3 hours rather than wear a diaper, a condom catheter, or try to pee in a bottle in an airplane with a control stick. Getting fuel at the same time isn't a problem for me.
 
It sounds like he likes the optionality of having more fuel. He's not necessarily going for a marathon session every time. We shouldn't chastise him for having a different set of priorities...I mean at least he has options. I have recently been looking for a new anvil and it's rough in terms of customization...you kinda just have to take what you get - source.
 
Last edited:
Rememeber when you drove your car or truck to go somewhere? How often were you stopping? Just because you are flying 2.5x the supposed speed limit, seat time is seat time.

Tom
 
After 7-8 years of flying my ‘10, I decided to add the HW tanks for a specific trip from NC to Ecuador and return. Up to that point there was only one trip to the BVIs where longer range was desired but not required. The tanks were delivered almost 2 years ago but one had to be exchanged for some reason (I’ve forgotten why). Unfortunately, the trip was cancelled due to Covid and will probably never be planned again.

Since then I’ve found little use for them. Lot’s of LOP flying at 10.5 to 11.5 GPH at 160knots is where we live. Tankering cheap fuel around can be economical but my home base is a slightly rough grass strip and I have little desire to add more weight than necessary. General practice is to top off where ever I land for safety, as a courtesy to the FBO, and to avoid facility charges

I’m sure that they will come in handy from time to time because I do like non-stop trips and we don’t have any problems relieving our bladders in flight. I’m glad they are installed but probably wouldn’t have added them without a specific task in mind.

Be careful about letting yourself dehydrate to extend your range. We’ve had experience with dehydration and diminished pilot performance in sailplane racing. Drink enough liquids and don’t be so shy.
 
Back
Top