R44 Bladder Tank Costs

[bvgs]

Can anyone advise as to the completed costs of fitting bladder tanks to an R44 in UK. I'm wondering what the total cost might be based upon supply, fit and paint job thereafter.

Thanks

[Rich B]

Hi bvgs

Expect to pay somewhere in the region of £10,000.00. (The cost of the kit, fitting and any paint work repairs) I have had the work done on mine and it took around 4 weeks to complete.
I have heard that the compliancy date has been moved forward to the end of December 2013 now as opposed to December 2014, so I would imagine that as we get closer to the expiry time the costs will likely increase (on the assumption that many owners/operators will probably leave the procedure to the latest possible time)

Best Regards

Rich B

[Keepitup]

Bladder Tank

Just to put my 2 pence worth in, this is only an SB and not Mandated by an AD, so there is no requirement to have it carried out.

But ......... looking at how many have crashed and burnt recently, I dont think it will be too long before it is an AD.

Keep it up

[Bondu121]

Rich B sounds about right:

Kit KI-196-1 $6800
40 manhours (RHC estimate)
Paint refinishing shouldn't be too costly
Around two weeks to complete

[FSXPilot]

I'm with Rich B allow around £10K. 40 hours is about £2,400 and then about the same again to have the paint matched and finished plus the cost of buying the kit. Depending how busy your maintenance facility is I'd reckon on 2 weeks to do the job and then another week or so to get the painting done. Remember most maintenance places will get someone else to do the painting.

[mickjoebill]

Which part needs painting?
Any tell tale clues that a bladder is installed if viewing from a discrete distance?


Mickjoebill

[VH-XXX]

!

After the recent crash in Australia there's no way you'd not have the work done

[puntosaurus]

Which part needs painting?
Any tell tale clues that a bladder is installed if viewing from a discrete distance?

The bladder is not installed in the existing tank, the whole tank is replaced. The new one with the lining installed comes green, so it needs painting. If the paint job is done properly there's no way to tell from a distance, but it's obvious when you take the cap off the tank.

[toptobottom]

I understand the bladder also consumes some capacity, limiting the endurance. Anyone confirm by how much?

[Exo.]

If I recall correctly, you'll only lose about a gallon from each, so losses are relatively minimal.

Caps, I recall, sit a little prouder as a result of the positioning of the opening and neck; but otherwise no way of identifying new to old.

[Ian Corrigible]

2.4 gal less (total capacity = 47.7 (30.5+17.2) vs. 50.1 (31.6+18.5); usable capacity = 46.5 (29.5+17.0) vs. 48.9 (30.6+18.3)). Plus a ~15 lb weight bogey for the bladder tank.

I/C

[RMK]

Ouch, with the weight of the tanks included that's equates to losing a total of 4.9 gals; I wasn't expecting that much.

I fly a Clipper II, so already have a weight penalty for the float system - this takes away that bit more.

[John R81]

My ship is undergoing conversion to as I write. If someone who has completed this SB can answer the following questions I would be very grateful.

Fuel gauges - I assume that they will now read over. Is this so? If so, do we just "live with it" and mentally wok with 46.5 USG rather than the indicated 48.9 USG?

Fuel dipstic - the original supplied item will surely need recalibration. Correct? How; surely not a DIY solution here?

Thanks

John

[Arrrj]

John,

I thought you had a 120B ? Maybe both ? Good on you.

I have had the tanks changed on my 44, the gauges are re-calibrated...i.e. what it says is what you get. It's about 10 litres less. Surprisingly, that 10 minutes makes a difference, when you are used to a certain amount of range.

Arrrj

PS - sorry, can't "read" any of that old measuring system !

[Arrrj]

PS - even though I have seen the bags in the Robbie factory, and they are very heavy duty, I am not sure I would be jamming any "dip sticks" into a bagged tank !

[John R81]

Arrj

Thanks for the swift reply. Yes, I started with the 120- which was achieveing reasonable hours - but then had an opportunity to acquire a 44 with the prospect / promise of reasonable hrs also. So far, its working out OK.


The dipstic - not thought about "jamming". I just assumed that the markings would be out of scale as the exterior tank is the same size and the bag reduces the internal volume. Therefore the fluid level will be higher on the dip stick.

Good to hear that the guages are reclibrated.

[Arrrj]

John,

The bags are (of course) soft. I would not want anyone sticking anything sharp in there !

Robbie may well advise "OK"...however I would still be concerned.

All the best.

Arrrj

PS - I will PM you about something else.

[John R81]

And I hear on the grapevine that the R22 will shortly join the bladder tank revision game with its own SB.

This will have a bigger impact on the R22 as the weight / fuel capacity reduction will be proportinately greater.

[Buttocknurdler]

There are two further ways of identifying a ship fitted with bladder tanks:

1. The vertical lines of rivets which hold the baffle plates in place part way along the tanks, are missing.

2. There is no visible fuel tank drain valve on the port side (the drain valve is relocated internally to the starboard side, behind the inspection panel and adjacent to the drain for the starboard tank).

[rogerer]

Reading the SB from Robinson, it says time of compliance "no later than 30 april 2013". But neither EASE or FAA has made an AD out of this. So the machine is still airworthy after 30 april 2013 with the old tanks? Or is it grounded?

A bit confused here (have ordered the kits but they are delayed)...