What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Safeair er tanks

Er tanks

I have installed in the Er tanks in my -10. Currently not able for to post photos but if You check out my build log, you can find them to there.

The tanks are no felt made and customer service was exceptional.

Www.mykitlog.com

Search for Sunman, indiana
 

It all depends on how you plan to fly.
If you usually run 75% leaned for best power, 172+ KTAS, that's almost 15 gal/hr, and the standard tanks give you 4 hours with NO RESERVES. That's a bit shy, especially if you fly IFR and need to carry reserves to reach an alternate as well as 45 minutes.
OTOH, I nearly always run 55 - 60%, run LOP, at a bit less than 10 gal/hr, still make 160 KTAS. Now my no-reserve endurance is nearly 6 hours, a lot longer than my bladder!
 
my no-reserve endurance is nearly 6 hours, a lot longer than my bladder!

This was along my line of thinking, but at the same time for 3k (roughly) and a couple extra days of build time.. does it add value to the plane?

Is it one of those "nice to haves" that people look for?

I'm building my plane as my forever plane but we never know.. always good to keep an eye on what resale might be like later..
 
I think it definitely adds value to the plane. The benefit of he added fuel is either being able to make that extra hour without a fuel stop or the option to go there and back again without buying expensive fuel. I have installed several sets of tanks and it's not that bad. Much easier before the wings are completed and painted.
 
Isn't there an option for outboard leading edge extended fuel tanks?

I'd go for ER tanks but would like to find info on the leading edge extended fuel tanks before making a decision.
 
I'm not aware of a kit for this, but we have installed half tanks outboard of the mains with the same format as the ER tanks to transfer. There are some who have installed full tank outboard of the mains, but I'm not sure of the format for transfer.
 
I installed the Safeair ER tanks back in 2007/2008 during construction. My wings were quickbuild, but I felt like the installation was straighforward and the instructions and customer support were very good. The quality of the hardware is excellent. Six and a half years and 780 hours later they have performed flawlessly. I agree with Jesse. While I could fly the airplane six and a half or seven hours with the ER tanks, that is not my primary reason for installing them. I too, operate 55 to 60% LOP most of the time. Being able to have enough fuel for an alternate in IFR, being able to fuel round trip, and being able to "tanker" a bit when I come across good fuel prices are my reasons. I don't remember just how much weight they added, but I was building a heavy airplane anyway, (air conditioning) so, wasn't too concerned about that. CG is not affected at all, so I liked that.
Are they a necessity? No. Am I glad I installed them? Yes.
Sorry, I don't have any pics that I can access right now.
 
. Being able to have enough fuel for an alternate in IFR, being able to fuel round trip, and being able to "tanker" a bit when I come across good fuel prices are my reasons.

That's exactly why I'm putting extra fuel on my -7 (smaller version of "Tuckey tanks"), especially since I plan to run mogas when possible. I think sometimes people forget that you (a) don't have to use it all in one nonstop flight, and (b) don't have to fill all the tanks all the way all the time.
 
ER tanks

I had them installed in my 6A ( no pump needed) and am very glad I did. I don't always use them but have tapped them in cross country trip that are too close to call for refill. I don't stop. Well worth it.
 
I'mSomeone asked how to plumb the fuel lines. I looked seriously at adding ER tanks to my -9 and the following are the different ways I have found people have set them up their ER tanks.

1. Pilot activated electric transfer pumps to move fuel to the main tanks.
2. Optical sensors in both main and ER tanks to automatically tun on and off transfer pumps. No pilot action required.
3. Each side's main and ER tanks are plumbed together and share a common vent. The idea being that as fuel is pulled from the main tank, fuel is siphoned from the ER tank.
4. Install a five way Andair valve and plumb a line to each ER tank. Left Outboard, Left Inboard, Right Inboard, Right Outboard, and Off.

I didn't install the Extended Range tanks I was looking at. So, I don't have a recommendation.
 
Last edited:
Love mine

Mine have been trouble free as well for close to 700hrs. I love having the option to fill with cheaper fuel. I really like the extra fuel for giving more options to deviate weather. Two long legs with one fuel stop is a perfect day of flying compared to making 2 or 3 stops. The tanks are a perfect speed mod for saving time on an XC trips.:D The plane is also noticeably more stable in roll while in turbulence with the tanks full.

i70eid.jpg
[/IMG]

2ih79rm.jpg


14tnbr6.jpg


2vtd4z8.jpg


2zqwn6r.jpg


9u6w0i.jpg
 
Last edited:
I am currently installing these on my 9A. A tight fit, but manageable. My question is about the vent. Did you vent out the bottom of the wing? Couldn't you just curl the tubing as recommended on top of the wing tip tank, then vent inside the wing tip? Seems there must be enough air swirling inside the fiberglass tip to vent. Since there is an electric pump, ram air pressure is not really required. Any thoughts?
 
Jim, fuel expands a lot as it is warmed. If you're full and the day gets hotter with the airplane sitting there, any fuel that spills out of the vents will run toward the cockpit....dangerous.

Best,
 
I've only installed 3 or 4 sets of long range tanks and they have all been in RV10's. I'd stick to the plans on the vent because:
A- a little positive pressure is a good thing
B- easy to inspect and clean out bugs and bees (of course you'll have a screen)
C- when you fill the tank and park it in the sun you don't want any fuel or vapors INSIDE of your wing :rolleyes:

Just my thoughts.


I am currently installing these on my 9A. A tight fit, but manageable. My question is about the vent. Did you vent out the bottom of the wing? Couldn't you just curl the tubing as recommended on top of the wing tip tank, then vent inside the wing tip? Seems there must be enough air swirling inside the fiberglass tip to vent. Since there is an electric pump, ram air pressure is not really required. Any thoughts?
 
Safe air tanks

Thanks everybody for the input. Helped alot. Looks to me like the aeroled vx landing lights will either just fit or not. Did anyone install vx landing lights with the er tanks and did it fit?

Regards
 
VX lights

Search the forum. I know of at least one guy that installed them in the -10 with the safe air tanks. He said that they just fit and it took a substantial amount of work to fit them. You have to cut a section out of the tip and install an "adapter" to make them fit even without the tanks. Apparently, they were not designed for the -10 wingtips...

Too bad, they are REALLY nice lights!
 
A nearby builder friend is doing tip tanks

and his mention of this got me thinking along the same lines as the discussion here - mission profile, cost and complexity, added value, safety of deviating from Van's fuel system design, polar moment of inertia in spins, stress, CG - all of it.

I'm not yet rated for IFR but hope to be someday - older, less moneyed and more intimidated pilots than myself have conquered the rating. The comments about IFR reserves to alternates being very tight on 60 gallons are thought-provoking. I've always fancied my RV-10 as purpose-built for one primary mission - getting me and family/friends to the Outer Banks and back (1:40 each way) on sunny clear days - and 60 gallons at 10.5 gph LOP seemed plenty adequate for the task using only my own fuel farm for resupply. But the truth is there will always be longer trips and unforeseen destinations calling, and I want to be sure my thinking is sufficiently future-proof. Life does change.

I'm about finished with installation of piano hinge in both wingtips for mounting - wanted that slick, no-screws look, and to avoid the frequent use of EZ-outs on stripped #6 Phillips screws, as is common necessity anymore on my per-plans 6A wingtips. That gets old so fast. Now here I am pondering the addition of tip tanks at a stage when I probably just made it a lot more difficult, although part of that bridge was crossed when the previous builder riveted on the leading edges of my partially built wings!

Long ago I fabbed baggage-area fuel tanks for my RANS S-12 using a fuel-proof resin and fiberglass, and they worked well (the standard polyethylene roto-molded wing tanks were famous for leaking). I'm not seeing a SafeAir website anymore - perhaps they have closed their doors? Anyway, musing here about making the tips themselves into tanks with proper application of fuel-proof resin and installation of baffles and fittings, fill cap.

Anyone done this? The nav light lens could double as a sight-glass fuel gauge:D Okay, not serious there. Not planning any wingtip antennas, though. Also curious if a Facet fuel pump in series with a tip tank supply line to the main tank would prevent downhill fuel transfer from tip to main tank when not powered on.
 
Safe Air tanks

I am pretty sure you can still use the safe air tanks if you wanted to. Shouldn't be an issue with the hinges. You will have to probably remove the main tanks to add the bung that the ER tanks connect to.
 
Jim, fuel expands a lot as it is warmed. If you're full and the day gets hotter with the airplane sitting there, any fuel that spills out of the vents will run toward the cockpit....dangerous.

Best,

Not to mention the fumes themselves. Even if no liquid gets there, the vapor will. Minor arc from strobes powering up, or a loose wire on the transfer pump, etc. Any fumes outside the plane will almost certainly be too lean a mixture to light off, but inside the wing...
 
Hey Bill,

Just because the leading edges are riveted doesn't mean you are out of options. PM me if you want to discuss.

Charlie
 
H/W ER Tanks

Search for "Hotel Whiskey Aviation". They build the ER tanks that SafeAir1 used to market.
They'll take care of you!
 
Last edited:
Thank you, Mel.

Interesting web site. Looks like quite a job, but probably much simpler than converting the tips into fiberglass tanks themselves.

Looks like $3000 is the shipped price to beat, and 15# for all-up weight. That would buy a LOT of fiberglass resin and cloth! Not sure I should undertake this at any point in time unless I possess DanH or Mike Arnold-level skills, but like I said, I scratch-built composite tanks for my very first experimental that as far as I know are still in service 20 years later. Closing up the factory -10 wingtips to make ER tanks might be an attempt I'd regret, and might not. I can always abandon the effort in place if not happy with the outcome.

I'd welcome any speculation as to whether this seems like a good idea.
 
tanks

I thought the ER tank installation was pretty straight forward. Everything fit as it was supposed to, and as far as mods go, it was pretty painless.

I am pretty sure that the time involved with installing the ER tanks would be much less than fabricating tanks from the wingtips. Don't forget to account for the dynamic loads imposed on the wingtip attachment due to 5-6 gallons of fuel moving around in them...
 
Yes.

I'm pondering that right now as I finish epoxying and riveting the attachment piano hinges.

I can always do a chin-up on the wingtip to test a static load equivalent to 30 # of fuel at 6G, but dynamic loads are a different matter. How fast do I jump up and down on the wingtip to test that? Furthermore, what's the consequence of an in-flight failure of a wingtip/integral tank if the hinge unzips under load? Likely the jetsam would clear the empennage, but would the aileron be compromised? Would the lateral imbalance be uncontrollable? Doubtful in either case, but not possible to spitball with complete confidence.

I do know that with reasonable care I could pull this off for far less than 3 AMU and gain an extra 10 gallons. Time and frustration are another matter.
 
I don't intend to call my -7 a 6 G a/c with fuel in the aux tanks. I'd consider it utility category at best; probably closer to 'normal' category in terms of G load ratings. I bet if you look at the docs for any commercially produced aux tanks, they'll say the same thing.

Just something to think about.
 
You raise a good point.

As usual :D

I am accustomed to having that 6G figure (9G ultimate) in my head from 20 years of RV-6A ownership. The 10 is not considered aerobatic, and likely rated for lesser loadings. But I can't find that on the Van's website, and I just looked. What's the most G the airframe of the -10 is intended to handle in turbulence and maneuvering?
 
As usual :D
What's the most G the airframe of the -10 is intended to handle in turbulence and maneuvering?

This from Van's website: "The design operational stress limit for the RV-10 is standard category (+3.8/-1.5 G)".
 
As usual :D

I am accustomed to having that 6G figure (9G ultimate) in my head from 20 years of RV-6A ownership. The 10 is not considered aerobatic, and likely rated for lesser loadings. But I can't find that on the Van's website, and I just looked. What's the most G the airframe of the -10 is intended to handle in turbulence and maneuvering?

And to add clarity for those that may not know......

The RV-6A (and all of the other RV models approved for aerobatics for that matter) is approved for 6 G's at a specified aerobatic weight that is lower than the approved max. gross weight.
 
So I guess that means 3.8G operational and 1.5 * 3.8 = 5.7G ultimate? Pretty close to 6G, there.

The other load-determining factor is the all-up weight of the fully-built-out wingtip, with fuel in tank.

I think my first step beyond asking here is to temporarily baffle the tip, line with a trash bag, and see how many gallons of water the shape holds. Work calculations from there.
 
Last edited:
Hi Scott,

Since you brought it up...

It really would be good if kit makers (including Van's) would include the category in their spec sheets. I can just about guarantee that there are owners (even builder-owners) out there that don't realize the acro-capable models have lower gross weight ratings for acro.

All it would take is an extra few keystrokes to include the info (fantasy numbers...):

"Gross weight: 5000 lbs (normal category)
4000 lbs (utility category)
3000 lbs (aerobatic category)"

Charlie
 
I'm not trying to talk you out of this, if it's what you want. But I don't think you should use the excuse of IFR operations to do it, as long as you're willing to fly LOP. LOP you have nearly 6 hours to empty. That gives you 4 hours to destination, 1 hour to alternate, nearly 1 hour reserve. And, quite honestly, you may well find yourself second guessing things, if an alternate is needed and the nearest one is an hour away. So the tanks really are for if you often want to do a trip that's more like 5 hours away - assuming your bladder capacity is at least 6 hours (if you need to go to the alternate). OR, if you want to run 75% power ROP at 14 gal/hr. Then, the tanks look attractive.
 
So the tanks really are for if you often want to do a trip that's more like 5 hours away - assuming your bladder capacity is at least 6 hours (if you need to go to the alternate). OR, if you want to run 75% power ROP at 14 gal/hr. Then, the tanks look attractive.

Not necessarily. If you want to fly to a remote area where there?s no fuel and you don?t want to plan for another stop on the way back just for fuel. 2-1/2 hrs in, and return is not really pushing the bladder?s capability.

Bevan.
 
Or to tanker fuel until you can get to where it is cheaper before re-filling.

Ed Holyoke

Not necessarily. If you want to fly to a remote area where there?s no fuel and you don?t want to plan for another stop on the way back just for fuel. 2-1/2 hrs in, and return is not really pushing the bladder?s capability.

Bevan.
 
Or to tanker fuel until you can get to where it is cheaper before re-filling.

Ed Holyoke
For tankering, it's a whole lot more cost effective to just carry 5 gal cans of gas in the cabin. And, remember that just carrying the extra weight around will cost you a bit of extra gas.
Again, if tip tanks are your thing, great. And if your mission really calls for 6 hours non-stop, you need them. Or if you want to fly at max speed, they're useful. But they cut into your useful load. In the real world, for most people, probably not needed.
 
Hi Scott,

Since you brought it up...

It really would be good if kit makers (including Van's) would include the category in their spec sheets. I can just about guarantee that there are owners (even builder-owners) out there that don't realize the acro-capable models have lower gross weight ratings for acro.

All it would take is an extra few keystrokes to include the info (fantasy numbers...):

"Gross weight: 5000 lbs (normal category)
4000 lbs (utility category)
3000 lbs (aerobatic category)"

Charlie

The existence of an aerobatic gross weight is provided in the W&B data for all of the RV models that are approved for aero.
The reason for my post was that there are a lot of RV's owned by people other than the original builder, and a lot of those people aren't aware.

Bill,

The 1.5 multiplier is for *ultimate* load (that means permanent distortion/failure).

Actually it is acceptable for there to be permanent deformation at anything above the limit load.
So in the case of aerobatic load limits, permanent deformation of structure is allowed for any load above 6 G's at aerobatic gross weight. There can be no catastrophic failure until ultimate load (1.5 X limit) is exceeded
 
Thanks, Scott. Your explanation of G limits was what I thought I remembered, but didn't want to over state it.

(I still think it would be a good thing to at least state the category used in the spec sheet gross weight number.) :)
 
Bill,

The 1.5 multiplier is for *ultimate* load (that means permanent distortion/failure).

Exactly. Which is why, IF I did tip tanks, I'd want to assure wingtip attachment integrity at the max sustainable load on the airframe short of failure - in this case 5.7G. Having tank tips break off at 3.81G on a 3.8G rated airframe would not be my idea of acceptable margin.
 
I'm not trying to talk you out of this, if it's what you want. But I don't think you should use the excuse of IFR operations to do it, as long as you're willing to fly LOP. LOP you have nearly 6 hours to empty. That gives you 4 hours to destination, 1 hour to alternate, nearly 1 hour reserve. And, quite honestly, you may well find yourself second guessing things, if an alternate is needed and the nearest one is an hour away. So the tanks really are for if you often want to do a trip that's more like 5 hours away - assuming your bladder capacity is at least 6 hours (if you need to go to the alternate). OR, if you want to run 75% power ROP at 14 gal/hr. Then, the tanks look attractive.

Bob, I really appreciate your input (and everyone else's, too!) Truthfully, I DON'T want to feel the need to do this - but if I decide for some reason it is a good idea, I think I DO want to go the homebuilt route on the tanks.

My friend building a -10 a few miles away is doing tip tanks and I questioned why on earth... he replied that he wanted the IFR reserves - and with a carb'd O-540 would not be flying LOP as far as he knew, so no 10.5 GPH for him. He figures he needs the fuel for the type of flying he will do. Ironic for a guy who says he lives by the "simplicate and add lightness" motto. (He has an Advanced panel with vacuum attitude and direction backups, too, and magneto ignition - go figure!)

Curious about this, I asked my Georgia bud with lots of -10 hours if he'd ever heard of wingtip aux tanks. He replied "I love mine!" So, the only RV-10 I've ever gotten stick time in has tip tanks and I didn't know. Again, an IFR CFII plane/pilot with a mission profile that makes him a strong advocate of extra fuel. By the way, although he confirms 10.5 gph at 10k and 160 KTAS LOP, he flight plans for 15 gph because of climb fuel requirements, and figures 4 hrs to empty isn't enough to be fully useful in IFR with possible need for an alternate divert plus an hour reserves once he gets to the alternate. Is he too conservative? I don't know, but I respect his decision-making style.

As I said at the outset many posts back, I am building this plane primarily for 1.5 hour legs to the beach in VFR, but I know better than to limit my thinking to that scenario. I'd prefer very much not to take on another diversion from the plans (rolling my own overhead console added enough months to the build) - but I'll add anything that makes sense to reasonably enhance the utility of this wonderful airplane for the ways I intend to use it. If I decide tip tanks are a must (or a really ought), then make no mistake I would enjoy tackling the engineering and construction challenge of making the tips into fiberglass tanks - and being the one to share here with my peers how I did it. (Why let Dan have all the fun :D)
 
Again, an IFR CFII plane/pilot with a mission profile that makes him a strong advocate of extra fuel. By the way, although he confirms 10.5 gph at 10k and 160 KTAS LOP, he flight plans for 15 gph because of climb fuel requirements, and figures 4 hrs to empty isn't enough to be fully useful in IFR with possible need for an alternate divert plus an hour reserves once he gets to the alternate. Is he too conservative? I don't know, but I respect his decision-making style.
:D)

As I said in my previous post, IF you run 75% ROP (15 gal/hr) then the stock tanks are, IMHO, a bit too small for many applications/flights. So, yes, I think your friend is being a bit too conservative (BUT I hate to ever criticize anyone for being conservative) assuming he has a good fuel flow totalizer, as well as conventional gauges. The -10 climbs so well that climb fuel is almost negligible (e.g., it easily makes 1000'/min, so a climb to 8000' takes 8 mintes = 8/60 of an hour. Even using full rich, 25 gal/hr flow rate, that's just 3 gallons. And you'll get at least one gallon back on descent). For your friend with the carb, yes, he's a good candidate for extra tanks.
 
Not to mention the fumes themselves. Even if no liquid gets there, the vapor will. Minor arc from strobes powering up, or a loose wire on the transfer pump, etc. Any fumes outside the plane will almost certainly be too lean a mixture to light off, but inside the wing...

I have the SafeAir tip tanks. They have a fuel vent line that protrudes from the bottom of the fiberglass tip, just like the main tank vent. Of course, complexity increases the opportunity for fuel seeps/leaks. I installed an inspection/access panel on the bottom of the wings where the plumbing into the main tank and facet pump are located. Any fuel leaks from the main tanks will be just as dangerous and will tend to migrate inboard. Over 9 years and more than a thousand hours with no problems at all. The kit was easy to install during construction and the hardware quality and instructions were very good.

Mine have been flawless and I use them on all of our long cross country trips. Not so much because I need the range, but I tanker fuel when the price is right, and sometimes it's nice to know you have plenty of fuel if plans have to be changed. But, as Bob Turner notes, unless you have a 6+ hour bladder, flying 4 hours IFR and then proceeding to an alternate an hour away, is pretty unlikely.
99% of my flying is the two of us and long cross country trips. So, the extra weight is no issue. We rarely fly a leg over 3 to 3 1/2 hours because of the aforementioned physiological reason.

Very happy with mine. Would I do it again if I was building another airplane? Probably.
 
David, I think the reference to fuel and fumes getting into the cockpit was referencing the post about venting the tank inside the wingtip.
 
Back
Top