Anyone have experience with sloshing old RV tanks with PR 1005? Bunch of weeps have developed over the years, and am ready to tackle the buggers...used PR 1005 on top of the proseal initially, and no leaks for about 14 years...then, one pinhole in a rivet on the right (auto gas) tank, and since then have developed into stains and frank weeps in a number of places...I know the old story of Bob Larsell hanging his RV3 from its tail to slosh a leading edge rivet....Jjohn Santa Rosa Cali
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
PR 1005 Slosh
- Thread starter johnf_1
- Start date
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Welcome to VAF!!
John, welcome to the good ship VAF
Although I have never used slosh, I do follow this forum pretty closely, and what I have seen over and over here at VAF is that slosh is a no no.
I do not know if it is just the nature of the material to fail after so long, or if the changes in fuel formulation are causing it to fail, but the stuff is a problem for many folks.
The site has a search function, there is a lot of information available through there.
Here is one recent thread, with information about a guy close to you who can help. http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=93231 Actually, two guys close to you-----
Paul Rosales just recently helped someone remove the slosh and reseal a set of tanks, hopefully he will jump in here with some advice.
Good to have you aboard, sorry to not have mush good news for your problem.
John, welcome to the good ship VAF
Although I have never used slosh, I do follow this forum pretty closely, and what I have seen over and over here at VAF is that slosh is a no no.
I do not know if it is just the nature of the material to fail after so long, or if the changes in fuel formulation are causing it to fail, but the stuff is a problem for many folks.
The site has a search function, there is a lot of information available through there.
Here is one recent thread, with information about a guy close to you who can help. http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=93231 Actually, two guys close to you-----
Paul Rosales just recently helped someone remove the slosh and reseal a set of tanks, hopefully he will jump in here with some advice.
Good to have you aboard, sorry to not have mush good news for your problem.
Last edited:
John:
At one time, Van's recommended a slosh (do not remember the number but it was WHITE in color) on the tanks. The latest thinking from Van's is NO slosh and tanks that have slosh should be inspected every 25 or 50 hours until they are removed from service. There is a Service Bulletin that Van's published telling all RVs to do this. (IF I go look up the number, I will EDIT this post and add the number plus a link to it.)
My RV-6 was built according to the common practice at the time of using slosh. It is WHITE in color and after 15+ years and oer 2,600 hour of flying, there have been no problems.
I helped rework an RV-4 tanks that started leaking after flying. WHITE slosh was used originally but the leak was attempted to be repaired with YELLOW slosh. The White Slosh is suppose to be alcohol resistant but the Yellow is AvGas only. When the Yellow slosh was added on top of the White Slosh, everything crinkled. This required removing the rear baffle from the tank, cleaning out everything, and then using ProSeal fillet over all the seams and rivets.
IMHO, the slosh does not stick to a smooth surface. IF the inside of the tank was not scuffed a lot, there is a good possibility that it will break off eventually and plug a fuel filter. The plugged fuel filter will end up reducing fuel flow causing a loss of power or complete engine stoppage.
The present thinking is to NOT use slosh. If there is a tank leak, open the tank up and fix the leak with ProSeal or replace the tank.
At one time, Van's recommended a slosh (do not remember the number but it was WHITE in color) on the tanks. The latest thinking from Van's is NO slosh and tanks that have slosh should be inspected every 25 or 50 hours until they are removed from service. There is a Service Bulletin that Van's published telling all RVs to do this. (IF I go look up the number, I will EDIT this post and add the number plus a link to it.)
My RV-6 was built according to the common practice at the time of using slosh. It is WHITE in color and after 15+ years and oer 2,600 hour of flying, there have been no problems.
I helped rework an RV-4 tanks that started leaking after flying. WHITE slosh was used originally but the leak was attempted to be repaired with YELLOW slosh. The White Slosh is suppose to be alcohol resistant but the Yellow is AvGas only. When the Yellow slosh was added on top of the White Slosh, everything crinkled. This required removing the rear baffle from the tank, cleaning out everything, and then using ProSeal fillet over all the seams and rivets.
IMHO, the slosh does not stick to a smooth surface. IF the inside of the tank was not scuffed a lot, there is a good possibility that it will break off eventually and plug a fuel filter. The plugged fuel filter will end up reducing fuel flow causing a loss of power or complete engine stoppage.
The present thinking is to NOT use slosh. If there is a tank leak, open the tank up and fix the leak with ProSeal or replace the tank.
Y'all....
Gents: Thanks for the comments. In the early mid 80s, Van spec'ed PR1005 brushed on with 2-3 coats over the proseal. I built my plane then, and I have had no trouble with it nor have I ever heard of any trouble with it. Some time after that, there was a change to the Randolph that seems to have been a debacle. Run, don't walk, from that stuff. That said, PR 1005 is buna in a solvent, and sticks like crazy. I cannot imagine it sheeting or flaking off. Neer seen a tracce of it in the strainer or float bowl. My guess is the 15 years I used auto fuel in the right tank dissolved some of it...that is my theory about why I have stains/weeps. That said, if anyone has any experience with PR1005 on a re-seal, I would appreciate a comment. FYI: the Minnesota re-sealing outfit images demonstrate a buna top coat on the polysulfide, so the process is still OK in certificated Mooneys and such. MTCents John
Gents: Thanks for the comments. In the early mid 80s, Van spec'ed PR1005 brushed on with 2-3 coats over the proseal. I built my plane then, and I have had no trouble with it nor have I ever heard of any trouble with it. Some time after that, there was a change to the Randolph that seems to have been a debacle. Run, don't walk, from that stuff. That said, PR 1005 is buna in a solvent, and sticks like crazy. I cannot imagine it sheeting or flaking off. Neer seen a tracce of it in the strainer or float bowl. My guess is the 15 years I used auto fuel in the right tank dissolved some of it...that is my theory about why I have stains/weeps. That said, if anyone has any experience with PR1005 on a re-seal, I would appreciate a comment. FYI: the Minnesota re-sealing outfit images demonstrate a buna top coat on the polysulfide, so the process is still OK in certificated Mooneys and such. MTCents John
9/11 Van's memo
Thanks Chris. Makes sense with the Randolph fiasco....still never heard a word about problems with PR. My inquiry is based on the "no slosh" mantra, and I have no interest in thinking twice about a clogged fuel pickup or strainer. That said, every post or comment over the years I have drilled down on confirms that Randolph is the product at issue. And I have confirmatory info that PR-type buna is used, regularly, without fail. So, I am looking for persons using the buna type products, not Randolph. Van's "no slosh" approach makes perfect business sense with that enormous contingent liability of Randolph sloshed tanks out there. But not sure it is so broad as to include PR and have never heard van's or anyone else identify PR as a problem....my guess is there are people on this board who have reached this issue with older birds like mine that are beginning to weep...the issue is whether to freshen up the slosh, or take the tank apart. In the absence of percipient comments, my guess is I will take on one tank with a slosh, and monitor closely for probs before taking the tanks apart...tailwinds, J
Thanks Chris. Makes sense with the Randolph fiasco....still never heard a word about problems with PR. My inquiry is based on the "no slosh" mantra, and I have no interest in thinking twice about a clogged fuel pickup or strainer. That said, every post or comment over the years I have drilled down on confirms that Randolph is the product at issue. And I have confirmatory info that PR-type buna is used, regularly, without fail. So, I am looking for persons using the buna type products, not Randolph. Van's "no slosh" approach makes perfect business sense with that enormous contingent liability of Randolph sloshed tanks out there. But not sure it is so broad as to include PR and have never heard van's or anyone else identify PR as a problem....my guess is there are people on this board who have reached this issue with older birds like mine that are beginning to weep...the issue is whether to freshen up the slosh, or take the tank apart. In the absence of percipient comments, my guess is I will take on one tank with a slosh, and monitor closely for probs before taking the tanks apart...tailwinds, J
