Bob Ed

Member
i recently painted my rv10 and bubbles formed over the rivets on the fuel tanks on both sides on top of each wing. i know they are over the rivets because i looked under several bubbles and found a rivet under each one. my a&p says the rivets are leaking. this is a quick build kit wing with p:confused:re-installed tanks. any ideas what to do about this problem? robert
 
i recently painted my rv10 and bubbles formed over the rivets on the fuel tanks on both sides on top of each wing. i know they are over the rivets because i looked under several bubbles and found a rivet under each one. my a&p says the rivets are leaking. this is a quick build kit wing with p:confused:re-installed tanks. any ideas what to do about this problem? robert
Bob,

There are plenty of reports of paint blisters occuring on fuel tanks, particularily quickbuild tanks and you will read many differing opinions on the matter. Just type in "paint blisters" on an archive search. My opinion continues to remain unchanged. I believe the blistering occurs because fuel in either its liquid or vapor form is escaping from the fuel tank via its rivet holes. The leaks can be so tiny and over such a large period of time that it escapes notice in a typical pressure test. The manufactured head of the rivet should be wet sealed into its countersink and more importantly, the shop head of the rivet should be fully encapsulated. I suggest you take a flashlight and mirror and examine as best you can by peering through the filler neck to examine the shop heads of the rivets. The rivet heads should be completely encapsulated with proseal and in at least one incidence of pre-made quickbuild tanks, those shop heads were devoid of proseal, despite Van's own written instructions to do so.

As you research the subject, take the time to examine the photos in post #46 in the thread linked below. The photo provide a text book example of how NOT to encapsulate rivet shop heads. Bottom line: IMHO, I believe that quality control or more precisely, lack of quality control is the root cause of the paint blistering problem.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=10187&highlight=Paint+blisters&page=3
 
Rick, I just finished reading all the blogs on this and have concluded it is a manufacturing defect on the sealing and sealing is not required by vans from the QB wing supplier. so, there you go. as we say in texas. looks like i need to learn to like bubbles in my paint or replace my tanks with sealed ones so i don't see bubbles. doesn't seem right somehow.
 
It's times like this I'm glad I built my tanks, ONE OF THE VERY FEW TIMES!:D...Sorry for your paint problem. I went over each rivet from the outside with proseal as well, cleaned each rivet head with MEK on a rag after smearing a bit of Proseal on the head to leave a ring of proseal around the exterior of each rivet...no fuel in the tanks yet. As Rick said, I applied very liberal amounts around the interior on the shopheads, flanges anyplace It looked like a leak could occur. Hopefully the only bubbles will be from the first flight celebration beverages.
 
So for those of us with QBs still in the works, sounds like it might be better to paint (at least the tanks) prior to putting AVGAS in them?
 
Painting first will not affect your outcome for blistering.
AND this is not a QB issue.
Ask me how I know.
Best,
 
The latest theory from Van's is it is caused by some contamination at the rivets from the painting process. The reason the blisters occur only at the fuel tank rivets is the gas created by this contamination can not escape into the fuel tank because the rivets are sealed with pro seal and it lifts the paint instead.

At rivets not sealed with pro seal, the gas escapes down through the rivet shaft as it is an easier escape route than up through the paint.
 
Does the problem seem to be only on the top surface of the tank? A problem with some of the urethane paints is "Solvent popping" whereas a heavier build up of paint such as around the rivit, especially where "Tank dimple dyes" were used causing a deeper dwell in the skin and allowing more paint to pool. I would be interested in hearing if the problem also occurs on the bottom of the tank?
Dick
 
Does the problem seem to be only on the top surface of the tank? A problem with some of the urethane paints is "Solvent popping" whereas a heavier build up of paint such as around the rivit, especially where "Tank dimple dyes" were used causing a deeper dwell in the skin and allowing more paint to pool. I would be interested in hearing if the problem also occurs on the bottom of the tank?
Dick

It does, top and bottom, randomly, and some are showing up 4 years after the first ones.
 
I don't think there is a quick fix for painted aircraft. I'm doing paint prep now. I am going to make sure that all the rivet lines are properly prepared for paint, take extra care to wipe the cleaning/prep solvents over each rivet head, not only on the tanks and apply the primer to the surface followed by the finish coats. Any thoughts about what more you could do?
 
The latest theory from Van's is it is caused by some contamination at the rivets from the painting process. The reason the blisters occur only at the fuel tank rivets is the gas created by this contamination can not escape into the fuel tank because the rivets are sealed with pro seal and it lifts the paint instead.

At rivets not sealed with pro seal, the gas escapes down through the rivet shaft as it is an easier escape route than up through the paint.

That being said, there is no evidence as to what the gas causing contamination is. The theory does not rule out improperly mixed or out dated pro seal.

My very experienced painter is adamant about this. It has not happened with his work before and he has commercially painted many airplanes, most of them corporate jets.
 
Forest for the trees

Dave,

I doubt proseal per se is the problem. No doubt your highly experienced painter is on to something. There are many variables in play not the least of which are often wide differences in construction quality between one builder and the next. Consider a basic #40 hole. The very nature of a dimpled hole...already slightly over sized from the dimpling process makes it highly desirable in fuel tank construction that the shop head of the rivet be squeezed/crushed completely around the perimeter of its dimple. Also, if the hole is even slightly wallowed out you've got other dynamics working against a perfectly set rivet. In addition, unlike regular holes you simply cannot expect a rivet to completely swell within a dimpled hole so fully and so tight that even tiny traces of fuel vapor cannot eventually escape. You can get away with improperly squeezed rivets in other dimpled areas, but not when you expect a series of holes to be fuel and vapor proof. To insure the shop head of the rivet has a good chance of completely sealing off its dimple, I personally think it is a good idea to use a slightly longer rivet than as called out in the plans. And even then, if the rivet is even slightly off center...no way is the rivet going to completely seal off 100% of that dimple's diameter and render that ? length of the hole absolutely fuel proof. Granted, it is not strictly necessary to use a longer rivet than called out because of the forgiving nature of proseal. I just like to allow myself every advantage when I can. In the end, the only way to make that hole completely fuel proof is PROPER application of proseal and that includes shop head encapsulation which is very important. Apparently, your quickbuild tanks lacked that shop head encapsulation. This occurred, despite Van's own written instructions directing the standard kit builder to "apply a dab of sealer to the rivets."

If what has once been said here is true (I forget who said it) and Van's does not require its vendor to (in effect) add additional time and labor cost to the construction of its pre-made fuel tanks by requiring shop head encapsulation....the tanks merely have to pass a pressure test, I have to openly wonder why a standard kit builder is expected to do things one way and its vendor in another. Some months ago, I reworked a Piper Cherokee fuel tank. Upon opening it up, as expected the shops heads of the fuel tank rivets were properly covered in sealer. For whatever reasons, your quickbuild fuel tank rivets clearly are not. It is plausible...even convenient to opine that some unknown contaminant from the painting process may be causing the paint blisters but I just don't buy into that theory.

Still, I must add that my pet theory about shop head encapsulation is in and of itself no silver bullet. Proseal cannot do its job perfectly if not applied correctly and that includes making certain that mating surfaces having been properly prepared, cleaned and fay sealed. Omit this essential step and you may well create another problem. For instance, fuel will take advantage of any migration path between a rib and skin if any voids exist in the fay sealed boundary between the parts and much like a leaky roof on one side of a house can cause water to drip from the ceiling in another part of the house, you might end up discovering a leak and then drive yourself nuts trying to find its source. If a void in the proseal between the parts does exist, then the last remaining defense is the barrier of sealer that is suppose to be underneath the manufactured head of the rivet which is located in the second ? length portion of the hole.

I have, in effect discussed links in a chain.....hole quality, length of rivets, and properly set rivets neither undershot nor overshot. Proseal should be applied under the rivet's manufactured head, inside the hole, between the mating parts, and finally dabbed on the shop head. If all these things if were done correctly all the time by everybody everywhere, I believe the paint blistering problem would magically disappear.
 
Last edited:
The latest theory from Van's is it is caused by some contamination at the rivets from the painting process. The reason the blisters occur only at the fuel tank rivets is the gas created by this contamination can not escape into the fuel tank because the rivets are sealed with pro seal and it lifts the paint instead.


And what research has Vans performed to support such an unlikely hypothesis. None, I'll wager.

If what has once been said here is true (I forget who said it) and Van's does not require its vendor to (in effect) add additional time and labor cost to the construction of its pre-made fuel tanks by requiring shop head encapsulation....the tanks merely have to pass a pressure test, I have to openly wonder why a standard kit builder is expected to do things one way and its vendor in another. Some months ago, I reworked a Piper Cherokee fuel tank. Upon opening it up, as expected the shops heads of the fuel tank rivets were properly covered in sealer. For whatever reasons, your quickbuild fuel tank rivets clearly are not. It is plausible...even convenient to opine that some unknown contaminant from the painting process may be causing the paint blisters but I just don't buy into that theory.

Rick, once again you've hit the nail squarely on the head.

In reality some RV builders have reported that they have QB tanks with shop heads encapsulated....and others have reported that their shop heads are NOT encapsulated. It certainly suggests that the tank subcontractor feels free to make up the fabrication process as he goes along....that there are no firm QA protocols enforced by Vans. As long as the tank passes the final pressure test all is OK.

A number of years ago I specifically asked Vans for a copy of their written specification for subcontract powdercoating and was totally amazed when they said they didn't have one...and in addition they were sourcing their powdercoating from more than one subcontractor. My years in manufacturing tell me that procuring subcontract services on price without a written specification is a sure recipe for getting batches of substandard components.

And that might be doubly true when you are talking about getting very critical fuel sealing operations performed in a tropical third world country with consistently extreme humidity.

As a company Vans has some strong points....but subcontract quality control is obviously not one of them.
 
Last edited:
I personally feel that Van's theory is quite plausible. I do have a question for those with the bubbles. Have any bubbles occurred along the aft baffle rivets or along the inboard or outboard ribs? None of these rivets is exposed to fuel, so this could rule out fuel leakage and non-encapsulated rivets as being the issue.
 
I personally feel that Van's theory is quite plausible. I do have a question for those with the bubbles. Have any bubbles occurred along the aft baffle rivets or along the inboard or outboard ribs? None of these rivets is exposed to fuel, so this could rule out fuel leakage and non-encapsulated rivets as being the issue.

Hi Steve, you might like to refer to Rick Galati's answer to this same question (post #97) on the following VansAirforce thread (to which you were a participant) http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=10187&highlight=rivet+blisters+fuel

Others who have not read that thread but who are interested in this topic might also like to take a peek so that we are not covering old ground.
 
I personally feel that Van's theory is quite plausible. I do have a question for those with the bubbles. Have any bubbles occurred along the aft baffle rivets or along the inboard or outboard ribs? None of these rivets is exposed to fuel, so this could rule out fuel leakage and non-encapsulated rivets as being the issue.

Most of the blisters on my tanks are along the aft baffle rivets. There are a few along the internal ribs. There are no blisters along the inboard and outboard ribs. There are no blisters anywhere on the aircraft where there is no pro seal.
 
Last edited:
Most of the blisters on my tanks are along the aft baffle rivets. There are a few along the internal ribs. There are no blisters along the inboard and outboard ribs.

Post #28 reports a similiar condition.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=10187&highlight=rivet+blisters+fuel&page=2

There are no blisters anywhere on the aircraft where there is no pro seal.
You go on to comment that no blisters are found where there is no proseal. I do not find that surprising because no (slight) amount of naturally occuring pressurization exists anywhere else on the aircraft either. To some degree, a fuel tank is a natural pressure vessel. Many more builders over the years have reported "weeping" rivets. Perhaps the significant difference between a "weeping" rivet and a paint blister is the quality, type and integrity of the painted surface.
 
Last edited: