David-aviator
Well Known Member
( BTW, all of the early instances I can remember all had wet fuel within the blister so it is obvious what the cause was).
That's a negative on that statement, Scott.
From the very beginning (2003-04) of examining this problem there was not a single reference to fuel in any of the blisters reported with this problem. They are dry, all of them. People who have had fuel in the blisters know what is causing it, they do not report here.
OK - if the culprit isn't inadequate workmanship, what is?
In the very early years of RV building, builders had a different attitude than since the introduction of matched drilled kits. They were more diligent because they had to be. Jigs were necessary and attention to detail was mandatory. The "dry" tank blisters are occurring on newer kit airplanes that are much easier to build. Building a good fuel tank requires some attention to detail unlike most of the rest of the machine where parts fit together perfectly.
OK - so a pro fuel tank builder had it happen. Maybe he slacked off a bit and did not get the aft baffle properly sealed. Seems like at least half the problem tanks are QB's by contract paid workers. We know for a fact some of those tanks were assembled way below average first time builder standards with little or not rivet encapsulation and with open seams between ribs and skin.
I submit, in the absence of convincing science pointing to product deficiency of incompatibility, the problem most likely is inadequate workmanship, especially at the aft baffle.
But as you say, it has happened to some very good builders. So I can understand your arriving at a different conclusion regarding the matter. The dry blisters are indeed an interesting mystery.