Paint Blister Poll

Trying to see if we can help to identify the cause of the paint blisters.

PLEASE REMEMBER THE TANK REAR BAFFLE IS PART OF THE AREA EXPOSED TO FUEL.

You can vote for more than one.

Thanks for adding info to the pool.

You might think of adding a bullet "I have no blisters".....

Not sure why we have choices for anything other than tanks.

Kahuna said:

Not sure why we have choices for anything other than tanks.

Click to expand...

Just to be totally sure of the cause.

If a bunch of folks check the "porseal, no fuel" choice, then we know that it is the proseal itself (at least partially) causing the issue.

All just data points.

Ironflight said:

You might think of adding a bullet "I have no blisters".....

Click to expand...

Dont think it is necessary, the poll is titled "If you have ----"

I agree with Paul.

For example, what if 80% of the a/c with the variations you are polling don't have blisters? That would tell you that the root cause may be something else?

While the sampling may never be able to reach the entire RV fleet, it would be nice to attempt to understand what percentage of the fleet is impacted by blistering.

The population on VAF is probably a large enough sampling to produce significantly interesting data.

Since I really want this solved

I thought I would post what I think is other relevant data:

1) I have blisters on the top of my tanks only, and entire rivet lines not just a few random rivets.

2) My tanks were slow built and leak tested with air, no leaks for 3 days. All shop heads of the rivets and rib/skin seams are sealed with proseal (ie, I probably OVER did it).

3) I flew my plane over a year or 150 hours before paint.

4) The tanks were completed in a HOT hangar in Texas about 3 years before painting.

5) I used the pro seal from Van's

6) I used the special tank dimple dies available from Cleaveland that dimples the holes a little deeper to account for the proseal

7) My painter sanded and filled all rivets on the top of the plane to give it a composite look (see pic below)

8) paint on the tanks is Jet-Glo Matterhorn white, clear coat on top of that. Unsure about primer.

9) It took about 8 months (and a HOT summer) post painting for the first blisters to show up

10) I have never had any leaking from the fuel tanks top or bottom, nor any liquid at all after popping at least 20 of the blisters.

11) I am uncertain about what solvent was used to clean the surface or the type of paint thinner used in the paint

rleffler said:

I agree with Paul.

For example, what if 80% of the a/c with the variations you are polling don't have blisters? That would tell you that the root cause may be something else?

While the sampling may never be able to reach the entire RV fleet, it would be nice to attempt to understand what percentage of the fleet is impacted by blistering.

The population on VAF is probably a large enough sampling to produce significantly interesting data.

Click to expand...

Bob, not to be argumentative, but I dont see the value of collecting that info.

We are trying to determine the common factors in planes with the blisters.

The planes without blisters would be just "noise" in this data set.

Make me understand the value of collecting that data, and I will be happy to add the choice.

I suspect it might be a better thing to collect data on if you have a blister or not, all by itself in a new poll, than adding this info into the above poll.

Mike S said:

Bob, not to be argumentative, but I dont see the value of collecting that info.

planes without blisters would be just "noise" in this data set.

Make me understand the value of collecting that data, and I will be happy to add the choice.

I suspect it might be a better thing to collect data on if you have a blister or not, all by itself in a new poll, than adding this info into the above poll.

Click to expand...

I don't have blisters (yet) since I'm not flying nor is my a/c painted, so my interest in this may not be as engaged as others. However, nobody has been able to demostrate to Van's the percentage of the fleet that is impacted. The larger the percentage, the more likely you'll be able to better engage Van's in getting some engineering assistance.

Van's sometimes pleads ignorance when individuals call with issues stating it's the first time they've heard about the problem. However, if you can substantiate that x% of the fleet is impacted, that will get attention. It may very well turn out to be more process orientated as oppose to anything Van's did, but I think it they understood how large a population is impacted you would get some assistance from them in identification of the root cause.

Also, take this example:

100 RVs sampled

2% proseal w/ no fuel and blisters
98% proseal w/ no blisters

What conclusion would you assume? It would only lead you to question what are the 2% doing that the 98% aren't. Are they following a different process? Are they using the same proseal? Are they using the same solvents for cleaning? If the majority aren't expeiencing blisters, then what is causing the problem?

You could do this with each of your poll options. At this point there is no definitive root cause that has enough statistical data to prove it's the only cause. We have a lot of very intelligent hunches and/or suspecions. If you only look at the 2%, you may be led to make a bad assumption.

I don't mean to be argumenative either, but I think you are just scrating the tip of the iceberg with the data points you are collecting. With that said, I'll crawl back into my hole and be quiet.

You are right, but it is a different issue.

rleffler said:

I don't mean to be argumentative either, but I think you are just scratching the tip of the iceberg with the data points you are collecting. With that said, I'll crawl back into my hole and be quiet.

Click to expand...

NO, dont do that.

Your input is just as valid as anybody, far as I am concerned.

I totally agree with you that we have a better chance of getting help from MotherShip if there is a high % of painted planes with blisters.

This is a two edged sword however, and may very well be for slicing our own throats, because if only a statistically small % of the total fleet has the problem, then Vans position ----not going to deal with it----is supported.

I still think that in an effort to determine the cause of the blisters, that %age of the total fleet with blisters is not a relevant data point, and does not need to be collected.

rleffler said:

...nobody has been able to demostrate to Van's the percentage of the fleet that is impacted. The larger the percentage, the more likely you'll be able to better engage Van's in getting some engineering assistance.

Click to expand...

Mike's poll directly addresses two key points in the position currently taken at Vans Aircraft.

First, they have claimed to be aware of only a few aircraft with a blister problem (I think 6 was the number). The basic poll question (total of all responses) is "do you have blisters?".

Second, Vans places the blame on paint prep solvents blocked from migration out the backside of the panel by the proseal. The poll breaks down the location and substrate under blisters; proseal w/fuel, proseal wo/fuel, no proseal, and no rivet or proseal.

Please, just answer the questions.....and remember, we already have two running threads for discussion of the problem.

blisters on rivet lines of tanks of qb.rv10 n661g robert b

Mike and Dan, you have addressed my question well - you don't need to hear from those of us without blisters right now!

(And since we have a relatively new set of QB -3 wings in the hangar right now, I am interested in the results!)

Thanks to those who

Voted.

So far, 100% of the blisters seem to be in the fuel tanks.

Just as Kahuna said

But, only 14 of you out there have blisters???

48 hours, now 19 reports. Excellent.

The weekend is here.....check your airplane and report, please.

Thread bump, keeping it at the top. Please report.

BTW, one of our members has done an intial review of blister discussion threads and counted 27 different builders. Think about the usual ratio of posters to lurkers, folks who for whatever reason never post.