Why would fuel leaks turn Proseal into a gooey mess, as described? It IS supposed to seal the fuel in after all.
Erich
The Fuel tank repair looks great!
Would have been a great time to do the Service Bulletin
http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb06-2-23.pdf
Why would fuel leaks turn Proseal into a gooey mess, as described?
I recently had to have my left tank resealed due to a very similar problem - I made the same decision re: the SB. I openly disclose that in the For Sale posting I have for my RV-6 and it may be affecting resale value - no one seems to call back after reading the spec sheet.I can live without it if need be as the general consensus is that's a lawyer contrived CYA SB anyway. With my luck, the tank will probably leak and I'll have to go back in anyway...
My real dilemma is whether or not to just replace the standard cork gasket on the access plate and the standard rubber on the sender per plans or do something different. On my existing setup, the rubber gasket for the sender seems to mushroom out when I tighten the screws and the screws never seem to be really tight. An A&P friend suggested that no lubricant be placed on the this rubber seal as it weakens the gasket.
There has been some discussion in the past about proseal softening when exposed to fuel and an oxygen source, as would be the case in a slow seeping leak. It was covered in the great tank rivet blister debate some years ago.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=366342&postcount=260
You can count me amongst the true belivers after seeing the gooey mess on my tank.
MC
MC
Hey Chris, I'm on airplane number 2 with no gaskets for either the access plate or sensing unit - just pro-seal. When we removed the sending unit the other day, it took about five minutes to get it off the pro-seal after taking the screws out. No leaks - ever.
I had the same problem with the mushrooming gasket when I tried it the first time on my -8. Others said "no gaskets", so I tossed them in a box and never looked back....
Paul
I can live without it if need be as the general consensus is that's a lawyer contrived CYA SB anyway.
David,
I don't think it was a bad batch of sealant or mis-mixed sealant. The proseal around the screws and parts of the cover plate that were not leaking were normal. Where the fuel had been leaking and where it had pooled around the bottom of the tank the proseal was goo. I can't imagine that the guy that built the plane used 2 different batches of proseal in random areas of the tank cover plate.
MC
I let the proseal cure and tested, no leaks! This weekend we reinstalled the tank. Pulling and reinstalling the tank was no big deal. I originally thought it would be. It made it much easier get to everything and do a neat job and properly test the tank. There is just so little room to work with the tank still on the wing. I'm not saying that you could not do it with the tank on the wing, just that it made things much easier with the tank off. Especially with the gooey mess I had to deal with. TJ (my wife) is a teacher and spring break starts next weekend. Time to plan a trip somewhere. We are probably going to go up to Columbus and watch Team RV perform again, but that's just a day trip. Any other ideas?
MC
I think the rivet blister thing is a whole different issue and that the jury is still out on that one......What I came away with from that thread was that some QB tanks built in or around 2005 had the issue.
Dan,
So was there ever "generally agreed upon" cause?
Mardy
Dan, So was there ever "generally agreed upon" cause?
Mardy