UV Smooth Prime

[Doug Palmer]

OK the rumors about UVSP have me paranoid now. I know some folks have had
nightmarish problems with this product but I am hopeing that there are some
success stories out there as well as it is still on the market. I have been
using UVSP on my project during the build and now extensively during
painting. I use it as the exclusive primer and have been spraying Imron
5000 over the top, no sealer or additional primer. I have been doing it
this way as this is how, when I started using the product 4-5 years ago,
polyfiber said it could be used. Reading Polyfibers website, they NOW
reccommend a epoxy primer over the UVSP, and they reccommend a 3 week dry
time, using a dehumidifier! The underside was painted four years or more
ago and so far I have had no problems with blistering, flaking, or fadeing
but I have not had the plane out in the sun for any extended periods. It is
also an amphibian so I have some parts sitting in water, so far no problems.

Soooo, my question is what are others experiences with UVSP, How did you use
it? How long have you had the paint in service? If you had problems, how
long did it take them to manifest themselves? Do you have any theories why
you had a problem?

If you have used it successfully Please fill us in, some positive stories
are welcome too!

Thanks

[Kyle Boatright]

"Doug Palmer" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> OK the rumors about UVSP have me paranoid now. I know some folks have had
> nightmarish problems with this product but I am hopeing that there are
> some success stories out there as well as it is still on the market. I
> have been using UVSP on my project during the build and now extensively
> during painting. I use it as the exclusive primer and have been spraying
> Imron 5000 over the top, no sealer or additional primer. I have been
> doing it this way as this is how, when I started using the product 4-5
> years ago, polyfiber said it could be used. Reading Polyfibers website,
> they NOW reccommend a epoxy primer over the UVSP, and they reccommend a 3
> week dry time, using a dehumidifier! The underside was painted four years
> or more ago and so far I have had no problems with blistering, flaking, or
> fadeing but I have not had the plane out in the sun for any extended
> periods. It is also an amphibian so I have some parts sitting in water,
> so far no problems.
>
> Soooo, my question is what are others experiences with UVSP, How did you
> use it? How long have you had the paint in service? If you had problems,
> how long did it take them to manifest themselves? Do you have any
> theories why you had a problem?
>
> If you have used it successfully Please fill us in, some positive stories
> are welcome too!
>
> Thanks

I used it on the cowl and a few other fiberglass parts on my RV-6. I assure
you there wasn't a 3 week cure time or a dehumidifier involved in the drying
process.

So far so good, and my airplane has been flying for 5.5 years. The cowling
was painted 6 years ago or more.

In the RV world, lots of people have had success with the product and a few
have had miserable experiences with no obvious explanation.

KB

[Dave S]

We've got smooth prime on our Velocity but its not to first flight, and
is hangared.. so we have no "wear" experience personally to relate.

The story I've heard (which has the weight of hearsay, since I dont have
any references to back it up) is that the "system" (primer and topcoat)
was what people had problems with, and that the system was discontinued,
with only the Smooth prime remaining on the market as a filling primer
(water soluble).

Unless you are on the coast, the dehumidifier is likely overkill, but
being able to let it dry fully in a protected environment is a must.

If you are problem free at this point, you are likely out of the woods.

Doug Palmer wrote:
> OK the rumors about UVSP have me paranoid now. I know some folks have had
> nightmarish problems with this product but I am hopeing that there are some
> success stories out there as well as it is still on the market. I have been
> using UVSP on my project during the build and now extensively during
> painting. I use it as the exclusive primer and have been spraying Imron
> 5000 over the top, no sealer or additional primer. I have been doing it
> this way as this is how, when I started using the product 4-5 years ago,
> polyfiber said it could be used. Reading Polyfibers website, they NOW
> reccommend a epoxy primer over the UVSP, and they reccommend a 3 week dry
> time, using a dehumidifier! The underside was painted four years or more
> ago and so far I have had no problems with blistering, flaking, or fadeing
> but I have not had the plane out in the sun for any extended periods. It is
> also an amphibian so I have some parts sitting in water, so far no problems.
>
> Soooo, my question is what are others experiences with UVSP, How did you use
> it? How long have you had the paint in service? If you had problems, how
> long did it take them to manifest themselves? Do you have any theories why
> you had a problem?
>
> If you have used it successfully Please fill us in, some positive stories
> are welcome too!
>
> Thanks
>
>

[Dennis Johnson]

I helped my friend paint his airplane. We primed with UV Smooth Prime,
applying enough coats to adequately fill minor imperfections after sanding.
The primer cured for months in a mostly dry climate while he worked on other
parts of the airplane. For the final paint, we first sprayed an Imron
sealer coat, followed by Imron (2000?), a single stage top coat.

He's been flying for a few years and the paint has held up fine. He won an
award at Oshkosh.

Good luck,
Dennis Johnson

[abripl]

I applied UVSP on my composite in 2003 and toped it with PPG Acrylic
Urethane. No problem so far. My guess is that the combo of UVSP with
the same company Top Gloss had problems.
--------------------------------------------------------------
SQ200 canard http://www.abri.com/sq2000

[abripl]

Rich,

Do you have data for anyone else using Acrylic Enamel top coats and
failing. There is got to be some chemistry here. Humidity? Lets see...
"the famous" failure case I know was in the humid east coast place. Is
the humidity a factor? In SD here humidity is low - especially in a
heated winter garage.

Richard Riley wrote:
> On 13 Nov 2006 20:47:35 -0800, "abripl" > wrote:
>
> >I applied UVSP on my composite in 2003 and toped it with PPG Acrylic
> >Urethane. No problem so far. My guess is that the combo of UVSP with
> >the same company Top Gloss had problems.
>
> There are many reports of UVSP having problems under other top coats
> as well. I personally know of failures (bubbles filled with ooze)
> under Sterling LP, Imron and Chromasystems topcoats. It looks to be
> about a 15-25% failure rate.

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

abripl wrote:

> ... Humidity? Lets see... "the famous" failure case I know was in
> the humid east coast place. Is the humidity a factor? In SD here
> humidity is low - especially in a heated winter garage.

At least one failure of SP under non-TG topcoat was a COZY owner in
Phoenix. Humidity probably was not a factor.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2006

[Wallace Berry]

In article >,
Richard Riley > wrote:

> On 13 Nov 2006 20:47:35 -0800, "abripl" > wrote:
>
> >I applied UVSP on my composite in 2003 and toped it with PPG Acrylic
> >Urethane. No problem so far. My guess is that the combo of UVSP with
> >the same company Top Gloss had problems.
>
> There are many reports of UVSP having problems under other top coats
> as well. I personally know of failures (bubbles filled with ooze)
> under Sterling LP, Imron and Chromasystems topcoats. It looks to be
> about a 15-25% failure rate.

I saw a "bubbles filled with ooze" failure of Amerflint (like Imron I
think) over whatever was sold to us as the correct primer at the auto
paint store. This was on both the glass nose, cloth, and metal parts of
a 2-33. I think humidity was definitely a factor since we were painting
the bird in a mostly open garage on a rainy day.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Richard Riley" > wrote

> My Long
> EZ had acrylic enamel over an unknown dark grey primer (circa 1989, it
> wasn't lacquer based but I'm not sure what it was) - when I went to
> strip the paint the topcoat peeled off in large sheets, it hadn't
> bonded to the primer at all. I don't know what the failure was, it
> might have been either the primer or the topcoat. So I'm strictly a
> Linear Polyurethane guy now, from primer through clearcoat.

I suspect the problem was that of the primer, not of the topcoats.

Ever notice(d) what the 1987 and 88 (and perhaps 89) automobiles with light blue
and gray paint did? Most, if not all had the paint peeling off in sheets or
fading all of the way off, without starting to strip them. You may have not
noticed that, but I did. I had one of the automobiles that had said light blue
paint. I would stand there (usually at the gas pump while I was doing nothing
else) and peel off silver dollar sized sheets of topcoat with my fingernail.
There was a recall that I did not take advantage of, (because I was a
contractor, with 7 people depending on my van being there with the tools
everyday) until it was too late, and had expired. Expired? Ridiculous. That
sort of thing should never expire. I still have not forgiven GM for that one.

I was told that the problem started while the paint companies were trying to
meet new regulations for the amount of volatiles in the paint, and the new
formulas did not have adequate UV resistance, which would cause the bond between
topcoat and primer to break down. The light gray and blue topcoats were the
worst at letting UV through, I guess. I don't know for sure if that was the real
answer, but there was a real problem. Perhaps that was a common link with your
problem.
--
Jim in NC

[.Blueskies.]

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
:
:
: I suspect the problem was that of the primer, not of the topcoats.
:
: Ever notice(d) what the 1987 and 88 (and perhaps 89) automobiles with light blue
: and gray paint did? Most, if not all had the paint peeling off in sheets or
: fading all of the way off, without starting to strip them. You may have not
: noticed that, but I did. I had one of the automobiles that had said light blue
: paint. I would stand there (usually at the gas pump while I was doing nothing
: else) and peel off silver dollar sized sheets of topcoat with my fingernail.
: There was a recall that I did not take advantage of, (because I was a
: contractor, with 7 people depending on my van being there with the tools
: everyday) until it was too late, and had expired. Expired? Ridiculous. That
: sort of thing should never expire. I still have not forgiven GM for that one.
:
: I was told that the problem started while the paint companies were trying to
: meet new regulations for the amount of volatiles in the paint, and the new
: formulas did not have adequate UV resistance, which would cause the bond between
: topcoat and primer to break down. The light gray and blue topcoats were the
: worst at letting UV through, I guess. I don't know for sure if that was the real
: answer, but there was a real problem. Perhaps that was a common link with your
: problem.
: --
: Jim in NC


My '85 Bronco II was charcoal colored, and the paint came off. It was really bad on the Fords...

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> :
> :
> : I suspect the problem was that of the primer, not of the topcoats.
> :
> : Ever notice(d) what the 1987 and 88 (and perhaps 89) automobiles with
> light blue
> : and gray paint did? Most, if not all had the paint peeling off in
> sheets or
> : fading all of the way off, without starting to strip them.
<...>

That problem seems to come and go. I first saw it in the 60's with light
blue metallics. I've seen it on several brands of vehicles. Light blue and
grey metallics seem to have been the worst over the years.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote

> That problem seems to come and go. I first saw it in the 60's with light blue
> metallics. I've seen it on several brands of vehicles. Light blue and grey
> metallics seem to have been the worst over the years.

I had no idea that the problem had been present in such a wide span of years. I
especially am surprised to hear the 85 vehicles were part of the mid 80's
problem.

I think I'll stay away from gray and light blue, from now on! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jim Stewart" > wrote

> I had a Ford Taurus that did the exact
> same thing. Along with the garbage auto
> transmission, I haven't forgiven Ford
> either.

I have a feeling that all of the big three transmissions are little more than
junk.

I grew up with automatic transmissions, and never remember them breaking, even
with high mileage vehicles.

It seems like they design them to go 90 to 110 thousand miles, then they are
prone to require rebuilding, at any time.

IMHO, they ought to go at least 200 thousand without a glitch. They could build
them that way, for a few dollars more, but that does not seem to be the
priority.

> I was told that the reason it happened is
> that Ford purposely omitted the primer and
> put the color coat directly on the sheetmetal.

That was not the case with my GM van. There was definitely gray primer under
the light blue paint. I know, because I sanded it down, to bare metal. I was
afraid that the primer was part of the problem, and if any was left, it would
cause the problem, again. Let me tell you, there is a lot of surface area on a
full sized van!

I primed it, and painted it with a NAPA one step white fleet color paint (no
clear coat) and it has not had a problem since.

I learned a lot with that job. One, I hate body work, and sanding. <g> Spray
technique learned in painting and clear coating cabinetry carries through, to an
extent, but there are big differences that would likely carry through to
painting an airplane.

The biggest problem, I thought, was dealing with keeping that big of a wet line.
By the time you get all around the vehicle, how do you deal with the point where
you have already painted, and the overspray? I did it by putting on a quick
masking at the seam of the hood, so it did not get overspray from the last paint
getting on the first paint. I don't know if that is right, but it worked for
me.

It seems to me that an airplane would be harder, since there are less seams, and
it has to be painted on the bottom, also. How do people deal with blending the
top to the bottom, or do they rotate them, and paint from the front to the back,
all the way around, rotating as they go?
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Stewart]

Morgans wrote:

>
> "Richard Riley" > wrote
>
>> My Long
>> EZ had acrylic enamel over an unknown dark grey primer (circa 1989, it
>> wasn't lacquer based but I'm not sure what it was) - when I went to
>> strip the paint the topcoat peeled off in large sheets, it hadn't
>> bonded to the primer at all. I don't know what the failure was, it
>> might have been either the primer or the topcoat. So I'm strictly a
>> Linear Polyurethane guy now, from primer through clearcoat.
>
>
> I suspect the problem was that of the primer, not of the topcoats.
>
> Ever notice(d) what the 1987 and 88 (and perhaps 89) automobiles with
> light blue and gray paint did? Most, if not all had the paint peeling
> off in sheets or fading all of the way off, without starting to strip
> them. You may have not noticed that, but I did. I had one of the
> automobiles that had said light blue paint. I would stand there
> (usually at the gas pump while I was doing nothing else) and peel off
> silver dollar sized sheets of topcoat with my fingernail. There was a
> recall that I did not take advantage of, (because I was a contractor,
> with 7 people depending on my van being there with the tools everyday)
> until it was too late, and had expired. Expired? Ridiculous. That
> sort of thing should never expire. I still have not forgiven GM for
> that one.

I had a Ford Taurus that did the exact
same thing. Along with the garbage auto
transmission, I haven't forgiven Ford
either.

> I was told that the problem started while the paint companies were
> trying to meet new regulations for the amount of volatiles in the paint,
> and the new formulas did not have adequate UV resistance, which would
> cause the bond between topcoat and primer to break down. The light gray
> and blue topcoats were the worst at letting UV through, I guess. I don't
> know for sure if that was the real answer, but there was a real
> problem. Perhaps that was a common link with your problem.

I was told that the reason it happened is
that Ford purposely omitted the primer and
put the color coat directly on the sheetmetal.

[Doug Palmer]

I would be curious to research when the folks who have had problems with the
UVSP bought their primer, as well as where it was purchased. What I'm
getting at is I wonder if Polyfiber put out a "bad batch" or two and these
peeling, oozing cases are of the same lot. Of those of you out there who
have had issues could you give an estimate of when the product was
purchased, and Who the vendor was. Just a thought...
Doug

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Doug Palmer wrote:

> ..... Of those of you out there who
> have had issues could you give an estimate of when the product was
> purchased, and Who the vendor was. Just a thought...

2001/2002 from Aircraft Spruce.

Let me ask you a question. Since there are a bazillion different
primers out there, and the ONLY one that anyone has ever complained
about in public with respect to painting composite aircraft is Smooth
Prime, even if the failure rate is relatively low (let's say 5% as a
talking point, although I personally know 5-7 COZY builders who've had
problems with it, so in the COZY community the %age is probably closer
to 10%-20%), why would you want to use a product where the failure
rate is 5% rather than one where the failure rate is 0.01%?

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2006

[Doug Palmer]

It isn't so much an issue of wanting to use so much as I have been using it
to prime surfaces over the last 5 years, the whole fuselage is primed, now
painted with the stuff, and I have two more (expensive) cans of the it and
am deciding whether or not to use them
"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote in message
...
> 2001/2002 from Aircraft Spruce.
>
> Let me ask you a question. Since there are a bazillion different primers
> out there, and the ONLY one that anyone has ever complained about in
> public with respect to painting composite aircraft is Smooth Prime, even
> if the failure rate is relatively low (let's say 5% as a talking point,
> although I personally know 5-7 COZY builders who've had problems with it,
> so in the COZY community the %age is probably closer to 10%-20%), why
> would you want to use a product where the failure rate is 5% rather than
> one where the failure rate is 0.01%?
>
> --
> Marc J. Zeitlin
> http://www.cozybuilders.org/
> Copyright (c) 2006

[Kyle Boatright]

"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote in message
...
> Doug Palmer wrote:
>
>> ..... Of those of you out there who
>> have had issues could you give an estimate of when the product was
>> purchased, and Who the vendor was. Just a thought...
>
> 2001/2002 from Aircraft Spruce.
>
> Let me ask you a question. Since there are a bazillion different primers
> out there, and the ONLY one that anyone has ever complained about in
> public with respect to painting composite aircraft is Smooth Prime, even
> if the failure rate is relatively low (let's say 5% as a talking point,
> although I personally know 5-7 COZY builders who've had problems with it,
> so in the COZY community the %age is probably closer to 10%-20%), why
> would you want to use a product where the failure rate is 5% rather than
> one where the failure rate is 0.01%?
>
> --
> Marc J. Zeitlin
> http://www.cozybuilders.org/
> Copyright (c) 2006

I agree wholeheartedly about using a reliable system, which would push me
away from SmoothPrime on future projects. I wish there was another system
that filled pinholes as effectively as SmoothPrime. Also, being waterborne
and roller applicable sure is nice.

We've seen failures in the RV community too. I wonder if some people are not
properly mixing the material, or are applying it during periods when the
temperature or humidity levels are having a negative impact on the
polymerization. (It does claim to polymerize, doesn't it?)

KB

[Doug Palmer]

If I were doing it again, I would go with a high end brand, either Dupont or
PPG, and stick with the same product line across the board: filling primer,
primer/sealer, basecoat, Colors, clears, surface cleaner, tack rags,
reducers. It would save a lot of heartache and worry and it would not cost
that much more. The true cost of painting is all of the time spent
prepping, It will suck if I need to repair bad paint in the future.

Doug