Fabric covering

[William Hung[_2_]]

What are the choices out there?
What are the pros and cons of each?
What is your recommendation?
Which are easier for the applicator?
Cost comparisons?

I hope to get some responses, I'll also check the archive while I wait
for the responses.

Thanks to all who respond.

Wil

[Scott[_1_]]

Some choices:
Ceconite, Stits, Grade A cotton, razorback (fiberglass) and Randolph.

Stits is pretty easy and they have demonstrations at Oshkosh.
Randolph, I believe, has a water-based system.
Grade A cotton...was used on the old ships such as the Cessna 140,
Taylorcraft, etc., so no STC required, but STCs are probably available
for any modern system such as Stits, etc, so probably not the best
choice as it doesn't have the lifetime like the synthetics such as Stits
and Ceconite. (Of course, the STC would only be required for a
certified plane)...Razorback...probably quite durable, but I would
suspect heavy...

Scott



William Hung wrote:
> What are the choices out there?
> What are the pros and cons of each?
> What is your recommendation?
> Which are easier for the applicator?
> Cost comparisons?
>
> I hope to get some responses, I'll also check the archive while I wait
> for the responses.
>
> Thanks to all who respond.
>
> Wil

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Scott" > wrote in message
.. .
<...>
> Grade A cotton...was used on the old ships such as the Cessna 140,
> Taylorcraft, etc., so no STC required, but STCs are probably available for
> any modern system such as Stits, etc, so probably not the best choice as it
> doesn't have the lifetime like the synthetics
<...>
I used to have some fabric samples lying around from an old glider than had
spent years and years sitting outside in Texas...

The Cotton would crumble if you weren't careful how you handled it. The
Dacron still seemed to be just fine...

--
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.

[cavalamb himself[_2_]]

Scott wrote:

> William Hung wrote:
>
>> What are the choices out there?
>> What are the pros and cons of each?
>> What is your recommendation?
>> Which are easier for the applicator?
>> Cost comparisons?
>>
>> I hope to get some responses, I'll also check the archive while I wait
>> for the responses.
>>
>> Thanks to all who respond.
>>
>> Wil
>
>
> Some choices:
> Ceconite, Stits, Grade A cotton, razorback (fiberglass) and Randolph.
>
> Stits is pretty easy and they have demonstrations at Oshkosh.
> Randolph, I believe, has a water-based system.
> Grade A cotton...was used on the old ships such as the Cessna 140,
> Taylorcraft, etc., so no STC required, but STCs are probably available
> for any modern system such as Stits, etc, so probably not the best
> choice as it doesn't have the lifetime like the synthetics such as Stits
> and Ceconite. (Of course, the STC would only be required for a
> certified plane)...Razorback...probably quite durable, but I would
> suspect heavy...
>
> Scott
>
>

I haven't heard of a water based system from Randolph.
But they do have a traditional nitrate/buteyrate dope system
http://www.randolphaircraft.com/

Ins't Blue River a water based system?
http://www.bluerivercoatings.com/faq.htm

[Scott[_1_]]

Not sure. I do remember ONE of the systems out there to be water-based.
You could be right! I pulled Randolph out of my a$$ as I forgot about
Blue River...

Scott


cavalamb himself wrote:

>>
>>
>
> I haven't heard of a water based system from Randolph.
> But they do have a traditional nitrate/buteyrate dope system
> http://www.randolphaircraft.com/
>
> Ins't Blue River a water based system?
> http://www.bluerivercoatings.com/faq.htm

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

[[email protected]]

> cavalamb himself wrote:
>
> > I haven't heard of a water based system from Randolph.
> > But they do have a traditional nitrate/buteyrate dope system
> >http://www.randolphaircraft.com/
>
> > Ins't Blue River a water based system?
> >http://www.bluerivercoatings.com/faq.htm

Blue River doesn't make aircraft finishes anymore. It was a
terrible product. My uncle used it on a Champ, and the airplane ended
up way overweight and the fabric would stretch and sag on cool, damp
days. Apparently this was all too common.
And I am, at the moment, recovering a Citabria that had the Blue
River stuff on it. The finish was cracking and peeling something
awful, the tapes were lifting, and the airplane was overweight. The
fabric and finish were only ten years old. There's no way at all I
would ever use any water-based system until I've seen it work very
well on other people's airplanes and survive the weather for some
time. I've seen and heard of too many wasted cover jobs.
Stits is now known as Poly-Fiber. It's also owned by the same
people who own Randolph. Go to http://www.conaircraft.com/
Be careful. When you buy an STC'd covering system to use on a
certified airplane, you must use the entire system to stay legal.
Can't, for instance, put Imron topcoat over Poly-Fiber fabric and base
cover coats. Of course, a homebuilder can do anything he wants, but
some folks have been disappointed at the results when mixed systems
don't work well together. And some, like Steve Wittman, have had
catastrophic failures in flight.
Dan

[[email protected]]

On Feb 9, 1:17*pm, cavalamb himself > wrote:
> I haven't heard of a water based system from Randolph.
> But they do have a traditional nitrate/buteyrate dope systemhttp://www.randolphaircraft.com/
>
> Ins't Blue River a water based system?http://www.bluerivercoatings.com/faq..htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey Richard didn't you do stits poly fiber on your TP? About what did
that cost?

[cavalamb himself[_2_]]

wrote:

> On Feb 9, 1:17 pm, cavalamb himself > wrote:
>
>>I haven't heard of a water based system from Randolph.
>>But they do have a traditional nitrate/buteyrate dope systemhttp://www.randolphaircraft.com/
>>
>>Ins't Blue River a water based system?http://www.bluerivercoatings.com/faq.htm- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Hey Richard didn't you do stits poly fiber on your TP? About what did
> that cost?


More than I'll admit.
Weighed more too.

But it sure looks nice

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
wrote:

> > cavalamb himself wrote:
> >
> > > I haven't heard of a water based system from Randolph.
> > > But they do have a traditional nitrate/buteyrate dope system
> > >http://www.randolphaircraft.com/
> >
> > > Ins't Blue River a water based system?
> > >http://www.bluerivercoatings.com/faq.htm
>
> Blue River doesn't make aircraft finishes anymore. It was a
> terrible product. My uncle used it on a Champ, and the airplane ended
> up way overweight and the fabric would stretch and sag on cool, damp
> days. Apparently this was all too common.
> And I am, at the moment, recovering a Citabria that had the Blue
> River stuff on it. The finish was cracking and peeling something
> awful, the tapes were lifting, and the airplane was overweight. The
> fabric and finish were only ten years old. There's no way at all I
> would ever use any water-based system until I've seen it work very
> well on other people's airplanes and survive the weather for some
> time. I've seen and heard of too many wasted cover jobs.
> Stits is now known as Poly-Fiber. It's also owned by the same
> people who own Randolph. Go to http://www.conaircraft.com/

I bumped into Ray Stits a couple weeks ago, and spent about 15 minutes
talking with him before I figured out who he was.

He appears to still be involved with aircraft covering systems and
supporting products.

[[email protected]]

> > Hey Richard didn't you do stits poly fiber on your TP? About what did
> > that cost?
>
> More than I'll admit.
> Weighed more too.
>
> But it sure looks nice

Do you guys post when you do TP get-togethers at Zuehl?

AUS isn't far away, I'd like to show up sometime to check them out,
take some pictures of one or even two, talk about building them. If I
could just get my flying club to let me land down there ...

[[email protected]]

On Feb 10, 7:59 am, "Skrud" > wrote:
> What about SuperFlite? Same Dacron, but no silver coats. Certified, Sean
> Tucker uses it.
>
> Any direct experience out there? Was going to use it on my soon-to-be
> Skybolt.

We have a newer Citabria with Superflite on it. American
Champion used it when the airplane was built in '96, and have since
gone away from it, they tell me. I don't know why, but I will tell you
that it seems obscenely expensive. I had to buy enough to make a small
repair on the aft fuselage after the tailpost broke and was repaired,
and the materials came to $900. I do have some left over, but I bought
the smallest quantities I could. I think you'd want to compare the
overall costs between it and some of the other systems before you buy.

Dan

[cavalamb himself[_2_]]

wrote:
>>>Hey Richard didn't you do stits poly fiber on your TP? About what did
>>>that cost?
>>
>>More than I'll admit.
>>Weighed more too.
>>
>>But it sure looks nice
>
>
> Do you guys post when you do TP get-togethers at Zuehl?
>
> AUS isn't far away, I'd like to show up sometime to check them out,
> take some pictures of one or even two, talk about building them. If I
> could just get my flying club to let me land down there ...





Golly, guy, I moved out years ago.
Property Owners Association squabbles ruined the place.

Ego and Money and Lawsuits...

On the up side, 3000 feet of prime grass over asphault.


Sonny is still there.
East side on the south end.

If you taxi up and shut down by his gate he might come out
and visit.




Richard

[Michael[_1_]]

On Feb 10, 9:59*am, "Skrud" > wrote:
> What about SuperFlite? *Same Dacron, but no silver coats. *Certified, Sean
> Tucker uses it.
>
> Any direct experience out there? *Was going to use it on my soon-to-be
> Skybolt.

I redid a TriPacer in SuperFlite once. It is the process of choice
for the total amateur. There is no silver. There is no sanding. You
shoot three base coats of the brown stuff (the UV protectant - instead
of Aluminum flakes it is a chemical blocker) and then a topcoat (if
you want a topcoat).

It is a pain in the ass to repair - about like PolyGloss (the glossy
topcoat in Stits, what you see on all the Oshkosh champions - the non-
glossy topcoat is serviceable but not really very pretty) and harder
than anything else. Certainly much harder to repair than dope
(Randolph makes that these days).

The instruction manuals are not so great - not at all like the fine
book you get with Stits - but adequate.

I've been involved with dope and Stits repair and rework jobs too, and
I must say by comparison SuperFlite is easier to do and less work.
The finished product is airworthy and safe, but it's not as pretty as
a good glossy Stits job.

Michael

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article
>,
Michael > wrote:

> On Feb 10, 9:59*am, "Skrud" > wrote:
> > What about SuperFlite? *Same Dacron, but no silver coats. *Certified, Sean
> > Tucker uses it.
> >
> > Any direct experience out there? *Was going to use it on my soon-to-be
> > Skybolt.
>
> I redid a TriPacer in SuperFlite once. It is the process of choice
> for the total amateur. There is no silver. There is no sanding. You
> shoot three base coats of the brown stuff (the UV protectant - instead
> of Aluminum flakes it is a chemical blocker) and then a topcoat (if
> you want a topcoat).
>
> It is a pain in the ass to repair - about like PolyGloss (the glossy
> topcoat in Stits, what you see on all the Oshkosh champions - the non-
> glossy topcoat is serviceable but not really very pretty) and harder
> than anything else. Certainly much harder to repair than dope
> (Randolph makes that these days).
>
> The instruction manuals are not so great - not at all like the fine
> book you get with Stits - but adequate.
>
> I've been involved with dope and Stits repair and rework jobs too, and
> I must say by comparison SuperFlite is easier to do and less work.
> The finished product is airworthy and safe, but it's not as pretty as
> a good glossy Stits job.
>
> Michael

I wonder about the long-term viability of chemical UV blockers. don't
they sacrifice themselves to UV, rather than simply reflect the UV, as
aluminum powder does?

Just what is the objection to the use of aluminum dope, anyway? It is
easy to apply, easy to determine if you have sufficient coverage and
easy (with a lot of wet sanding) to get a good finish.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 12, 12:43*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *Michael > wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 9:59*am, "Skrud" > wrote:
> > > What about SuperFlite? *Same Dacron, but no silver coats. *Certified, Sean
> > > Tucker uses it.
>
> > > Any direct experience out there? *Was going to use it on my soon-to-be
> > > Skybolt.
>
> > I redid a TriPacer in SuperFlite once. *It is the process of choice
> > for the total amateur. *There is no silver. *There is no sanding. *You
> > shoot three base coats of the brown stuff (the UV protectant - instead
> > of Aluminum flakes it is a chemical blocker) and then a topcoat (if
> > you want a topcoat).
>
> > It is a pain in the ass to repair - about like PolyGloss (the glossy
> > topcoat in Stits, what you see on all the Oshkosh champions - the non-
> > glossy topcoat is serviceable but not really very pretty) and harder
> > than anything else. *Certainly much harder to repair than dope
> > (Randolph makes that these days).
>
> > The instruction manuals are not so great - not at all like the fine
> > book you get with Stits - but adequate.
>
> > I've been involved with dope and Stits repair and rework jobs too, and
> > I must say by comparison SuperFlite is easier to do and less work.
> > The finished product is airworthy and safe, but it's not as pretty as
> > a good glossy Stits job.
>
> > Michael
>
> I wonder about the long-term viability of chemical UV blockers. don't
> they sacrifice themselves to UV, rather than simply reflect the UV, as
> aluminum powder does?
>
> Just what is the objection to the use of aluminum dope, anyway? It is
> easy to apply, easy to determine if you have sufficient coverage and
> easy (with a lot of wet sanding) to get a good finish.
>
> --
> Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

How flammable is the chemical UV blocker?

How do processes that use the aluminum powder lower the fire risk?

I haven't heard of any fabric covered planes going down like the
Hindenburg, but the aluminum powder mix used in the Hindenburg's
covering paint was the main cause of it's destruction, it seems. Hmm.
That makes me think about the consequences of engine fires in small GA
aircraft covered with fabric. Is the pilot SOL at that point?

[[email protected]]

On Feb 12, 10:36 am, Michael >
wrote:
> I redid a TriPacer in SuperFlite once. It is the process of choice
> for the total amateur. There is no silver. There is no sanding. You
> shoot three base coats of the brown stuff (the UV protectant - instead
> of Aluminum flakes it is a chemical blocker)...

Their latest version of the stuff is called System VI and has a
white UV primer.

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Feb 12, 4:25 pm, wrote:

>
> How flammable is the chemical UV blocker?
>
> How do processes that use the aluminum powder lower the fire risk?
>
> I haven't heard of any fabric covered planes going down like the
> Hindenburg, but the aluminum powder mix used in the Hindenburg's
> covering paint was the main cause of it's destruction, it seems. Hmm.
> That makes me think about the consequences of engine fires in small GA
> aircraft covered with fabric. Is the pilot SOL at that point?

Aluminum isn't the problem; it's the flammable binders.
Early dopes were mostly cellulose nitrate and were rather explosively
flammable. Butyrate dopes fixed that somewhat but they still burn
merrily. Stits (Poly-Fiber) is self-extinguishing, being PVC
(polyvinyl chloride, or more commonly known as vinyl). The Stits
video shows a demonstration of the two being set afire; quite
convincing.

Dan

[Anthony W]

wrote:

> I haven't heard of any fabric covered planes going down like the
> Hindenburg, but the aluminum powder mix used in the Hindenburg's
> covering paint was the main cause of it's destruction, it seems.

The Hindenburg when up in flames because it was full of Hydrogen.

Tony

[Steve Hix]

In article <_jssj.6394$%q3.419@trndny07>,
Anthony W > wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > I haven't heard of any fabric covered planes going down like the
> > Hindenburg, but the aluminum powder mix used in the Hindenburg's
> > covering paint was the main cause of it's destruction, it seems.
>
> The Hindenburg when up in flames because it was full of Hydrogen.

You're both right.

The initial ignition source was a probably a spark that lit hydrogen in,
or leaking from, one or more of the lifting cells.

The visible fire and smoke, and the fuel for the worst part of the fire,
was the fabric covering.

It used a nitrate dope that included aluminum powder, and to make things
worse, the envelope was coated on the inside with iron oxide powder.
Chemical reaction between the dope and the fabric produced something
similar to solid rocket fuel.

A couple of U.S. Navy airships, using helium lifting gas, burned in
similar fashion in accidents; their fabric envelopes were also painted
with aluminum powder-containing nitrate dope.

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 9, 11:06*am, William Hung > wrote:
> What are the choices out there?
> What are the pros and cons of each?
> What is your recommendation?
> Which are easier for the applicator?
> Cost comparisons?
>
> I hope to get some responses, I'll also check the archive while I wait
> for the responses.
>
> Thanks to all who respond.
>
> Wil

A lot of very good comments. Keep it up guys, thank you.

Wil

[Michael[_1_]]

On Feb 12, 1:43*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> I wonder about the long-term viability of chemical UV blockers. don't
> they sacrifice themselves to UV, rather than simply reflect the UV, as
> aluminum powder does?

There is some truth to that (yes, some bonds are broken) but it's
irrelevant. The real problem is not the UV blocker but the binder
(cracking, ringworm) and the fabric (no blocker is 100% efficient, and
the fabric will eventually deteriorate). As it is, the problem is not
that the fabric doesn't last long enough - the problem is it lasts too
long. The metal and wood under the fabric were never meant to go
decades between inspection and repair even when new. You wouldn't
believe some of the things I saw in aircraft when we removed cover.

> Just what is the objection to the use of aluminum dope, anyway? It is
> easy to apply, easy to determine if you have sufficient coverage and
> easy (with a lot of wet sanding) to get a good finish.

The bit abut a lot of wet sanding is the objection. In every other
respect it is at least as good as the chemical blocker. An expert
(someone who does it all the time) can actually get a better finish
with aluminum dope than he can with Superflite - but someone who is
only going to cover one or two planes will not. And he will work a
lot harder and longer not to get it.

Michael

[Ron Wanttaja]

One of the guys on the Fly Baby mailing list used latex house paint atop Stits:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/latex.html

He used indoor latex primer, which has titanium dioxide, and he thought it might
have some UV resistance. In addition, he added a half-pound of aluminum powder
to the 1 gallon can of primer for extra UV protection.

The finished product:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/drew%20taxi.jpg

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/drew2.jpg

Ron Wanttaja

[Blueskies]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message ...
> One of the guys on the Fly Baby mailing list used latex house paint atop Stits:
>
> http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/latex.html
>
> He used indoor latex primer, which has titanium dioxide, and he thought it might
> have some UV resistance. In addition, he added a half-pound of aluminum powder
> to the 1 gallon can of primer for extra UV protection.
>
> The finished product:
>
> http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/drew%20taxi.jpg
>
> http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/drew2.jpg
>
> Ron Wanttaja

How did the weight come out? Anything to compare it to?

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:25:02 -0500, "Blueskies" >
wrote:

> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message ...
> > One of the guys on the Fly Baby mailing list used latex house paint atop Stits:
> >
> > http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/latex.html
> >
> > He used indoor latex primer, which has titanium dioxide, and he thought it might
> > have some UV resistance. In addition, he added a half-pound of aluminum powder
> > to the 1 gallon can of primer for extra UV protection.
> >
> > The finished product:
> >
> > http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/drew%20taxi.jpg
> >
> > http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/drew2.jpg
> >
> > Ron Wanttaja
>
> How did the weight come out? Anything to compare it to?

Strangely enough, yes: The plane had been previously flying, and Drew had to
rebuild it when a hangar collapsed on it.

The weight when newly-restored, with the latex paint, was 22 pounds *lighter*
than his last W&B eleven years ago.

The earlier iteration had a full pressure cowling, a canopy, and enamel over
Dacron. The rebuilt version has a lighter Cub-type open-cylinder cowl and open
cockpit. But the rebuilt version has bigger tires plus a battery, radio, and
transponder, too. My guess is that the weight of the fabric and paints are
probably pretty darn close.

You can find his rebuild story at:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fidoe_oldplane.html

Ron Wanttaja

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 14, 12:26*am, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:25:02 -0500, "Blueskies" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in messagenews:l046r39u92rdhkidbh873uidq7k8vnu9ic@4ax .com...
> > > One of the guys on the Fly Baby mailing list used latex house paint atop Stits:
>
> > >http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/latex.html
>
> > > He used indoor latex primer, which has titanium dioxide, and he thought it might
> > > have some UV resistance. *In addition, he added a half-pound of aluminum powder
> > > to the 1 gallon can of primer for extra UV protection.
>
> > > The finished product:
>
> > >http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/drew%20taxi.jpg
>
> > >http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/drew2.jpg
>
> > > Ron Wanttaja
>
> > How did the weight come out? Anything to compare it to?
>
> Strangely enough, yes: *The plane had been previously flying, and Drew had to
> rebuild it when a hangar collapsed on it.
>
> The weight when newly-restored, with the latex paint, was 22 pounds *lighter*
> than his last W&B eleven years ago.
>
> The earlier iteration had a full pressure cowling, a canopy, and enamel over
> Dacron. *The rebuilt version has a lighter Cub-type open-cylinder cowl and open
> cockpit. *But the rebuilt version has bigger tires plus a battery, radio, and
> transponder, too. *My guess is that the weight of the fabric and paints are
> probably pretty darn close.
>
> You can find his rebuild story at:
>
> http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fidoe_oldplane.html
>
> Ron Wanttaja- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I was about to ask the same question that BlueSkies did. I wonder how
it will fair/stand the test of time and the repeated vibrations of the
covering surface.

Wil

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:46:35 -0800 (PST), William Hung >
wrote:

> > > > He used indoor latex primer, which has titanium dioxide, and he thought it might
> > > > have some UV resistance. *In addition, he added a half-pound of aluminum powder
> > > > to the 1 gallon can of primer for extra UV protection.
>
> I was about to ask the same question that BlueSkies did. I wonder how
> it will fair/stand the test of time and the repeated vibrations of the
> covering surface.

Drew did some samples using different techniques years ago and put them in the
backyard to weather. So he's not too concerned about the sun or rain.

How well it withstands the vibration is something that remains to be seen.
Another Fly Baby up here repainted one horizontal stab painted after a repair,
and he hasn't had any cracking so far.

Ron Wanttaja

[Darrel Toepfer]

Yeah I kneaux its an old thread, but I've been out of the country for a
month and a half and its taking me awhile to get caughtup...

Scott > wrote:

> Randolph, I believe, has a water-based system.

Stewart Systems is water based:
http://www.aircraftfinishing.com/products.aspx?cid=1

Met him at Oshgosh, nice guy and a fantastic product, wished I'd met him
before I invested in Polyfiber...

Supposed to be getting another hanger "any day now" to complete the Pacer
project I started too long ago now...

Local airport hanger construction is currently 4 months behind schedule...