Gelcoat repair

On Nov 19, 12:46*pm, Scott Alexander
wrote:
Anybody ever use PolyLux?

I've used a bunch of their 670 primer and their 300 gloss topcoat. The
primer was pretty good but nothing special. I really liked the 300
series, though; it sprayed on nice with a cheapie Harbor Freight
touchup gun and 1.4mm nozzle. Their gelcoat for molded parts was
pretty good, too.

The issue I had in dealing with PolyLux is that they're a small
company with little web presence. I haven't worked with them lately,
but when I last did there was no catalog of products on the web, and
when I needed information I had to actually phone them up. Also, I'd
sometimes call and find that what I wanted wasn't in stock and
wouldn't be batched for several weeks.

Thanks, Bob K.
www.hpaircraft.com

On Nov 19, 1:46*pm, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Nov 19, 12:46*pm, Scott Alexander
wrote:

Anybody ever use PolyLux?

I've used a bunch of their 670 primer and their 300 gloss topcoat. The
primer was pretty good but nothing special. I really liked the 300
series, though; it sprayed on nice with a cheapie Harbor Freight
touchup gun and 1.4mm nozzle. Their gelcoat for molded parts was
pretty good, too.

The issue I had in dealing with PolyLux is that they're a small
company with little web presence. I haven't worked with them lately,
but when I last did there was no catalog of products on the web, and
when I needed information I had to actually phone them up. Also, I'd
sometimes call and find that what I wanted wasn't in stock and
wouldn't be batched for several weeks.

Thanks, Bob K.www.hpaircraft.com

I use a standard gun with Prestec also, but thin with a slow or medium
lacquer thinner. Dupont 3602S is my favorite. The slow thinner lets
the finish to flatten out so there's a lot less orange peel. Another
trick is to just fog on the first coat and allow it to tack so that
the following coats don't run off. I run the paint on the thin side
and use multiple lighter coats that tack slightly between coats to
build up a flat finish, sometimes as many as 5 or 6 coats. If I have
concerns about pot life while spraying I'll store the gun in the
fridge between coats. If you're blending into an existing finish
extend the spray area a little each time so the thickness tapers out
onto the existing gelcoat. At the end of spraying you can fog the
feathered edge with thinner only to get it to flatten out.

Craig

On Nov 19, 6:20*pm, Craig wrote:
On Nov 19, 1:46*pm, Bob Kuykendall wrote:





On Nov 19, 12:46*pm, Scott Alexander
wrote:

Anybody ever use PolyLux?

I've used a bunch of their 670 primer and their 300 gloss topcoat. The
primer was pretty good but nothing special. I really liked the 300
series, though; it sprayed on nice with a cheapie Harbor Freight
touchup gun and 1.4mm nozzle. Their gelcoat for molded parts was
pretty good, too.

The issue I had in dealing with PolyLux is that they're a small
company with little web presence. I haven't worked with them lately,
but when I last did there was no catalog of products on the web, and
when I needed information I had to actually phone them up. Also, I'd
sometimes call and find that what I wanted wasn't in stock and
wouldn't be batched for several weeks.

Thanks, Bob K.www.hpaircraft.com

I use a standard gun with Prestec also, but thin with a slow or medium
lacquer thinner. Dupont 3602S is my favorite. *The slow thinner lets
the finish to flatten out so there's a lot less orange peel. *Another
trick is to just fog on the first coat and allow it to tack so that
the following coats don't run off. *I run the paint on the thin side
and use multiple lighter coats that tack slightly between coats to
build up a flat finish, sometimes as many as 5 or 6 coats. *If I have
concerns about pot life while spraying I'll store the gun in the
fridge between coats. *If you're blending into an existing finish
extend the spray area a little each time so the thickness tapers out
onto the existing gelcoat. *At the end of spraying you can fog the
feathered edge with thinner only to get it to flatten out.

Craig- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Std HVLP gun with 1.8 nozzle for Prestec. Note that excess thinning
can increase porisity in finished coats which ain't so good.
UH

..
Jim, please help me be sure I understand this:

The way I read the text of 43.1, it states that part 43 does or does
not apply to a certain aircraft depending on the type of airworthiness
certificate issued for _that particular aircraft_.

But the way you are describing your interpretation, you seem to be
saying that 43.1 says that part 43 applies or does not apply to _all
aircraft of a particular type_ depending on whether or not the
manufacturer has obtained type certification for that aircraft type.
Do I understand your interpretation correctly?



Thanks, Bob K.


Bob - I left out the word "previously" when I copied 43.1 - but it
doesn't really change anything, it still means the same. Let's read it
again:

43.1applicability reads "This part does not apply to any aircraft for
which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate, unless (here's
the fun part) the FAA has PREVIOUSLY issued a different kind of
certificate for THAT aircraft [Amend #39, eff. 01 SEP 2004].

If your glider was a U.S. TC'd model with a US standard or "other
special airworthiness certificate" issued and you somehow got an
special airworthiness - experimental certificate for it later, well
then part 43 does apply to you... that is - a U.S. Standard
Airworthiness Certificate (I should have been more clear in my earlier
message).

Now, the other important word I re-typed in all caps is the word THAT.
In this instance the rule means THAT aircraft right there - not that
make, model or series aircraft. This is how the rule actually works.
We've actually had applicants in my FSDO apply for an experimental
certificate for their very modified Cessna 180 for the purpose of
exhibition and racing. If I recall correctly, we sent them over to the
MIDO and they got an experimental for R&D instead, but I may be
thinking of a different deal involving a PA-12, in any case, part 43
still applied to THAT airplane - not all PA-12's or C-180's.

Some gliders are TC'd in other countries, but not in the US (pre-1993
moratorium issue here) but the 43.1 rule does not apply in this case,
because it does not have, nor ever had - a US Airworthiness
Certificate of any kind (there are a few kinds actually). So the
Nimbus can be experimental and part 43 does not apply (unless the Ops
Limitations specifically make it apply - that's yet another story).

A couple of other examples: The PW-5 first came over as experimental,
part 43 does not apply to THOSE original experimental PW-5s because
they were born in Poland, exported to the US and never had a US
airworthiness certificate. Later, PZL obtained US type certification
for the PW-5 and they had standard US airworthiness certs issued to
them and voila part 43 now applies to just those TC'd serial numbers
that came in after the TC was issued.

I believe the 304 was the same thing, originally they all came in
experimental. Then they got a TC for the the 304, and if you bought a
new 304 that was eligible for type certification in the US, you get a
standard airworthiness for it, and part 43 would apply. Or maybe you
want to get an experimental for it, if you can get an experimental
certificate for a foreign built glider after a US TC has been issued -
more power to ya. But I would be surprised if you did.

Now, if you somehow talked an FAA inspector into giving you an
experimental for YOUR TC'd and PREVIOUSLY standard airworthiness 304,
then part 43 would still apply to your glider **that had a previously
issued standard airworthiness**. The only reason someone would get an
experimental for a previouslt standard glider would be to get out of
the annual inspection by and IA requirement, but 43 still applies in
that case, so no joy.

So, your understanding of the rule is correct - we're just boring the
hell out of RAS with this academic discussion is all. This really is
academic because I've personally never seen this applied in the case
of a glider; I believe the rule exists only to keep the aircraft that
are temporarily in experimental R&D or Exp. Show Compliance under part
43 while they fly off the test flight requirements.

I'm not allowed to interpret the rules, so it's only my view, if you
want a real interpretation, you have to ask the professionals in DC,
you can find the link to ask FAA legal a question like this on www.faa.gov.
You can also read the FAA Order 8130.2, I think rev. G is now current
- but it's damned boring reading;-) and like I said before - it's
never really been an issue for any glider I've ever known, just those
crazy power pilots!!

Sorry if I mislead you earlier,

Jim

On Nov 19, 6:09*pm, Nimbob wrote:

Bob - I left out the word "previously" when I copied 43.1 - but it
doesn't really change anything, it still means the same. Let's read it
again...

Jim, thanks for taking the time to clarify, I do appreciate it!

Bob K.

On Nov 19, 6:09*pm, Nimbob wrote:


So, your understanding of the rule is correct - we're just boring the
hell out of RAS with this academic discussion is all. This really is
academic because I've personally never seen this applied in the case
of a glider; I believe the rule exists only to keep the aircraft that
are temporarily in experimental R&D or Exp. Show Compliance under part
43 while they fly off the test flight requirements.

Sorry if I mislead you earlier,

Jim

Jim/Bob
This is NOT boring for me. It is a subject near and dear to my
heart. When I bought my 'Experimental' glider, I had no idea of the
ramifications. Knowing what I know now (or believe), I will NEVER own
a TC'd glider.
Your discussion has clarified/confirmed the conclusion another LVVSA
member came to after hours of research.
Many Thanks!

On Nov 20, 8:33*am, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
On Nov 19, 6:09*pm, Nimbob wrote:



So, your understanding of the rule is correct - we're just boring the
hell out of RAS with this academic discussion is all. This really is
academic because I've personally never seen this applied in the case
of a glider; I believe the rule exists only to keep the aircraft that
are temporarily in experimental R&D or Exp. Show Compliance under part
43 while they fly off the test flight requirements.

Sorry if I mislead you earlier,

Jim

Jim/Bob
*This is NOT boring for me. *It is a subject near and dear to my
heart. *When I bought my 'Experimental' glider, I had no idea of the
ramifications. *Knowing what I know now (or believe), I will NEVER own
a TC'd glider.
*Your discussion has clarified/confirmed the conclusion another LVVSA
member came to after hours of research.
Many Thanks!

I have to echo this as well. I find RAS vastly informative AND
entertaining! I also will never own a TC'd glider (again). When the
HP-24 is done the plan is for her to be my retirement ship. I'll be
able to do all the work myself and stay as far away from the local A&I
as I can. Of course I have friends who are A&P's and I will always
have a second pair of eyes to look the ship over.

Brad

On a subject mentioned earlier in this thread, I believe you can
register a TC'ed glider as Experimental. My basis for this conclusion
is that many ASW-27s are registered Experimental despite being TC'ed.
Also, I once had an LS-3 that was registered Experimental despite being
TC'ed.




Brad wrote:
On Nov 20, 8:33 am, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
On Nov 19, 6:09 pm, Nimbob wrote:



So, your understanding of the rule is correct - we're just boring the
hell out of RAS with this academic discussion is all. This really is
academic because I've personally never seen this applied in the case
of a glider; I believe the rule exists only to keep the aircraft that
are temporarily in experimental R&D or Exp. Show Compliance under part
43 while they fly off the test flight requirements.
Sorry if I mislead you earlier,
Jim
Jim/Bob
This is NOT boring for me. It is a subject near and dear to my
heart. When I bought my 'Experimental' glider, I had no idea of the
ramifications. Knowing what I know now (or believe), I will NEVER own
a TC'd glider.
Your discussion has clarified/confirmed the conclusion another LVVSA
member came to after hours of research.
Many Thanks!

I have to echo this as well. I find RAS vastly informative AND
entertaining! I also will never own a TC'd glider (again). When the
HP-24 is done the plan is for her to be my retirement ship. I'll be
able to do all the work myself and stay as far away from the local A&I
as I can. Of course I have friends who are A&P's and I will always
have a second pair of eyes to look the ship over.

Brad

I just talked with Suzy out there to order some paint.....now I can't
find the phone number that I wrote down. And, I can't find PolyLux
anywhere on the internet. Must be a small company.

Anybody got the phone number to PolyLux?

On Nov 20, 2:00*pm, Greg Arnold wrote:
On a subject mentioned earlier in this thread, I believe you can
register a TC'ed glider as Experimental. *My basis for this conclusion
is that many ASW-27s are registered Experimental despite being TC'ed.
Also, I once had an LS-3 that was registered Experimental despite being
TC'ed.



Brad wrote:
On Nov 20, 8:33 am, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
On Nov 19, 6:09 pm, Nimbob wrote:

So, your understanding of the rule is correct - we're just boring the
hell out of RAS with this academic discussion is all. This really is
academic because I've personally never seen this applied in the case
of a glider; I believe the rule exists only to keep the aircraft that
are temporarily in experimental R&D or Exp. Show Compliance under part
43 while they fly off the test flight requirements.
Sorry if I mislead you earlier,
Jim
Jim/Bob
*This is NOT boring for me. *It is a subject near and dear to my
heart. *When I bought my 'Experimental' glider, I had no idea of the
ramifications. *Knowing what I know now (or believe), I will NEVER own
a TC'd glider.
*Your discussion has clarified/confirmed the conclusion another LVVSA
member came to after hours of research.
Many Thanks!

I have to echo this as well. I find RAS vastly informative AND
entertaining! I also will never own a TC'd glider (again). When the
HP-24 is done the plan is for her to be my retirement ship. I'll be
able to do all the work myself and stay as far away from the local A&I
as I can. Of course I have friends who are A&P's and I will always
have a second pair of eyes to look the ship over.

Brad- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My '27, originally licensed Std , is now Ex.
UH