Fabric covering

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

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

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

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.

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?

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

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

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

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.

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