doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

Jim,

first, welcome to the forum. I hope you'll enjoy many informative hours here as I have.

I feel I should start with mentioning that there is no denying the quality of Ralph's finish - regardless of what paint he used. In my experience, paint is a pretty fickle thing. I have found that there is not one type of paint that is better than another for our application but rather, different types of paint require different finishing approaches. Different types of paint are better for different stages of the finish (e.g., polyester primers, lacquer BC and urethane CC). Also, each type of paint comes in a myriad of qualities and this affects one's performance vastly.

Ralph is using high quality automotive lacquer. While one may consider lacquer to be poor due to its low filling properties, one may also consider it superior for the same reason. The fact is, lacquer goes on very thin which is a great aspect if one is wanting to control weight. The fact that it requires multiple layers in order to cover well, is also in my opinion not a deterrent. Why? Because lacquer flashes off almost instantly. Only 10 minutes or so are required between coats and that is usually less time than it takes to simply switch paint colors let alone cleaning a gun. By the time I am finished with shooting one thin coat, I am often ready for a little 3 min break to breathe some fresh air out of my mask. In short, for all intensive purposes, lacquer is instantaneous for me.

I have to agree that lacquer requires a more dexterous hand in ones finishing abilities as it needs more prep and patience. However, this is less than when using automotive quality waterborne paint which is now mandatory in the US in auto applications. In short, the thinner the paint, the harder it is to apply and control if one is not careful getting things right. But this same thinness is what allows us to produce flat light finishes. In my opinion, these types of paint are superior to enamels which require much longer flash times between coats and go on thick. I prefer urethanes over enamels (partly because they are often catalyzed, fuel proof and do not deteriorate like epoxies or enamels) but these also usually require long cure times.

The tack coat, single base coat of colour in base coat application is more typical of enamels and urethanes but this approach doesn't allow one to control weight as well nor depth of coverage.

This can all be done with lacquer as well and in fact, auto base coat can and has often been lacquer type paint. PPG and DuPont make auto paint in waterborne, lacquer and urethane so it is hard to assess what type of paint you were using by just saying auto paint. The lacquer Ralph used is auto paint. The thing with thick (or high pigment) paints (tack coat, single cover coat), is that one does not know without ample application experience how much weight is being added by the paint. If a minor imperfection arises in the cover coat, one cannot fix it without applying another high pigment coat that, at the very least, needs to be feathered in if not full coverage. With lacquer or water borne, that is not the case. A slight mist coat localized in the imperfection, melds in without a trace at virtually no weight penalty.

While lacquer does allow one to complete the clear coat (CC) the same day it is applied (as it often has a flash off half life of ~1 hour), I find that it is typically not the way I like to proceed. I find it helpful to leave some time between color coats and CC as I can consider my paint job the next day, add any final touches or details that I wish including decals and/or trim tape and then proceed with CC when I'm positive the job is done. Knowing Ralph's building style and habits, I suspect he has a similar view on this. Of course, as can be seen in the thread, the job is not done yet and CC remains to go on in the Spring.

This is one of the nice thing about using auto paint regardless of type. NAPA and the like can produce colors from scans much like Home Depot does for wall paint. My local NAPA can produce matching paint using DuPont Chromax water borne and even put it in a compressed rattle can that sprays with an HVLP gun action (German technology). While expensive (even though the cans are reusable), this allows one to have one's different color paint ready for shooting from a can at any time without any need to clean and swap paint color in a gun. This paint can also be one part (1K) or two part (2K catalyzed) urethane paint but I intend to use Chromax on my next paint job. Bob Hunt raves about it.

In summary, I feel that different types of paint require a different application approach and care but personally, I feel the trend is toward multiple thin coat water borne applications. Barring that, in my experience, lacquer is what comes closest to that. Paints like urethanes and epoxies apply very easily and cover fast but also have their disadvantages. Naturally, water borne paint is very low toxicity and cleans up with, well, water... Unfortunately, while we continue to build classics with piped 60's, we will continue to depend on high toxicity acrylic catalyzed urethanes for the CC top coat. The stuff will get into your system unless fully protected head to toe.

As a side comment, I finished a Tipo fairly recently with a mix of enamel, lacquer, and urethane with no ill results (in avatar). In order for lacquer to go over enamel (a no-no recipe) without ill effects, some prep is required but it can be done. Of the three paint types, the one I liked the most was the 2K CC acrylic urethane but only because of what it does. For color paint, I wouldn't want to use urethane.

David

niteman

Hi Jim,

Do you recall what the brand and type of paint was that you used ?

Thanks

Jim Johns

niteman,

It's been 15 or so years since I painted with it, but if memory serves me correctly it was PPG Deltron 2000 1K basecoat and 2K catalyzed clear. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, we have retired and moved 900 mles away and are curretly cleaning out our old house to put on the market. During that cleanout, the old PPG paint was sent to hazardous waste recycling, so there's no way to know for sure.

Jim

doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

Jim,

PPG Deltron 2000 is 1K reducible urethane paint (probably polyester rather than acrylic based but would have to check). As mentioned above, urethanes shoot very easily compared to lacquers or water borne paint so I can understand your preference for this type of paint. The polyester urethanes also cover extremely well and are "buttery" when dry compared to lacquers which are "dusty". Because it is not catalyzed, it requires the 2K CC in order to fuel proof it just like lacquer and water borne. It really comes down to each persons preference as to what type of paint one uses as a base coat/color coat.

PPG is nice paint but they don't give it away. Then again, DuPont Chromax isn't like stopping for a milkshake either...

David

niteman

Thanks Jim and David for the clarification. No paint expert by any means was just curious.......

Dan

Jim Johns

David,

I was just offering an alternative based on my experience. You are definitely right on both counts. The urethane is definitely easier for a novice like me to shoot, but they sure don't give it away!

doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

Absolutely Jim.

I thought I'd praise the qualities of lacquer when used with patience and available time. Many professionals such as Dave Guerin use PPG urethanes so there is nothing wrong with them (lots right with them in fact). I find specific paint types can be better suited to different substrates too. For instance, I like "light" paint types on balsa sheeted foam and glassed wings and stabs while I may go for a thicker "heavier" paint such as urethanes on a glass fuse; especially if the fuse is "soft" and doesn't have formers inside to keep it's shape (e.g., the Tipo).

If you find yourself wanting to paint a smallish project such as a 25 or 40 size model, you might want to give lacquer another try. Once you get it right, you will really like it. You just need to spend more time on the prep than on the paint itself. I find that 3-4 passes of primer/wet sand cycles are sometimes needed depending on the surface.

David

proparc

RG,
I posted pictures of your plane over at my Control Line Stunt site. As you may know, we are one of the last groups that have an appearance points and a B.O.M. rule,"builder of the model" rule as part of our program. As such, as far as I am concerned, your craftmanship and style, would fit right in our control line stunt circles. Attached, are pictures of our own Matt Colan's, latest CL stunt ship. As you can see, your UFO would get top marks in our world!!

Jim Johns

You probably won't believe this because I don't! While I was cleaning the basement today, I came across what I think is a fiberglass Joe Bridi UFO that I bought at a local auction years ago. Take a look and tell me what you think.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_11364603/tm.htm

R_G

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks for the kind words proparc! That is a very cool stunter! Love the colors!

Every once in a while I think about building another CL Stunt model. Years ago I started on a Steve Buso Kestrel that I was planning on bashing into a semi scale Extra 300 in Patty Wagstaff colors. I got the stab and elevators done then I went astray. Also have a set of Oriental wing ribs that I cut out about that same time. Might have to get back to one of those at some point.

Can you PM the link for your CL site to me? Wouldn't mind checking it out.

RG

R_G

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks very much Jim! I appreciate the kind words!

RG

pitstop000

My Feedback: (26)

Hey Ralph, did you notice some of the pics are gone? !!

EscapeFlyer

My Feedback: (1)

Yes it is!!! Cool!
Brian

stuntflyr

Hi Ralph,
Here is a link to Stunthangar.com.

http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php...4876dca79ae1f;

Chris...

R_G

My Feedback: (1)

No I didn't, Paul! This site SUCKS! [>:] When I continue with this thread it will be on [link=http://www.rcgroups.com/classic-pattern-flying-722/]RC Groups[/link]. I'm done with this place! [>:] It's become painfully clear that the IT people here have no friggin' clue what they are doing! Idiots! [>:]

RG

Even the damn smileys don't work!

R_G

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks Chris!

RG

doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

It's a real shame that such a fine thread and building reference is irreversibly damaged by incompetence. The problem appears to be pervasive throughout the site. Half my threads are all broken too as are everybody else's.

Without the accompanying images, it is often hard to follow what is being said in a given post. I hope management reads this and comes to realize its time to shape up or close shop. No point in running a site like this if it is unreliable on multiple fronts.

Ralph, I am sorry this has happened to such a fine document and reference. I appreciate how much effort and diligence was required on your part to develop it.

David

Roguedog

Did anyone notice that the ads always work whether or not the rest of the site works (forums)

Their priority is for the Ads only of late. I think the Management has forgot that it's the forum posters that enable it to make advertising money.

Not ot compare a hobby to a sport but can you imagine what baseball fans would think if the management decided that they didn't need to fix the bathrooms and maintain stairs or it all the seats were removed or it they just decided to stop providing water.

In our case It's those that view, participate, and provide content that makes RCU work.

R_G

My Feedback: (1)

I just went through every page of this thread and of the 968+ photos that were posted ONLY 10 REMAIN!!!! I am so PISSED right now! This thread is basically useless without the photos! I also checked rainedave's [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_4017336/anchors_4017336/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#4017336]UFO thread[/link] and 8178's [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_3973867/anchors_3973867/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#3973867]Blue Angel thread[/link] and in both threads practically every photo is gone! I'm sure most other threads are the same way.

This is absolutely inexcusable! I agree with David that this site needs to be shut down! The current, so called IT people need to be tossed out on their incompetent ears and this placed needs to be re-coded from the ground up by COMPETENT PEOPLE on a dedicated server. The current managers should also be given the boot and be replaced by people that actually care about how this place operates!

FIX THE DAMN SITE ALREADY YOU MORONS!!!!!!!!!!

RG

Taurus Flyer

Ralph,

Just as with the foam cutter supply I think you underestimate the complexity of the situation.


Cees

doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

10 pictures.

Outrageous...

As I said, irreversibly damaged.

'nough said.

David

8178

My Feedback: (17)

Ralph,

It is pretty sickening considering the countless hours we spent doing the threads. For FREE yet!!! I will not use RCU again for anything that is important. It would be different if this was just a onetime thing that RCU would fix, but we’ve been fighting this for years. The other site works flawlessly, so why would we want to keep fighting the RCU mess.

Mike

You know where to find me!

ehsanmorshedi

It's very disapointing to see the photos are gone. specially the ones of threads which are not only a build thread but also a classroom that just in case taught me how to precisely build a plane. the threads from the ones who influenced my dexterity in buiding a plane and gave me the sense of proud while people in the flying field asked me where did you buy this bird and I just answered I myself built it.
Ehsan

Taurus Flyer

Mike, because you respond at my post.
I prefer a dialogue accepted in a thread, a process of respond and comments, a nearly real time process of communicating of builder and observers trying to reach a higher level. In such a case the lost of the thread isn't a problem, maybe only for a small amount of later readers that missed the boat.

Generating perfect threads, (spending countless hours as you write) and the wish to have these stored for many years is not realistic. Also the deviations of the real models, I myself find these far too exaggerated, sometimes even misleading, to be educative for classic pattern flying. (Was the Taurus called a trainer several times, your Skylark 56 seems to be accepted!)

In my thread about the R & R o.d. Oldest (successfull) Taurus on Earth the time I spended was mainly used for R and D, the free benefit of RCUniverse was my possibility to reach a great amount of interested readers of the neighbourhood/environment my history was based on.

If (the pictures of) the threads are really lost, (which still isn't sure right now) I have my backups to present the whole research again in any form I want. Important for me is, the story was there and could be read in a period it was popular. interesting was to experience the way a selected group of you responded on my efforts!

So, for me it's no problem at all and the future will be ours, modeling only can be more interesting.


Hanna and Cees

Old School Pattern

Obviously you haven't had a Great build on here! To the guys who have, I feel for you. ( Like R_G, Doxilia, Roguedog and many others ) I have since moved my building thread to another site because other people like to learn the craft of building model aircraft and the pride and work that goes into it and not to be that person who just doesn't have the time to extend a hand to the guy that needs to refine his skills just a bit, but take their building to a new level by reading threads like these on RCU and actually seeing it also. I think that is what this sport is suppose to be about also.( Not just the building and flying, but the the friendships made along the way and passing along ideas to each other.) It took me many years to finish planes to how I thought they were supposed to turn out for the finished product I wanted and if along the way someone would ask me for advise I would try to help as much as possible for those people to reach their goals too. The importance of a nicely finished aircraft is the for the builder and the builder alone to say, Okay I'm happy with what I have achieved and I'm proud that I have done it alone with a little help from guys who truly enjoy the RC Sport of any kind. JUST MY OPINION! That's all I have to say about that!
Don