FrankRC1

My Feedback: (5)

Is min-wax fuel proof?

So-Low

[quote][/quo"1) They put a lot more work/ effoft into the finish of their aircraft, and hate to see an aircraft that looks almost as good (or AS good) as theirs with so much less work effort. And while we're at it, real warbirds are not made of fiberglass, either.te]

I know this is a old post but I gotta say it. real warbirds are not mde of Monokote either.

HEHEHE

G-Pete

make no difference....

you put primer and paint over it anyway - focus on fuel prove paints

happy landings
G-Pete

andernamen

My Feedback: (3)

I'm quite sure this plane has already been built and flown, so my comment may be a little late. The TF P-40 is a tough plane to fly at any weight. The lighter it is, the better chance of keeping it around a while. If you are looking just for something fun to fly, put monocote on it. If you really want to scale it out, then glassing is the only way to go. Put a bigger engine up front if you glass it. 1.20 4-stroke minimum.

Flak

My Feedback: (1)

The TF P-40 is NOT a trainer. I have flown them with Super Tiger 90 2 strokes and HP 61 2 stroke. You can't land a P-40 like a trainer, (slow). Keep the speed up and land it. I recommend the Robart econo retracts as they are beefy and can take a rough landing attempt by inexperienced pilots. In reference to finish, use an iron on covering if you just want something on the wood to go fly. However, if you want your P-40 to really look great, glass and paint are the only way to go. Sure, the "Real" 100% scale aircraft are made of metal, but we're building and flying models. Flite metal or other aluminum tape can also be a choice, but this is an involved and lengthy process. Best of luck to all of you and have a great summer of flying.

submikester

My Feedback: (6)

I've looked at a couple of processes for using non-epoxy finishing products for fiberglassing, they usually require more filler if I am not mistaken. I'm concerned with cracking due to flex in these fillers vs the more flexible nature of epoxy.

Maybe I'm wrong but that's just based on my observations. I hope I'm wrong, it appears that using the minwax finishes for fiberglassing would be much less expensive than an epoxy. I just don't want to spend all that time and then have cracks to deal with.

bigtim

My Feedback: (13)

hear are 2 examples of glassed models using Varathane Diamond water based polyurethane.
the Spitfire was primed with De-Rusto auto primer and painted with a few types of paints lustre coat being one, no filler was used before primer coats on the larger areas, exept for blending the accessorys like the wing blisters where it was needed.

the P-47 was also glassed with the diamond finish as well, very little spot filling exept where the sheeting was having some rippling, it was primed finished with warbirdcolors paints.

the trick with the WB poly is do at least 2 coats before you sand and trim the edges with 120, then a 3-4 more and you have a glass like finish to prime and paint,earlier in this thread it was posted that WB paints use mechanical bonding which is sanding between coats so the material has tooth,with the Varathane diamond if you apply the coats at around 1 hour intervals there is no sanding and the bond is a chemical one.
if you let the material dry more than a couple of hours then you need to let it dry a full 24hrs and then a light scuffing is required to cut the surface for adhesion.
as for flexability it is comparable to any epoxy product I have ever used, I have had no cracking of any surfaces on either plane so far.

jcflysrc

My Feedback: (50)

ARF=Monokote...Kit built, scale anything=fiberglass.

Monokote has some advantages over glass in some applications, and vice versa.

I like glass myself.

classic72

This is my first post and Im surprissed by the amount of knowledge you get from the forums.
Im taking the oportunity to post on this thread as I have a problem with paints.
I have fiberglassed the plane a TF DC-3 with solvent based polyurethane and after a few coats and dry sanding I applied a grey car primer. I also sand out most of it. Being ready to paint I chose the solarlac paints for my plane.
I apply the silver colour paint on the wing with brush and after 24 hrs of drying I decided to test the paint for the socalled proof. For my great surprise the paint is not proof even on simple alcohol.
Did I do anything wrong. Should I have used anything else together with the paint or after it dries? The mention a product as clearcoat but not sure what this is.
Any help would be great. This is my first kit and first glassing-painting project and Im allready over my head.

jeffk464

Paint has a dry time and a cure time, maybe you put alcohol on it before it had a chance to cure. One thing you might want to consider is going electric on your DC-3, I have heard that having one engine quit on that plane almost always means a crash.

crashproof

This is My TF GS P51. FG with Min-wax Poly crylic and painted then sealed with Polycrylic it has worked well, and is light only 21lbs with a DA 50 ready to rock. Good luck. Kevin.

classic72

thanks for your advice guys. BUT EVEN AFTER 3 days of the paint drying the problem persist it is comming off ith alcohol and byron fuel on. Does anybody worked with these paints before?
How do I fuel proof a paint that is not fuel proof?

crashproof

I don't let any fuel get to a paint job for 10 days to 2 wks. 3 Days is nothing. Let the paint dry atleast until you can not smell it when you hold it to your nose. Kevin.

classic72

Crassproof I will follow your advice, but are these paints fuel proof at the end of the day?

crashproof

I am no authority on paint and its resistance to fuel. It matters what type of fuel glo or gas. I run gas and acrylic paint if allowed to dry completely is very resistant to the small amount of residue that finds its way onto the surface. Glo fuel is another matter entirely and one I am not as familiar with. I am sure you can find others through a search on this site to help you with glo fuel resistance. Kevin.