Stuntflyr,

I found out the hard way why you were told to make sure you got fresh rolls of Ultracote because it lose stickiness. The Miss Martha (pictured) was built around 2002 and covered with ultracote, nice looking plane. Had to get the wrinkles out of the wing two or three time a year. No real complaints, just the way this covering acts. 2010 - found that the covering had separated from the wing and the pink and yellow seam had come loose/seperated on both sides of the wing. Had problems with getting it to stick to itself (lost the stickiness). Took a lot of heat but I did get it to stay together. Flew the old girl in Arizona for two weekends. On the third weekend was coming out of a big loop, at about 4 o'clock those seams blew apart. A plane can't fly without wings so the Miss Martha is no more. Not trying to kick ultracote in the teeth, I think it's a ok covering but it does require maintenance (more than monokote IMO) and may need it more often as the years go by.

As for MonoKote. I haven't had a need to use the new stuff everyone is talk about, so I have no input. But the monokote covering (the old stuff) pictured on the Bob Marin ET 20 was done 23 years ago. I may have had to put heat to the wing three or four times to get wrinkles out or straighten the wing due to long hanger time and to patch those small holes you always get. Only had to touch the covering on the fuse three times due to mishaps. The Contender was built in 81 and went in during that year. The wing survived almost untouched (which I still have) and it still looks like it did in 81.

So until I use the new stuff, monokote will always be my number one covering. Once a person learns how to cover with monokote (maybe I'm talking about the old stuff), chance are they will use Monokote as their primary covering (JMO).

Ron