As of this morning, January 17th, 2007 @ 6:30 AM Central standard time. The count is 10 use Monokote and 5 do not. Some people gave opinions about other methods without an opinion of Monokote or didn't give an opinion at all and their responses could not be used in the tally.

The oldest question, which came first, The chicken or the egg? Opps wrong forum.

I've seen a change in the way "monokote reacts lately, and I honestly believe there is a difference in the manufacture of the product.

for 31 years I've benn in the world of "shrink wrap", that clear plastic you find on "models", CD's, LP's, you get the idea. Over the years the method of manufacturing this hasn't really changed, but the materials from what they make the final product has.

This change has a lot to do with the EPA as to the chemicals used in the parent materials as well as the colors. Then again the cost of doing business is reflected in the product. Some purchasing agent buys what he thinks is the correct item from another supplier, and its close, but not the same. You end up with a product that has all the same charactoristics of what you were used to, but just doesn't work the same.

The material is mixed, heated and made into sheets by either casting or blowing a bubble. When it cools off in the sheets we get, the parent material, color, and adheasive are all in one sheet. When we heat it up, it relaxes back to its original pre-stretched format. No mystery here.

But with all different brand names, there is a difference as well, and when working monokote or ultrakote, you need to find the working envelope and stay within that to get a good finish.

The product has changed, maybe to meet EPA guidleines, or bottom line. The product works.

The biggest problem with any product change is the person that is using it. We want what we used to have, and stick to old habits. If one or ten people can get a good finish, we all can.

I have had a few rolls of bad monokote in the last few years. I can't remember the color, but it wouldn't go on for beans, wouldn't corner or anything. I ended up throwing all the rolls of it away. I was ticked at the time and we had a little frustration thread going, but since then, I haven't found any to be bad.

There are a lot that feel really strongly against it and some that feel really strongly for it. As stated by me and many others, use what you like and what works. When you come across a bad roll, you will know it. We all whine about the products we use at one point or another.

No, Monokote is not garbage. Niether is Ultracote, Oracover, Solartex or any other covering on the market. That's not to say you can't get a covering job that LOOKS like garbage with any of them. You have to follow the instructions that come with them. All the different coverings have different idiosyncracies. Some require a higher temperature. Some shrink more than others. Some go on better if you prep the frame or use some kind of extra adhesive.

There's no guarantee you'll get a good covering job with any covering material. It requires patience, planning and common sense. You can't rush a good covering job.

I use Monokote on a lot of my gliders because of its excellent puncture resistance and bright colors. I use its little brother, Econokote on foamies (less heat required) and for trim. I would NOT use Monokote on a scale job, though. It's Solartex all the way for my WWI jobs.

papermache

Funny, I was applying a ponel of Monocote on the wing of my latest project... It was going on really good till this peice... Had trouble getting it to stick... Finally got it down and started shrinking it up and it was horrible.. The first thing that came to mind was all these anti Monocote threads... Figured I had finally run into a bad roll... Then I noticed a sitlle clear showing along one edge like the color had lifted... Still cussing the Monocote I started cheking that out... My first thought was I had forgotten to trim the clear edge off before using... Then I noaticed I could just pull the color off... Turns out I had fit the panel last night, my eyes were getting blurry so I quit.. Today I went in and ironed down and forgot to remove the clear backing... Not only did I feel dumb but it cost me a whole wing panel of covering...
Just goes to show how easy it is to blame everything but the cause (me) I guess..

I agree with using what works; but, also like to experiment. I can't argue with Sticktickle's logic of going with what works for him. If I try something and it doesn't work as well as another product, I tend to stay with the product that works. I also understand other people can have better experiences with something I don't like. I also agree, products can and do change over time.

I wanted to find out if the people whom have used Monokote for a long time are still happy with it. From the results I see here, I would say these people still seem to be! It is also readily apparent some people are extremely disatisfied with it! If I were Monokote, finding this out is worth far more than all the praise they may get from time to time about their products. If they care and if they read R/CU, maybe they will get the point and attempt to remidy the problem.

Now that's funny youngun

I have used monokote for years with good success.I found that ultracote is even better and recently used polycover over foam and it is better than monokote only because it adheres with lower temp sparing the foam.In my scale project I am using fabric bought at a local fabric store covering it with sig nitrate and use butrate as the final.love the results.I guess its the project and application that matters most.none of this stuff is garbage in my opinion..

Disclaimer: I've only done 4 covering jobs.

Three were with Monokote. The first job was a nightmare, and I learned a lot from my errors. The second and third jobs, also monokote, turned out much better, but I still learned a few lessons.

My most recent job used Sigs Aerocoat. I found the Aerocoat shrank much easier than monokote, but it didn't adhere nearly as well, particularly the transparent stuff. I did find the Aerocoat adhered very well to itself, so it was advantageous to cover the entire wing, and then shrink the covereing to prevent the transparent covering from pulling away from its anchor points. I also thought the Aerocoat was much easier to get formed around complex curves.

I do like the strength of the Monocoat. Since the Aerocoat job was a glider, I'm going to try it out. If the Aerocoat turns out to be to easy to puncture, then I'll strip it and replace it with Monokote.

Brad

This thread appears to have run it's course. Thank you to all for taking the time to give your opinions. Due to what has been stated here, the next time I need to do a plastic covering job, I will use Monokote and see what I think and find out personally if it seems the product it used to be.

I know it has been awhile and the topic has been covered to death but, I just read a post on the web, comparing weights of covering materials, and the Monokote Red was compared. In 1971 it weighed something like 7 grams per square foot while the red in 1996 weighed in a 5.8 grams. Someone needs to explain to me how it has not changed. To me, it is not consistant from roll to roll and even in different parts of the same roll. I have seen posts here on RCU where someone is extolling its use and showing pictures of his work and I can see wrinkles in the small pictures. I do not like the stuff, the learning curve is high and, unless you cover frequently it seems you are experimenting all over again. I will say that it works pretty good on open framing (wing) but not so well in other areas of the same plane (sheeted surfaces). I have been in two clubs and looked at many covering jobs and have yet to find one with no wrinkles or saging......maybe I am too particular. Do a Google search for Monokote, its about 6 pages deep. It is a usefull post. I will try and find it in my history and will post it if I can find it. Found it ...http://www.fatlion.com/sailplanes/weights.html give it a look.

I believe a representative from Hobby Services did come on and say the formula has changed to comply with EPA regulations. Other changes for other reasons were not addressed.

post deleted

How was it shrunk, then?

Looks like your right, my bad....
I use to use dope when I was a kid... Dang that should bring out the narcs ... Used to get some great finishes with it... Got me some Koveral to play with... Dang dope has sure gotten expensive though.. Where you getting your Nitrate ?..

post deleted

I have seen many replies on R/CU in which a particular product is despised or adored. I wonder how many times a product is disliked simply because of a lack of experience and/or patience on the part of the user? Having been around the hobby for a good while, I have used almost every method to cover there is, excepting Solartex and I have not had the problems others have. I have not tried any new Monokote in quite some time, hence my original quarry.

post deleted

Stickbuilder, I agree, I prefer fabrics on scale designs myself. However, I don't rule out Monokote type materials for use on sport airplanes. Just depends on the application.

I remember these same discussion way back when you would use an iron to put your monokote on and hope your mother didn't catch you using it - something about it staining clothes when she did the ironing - yeah - that far back - the irons we use today for applying our covering hadn't been made yet. The only problem I have had with monokote since way back in the dark ages - (before the Wright brothers) - was a 25 foot roll that didn't match the previous 25 foot roll I was using to cover my Edge. (I was sent a new roll at no cost and told to keep the off color roll). When you get to Toledo again this year, ask Faye Stilley or Keith Shaw what they covered their new aircraft with. Bet it is still the same used as last year. I just received two new 25 foot rolls to cover my rebuilt Edge, saphire blue and aluminum to duplicate Kirby Chamblis's Red Bull design - will report back on how this year's monokote works.

Dan

I think the change has to do with the fact that about 3 large companies own most of the R/C business and too much of that has been shipped to China. Why can't you buy Ultracote from Tower. Monokote has a built in monoply. Same parent company? We have Great Planes, Topflite, Futaba, O.S. and probably more, all owned by the same company. You, who have stated that the EPA is involved are correct in my opinion. I live in California and many good products have been banned here because the government thinks we are not able to use the product safely or correctly (granted some cannot). I buy many things in Las Vegas when I go there, because we can"t get them in California. I think I will be using Klass-Kote in the future.

EPA gets involved if something is harmful to workers when it is manufactured or when the product is harmful to the end user.

So, if it is made in China and is harmful to the worker - no big deal - they don't care over there. My boss just got back after two days of meetings - he slept with a wet wash cloth over his mouth & eyes - to filter the air. He couldn't see the ground from his eight floor room.

If the formula had to be changed to protect the end user, I don't get it. The EPA goes after big stuff that makes headlines - I haven't seen anything about them protecting modelers, who after repeated contact with monokote get a condition know as dumb thumbs, or some equally debilitating condition.

Dan

People who cover their planes with cloth and dope need to get with the times! Just kidding but some of the replys to the question are about that rediculous. I've been using Monokote for over 25 years and have lost track of the number of models that it's covered including complex schemes like Hale Wallaces original Steen Skybolt layout. I still use it for the vast majority of my "sport" aircraft where I want the durabilty and I'm not concerned with shine. I've also used most of the other products with good success as well. In my opinion it comes down to personal preference and skill (that should get some good responses). Here is what I have found over the years through personal use...

Monokote: 30+ planes (hence the most experience with it)

Pros: Light weight, large array of colors, color consistancy (roll to roll and year to year), ease of cutting complex designs (wet down on glass to cut), great adhesion, rarely lifts if cared for, most colors do not fade (wines do), has matching paint (Lustrekote) although it's tricky to get a good finish, tensions well over large spans, wrinkle free finishes are a snap due to thin material (especially when darting and working inside corners, lasts for years when done right, price, ease of repair and I have boxes of scrap and extra rolls.

Cons: Easily bubbles when applied on itself, loosens as humidity levels change (effects all coverings since it's the airframe that "moves" with seasonal changes in humidity), not as "user friendly" as other coverings, color smears at edges if applied too hot (clean up with a cloth dampened with lacquer thinner), has to be occassionally "reshrunk" with a heat gun.

Conclusion: Great product with its own quirks.

Ultracote: Have covered 3 or 4 planes with it.

Pros: Goes on great, low level of outgassing keeps bubbles to a minimum when covering over itself.

Cons: Number of avaiablable colors, weight can be a factor, poor edge adhesion and occassional lifting, large spans can sag and need to be reshrunk, no matching paints (sorry covering materials do not belong on plastic or fiberglass parts), significant thickness build up can occur when overlapping, thickness of material promotes edge lifting (gets caught).

Conclusion: Great product with its own quirks.

21st Century: 2 scale planes covered

Pros: Great scale low gloss apperance, great adhesion when applied at the right temperature, good scale color selection, complex graphics hold their shape due to cloth substrate
Cons: Heavy, thickness promotes edges gettign caught and pulling up, difficult to properly tension large spans
Conclusion: Uh...great product with its own quirks.

In the end the level of preparation, individual skill and patience will determine the outcome regardless of the product. Just like painting. I know guys who can glass and paint a model and get better results (weight and finish) than iron on coverings but I'm not one of them. And although I miss the dope and silkspan days I've already killed enough brain cells doing that and can't afford to lose anymore. It's all aobut what you are comfortable with. Experiment and stick with it.

I've been building and flying for 11 years and actually built my first R/C plane in "83( Goldberg Eaglet 50).
I used Monocoat for several years and I suppose if I stuck with it I would have just as good luck with Ultracote. However, I was covering a 4*60 with Mono flat Olive Drab and had terrible problems with corners, wingtips and getting it to shrink. Then when I ran out while covering a Cub I discovered the shade of O.D. was different. What the heck? I put both rolls side by side and there was definately a difference in shade. Plus, and I don't care what you use,none of the supposedly matching paint matches the associated color of covering.
I decided to switch to Ultracote because it is easier to form around compund curves and wingtips, etc.
It does matter how much experience one has with each type and brand of covering. I have also used Solar Film and Lite Film as well for my small electrics. I still have some Monocoat and would probably use it for different apps including low temp version as well as Tower Cote for my foamy wings.
Everybody has their own preference and experience with different types of coverings, but as was previously stated" there are no bad coverings" well except for the garbage used on cheap BARFs that resemble shelf liner.
I would like to try a fabric covering sometime, but will wait untill I build something appropriate such as a 1/4 scale Cub or WW 1 model. I really feel iron on films look terrible on planes that were originally covered in fabric.
Oh well, back to the building board. jollyroger

Since personal skills and time are subjective factors, more than reading how good some of you are in using Monokote, I think that it would be interesting to learn from you what are the signıficant differences between Monokote and the other most common covering film brands.
We know what magazines say... that is just commercial.
Meanwhile here we are a community and our findings, based on years of actual experience, are worth more than a thousand Model Airplane News issues or whatsoever.
To me Monokote is not elastic enough, in fact on the lower side of the wings it easily cracks or cuts. When used on solid surfaces tends to trap air bubbles. For these kind of jobs I use Oracover, way much better thus more expensive.
I use Solarspan, which is more economic, to cover sharp contours; on very recessed areas it is my favorite.
Monokote is the most resistant to gas and glow fuel.